this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
213 points (96.1% liked)
worldnews
4839 readers
1 users here now
Rules:
-
Be civil. Disagreements happen, that does not give you the right to personally insult each other.
-
No racism or bigotry.
-
Posts from sources that aren't known to be incredibly biased for either side of the spectrum are preferred. If this is not an option, you may post from whatever source you have as long as it is relevant to this community.
-
Post titles should be the same as the article title.
-
No spam, self-promotion, or trolling.
Instance-wide rules always apply.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
2nd hand?
a) studies don't show it's harmful unless you live or work with someone who smokes indoors*
b) smoking in public areas, even outdoors, is mostly banned already
*note: you will find some proclamations from official and pseudo-official bodies saying things like "there is no safe level of secondhand smoke". These are shameful goddamn lies and when you try to find the science they're based on, you find nothing at all. When you look at the actual report collating every study ever done on secondhand smoke you'll find that every single study has only measured effects of prolonged exposure to indoor smoking. There has been no study, ever, that I'm aware of, that has shown a correlation between occasional outdoor secondhand smoke and increased cancer or other negative effects
But all that being said, again, smokers (in the West) are mostly relegated to certain designated outdoor areas which you are free to not go to.
Seems pretty clear.
Only if you pick and choose the parts you read. Look at the study subjects. Every single one of them has prolonged exposure to indoor smoke. The majority of study subjects are spouses of longtime smokers.
They're literally quoting the conclusions part of the study, and you claim they are cherrypicking quotes and distorting the actual data.. ?
You've been mixing some "whacky" in your "tobaccy", haven't'cha?
The conclusions are biased and in some cases outright not supported by the underlying data.
The surgeon general set out to report that cigarettes are scary and by god he'd do so, data be damned.
Look for yourself. The data is right there.
It's insane that people have devolved to the point where they will actively provide the proof against themselves and then ignore it.
I looked myself.
I read the "conclusions" part and it was rather adamant about the study being conclusive for that part.
I assume you "don't have the time" to actually explain your argument, and I'll just have to "look myself", to see that the opposite of what they conclude is true?
It's literally on the same page, I already linked it. This isn't a "do your research" YouTube conspiracy video thing. The conclusions say one thing, the studies say something else.
Oh, another "oh yeah, it totally says the opposite of what it concludes but I can't actually explain how". I'm shocked.
I'm gonna place a personal bet that you haven't even looked at any of it. Trying to argue "we haven't proved tobacco smoke is harmful" in 2024. You're cracking me up, man.
Is smoking harmful? No, it's the science which is wrong!
Comment looks pretty dumb now huh? I quote you the report and you claim I'm the one not reading it
Yes, all of your comments do look pretty dumb. That's why I keep engaging with you. You're veeerry entertaining. :D
You haven't made an argument.
Linking a piece showing they've looked at lifetime smokers and then you making an indoor/outdoor argument when the conclusions say "REGARDLESS OF LOCATION", is pretty funny.
You still don't have an argument.
This is funny, but it's also sad to see that while the science is very clear on the subject, there are still trolls like you.
This isn't a debate any more than "the Earth is actually flat" is.
I could link you literally thousands upon thousands od studies showing how harmful smoke is and you can't link a single one showing it isn't, and you're not making any rational point about this one either.
It's funny, but also, slightly worrying.
And so on. It's all over the article. Do a ctrl+f of "outdoor" and similar terms if you like.
Yeah, seems pretty clear.
"It" being your lack of an argument against science that has a literal metric ton of evidence behind it, not to mention common sense?
"No no, smoke isn't actually harmful"
What are you, a 1950's ad company? XD
You just keep not reading, even when I copy paste it for you. I don't know what else I can do here. The conclusion is disingenuous and the proof is right there in the report. Continuing to regurgitate the same words that I'm saying are wrong is not an argument.
You're not making an argument.
You're saying "no the data doesn't agree with their conclusions", without any argument. "It was lifetime smokers they were married to, and they smoked indoors btw."
