Longevity & Smoking: Use your parent's birth certificate.

Our sample consists of 157 centenarians living in Rome, 39 males
and 118 females (ratio m/f =1:3), mean age being 101.59 +/- 1.8 years
(+/-SD), 83.8% of the centenarians have never smoked, 13.5 % are
former smokers, and 2.7% are active smokers.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15207443

In article <1208913874.381162@irys.nyx.net>,
anon3c67@nyx.nyx.net (Bruce Watson) wrote:

> Our sample consists of 157 centenarians living in Rome, 39 males
> and 118 females (ratio m/f =1:3), mean age being 101.59 +/- 1.8 years
> (+/-SD), 83.8% of the centenarians have never smoked, 13.5 % are
> former smokers, and 2.7% are active smokers.

How do those numbers (% smokers, former & non-) compare to those who
died at age 50?

Also, while it's interesting, the sample size is so small as to make it
statistically insignificant.

--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.

Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked.com> exclaimed in news:Misc-
E0A07B.18410922042008@news.sf.sbcglobal.net:

> In article <1208913874.381162@irys.nyx.net>,
> anon3c67@nyx.nyx.net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>> Our sample consists of 157 centenarians living in Rome, 39 males
>> and 118 females (ratio m/f =1:3), mean age being 101.59 +/- 1.8 years
>> (+/-SD), 83.8% of the centenarians have never smoked, 13.5 % are
>> former smokers, and 2.7% are active smokers.
>
> How do those numbers (% smokers, former & non-) compare to those who
> died at age 50?
>
> Also, while it's interesting, the sample size is so small as to make it
> statistically insignificant.
>

I think that the point is: if you want to live to be 100, be female.

--
BA

"Qui hic mixerit aut cacarit, habeat deos superos et inferos iratos."

Very good BA! Personally I would like to live to be 100 only if I am
still reasonably healthy and can still enjoy a glass of wine, a bowl
full of pipe tobacco, a sweet young woman, etc.



Bland Allison wrote:
> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked.com> exclaimed in news:Misc-
> E0A07B.18410922042008@news.sf.sbcglobal.net:
>
>
>>In article <1208913874.381162@irys.nyx.net>,
>> anon3c67@nyx.nyx.net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Our sample consists of 157 centenarians living in Rome, 39 males
>>>and 118 females (ratio m/f =1:3), mean age being 101.59 +/- 1.8 years
>>>(+/-SD), 83.8% of the centenarians have never smoked, 13.5 % are
>>>former smokers, and 2.7% are active smokers.
>>
>>How do those numbers (% smokers, former & non-) compare to those who
>>died at age 50?
>>
>>Also, while it's interesting, the sample size is so small as to make it
>>statistically insignificant.
>>
>
>
> I think that the point is: if you want to live to be 100, be female.
>

I'm not sure how my wife would react to the sweet young woman thing.
Now I know how I would react, but that's another story...


On Apr 22, 11:25 pm, Irishlefty <jtraversdev...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Very good BA!  Personally I would like to live to be 100 only if I am
> still reasonably healthy and can still enjoy a glass of wine, a bowl
> full of pipe tobacco, a sweet young woman, etc.
>
>
>
> Bland Allison wrote:
> > Miss Elaine Eos <M...@your-pants.PlayNaked.com> exclaimed in news:Misc-
> > E0A07B.18410922042...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net:
>
> >>In article <1208913874.381...@irys.nyx.net>,
> >> anon3...@nyx.nyx.net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
> >>>Our sample consists of 157 centenarians living in Rome, 39 males
> >>>and 118 females (ratio m/f =1:3), mean age being 101.59 +/- 1.8 years=

> >>>(+/-SD), 83.8% of the centenarians have never smoked, 13.5 % are
> >>>former smokers, and 2.7% are active smokers.
>
> >>How do those numbers (% smokers, former & non-) compare to those who
> >>died at age 50?
>
> >>Also, while it's interesting, the sample size is so small as to make it
> >>statistically insignificant.
>
> > I think that the point is: if you want to live to be 100, be female.- Hi=
de quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

