The age of a person is commonly considered to be a continuous random variable. Could it be considered a discrete random variable instead? Explain.

Shark Attacks The correlation between the number of visitors to the state of Florida and the number of shark attacks since 1990 is 0.946. Should the number of visitors to Florida be reduced in an attempt to reduce shark attacks? Explain your reasoning.

What does it mean if r = 0?

Smoker’s IQ A study was conducted in which 20,211 18-year-old Israeli male military recruits were given an exam to measure IQ. In addition, the recruits were asked to disclose their smoking status. An individual was considered a smoker if he smoked at least one cigarette per day. The goal of the study was to determine whether adolescents aged 18 to 21 who smoke have a lower IQ than nonsmokers. It was found that the average IQ of the smokers was 94, while the average IQ of the nonsmokers was 101. The researchers concluded that lower IQ individuals are more likely to choose to smoke, not that smoking makes people less intelligent.

What is the research objective?

[NW] Government Waste Gallup News Service conducted a survey of 1017 American adolts aged 18 years or older. The respondents were asked, “Of every tax dollar that goes to the federal government in Washington, D.C., do you believe 51 cents or more are wasted?” Of the 1017 individuals surveyed, 35% indicated that 51 cents or more is wasted. Gallup reported that 35% of all adolt Americans 18 years or older believe the federal government wastes at least 51 cents of each dollar spent, with a margin of error of 4% and a 95% level of confidence.

What is the research objective?

Happiness and Your Heart Is there an association between level of happiness and the risk of heart disease? Researchers studied 1739 people over a 10-year period and asked questions about their daily lives and the hassles they face. The researchers also determined which individuals in the study experienced any type of heart disease. After their analysis, they concluded that happy individuals are less likely to experience heart disease. Source: European Heart Journal 31 (9):1065–1070, February 2010.

What is the response variable? What is the explanatory variable?

"Cellolar Phones Researchers wanted to determine whether there is an association between mobile phone use and body mass index. To do so, 105,028 men and women aged 18 years or over from the United Kingdom were recruited and their cell-phone use behavior was studied (number of calls per day, number of hours per week, year cell phone was first used) along with other variables (amount of exercise, body mass index) of the individuals. The researchers found a strong positive association between duration of phone calls on a cell phone and body mass index (that is, as the duration of phone calls increases, body mass index tends to increase as well).

Many studies involving cell phones look for a link between cell-phone usage and negative health outcomes (such as stroke or cancer) due to radio-frequency exposure. The following quote is from the article: “Obesity is associated with health outcomes such as stroke and cancers, which are of interest in relation to radio frequency exposure, and therefore is potential for confounding.” Explain what this means."

"Putting It Together: Passive Smoke? The following abstract appears in The New England Journal of Medicine:BACKGROUNDThe relation between passive smoking and lung cancer is of great public health importance. Some previous studies have suggested that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the household can cause lung cancer, but others have found no effect. Smoking by the spouse has been the most commonly used measure of this exposure.METHODSIn order to determine whether lung cancer is associated with exposure to tobacco smoke within the household, we conducted a case-control study of 191 patients with lung cancer who had never smoked and an equal number of persons without lung cancer who had never smoked. Lifetime residential histories including information on exposure to environmental tobacco smoke were compiled and analyzed. Exposure was measured in terms of “smoker-years,” determined by multiplying the number of years in each residence by the number of smokers in the household.RESULTSHousehold exposure to 25 or more smoker-years during childhood and adolescence doubled the risk of lung cancer. Approximately 15 percent of the control subjects who had never smoked reported this level of exposure. Household exposure of less than 25 smoker-years during childhood and adolescence did not increase the risk of lung cancer. Exposure to a spouse’s smoking, which constituted less than one third of total household exposure on average, was not associated with an increase in risk.CONCLUSIONSThe possibility of recall bias and other methodologic problems may influence the results of case-control studies of environmental tobacco smoke. Nonetheless, our findings regarding exposure during early life suggest that approximately 17 percent of lung cancers among nonsmokers can be attributed to high levels of exposure to cigarette smoke during childhood and adolescence.

What makes this study a case-control study? Why is this a retrospective study?"

"Putting It Together: Passive Smoke? The following abstract appears in The New England Journal of Medicine:BACKGROUNDThe relation between passive smoking and lung cancer is of great public health importance. Some previous studies have suggested that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the household can cause lung cancer, but others have found no effect. Smoking by the spouse has been the most commonly used measure of this exposure.METHODSIn order to determine whether lung cancer is associated with exposure to tobacco smoke within the household, we conducted a case-control study of 191 patients with lung cancer who had never smoked and an equal number of persons without lung cancer who had never smoked. Lifetime residential histories including information on exposure to environmental tobacco smoke were compiled and analyzed. Exposure was measured in terms of “smoker-years,” determined by multiplying the number of years in each residence by the number of smokers in the household.RESULTSHousehold exposure to 25 or more smoker-years during childhood and adolescence doubled the risk of lung cancer. Approximately 15 percent of the control subjects who had never smoked reported this level of exposure. Household exposure of less than 25 smoker-years during childhood and adolescence did not increase the risk of lung cancer. Exposure to a spouse’s smoking, which constituted less than one third of total household exposure on average, was not associated with an increase in risk.CONCLUSIONSThe possibility of recall bias and other methodologic problems may influence the results of case-control studies of environmental tobacco smoke. Nonetheless, our findings regarding exposure during early life suggest that approximately 17 percent of lung cancers among nonsmokers can be attributed to high levels of exposure to cigarette smoke during childhood and adolescence.

Can you identify any lurking variables that may have affected this study?"