Pinkfreud,

Hans Eysenck was notoriouss fer suggesting that the findings of
mainstream risurch where flawed, and there is no solid evidence that
cigaret smoking causes cancer. Whaddayathink?

Jeff

Hello, Jeff. Thank you very much for requesting me by name!

I have read about Dr. Eysenck's theories, but I confess that I have
not read the original material. As I understand it, the main thrust of
his thoughts on smoking and cancer was that the same psychological
makeup and personality factors that lead a person to be a smoker may
make it more likely that the person will develop cancer. This would
mean that smoking and cancer might have a common causative factor:
rather than smoking directly causing cancer, a set of biological,
mental and emotional characteristics cause both the tendency to smoke
and the tendency to develop cancer.

While I find this to be an interesting theory, it seems likely to me
that, given the current state of psychological testing, no reliable
prediction of who might be 'safely' able to smoke is forthcoming. I am
both a former smoker and a former testing specialist (for a state
government agency). I have little faith in psychological testing as a
predictor in matters of life and death, and I'd rather see research
dollars devoted to smoking cessation than to the pursuit of Dr.
Eysenck's theories.

More info on Professor Eysenck and his theories is available here:

The H.J. Eysenck Official Web Site
http://freespace.virgin.net/darrin.evans/

Google Web Search: "hans eysenck" smoking cancer
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22hans+eysenck%22+smoking+cancer

Very best regards,
pinkfreud

Many thanks for the five stars and the amazingly lavish tip!

I promise not to spend it on cigarettes. :-D

~Pink

jeffsmith-ga:

This comment is in regard to your now-expired question on tetrahedron solid angles,

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=595183

which refers to an error in my comment in an earlier question,

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=554911

which in turn refers to an even earlier question,

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=160247


You are correct that 12acos(1/3) is too big.  When I copied that
answer over, I had forgotten that foodini-ga left out a pi.  So the
correct answer for the sum of the solid angles of the vertices of a
regular tetrahedron is:

12*arccos(1/3) - 4*pi

Sorry about that.

Thanks rracecarr. Great timing - reminds me of the Italian basketball team.

Dare I mention, without any accrued stepping on ruffled feathers, that
this answer also looks (to me, now) wrong, because as I said the first
term (in steradians) is equivalent to about 840 "stereo" degrees, and
4*pi is 720 "stereo" degrees, so what is left is little more than 120
"stereo" degrees which seems too little even if one angle is less than
half one of the central angles formed by the diagonals and drawn up to
the center, which are each 180 "s". d.?

Sorry, rr, "diagonals" was meant to be "trisectors cum altitudes cum
etc.". Overload of schematic thinking and lack of exercise perhaps?

D.

No, the new answer is correct.  In terms of "stereo degrees" it is 126.345352...