In article <Xns9A88CCC5B5566super14@216.196.97.131>,
Bland Allison <swiper@removeswiperthefox.com> wrote:
>Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked.com> exclaimed in news:Misc-
>E0A07B.18410922042008@news.sf.sbcglobal.net:
>
>> In article <1208913874.381162@irys.nyx.net>,
>> anon3c67@nyx.nyx.net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>
>>> Our sample consists of 157 centenarians living in Rome, 39 males
>>> and 118 females (ratio m/f =1:3), mean age being 101.59 +/- 1.8 years
>>> (+/-SD), 83.8% of the centenarians have never smoked, 13.5 % are
>>> former smokers, and 2.7% are active smokers.
>>
>> How do those numbers (% smokers, former & non-) compare to those who
>> died at age 50?
>>
>> Also, while it's interesting, the sample size is so small as to make it
>> statistically insignificant.
>
>I think that the point is: if you want to live to be 100, be female.

Denial.

Bland Allison wrote:
> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked.com> exclaimed in
> news:Misc- E0A07B.18410922042008@news.sf.sbcglobal.net:
>
>> In article <1208913874.381162@irys.nyx.net>,
>> anon3c67@nyx.nyx.net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>
>>> Our sample consists of 157 centenarians living in Rome, 39 males
>>> and 118 females (ratio m/f =1:3), mean age being 101.59 +/- 1.8
>>> years (+/-SD), 83.8% of the centenarians have never smoked, 13.5 %
>>> are former smokers, and 2.7% are active smokers.
>>
>> How do those numbers (% smokers, former & non-) compare to those who
>> died at age 50?
>>
>> Also, while it's interesting, the sample size is so small as to make
>> it statistically insignificant.
>>
>
> I think that the point is: if you want to live to be 100, be female.

I can't afford the operation.

bernie


--
"Official ASC Shaman"

Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked.com> wrote in news:Misc-
E0A07B.18410922042008@news.sf.sbcglobal.net:

> In article <1208913874.381162@irys.nyx.net>,
> anon3c67@nyx.nyx.net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>> Our sample consists of 157 centenarians living in Rome, 39 males
>> and 118 females (ratio m/f =1:3), mean age being 101.59 +/- 1.8 years
>> (+/-SD), 83.8% of the centenarians have never smoked, 13.5 % are
>> former smokers, and 2.7% are active smokers.
>
> How do those numbers (% smokers, former & non-) compare to those who
> died at age 50?
>
> Also, while it's interesting, the sample size is so small as to make it
> statistically insignificant.

No, the sample size is large enough. The real problem is
the confounding variable of gender. Women live longer than
men and women are less likely to smoke than men. They
could chosen anything men are more likely to do than
women and they would have gotten similar results. E.g.,
what percentage of centenarians were golfers?

It's funny, because confounding variables are usually sneaky
and hard to unearth, but this one is so obvious.

B.

--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.

> No, the sample size is large enough. The real problem is
> the confounding variable of gender. Women live longer than
> men and women are less likely to smoke than men. They
> could chosen anything men are more likely to do than
> women and they would have gotten similar results. E.g.,
> what percentage of centenarians were golfers?
>

There are many more confounding variables that weren't controlled -
diet,
climate, activity, etc. The absence of time series data on
percentage,
nature, and duration of smoking habits at different points in time
and
control data linked to the representative population make this study
completely ungeneralizable. The sample size could be sufficient, but
the
statistical power is weak making it impossible to quantify the
stastical
effect. There are problems with construct validity, internal validity,
and
external validity if you try to apply these findings in any other
context.

Moods

In article <b660748c-6e0c-4ed8-ad83-3df64bd6512b@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
BigMoods <scott.moodie@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> No, the sample size is large enough. The real problem is
>> the confounding variable of gender. Women live longer than
>> men and women are less likely to smoke than men. They
>> could chosen anything men are more likely to do than
>> women and they would have gotten similar results. E.g.,
>> what percentage of centenarians were golfers?
>>
>
>There are many more confounding variables that weren't controlled -
>diet,
>climate, activity, etc. The absence of time series data on
>percentage,
>nature, and duration of smoking habits at different points in time
>and
>control data linked to the representative population make this study
>completely ungeneralizable. The sample size could be sufficient, but
>the
>statistical power is weak making it impossible to quantify the
>stastical
>effect. There are problems with construct validity, internal validity,
>and
>external validity if you try to apply these findings in any other
>context.

