Meaning of 99% ?

[rolygate]

It has recently been pointed out to me that the term, "99% safer" means almost exactly twice as safe.

It does not mean 'about 100 times safer' as no doubt most people (including myself) mean when they use it. This being the case, I believe we should stop using this value as it is probably wrong and probably understating the case. I'm not entirely sure what should be used instead, except that if you mean 'about 100 times safer' then that is probably what you should say.

It is interesting to note that clinicians, statistical clinicians, epidemiologists and so forth are not mathematicians either, as they seem to use the term '99%' wrongly too. Perhaps, like the errant apostrophe, it should be banned.


List of values and real meaning
- 99% safer = almost twice as safe

- An order of magnitude safer = 10 times safer [the base meaning of 'an order of magnitude' is a factor of 10, unless modified by another value in the calculation]

- 100 times safer = the minimum value of safety improvement that researchers commonly attribute to e-cigarettes over tobacco cigarettes

- 1,000 times safer = the maximum common value attributed to e-cigarettes

 

[TomCatt]

This is boggling my mind. I realize it is getting close to my bedtime on a Monday and I'm a chemist not a mathematician; but doesn't 99% mean 99 out of 100? Why would '99% safer' mean '2X' as safe??

 

[Justice]

If you read the wording it says almost twice as safe. Dang near same as 100% why arge over 1% ?

 

[Papa Lazarou]

If you wanted to be mathematically accurate you could say "10,000% safer" to mean 100 times safer. Cue puzzled questions about how can anything be more than 100% etc. Simply "100 times safer" is probably easier for the layman to understand.

 

[Zal42]

This is boggling my mind. I realize it is getting close to my bedtime on a Monday and I'm a chemist not a mathematician; but doesn't 99% mean 99 out of 100? Why would '99% safer' mean '2X' as safe??

100% of something is all of it. If something is 100% more than x, that is x + 100% of x -- or x doubled.

(Or, perhaps more clearly: 100% of x is x times 1. 100% more than x is: x + (x times 1), which is x + x, which is x times 2.)

 

[rolygate]

Well as I'm not a mathematician I can't explain it, never mind explain it simply. You just need to get your head around it.



But anyway: if you have a bunch of stuff, and then add 99% of it, you haven't even got double what you started with - never mind 100 times, which is probably what the person meant originally. Somehow there is a mental trip-up in there that means when someone says "99% better", they think they're saying a almost a hundred times better - but they aren't, it's not even twice as much.

Hey here's a good one:

The state of Utah is being threatened by a huge 99% increase in the amount of dihydrogen monoxide in the atmosphere!

That's nearly double the amount of water, folks. Take your umbrella, there could be four drops of rain instead of last year's two.

 

[FreakyStylie]

I suppose it could easily be remedied by saying that the other is only 1% as safe. This actually changes the variable, so the opposing factor becomes 99 times less safe.

Traditional cigarettes are about 1% as safe as electronic cigarettes.
(A penny is 1% of the value of a dollar.)

 

[GMoney]

Zal42 is 100% correct, but maybe the algebra is confusing for some.

100% of 1 is 1. if something was 100% more than 1, it would be 1 + 1, therefore = 2(twice the original value.

Mathematical gymnastics aside, while it is easy to get bogged down with things like this, IMHO "Framing" the issue in such a way that the general public will respond to is far more important.

The FDA has framed the issue as "drug delivery" and "anti-freeze", etc. We need to frame or reframe the issue in a positive light that will resonate.

IMHO, I don't think "e-cigs are x% safer than cigs" is the best way to capture the hearts and minds of the public.

 

[FreakyStylie]

IMHO, I don't think "e-cigs are x% safer than cigs" is the best way to capture the hearts and minds of the public.

Like button!

I'm really trying to stick with the "alternative" terminology myself. I am finding that more people are assuming that they don't have nicotine in them. I was at a bar this weekend, and several people were surprised that I was still getting nicotine. I really blew it that night because I didn't bring any of my disposables or cards with me, otherwise I'm 99% sure that 100% of those people would have become vapers, LOL.