So what? That doesn't meant that lless exposure isn't harmful. That's what they conclude as well. Stomping your foot and saying "no no no it's not true" won't change the conclusions, and you've shown nothing that shows their conclusions are false.
This is hilarious
The conclusions are an inaccurate representation of the data. Let's start there. We can move on to the larger point later since it's too much for you to grasp apparently. Can you agree with me that there have been no studies about occasional outdoor secondhand smoke?
"They conclude that it's very clear that all smoke exposure is harmful. But they never studied people who only get exposed outdoors. I'm betting smoke magically becomes non-harmful when there aren't walls around you, despite them clearly concluding ALL smoke is harmful. Also, I don't need to provide any evidence for my ridiculously asinine and illogical premise, it's enough that I can recognise that this specific instance wasn't studied by itself, so it can mean whatever I want it to, despite reality"
You're honestly like one of those Flat Earth nuts who's trying to convince us that NASA is guarding the icewall at the end of the Earth. "But like, can you agree with me that no-one's ever seen the actual edge of the Earth?"
No, I really really can't, because you're crazy. :D
First, there are several studies looking into the effects of "outdoor smoking". We understand very well how aerosols work indoors and outdoors, so it really doesn't matter where you are during the exposure, it matters how much you are exposed to.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22870289/
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e007554
There's literally almost a century of data on this. You're like an antivaxxer. :D "Nooo, we haven't actually established that smoke exposure is always harmful, and I don't need to provide evidence that it isn't."
We have established with insanely high certainty that all smoke exposure is harmful.
It's like if you tried arguing that we don't know for certain that asbestos exposure is harmful, because you say we haven't actually looked at asbestos exposure outdoors. :DD
It's kind of funny how you obviously take the time to come up with the worst insults you can think of and then throw them at me even when they don't make sense. Try "MAGA" next.
Study shows outdoor particulate matter in smoking areas is almost the same level as indoor areas where smoking is banned (43.64 µg/m3 vs 36.90 µg/m3, respectively).
Even the conclusion here supports what I'm saying. Almost half of the surveyed smokers report smoking outside, yet only 24% of nonsmokers report being exposed to smoke at all outdoors. Also, this study doesn't deal with the concentration.
You have to understand that there is a huge anti-smoking bias in top-level discussions. Younger generations just consider smoking gross. But the data itself doesn't lie. Look beyond the conclusions and look at the actual data.
"Worst insults"? :D
Thanks for letting me know you're offended, those are apt descriptors, not attempts at insults. I could show you some actual insults, but that'd be rude and against the rules.
There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. That's it.
You can equivocate all you want that "there isn't enough evidence", but don't be surprised when people laugh at you, since that's exactly the thing the tobacco companies have been trying to repeat for almost a century. "Noo, the evidence isn't in yet!" Yes, it is.
Ah yes, asking people "were you bothered by smoke" definitely proves that they weren't exposed to any smoke at all. It's not like people's subjective experiences are worse than objective science.
All smoke-exposure is harmful. When you prove there is a level of smoke exposure that's safe, then you have an argument. Before that, you don't. You simply do not. You're exactly like a Flat Earther, who refuses to believe the evidence in favour of some contrived bullshit that doesn't even support the facts they think it does.
"Look at the actual data."
It's honestly hilarious how you keep stomping your foot, crying "no no no no no muh data", but you don't even have any, and then you pretend like some data on reported experiences about the levels of smoke they were exposed to proves that smoke exposure isn't harmful?
My stomach is hurting I'm laughing so much :DDD
The laughter of idiots is equivalent to the approval of thinking people. So, thank you.
Now that you're arguing against the concept of data, where do we go from here? I mean if you fundamentally disagree with reality, well...dunno what to tell you dude. The data ain't saying what you want it to. That sucks. But it is what it is.
Again, there is no safe level of exposure to smoke.
There is no level of smoke exposure that is safe.
No level of exposure to smoke is safe. Outdoors or indoors.
That has been proved, objectively, for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times.
