1992 E.P.A. Report By the Numbers
    Yes, Let's Look at Those Inhalation Anthrax Victims
     

    1992 E.P.A. REPORT BY THE NUMBERS

    The EPA stated "ETS is a human lung carcinogen responsible for approximately
    3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in the U.S. nonsmokers."

    The relative risk that they use is 1.19

    The report was published in 1992.  Most of the work was done in 1991, and
    the latest figures that they would have had to work from were from 1990.

    Checking the figures:

    Smoking status rates (from NHSDA, 1990)

                             Male       Female
    Current smokers          28.4%        22.8%
    Former smokers           30.3%        19.5%
    Never smokers            41.3%        57.7%

    Population (from U.S. Census, 1990)
                        94,755,000 102,292,000

    Calculate numbers

    Current smokers     26,910,420  23,322,576
    Former smokers      28,710,765  19,946,940
    Never smokers       39,133,815  59,022,484

    Lung cancer deaths (Age >= 35, 1990, from CDC)

                            91,685      52,064

    Relative risks for lung cancer (From CDC SAMMEC II)

    Current Smokers            22.4       11.9
    Former Smokers              9.4        4.7
    Never Smokers               1.0        1.0

    The fundamental equation for calculating lung cancer deaths from risks is:

    NumDeaths = BaseRate * NumNeverSmokers +
                BaseRate * RelativeRisk(Former) * NumFormerSmokers +
                BaseRate * RelativeRisk(Current) * NumCurrentSmokers

    We have everything for the above equation except the base rate.
    Manipulating the equation algebraically results in:

    BaseRate = NumDeaths /
               (NumNeverSmokers +
                RelativeRisk(Former) * NumFormerSmokers +
                RelativeRisk(Current) * NumCurrentSmokers)

    Filling in the figures and calculating results in:

    Base Rate            0.000100553  0.000120991

    We can now calculate the expected number of lung cancer deaths by gender and
    smoking status

                                          Male         Female
    Current smokers           60,613        33,580
    Former smokers            27,137        11,343
    Never smokers              3,935         7,141

    In the EPA's claim, does "non-smoker" mean "never-smoker" or "never-smoker
    AND former smoker".

    First, we can calculate the "new" lung cancer death base rate by the
    equation:

    EPABaseRate = (Lung Cancer Deaths - 3000) / Total population.

    If "non-smoker" means "never-smoker", then that rate becomes:

    EPABaseRate = ((3,935+7,141)-3000) / (39,133,815+59,022,484)
                = 8,076 / 98,156,299
                = 0.00008227694

    Since:

    Lung Cancer Deaths = EPABaseRate * Unexposed Population +
                         EPABaseRate * Relative Risk * (Total Population -
    Unexposed Population)

    we can manipulate the equation to give us the Unexposed Population:

    Unexposed population = (Lung Cancer Deaths - EPABaseRate * Relative Risk *
    Total Population)/
                           (EPABaseRate - EPABaseRate * Relative Risk)

    for "non-smoker" meaning "never smoker", the unexposed population can be
    calculated to be:

    Unexposed Population = ((3,935 + 7,141) - 0.000082276794 * 1.19 *
    98,156,299)/
                           (0.000082276794 - 0.000082276794 * 1.19)
                         = (11,076 - 9610.44) / -0.000015632
                         = -93,753,838

    Unfortunately for the EPA, a negative figure for the unexposed population is
    not physically possible.  Therefore, "non-smoker" does NOT mean
    "never-smoker" alone.  It can only mean, therefore, "never-smoker" +
    "former-smoker".  Doing the same calculations again, using "never-smoker" +
    "former-smoker" as "non-smoker" results in:

    EPABaseRate = ((27,137 + 11,343 + 3,935 + 7,141) - 3000) /
                  (28,710,765 + 19,946,940 + 39,133,815 + 59,022,484)
                = 46,556 / 146,814,004
                = 0.0003171087

    Unexposed population = ((27,137 + 11,343 + 3,935 + 7,141) - 0.0003171087*
    1.19 * 146,814,004)/
                           (0.0003171087 - 0.0003171087 * 1.19)
                         = (49,556 - 55,401.64)/
                           (-0.000060250)
                         = -5845.64 / -0.000060250
                         = 97,023,071

    meaning, of course, that 97,023,071 / 146,814,004 = 66.1% of the non-smoking
    population is unexposed, leaving 33.9% of the non-smoking population (or
    49,790,933) exposed to ETS sufficiently to produce "measurable" results.

