Statistically significant at what confidence level?
The data would speak for it's self....in science today the significance of the data set results is not the issue it is (as in AGW) the way and how the data that got included.. was included, in science the result of an experiment can never be considered incorrect.
Bottom line is if it is stat sig at a confidence level not reported (I will not be reading the study) where there is smoke there might also be fire.....will depend entirely on how/whatfor the data got included.
Another thing with this study is the criteria to assume hardness of arteries would be pretty basic, either the artery crosses that 'chosen' line or it doesn't.....there might be something in it.....if one can trust the data 'in'.
This last 25 years has seen much work done on shoestring budgets (because against the political power base) for example on the more realistic causes of smoking (politically) related disease like throat mouth and throat cancer and the results are largely ignored compared to if the opposite scenario was the result and sat with earlier 'observation only ' science.
Interested to hear more real statistically significant outcomes in this area...there might be something in it.........1000 extra little poisons a year at every individual over the exposure we had 100 years ago...there must be a couple of standouts in that list.