Denial.

In article <Xns9A89A214EF93goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.94>,
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape.net> wrote:
>Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked.com> wrote in news:Misc-
>E0A07B.18410922042008@news.sf.sbcglobal.net:
>
>> In article <1208913874.381162@irys.nyx.net>,
>> anon3c67@nyx.nyx.net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>
>>> Our sample consists of 157 centenarians living in Rome, 39 males
>>> and 118 females (ratio m/f =1:3), mean age being 101.59 +/- 1.8 years
>>> (+/-SD), 83.8% of the centenarians have never smoked, 13.5 % are
>>> former smokers, and 2.7% are active smokers.
>>
>> How do those numbers (% smokers, former & non-) compare to those who
>> died at age 50?
>>
>> Also, while it's interesting, the sample size is so small as to make it
>> statistically insignificant.
>
>No, the sample size is large enough. The real problem is
>the confounding variable of gender. Women live longer than
>men and women are less likely to smoke than men. They
>could chosen anything men are more likely to do than
>women and they would have gotten similar results. E.g.,
>what percentage of centenarians were golfers?
>
>It's funny, because confounding variables are usually sneaky
>and hard to unearth, but this one is so obvious.

Denial.

"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked.com> wrote in message
news:Misc-E0A07B.18410922042008@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
> In article <1208913874.381162@irys.nyx.net>,
> anon3c67@nyx.nyx.net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>> Our sample consists of 157 centenarians living in Rome, 39 males
>> and 118 females (ratio m/f =1:3), mean age being 101.59 +/- 1.8 years
>> (+/-SD), 83.8% of the centenarians have never smoked, 13.5 % are
>> former smokers, and 2.7% are active smokers.
>
> How do those numbers (% smokers, former & non-) compare to those who
> died at age 50?
>
> Also, while it's interesting, the sample size is so small as to make it
> statistically insignificant.

And similar studies in France, Germany, Sweden and other countires, find
just the opposite results.

In article <eqCPj.30288$KJ1.14937@newsfe19.lga>,
Tom S. <t.m.s.work@cox.net> wrote:
>
>"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked.com> wrote in message
>news:Misc-E0A07B.18410922042008@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
>> In article <1208913874.381162@irys.nyx.net>,
>> anon3c67@nyx.nyx.net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>>
>>> Our sample consists of 157 centenarians living in Rome, 39 males
>>> and 118 females (ratio m/f =1:3), mean age being 101.59 +/- 1.8 years
>>> (+/-SD), 83.8% of the centenarians have never smoked, 13.5 % are
>>> former smokers, and 2.7% are active smokers.
>>
>> How do those numbers (% smokers, former & non-) compare to those who
>> died at age 50?
>>
>> Also, while it's interesting, the sample size is so small as to make it
>> statistically insignificant.
>
>And similar studies in France, Germany, Sweden and other countires, find
>just the opposite results.

Source?

In article <Misc-E0A07B.18410922042008@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked.com> wrote:
>In article <1208913874.381162@irys.nyx.net>,
> anon3c67@nyx.nyx.net (Bruce Watson) wrote:
>
>> Our sample consists of 157 centenarians living in Rome, 39 males
>> and 118 females (ratio m/f =1:3), mean age being 101.59 +/- 1.8 years
>> (+/-SD), 83.8% of the centenarians have never smoked, 13.5 % are
>> former smokers, and 2.7% are active smokers.
>
>How do those numbers (% smokers, former & non-) compare to those who
>died at age 50?
>
>Also, while it's interesting, the sample size is so small as to make it
>statistically insignificant.

Denial.

Nut-case cut n' paste finger sniffer (Nits Watson) wrote:

> Our sample consists of 157 centenarians living in Rome, 39 males
> and 118 females (ratio m/f =1:3), mean age being 101.59 +/- 1.8 years
> (+/-SD), 83.8% of the centenarians have never smoked, 13.5 % are
> former smokers, and 2.7% are active smokers.

Fine, but still they never were able to precisely, or even reasonably,
conclude how much sawdust a troll would have to eat in order to shit
an 8 foot long 2x4.

Jes' goes to show ya', cut n' paste creepy guy, ya' can't put too much
stock in those nutty Romans.

TBN