    But now that we have the proportion exposed, we can calculate the base rates
    for each of those groups (never-smokers and former-smokers) by way of the
    formula:

    Base Rate = Lung Cancer Deaths /
                (Unexposed population +
                 Relative Risk * Exposed population)

    For never-smokers, this works out to be:

    Base Rate = (3,935 + 7,141) /
                (66.1% * (39,133,815 + 59,022,484) +
                 1.19 * 33.9% * (39,133,815 + 59,022,484))
              = 11,076 /
                0.661 * 98,156,299 * 0.40341 * 98,156,299)
              = 11,076 / 98,156,299 * (0.661 + 0.40341)
              = 11,076 / (98,156,299 * 1.06441)
              = 11,076 / 104,478,546.21859
              = 0.00010601219

    The expected number of lung cancer deaths for never-smokers, in an "ideal"
    world (assuming that the model used is correct), where no never-smoker was
    exposed to ETS, would be:

    0.00010601219 * 98,156,299 = 10,406

    However, in that group, there were 11,076 lung cancer deaths, so we can
    assume (if the model is correct) that

    11,076 - 10,406 = 670

    lung cancer deaths of never-smokers due to the exposure to ETS annually.

    The number of lung cancer deaths of former-smokers due to SHS would
    therefore be

    3000 - 670 = 2,330.

    But hold on just one minute, here.  The relative risk ratios used by SAMMEC
    II were derived from studies which accounted for ALL the lung cancer deaths
    in each of the three groupings - never-smoker, former-smoker and
    current-smoker.  Therefore, those 2,330 "additional" deaths of former
    smokers have already been counted.

    So, what the EPA is really saying is that each year, 2,330 ex-smokers die of
    lung cancer, then are miraculously resurrected, only to die *again* from
    lung cancer.

    The numbers have been reduced to the extent that basic
    algebra is all that is required to understand them.
    We welcome any critique pointing out where, mathematically, this has gone wrong.

    But what the EPA is really saying is that each year, 2,330 ex-smokers die of
    lung cancer, then are miraculously resurrected, only to die *again* from
    lung cancer.  Hell, Christianity is based on the resurrection of ONE man,
    2000 years ago, yet here we have 2,330 resurrecting each and every year.
     


     


    YES, LET'S LOOK AT THOSE INHALATION ANTHRAX VICTIMS



    Excerpted from the NY Post, Sunday, November 11, 2001:

    CDC REPORT TELLS OF HER LAST DAYS

    Kathy Nguyen's [NYC victim] final days were marked by fatigue and massive bleeding in her chest as she heaved coughs and gasped through an oxygen mask....

    ... Nguyen's death and all 10 inhalation cases are described in clinical detail in a report hastily posted on the Internet on Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention...

    The study revealed little conclusive evidence that succumbing to inhalation anthrax can be tied to prior health conditions.

    Age might play a role -- the median age was 56 for the 10 victims -- while "none of the patients was a current or recent smoker," the report said.
     

    Why on earth would there be any reason to consider smoking as a factor when what is being investigated is a bacteria?  The health organizations will stop at no lengths to try to demonize smoking and insinuate it is at the root of all ills any chance they get whether it fits or not.

    But since they brought it up, a member of the newsgroup alt.smokers decided to take a look at the ten (10) inhalation anthrax victims who have died and the role smoking might actually play:

    Assuming that the sample is from the yuppie class (vector was business
    mail), we can hypothesize an 18% proportion of smokers.  This can be seen as
    a binomial experiment and the odds would be calculated as follows:

    # smokers with
    Anthrax out of
    the 10 victims  Probability

     0   0.1374480313
     1   0.3017151907
     2   0.2980357372
     3   0.1744599437
     4   0.0670181491
     5   0.0176535612
     6   0.0032293100
     7   0.0004050702
     8   0.0000333442
     9   0.0000016265
         10   0.0000000357

    Note that the probability of there being at least one current smoker out of
    that group is 1.0 minus the probability of their being no current smokers in
    the group, so the probability of there being at least one current smoker in
    that group is 0.8625519687.

    However that is NOT what the report said.  It did not say "no current
    smokers" but "none of the patients was a current or recent smoker".
    Generally speaking, ex-smokers exceed the number of current smokers, but the
    term "ex-smoker" includes even those who have quit for decades, and these
    would certainly not be classified as "recent" smokers.

    So let's set the proportion of ex-smokers at the 18% to equal the proportion
    of current smokers.  Then let's classify half of those ex-smokers as
    "recent" smokers.  That means that instead of 18%, the proportion is 18% +
    1/2 * 18% = 27%.

    Using that proportion in the binomial formula, we get the following:

    # "smokers" with
    Anthrax out of
    the 10 victims  Probability

     0   0.0429762583
     1   0.1589532841
     2   0.2645592331
     3   0.2609351341
     4   0.1688929464
     5   0.0749607050
     6   0.0231043269
     7   0.0048831063
     8   0.0006772801
     9   0.0000556669
    10   0.0000020589

    Please note that the probability of having at least one "current or recent
    smoker" in this group of 10 jumps to 0.9570237417.

    95.7%!!!!  In other words, we are 95.7% confident that the results seen were
    NOT brought about by random chance alone.  What do you know.  The
    theory of cigarette tars capturing contagion before it has a chance to work
    on the body were correct, at least for anthrax.

    In layman's terms, do you suppose there's a protective effect from smoking against inhalation anthrax?

    **Analysis courtesy of David MacLean, member of alt.smokers newsgroup**

    Home