Marruk @ Marruk @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

42

Joined

2 yr. ago

The number of ingredients is irrelevant, especially since the idea that there are "at most" 6 ingredients is simply wrong: https://hub.jhu.edu/2021/10/07/vaping-unknown-chemicals/

A major area of concern for vaping is the fact that vaping generates much higher concentrations of nano-particles compared to regular cigarettes, and therefore may penetrate much further into the lung material (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6312322/ and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0210147). There are also concerns about contaminants, variations in delivery devices (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6312322/), and other confounding factors that require a lot more research to ascertain the long term impact.

As for whether I have a study or information contradicting the conclusion that vaping is safer than smoking, it depends on whether you selectively ignore the parts of the studies that say "more research is needed" (because apparently that's an "ignorant take"), but searching for "peer reviewed articles electronic cigarettes safer than tobacco" returns these top results (I did not cherry pick in any way, and instead took the top results sequentially):

• https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2042098614524430: "In conclusion, toxicological studies have shown significantly lower adverse effects of EC vapor compared with cigarette smoke. Characteristically, the studies performed by using the liquids in their original liquid form have found less favorable results; however, no comparison with tobacco smoke was performed in any of these studies, and they cannot be considered relevant to EC use since the samples were not tested in the form consumed by vapers. More research is needed, including studies on different cell lines such as lung epithelial cells. In addition, it is probably necessary to evaluate a huge number of liquids with different flavors since a minority of them, in an unpredictable manner, appear to raise some concerns when tested in the aerosol form produced by using an EC device." Granted, it does go on to say that existing evidence shows that vaping is safer than tobacco, but clarifies that there still needs to be more research on some of the unquantified risks of vaping.
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5469426/ This is an older study using a very small sample size. It focuses on e-cigs as a tool for smoking cessation, but also concludes "Similar to cancer risk, there are no published data describing the long-term lung function or cardiovascular effects of e-cigarettes; ongoing surveillance, especially once e-cigarettes are regulated and standardized, will be necessary."
• https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0129443 This study was primarily measuring how likely e-cigs were to get people to stop using tobacco, rather than comparative safety (despite the title). The conclusion makes clear that it is not known (at the time; this was 9 years ago) if e-cigarettes could be considered "safe": "Adding e-cigarettes to tobacco smoking did not facilitate smoking cessation or reduction. If e-cigarette safety will be confirmed, however, the use of e-cigarettes alone may facilitate quitters remaining so."

I'm not sure what your Google search was, but its probably best not to cherry pick a single source to support your claim.

It is premature to declare vaping safer than smoking, as there is relatively little comprehensive research on the long term effect of vaping. The whole "vaping is safer" spiel is not that different than when doctors were paid to tout the health benefits of cigarettes: propaganda not based in conclusive science.

Any time I see someone whining about seeing posts on a topic that they, personally, don't like, I upvote the post to add visibility, then block the whiner. Thank you for your contribution!

Hats off to the downvoter who read this and apparently thought to themselves "hell no! 556 million is a lot more than 3 billion, and definitely more than half of 8 billion!!!"

twitter is where most people are

Twitter is gone. There is only X.

According to Musk, there are 556m monthly active "users". A year ago Musk commissioned a study that found at least 11% of active users on Twitter were bot accounts. There's plenty of reason to believe that that percentage has only gone up, especially in light of the fact that there's been a significant exodus of users due to Musk's handling of the platform, and that at the time of the study there were about 368m users. So either 200m people who were previously uninterested in Twitter were so impressed by how Musk systematically made X less functional and more expensive, or bot accounts became massively more prevalant.

Regardless, with a global adult population of 8+ billion, in no world is 556m "most people", even ignoring the bots. Facebook has 3b monthly active users. Tiktok 1b. Instagram 2b.

As for the rest of the argument, the idea that the only way for extremist voices can be held in check is to politely engage them in rational discussion is sadly nonsense. They're extremists. They aren't interested in rational discussion. The only way to hold them in check is to deplatform them, whether literally or just by the old fashioned method of social ostracism.

I actually am a developer who works for a hospital. I wouldn't write articles or otherwise create materials discussing the "nitty gritty medical details".

Manuel Vonau

From his bio on that site (https://www.androidpolice.com/author/manuel-vonau/):

Manuel studied Media and Culture studies in Düsseldorf, finishing his university career with a master's thesis titled "The Aesthetics of Tech YouTube Channels: Production of Proximity and Authenticity." His background gives him a unique perspective on the ever-evolving world of technology and its implications on society. He isn't shy to dig into technical backgrounds and the nitty-gritty developer details, either.

So he's a marketing guy with possibly zero tech background beyond watching YouTube videos, who isn't afraid to discuss "nitty-gritty developer details" despite apparently not actually understanding them.

At this point, I think most people who qualify as merely conservative are Democrats. The Republican party in general has moved far right of "conservative" and well into "fanatical".

I was being a bit sarcastic, because season 1 was fantastic, but season 2 was (IMHO) absolutely terrible. I couldn't finish it.

altered carbon was a disaster

Personally, I loved it. I just wish they'd make a second season.

Lemmy: "All of the ways Elon mismanaged Tesla brought the quality of the cars down to the point where the brand's reputation is sunk. That hurt sales more than people not commuting to work."

You: "Look at all you on Lemmy saying how you don't need to own a car any more because you're using your car half as much!"

Someone complains about one specific thing not being free. You:

I don’t know why people expect to get **everything **for free

Since you've started down the road of what people are and are not allowed to do: you are not allowed to participate in discussions if you can't avoid making shitty logical fallacies in your very first response.

That's correct. The indicator light was pretty obvious.

I always found it fascinating how upset people get about the idea of a novel device recording them without permission, but it is a complete non-issue that a familiar device (the common smart phone) could also record them without permission with less of a chance of them noticing.

Posting ragebait articles about a platform because you know users will engage.

Lol irony.

Ironic, considering I'm still waiting to hear who determined mail to be right.

I'm confident that the amount of things you cannot imagine is quite substantial; certainly far more than that of an average person.

We advocate for freedom of speech, and not just the limited one currently granted by the 1st amendment of the constitution of the USA.

"People should be able to say whatever they want without having to fear consequences" is a garbage take on "freedom of speech". Even if you clarify it as "people be able to say whatever they want without having to fear consequences from large organizations", it is still a garbage take.

a “platform” like mail which has been determined to be a right.

When was mail determined to be a right, and by whom?

I’m just arguing that, for certain very large monopolistic corporations, maybe it should apply as well.

Instead of treating huge corporations that actively suppress competition like they're a de facto form of government, we should instead... prevent them from getting to the point where their size and market share grants them power over the lives of citizens comparable to that of the government.

"Freedom of speech" doesn't mean "I should be able to say what I want without any consequences".