Oh, right, because smoke magically only affects the smoker.

Post #244,739 by admin 2/15/06 4:47:56 PM 2/15/06 4:50:54 PM Reply	Oh, right, because smoke magically only affects the smoker. [link\|http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7446/980\|http://bmj.bmjjourna...full/328/7446/980] - "A substantial body of epidemiological and laboratory data indicates that, unlike the case with lung cancer, the risk of acute myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease associated with exposure to tobacco smoke is non-linear at low doses, increasing rapidly with relatively small doses such as those received from secondhand smoke or actively smoking one or two cigarettes a day." (emphasis mine) And the original study: [link\|http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7446/977\|http://bmj.bmjjourna...full/328/7446/977] The [link\|http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3557\|mechanism]: The mechanism for this effect is likely to be that the inhaled smoke stimulates the immediate production of macrophages - white blood cells that "clean up the system". But these break down and lead to the production of blood clotting agents. "So if someone is teetering on the brink of a heart attack, this clotting is likely to tip them over," says West. And sorry, it was 40%, not 60%. Same diff. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..." Edited by admin Feb. 15, 2006, 04:50:36 PM EST Edited by admin Feb. 15, 2006, 04:50:54 PM EST Oh, right, because smoke only affects the smoker. [link\|http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7446/980\|http://bmj.bmjjourna...full/328/7446/980] - "A substantial body of epidemiological and laboratory data indicates that, unlike the case with lung cancer, the risk of acute myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease associated with exposure to tobacco smoke is non-linear at low doses, increasing rapidly with relatively small doses such as those received from secondhand smoke or actively smoking one or two cigarettes a day." (emphasis mine) And the original study: [link\|http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7446/977\|http://bmj.bmjjourna...full/328/7446/977] The [link\|http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3557\|mechanism]: The mechanism for this effect is likely to be that the inhaled smoke stimulates the immediate production of macrophages - white blood cells that "clean up the system". But these break down and lead to the production of blood clotting agents. "So if someone is teetering on the brink of a heart attack, this clotting is likely to tip them over," says West. And sorry, it was 40%, not 60%. Same diff. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..." Expand All History \| Collapse All History
Post #244,743 by drewk 2/15/06 4:58:07 PM Reply	That's new to me I never heard that before. So basically the smoke was the last straw. Hmm, is it fair to say that the smoke is the "cause" of a heart attack when the person had to be already "teetering on the brink"? Trigger, yes. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #244,747 by admin 2/15/06 5:01:47 PM Reply	Re: That's new to me So if there was someone with a deadly peanut allergy, and someone else aerosolized some peanuts and sprayed them, causing anaphylactic shock, was the spray the cause of the death, or just the trigger? In other words, if the person is not dead without the extra little bit, they're still not dead no matter how close they are to the brink or not. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #244,752 by drewk 2/15/06 5:09:40 PM Reply	Not at all the same In your scenario the peanut was the only factor. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #244,757 by admin 2/15/06 5:14:52 PM Reply	Uh, no. Both situations have a pre-existing medical condition and an external exacerbation. Are you in sophist mode or something today? This is getting tiresome. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #244,764 by drewk 2/15/06 5:23:49 PM Reply	I'm the sophist? Someone with a peanut allergy is exposed to peanut. Peanut was the only factor. Someone with fatty deposits on their arteries is exposed to smoke. Multiple factors. One was the trigger, one was the underlying condition. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #244,769 by admin 2/15/06 5:32:25 PM Reply	Re: I'm the sophist? Peanut allergy is to fatty deposits as peanut is to smoke. wtfever, Drew. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Welcome to IWETHEY!