In the modern world, the principle, in order to become scientific, was rediscovered under the name Hormesis. Hormesis is the idea that the dose-response curve for darn near everything is non-linear. Wikipedia's graph looks like this:
Of course, we know it's true for radiation (V. Low radiation is worse health than moderate radiation...aka Radon is mostly good for you). We know it's true for sunlight. We know it's true for Vitamin E. We know it's true for Alcohol. And we know it's true for water. I believe we know that the opposite is true of caffeine (lots or none is good...a little is bad...can't find link).
So...what's the optimal hormetic dose for smoking? (Personally, I'm a teetotaler, a non-smoker, a moderate caffeine user, and mostly a vampire...I'm not actually following any of the advice. )
Posts
4 comments:
I don't drink or take any caffeine.
I read in one of nightlight's posts that animal studies indicate the optimal smoking dose is around 5 packs per day.
I try to essentially chain smoke but I'm not consistent.
Ah, here's what I was thinking of:
"The animal experiments have been done since 1950s, where mice, hamsters,
rabbits,... dogs, apes have been exposed to tobacco smoke, and made to
inhale it via surgically implanted tubes in equivalents of 1000
cigarettes, five cartons per day for years on end. They develop fewer
lung cancers, live longer and are healthier (e.g. fewer infections) than
non-smoking animals (although, only when inhaling "moderate" amounts of
tobacco smoke, such as ~100 cigarettes, five packs per day).
Similarly, in human randomized trials smokers get over 20% fewer lung
cancers (also fewer digestive system cancers & heart attacks) and live
longer than those who were _randomly_ selected into the quit group:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/msg/8f95a08912f9434e?hl=en&
"
I doubt you would continue on a vampiric schedule if you switched to a meat-fat diet and took morning walks.
I didn't. Much to my surprise.
Have you heard of this anomaly?
"These strong opinions for and against smoking were not supported by much evidence either way until 1950 when Richard Doll and Bradford Hill showed that smokers seemed more likely to develop lung cancer. A campaign was begun to limit smoking. But Sir Ronald Fisher, arguably the greatest statistician of the 20th century, had noticed a bizarre anomaly in their results. Doll and Hill had asked their subjects if they inhaled. Fisher showed that men who inhaled were significantly less likely to develop lung cancer than non-inhalers. As Fisher said, 'even equality would be a fair knock-out for the theory that smoke in the lung causes cancer.'"
Yes I have. I suppose that is the first anomaly in the anti-smoking case's data, but it's certainly not the last.
I have a name for models built on correlations and riddled with anomalies. It starts with an "el" and ends with an "eyes." Especially when the trifecta of big business, government and moral crusaders get behind them.
Then it's almost silly not to bet against it.
Post a Comment