The long-lived post is also a bit misleading; they looked only at people over 95. The conclusion they should come to (given how likely people are to die from drinking and smoking overall) is that if drink or cigarettes are going to kill you then they'll probably do so before you're 95. Sounds about right to me.
Cheers. I was hoping for some commentary on that one, because it feels rather dubious to me.
However, if 60% of the smokers have been killed off by the age of 95, and only 30% of the non-smokers, then wouldn't you expect more non-smokers in that age-bracket?
You could also say it just supports that Ashkenazi Jews have particularly hardy genes.
The did a study a while back on smoking and lung cancer rates and found that people who lived in coal mining towns in both the US and Scotland had lower lung cancer rates related to smoking - but what that pretty much proved was that generations of mining coal results eventually in offspring with lungs that can handle anything.
Somewhat reminiscent of an Alexi Sayle joke: It isn't what killed your parents but what kills your grandparents that matters. So if he could avoid Cossack pogroms he would be okay.
Depends on the proportions of smokers and non-smokers that you start with.
If you have a population of 97 smokers and 3 non-smokers and 1 non-smoker (33%) is hit by a bus at the age of 20 and then 64 smokers (about 66%) die of lung cancer you are left with 33 smokers and 2 non-smokers surviving, which is still more smokers than non-smokers even though the death-rate amongst smokers was higher.
I suspect that if 100% of people who would be 95 now if only they had lived had done so then a rather higher proportion of them would be smokers than the proportion of young people today who are smokers.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
However, if 60% of the smokers have been killed off by the age of 95, and only 30% of the non-smokers, then wouldn't you expect more non-smokers in that age-bracket?
(Pulling those numbers out of the air)
no subject
The did a study a while back on smoking and lung cancer rates and found that people who lived in coal mining towns in both the US and Scotland had lower lung cancer rates related to smoking - but what that pretty much proved was that generations of mining coal results eventually in offspring with lungs that can handle anything.
no subject
no subject
If you have a population of 97 smokers and 3 non-smokers and 1 non-smoker (33%) is hit by a bus at the age of 20 and then 64 smokers (about 66%) die of lung cancer you are left with 33 smokers and 2 non-smokers surviving, which is still more smokers than non-smokers even though the death-rate amongst smokers was higher.
I suspect that if 100% of people who would be 95 now if only they had lived had done so then a rather higher proportion of them would be smokers than the proportion of young people today who are smokers.
no subject