Looks like a classic case of causation ≠ correlation to me...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT do you even read entire articles before you critique them? In another thread (the idling bylaw blitz), you're first issue was your desire to be able to idle your car in the winter, yet didn't bother to note that extreme temps are not impacted by the bylaw, now this. While I too find that stat *highly* dubious...they did say that other factors were considered. So don't paint them to be *that* naive or biased so as to look at only the variable of the ban introduction...but it's valid to ask exactly WHAT other variables they did consider (in addition to pollution) and what they mean by "changes in preventative care". I would be surprised (and dismayed) if they didn't have the sense to examine diet, since a rapid intake of fat apparently can trigger a heart attack in at-risk groups...so if they ate out less, that *could* be a factor. no doubts stats are *easily* skewed...but keep in mind that these people are staking their professional reputation on publishing such studies, so they're unlikely to be as naive or biased as you might think.

id like to see the whole study. Id also be interested in seeing of the results have been repeated elsewhere. In the meantime i stick to my critique

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by jester Everything in this country is illegal.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery…" Winston Churchill

‎"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law" - Winston Churchill

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Looks like a classic case of causation ≠ correlation to me...

you win.

this article loses.

gotta love when the Post Hoc fallacy is invoked.

Although the study itself may seem too good to be true, the causes behind the results are well researched.

I just did some reading on the net, and it seems as if smoking does contribute to heart disease and damage. Just google it for your self and see. Government sites, medical sites, research papers, and news articles. Nobody should be questing the link between heart disease and smoking, if you do, please do some reading before hand.

There is one other case of this type of results from a town in Montanna in 2003. They also experienced a small decline in patients admitted to their hospital after a 6 month ban on smoking. I do agree that the 6month study period is too small, as was the drop from 7 to 4 cases per month.

If some of you want to read more on the subject:

Public smoking ban slashes heart attacks in 2003, Helena, Montana

Effect of public smoking ban in Helena, Montana - When results look too good to be true, they probably are

How acute and reversible are the cardiovascular risks of secondhand smoke?
(I am in the process of reading this particular article myself)