What you don't see is that I've been asking "what is your argument" for several comments, but you simply do not have one. You're trying to equivocate that "b-bb-but there are no studies which studied only outdoors exposure and that is actually safe because there's no evidence to prove that it isn't", when we do have evidence proving that, since we have evidence that all smoke exposure is harmful. "Just look at the data."
I could start pasting dozens of studies which have been done on this over almost a century, but you're the one making the argument (or rather, not-making an argument, since you don't actually have one, you're just saying "lol look there's no specific outdoors studies thus I'm right in my non-argument"), so the burden of proof is on you.
The irony in you saying "the conclusions aren't supported by the data", when they clearly show why it is, and then you being unable to actually explain why you think it isn't... is again, h-i-l-a-r-i-o-u-s.
Try to make an argument instead of this teenagey pseudointellectual equivocating and wannabe deep quotes. :D
Why does subjective reports about people's perceived level of smoke exposure matter in this conversation? Why does it invalidate the data that shows all smoke exposure is harmful?
Yet you can't find a study showing it?
It's reasonable to assume that a level of smoke particulate matter equal to that of areas in which there is no smoking is nonharmful. Right? Maybe a higher level is still not harmful but there's no data so we don't know.
My theory is that occasional outdoor smoke exposes you to particulate matter at such low concentrations, it's indistinguishable from regular daily fluctuations when not exposed to smoke. Just a theory, because no real data, but I think it's a reasonable one. The one study you linked about particulate matter in outdoor areas seems to support it.
Also
You're the one who linked the study, dude, I just read it.
The burden of proof is on you.
You're the one screeching against established science. You're the one saying that "the data doesn't support the conclusions" while refusing to actually even make an argument.
"My theory"
You don't seem to understand what the word means. That's a hypothesis, and one not supported by any science, despite you saying that the conclusions of a peer-reviewed study isn't supported by the data they have, that the data in fact supports your notion, but you still can't seem to show how or why?
So your argument is "if you're not exposed to smoke, then you're not harmed by it"? Wow. What a great argument. Unfortunately, when you're exposed to smoke, no matter the amount, it is harmful. This has been proven time and time and time again, but despite you childishly arguing against it, you haven't even tried looking if there's data available on it, because you know of course there is and it all proves you wrong.
The burden of proof is on you. You're simply unable to produce any supporting evidence for any of your anti-vaxxer, flat-earth level garbage, instead preferring to write vague pseudointellectual garbage. :D
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2974716/
#No level of smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke [SHS] is safe. Even at the lowest detectable levels of exposure, we could detect changes in gene expression within the cells lining the airways
https://news.ufl.edu/2023/09/secondhand-smoke-exposure/
https://tobaccoatlas.org/challenges/secondhand-smoke/
#It is widely recognized through scientific evidence that there is no safe level of exposure to SHS
"Widely recognised."
Almost as if that's what the evidence points towards and your pathetic little "b-b-b-b-but what about if you're only outdoors and you're 100 meters upwind from the closest smoker so then you're not exposed to smoke at all so then it's safe so there is actually a safe level of second hand smoke exposure which is literally to not be exposed at all and that's my mighty smart argument that I'm now making and the fact that there's a literal library full of studies which prove that there is no safe level of second hand smoke is completely irrelevant as I'm not even gonna look at it I'm just gonna pretend like I won the argument I didn't even actually manage to make"
SEe why I'm entertained? D:DD
That's a problem with your comprehension, not with my explanation.
Run spell check please.
.... deep sigh
So in your previous comment you ask "but you can't find evidence for it?" after I've explained that you need to find the evidence, because the burden of proof is on you because you're the one trying to argue against scientific consensus.
Despite the burden of proof being on you, not me, I show you studies that show how widely recognised it is that there is no safe level of SHS exposure.
You refuse to acknowledge it.
So tell me, how exactly are you different from a Flat Earther or an Anti-vaxxer? Because you can't seem to make an argument of any sort, you're just grasping at something like "no but see the measurements of exposure from an outdoor smoking area were almost as low as..." which isn't an argument. It's an observation, that in no way disproves that all SHS is harmful.
What aren't you getting? Why are you ignoring when I show you proof? What is your argument? Oh you don't have any so you end up with these childish games like pretending you didn't see anything I just wrote and linked and are unable to Google "is second hand smoke dangerous" yourself?
Make. An. Argument. Please?
But you won't.
My entire point is that there is no evidence since there's no studies. You can't prove a negative, but a massive analysis of previous studies comes close.
The studies don't show that. They merely assert that, without the data to back it up. That's what I've been trying to tell you this whole time.
That's absolutely an argument, and it's not grasping at anything. What tiny amount of data we have on the subject does in fact support what I'm saying. And I'm not even saying it's conclusive evidence, just some level of support that I'm only bringing up for lack of real good data.
And you still haven't sent any proof. You find a study, you read the conclusion, you throw it at me, I read the data, I throw that at you, you ignore it and find a new study, rinse and repeat.
I agree it's very unfortunate that there's such a ridiculous bias in studies' conclusions. I suspect it's related to funding and PR. We shouldn't have to dig into the data of a study to see if it supports the conclusion that the authors wrote. But that's where we're at.
I don't think this is the norm. I hope not. I suspect smoking is just a very charged topic and no scientist wants to lose funding by being known as the guy who put out a pro-smoking study.
No evidence of what? That second hand smoke is harmful? Are you on meth?
"No, the science is wrong, and me, a childish person on a pseydoanonymous forum ASSERTING the science is wrong is more credible than the science they use to show their conclusions are backed up by the data. Oh and don't even try to get me to actually comment on what I think is wrong in the data, because I haven't even read it." - You
Yes, it is grasping. Because you're not even refuting that SHS is harmful, you're trying to assert that outdoors, there is no SHS, by trying to show concentrations measured. So implicitly, you're admitting that any SHS IS harmful, because of course you are, because we all know that to be true, lol.
My stomach can't take much more of this :DDD
See, you already ignored the studies when I only quote their conclusions and the most important parts of them. What on Earth are you gonna do when I paste the entire study here?
This is from this exact thread, 3 comments earlier:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2974716/
#No level of smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke [SHS] is safe. Even at the lowest detectable levels of exposure, we could detect changes in gene expression within the cells lining the airways
https://news.ufl.edu/2023/09/secondhand-smoke-exposure/
https://tobaccoatlas.org/challenges/secondhand-smoke/
#It is widely recognized through scientific evidence that there is no safe level of exposure to SHS
“Widely recognised.”
Show me ANY STUDY WHATSOEVER that says that there is a SAFE level of second hand smoke. Please. I've been waiting and asking for several comments now. Oh and, a bit too ashamed to answer the comment where you talk about "you need to understand there's a huge bias with tobacco..." when I replied to it with this? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/
#Inventing Conflicts of Interest: A History of Tobacco Industry Tactics
Completely unlike what you're doing, amirite? :DDDDDD That's what is so hilarious; you're using century old rhetoric. It's like arguing someone who's genuinely insistent that "reefer madness" is a thing :DDD
You haven't linked a single study of any sort. You just keep stomping your foot and saying "NYAAAH NO NO NO THEY'RE WRONG AND I DON'T NEED TO TELL YOU HOW THEY'RE WRONG THEY'RE JUST ANGRY AT SMOKERS NYAAAAH"
Straw man. Don't be stupid. Argue against what I said, not what you want me to have said
You ignored 98% of the comment.
I mean yeah when it looks like you had a seizure and started flopping around on your keyboard, I tend to ignore that
Oh, I didn't realise that you're delusional to the point that it distorts your perceptions. My bad. I'll try to format it even simpler for you.
Show me ANY STUDY WHATSOEVER that says that there is a SAFE level of second hand smoke.
Because all the science on the subject says there isn't one, but you keep arguing there is.
Now I'm going to paste URL's, they might look a bit weird, they're like links to pages on the internet. Hang in there!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2974716/
https://news.ufl.edu/2023/09/secondhand-smoke-exposure/
https://tobaccoatlas.org/challenges/secondhand-smoke/
Here are a few things the studies behind these URL's say:
#No level of smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke [SHS] is safe. Even at the lowest detectable levels of exposure, we could detect changes in gene expression within the cells lining the airways
#It is widely recognized through scientific evidence that there is no safe level of exposure to SHS
I find it hard to believe that you didn't actually understand my previous comment, but who am I to say that the cognitively challenged don't browse Lemmy? But if you made it this far in the comment, then you're probably not challenged that severely, so we can both admit that you're just pretending not to understand, because you're willfully ignoring the evidence. Exactly like Flat Earthers and anti-vaxxers do in every debate they engage in.
You're (poorly) parroting 1960's tobacco companies rhetoric. It's ridiculous. :D
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/
"What you need to understand... is that there's a huge bias against tobacco" - you :DDD
:DDD
"Ofc I can't reply to any of what you wrote, because I'd have to address how deeply wrong I am in this, but my obsession over getting 'the last word' means I literally can't stop replying no matter how stupid I look in the thread"
Please. By any means, prove me wrong and produce data on safe SHS levels.
Oh wait, all the data says there is no safe level of exposure.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2974716/
https://news.ufl.edu/2023/09/secondhand-smoke-exposure/
https://tobaccoatlas.org/challenges/secondhand-smoke/
#It is widely recognized through scientific evidence that there is no safe level of exposure to SHS
I stopped reading bc I assumed you'd shortly die from laughter, and there's no sense debating a dead man
"I'm obsessed over this to the point I need to reply, but I also need to pretend I didn't see a single line of text whole entire three sentences you just wrote. I just have to reply, despite knowing how wrong I am. I can't admit that Israel is genociding people. I'd rather pretend I can't read than admit that I have been influenced by propaganda."
Please. By any means, prove me wrong and produce data on safe SHS levels.
Oh wait, all the data says there is no safe level of exposure.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2974716/
https://news.ufl.edu/2023/09/secondhand-smoke-exposure/
https://tobaccoatlas.org/challenges/secondhand-smoke/
It is widely recognized through scientific evidence that there is no safe level of exposure to SHS
RIP @Dasus@lemmy.world
See? If you can't argue the matter, why are you replying?
You're incapable of saying why you are in this thread to begin with. Everyone knows, it's written right there.
So defend your argument, stop replying, or (and this I assume is the one you choose) keep acting like a five-year old and pretend like you don't even know what I'm talking about.
All the data says there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2974716/
https://news.ufl.edu/2023/09/secondhand-smoke-exposure/
https://tobaccoatlas.org/challenges/secondhand-smoke/
It is widely recognized through scientific evidence that there is no safe level of exposure to SHS
But please, prove to everyone that you are a petulant kid by replying once more, but without being able to address why you're ignoring everything and acting like a toddler.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rbkQk_1OV9Y&pp=ygUKdGFwcyBidWdsZQ%3D%3D
See? If you can't argue the matter, why are you replying? Just like I said. Dancing to my exact tune. Why not just give up, why make a fool of yourself?
You're incapable of saying why you are in this thread to begin with. Everyone knows, it's written right there.
So defend your argument, stop replying, or (and this I assume is the one you choose) keep acting like a five-year old and pretend like you don't even know what I'm talking about.
All the data says there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2974716/
https://news.ufl.edu/2023/09/secondhand-smoke-exposure/
https://tobaccoatlas.org/challenges/secondhand-smoke/
It is widely recognized through scientific evidence that there is no safe level of exposure to SHS
But please, prove to everyone that you are a petulant kid by replying once more, but without being able to address why you're ignoring everything and acting like a toddler.
I can't get over how hilarious you saying this is.
Like, quite literally, you're a textbook case of trying to copy 1950's tobacco company rhetoric.
So probably you're doing it on accident, because you've actually bought into it, which is hilarious.
So here's something to enlighten you on the subject
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/
Well, "rwad it yourself", no point in me pastingthe whole thing.