Comparing Death Risks: Smoking vs. Driving in Terms of Distance

AI Thread Summary
Smoking 1.4 cigarettes per day presents a one in a million chance of death, while driving 50 km carries the same risk. To equate the risk of smoking a full pack of 20 cigarettes, one would need to drive approximately 700 km, as the risk increases roughly 14-fold with increased cigarette consumption. However, the comparison is criticized for being flawed, as smoking has cumulative health effects, unlike the immediate risk associated with driving. The discussion highlights the complexities of comparing different types of risks. Ultimately, the mathematical approach suggests that 700 km is the calculated answer, but the underlying health implications complicate the comparison.
kirsten_2009
Messages
136
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


Hello All,

This question is from my chemistry and health section so it's not really too "chemistry-ish" but rather more mathematical I think. Thanks in advance!

Q:// Smoking 1.4 cigarettes per day carries a one in a million chance of death compared with driving 50 km by car. How far would you have to drive in your car to have the same risk of death as smoking one package of cigarettes (20 cigarettes)?

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution




The risk of dying from smoking 20 cigarettes/day increases ~14 folds from smoking just 1.4 cigarettes a day (20/1.4=14.28) which means that the distance driven in the car must also increase 14 fold since they both have a 1 in a million death risk…so 50 km x 14 = 700 km...would this be correct?

 
Physics news on Phys.org
Probability and statistics. 700's got to be the answer they want. The problem stinks. Smoking has cumulative effects on health, and comparing that "risk" to risk of sudden death by mechanical trauma is worse than "apples to oranges."
 
  • Like
Likes kirsten_2009
Thank you!
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'

Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'

TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
View full post »

Thread 'Prove that evolution is constant (Provide at least two arguments to support your position)'

I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
View full post »

Similar threads

News Is Poor Diet and Inactivity the Next Leading Cause of Death in America?
Replies
31
Views
5K
Alternative spacelaunch methods
Replies
10
Views
4K
Earth Day - My Contact Experience
Replies
16
Views
5K
Galaxies, which are the smallest and least luminous type of galaxy?
Replies
23
Views
12K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top