One Cigarette Takes 20 Minutes Off Your Life Expectancy, According to New Study
Researchers at the University College London explored how much of a person's life can be shortened by smoking. "[It] works out to be almost seven hours of life lost per pack," says the study's lead author.
You're viewing a single thread.
Grandmothers on both sides were 1pack/day.
One died early 60’s from smoking, other is into her 90s still getting around on her own.
Imagine, if she hadn't started smoking, at, say, twenty, your 90 year old grandma could be 110 by now.
Never thought of it that way.
I might be getting whooshed, but she'd be the same age "by now" unless there was some interstellar-type time travel going on. (Not trying to be a jerk, and your point still stands, just getting a small chuckle about the idea that someone not smoking would have aged an extra 20 years in the same amount of time).
Imagine if she not only never smoked, but ate well and meditated too, she’d be at least 185 today.
This is what angers me about stories like this...
Population statistics don't generally map very well to individuals. The existence of outliers doesn't disprove the population data either.
As an example:
"Men are (on average) taller than women" does not mean "all men are taller than all women". But that the average height of men is higher, and the extreme ends of height are higher. The existence of short men does not disprove the average being taller.
That said cigarettes are clearly a high risk / zero reward sort of activity that is crazy to see continue into 2025.
90 year old has developed a chronic cough/sinus infection and she’s spent a lot of time talking to ENTs but she hasn’t given up the one thing that’s likely causing the problem. She’s been calling it allergies for about a year now.
Just because you don’t think there’s a reward doesn’t mean there is no reward.
But some asshole saw snow outside in 2009 and said "look at all this global warming" thus disproving it all.
/s
zero reward
If 50% of population accounts for the average, does that mean there is another 50% is an outlier? “On average” is just as meaningless as anecdotal evidence.
If 50% of population accounts for the average
It doesn't.
does that mean there is another 50% is an outlier?
No.
“On average” is just as meaningless as anecdotal evidence.
It's not...
You don't seem to understand how averages work and I'm not sure I can help you.
What an odd thing to say