 

[Ande]

If cigarette prices go up 100%, they double. 100% = 1 whole unit, whatever the unit is.

So 99% safer is nearly 1 whole unit safer- ie around half as dangerous.

Dr Seigal uses the term "orders of magnitude safer" in his articles on this subject, and I think it's a good one, though it isn't too specific.

There IS sufficient evidence to conclude that this habit IS orders of magnitude safer than smoking cigarettes.

There isn't sufficient evidence to say exactly which order of magnitude. 10 times safer, nobody who understands the science could seriously question. 100 times safer seems possible/probable. 1000 times safer? Not impossible, not known.

Best,
Ande

 

[LadyPhoenix]

I think I read an old article or interview from someone who had researched E-cigs, and he said that the use of Electronic Cigarettes eliminates 99% of the carcinogens from smoking.

I believe that is where that came from. Carl Phillips maybe? Not entirely sure.

 

[NCC]

Agree. And an aside, since I don't see how it applies to vaping. It bugs me when people say something is a "fraction" of something, as in, "My income is a fraction of what it was two years ago."

A fraction? Well, 9999/10000 = .9999 or 99.99%. Sometimes they say "a small fraction", which is better. But, all too often there's no qualifier ... which makes the use of the word fraction meaningless.

[/tangential]

 

[TomCatt]

Well as I'm not a mathematician I can't explain it, never mind explain it simply. You just need to get your head around it.



But anyway: if you have a bunch of stuff, and then add 99% of it, you haven't even got double what you started with - never mind 100 times, which is probably what the person meant originally. Somehow there is a mental trip-up in there that means when someone says "99% better", they think they're saying a almost a hundred times better - but they aren't, it's not even twice as much.

Hey here's a good one:

The state of Utah is being threatened by a huge 99% increase in the amount of dihydrogen monoxide in the atmosphere!

That's nearly double the amount of water, folks. Take your umbrella, there could be four drops of rain instead of last year's two.

LOL! Ok, I get it now. Must have been more tired than I thought.

 

[Thulium]

With all due respect, Roly, I think you are looking at it wrong. 100% safety means eliminating 100% of the risk which is of course impossible, but if you eliminate combustion, you are eliminating very nearly 100% of the known risks of using tobacco. Thus, "99%" very correctly implies that smoke-free alternatives are up to 100 times safer.

Just look at the commonly cited CDC statistics that predict over 400,000 annual deaths attributable to smoking from various causes (including 13,000 from oral cancer). The same data can be used to estimate that a similar number of smokeless tobacco users would result in only 6,000 annual deaths from oral cancer: That's 98.5% or 66 times safer, even though western smokeless tobacco has "only" a little less than half the oral cancer risks while newer products like e-cigs haven't been linked to any increased risks. Considering that the only remaining risk that has even been suggested is the exposure to tobacco specific carcinogens, and an e-cigarette cartridge has about 1/15,000th the amount of TSNA's found in a pack of cigarettes....I can very confidently state that e-cigarettes eliminate AT LEAST 99% of the risks of smoking.

 

[BckYrdBBQr]

but there is combustion...hence the need for a battery.

 

[Zal42]

but there is combustion...hence the need for a battery.

No, it's not combustion, any more than boiling water is combusting it. It's more like rapid evaporation.

 

[fuzznut]

but there is combustion...hence the need for a battery.

Just no.

Look up the defenition of combustion.

 

[BckYrdBBQr]

A simple example can be seen in the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen,

2 H2 + O2 → 2 H2O(g) + heat
The result is water vapor.

 

[jlarsen]

How about saying 99% less harmful instead?

Wouldn't THAT equate to 100 times safer?

Or how about saying 99% safe, compared to cigarettes, assuming cigarettes are 100% unsafe?

If something is 99% pure, than something that is 99.9% pure is 10 times more pure, is it not?

Or am I way off base?

 

[fuzznut]

A simple example can be seen in the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen,

2 H2 + O2 → 2 H2O(g) + heat
The result is water vapor.

combustion:
Combustion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


e-cigs:
State of matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia