4 ms·
No, they are arguing with the heuristic 'if it's bad to inhale, it's probably bad to ingest.' They provided examples in which this wasn't the case. No one is s
by cko 5y ago
No, they are arguing with the heuristic 'if it's bad to inhale, it's probably bad to ingest.' They provided examples in which this wasn't the case.
No one is saying smoke inhalation is harmless. But to conclude it shouldn't be ingested based on this fact alone is dubious.
- seibelj 5y agoPut it this way - smoke is clearly bad for you and proven to cause cancer. I believe what I eat is absorbed by my body and can affect it, like medicine affects my body when absorbed. Therefore I think it’s fairly likely that eating a lot of food infused with smoke and carcinogens is a strong risk. It would be quite odd if it turned out smoke-food had absolutely 0% effect on your body, and especially making it a routine piece of food you eat would be worse than a “once in a while” thing. So that’s my point - if you think smoke is bad for your lungs, it’s probably bad for your colon too!
- motioncuty 5y agoCombustion creates all sorts of carcinogens. Even wood. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.iaff.org/wp-content/uploads/FFCancer_Exposure.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiEsPPeurnxAhVGGFkFHRzqD-cQFjAOegQIDhAC&usg=AOvVaw07Ls4MLhdKn4aHzHUspWW2 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...
- ideamotor 5y agoYep. Typical arguments based on intentional literal misinterpretation.