4 ms·

> It’s hard to find any benefit to smoking, first hand or second. The same is true about recreational travel. People expose themselves to high levels of radiat

by avar 5y ago

> It’s hard to find any benefit to smoking, first hand or second. The same is true about recreational travel. People expose themselves to high levels of radiation and travel risk purely for recreational purposes. Smokers inhale carcinogenic substances for recreational purposes.

kaba0 5y ago
Is the risk for the two even remotely in the same ballpark?
- pas 5y ago
  No, but the problem is that a scientifically informed (evidence based) public health site communicating risks should be consistent and shouldn't use inconsistent absolutist language.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- pvarangot 5y ago
  Well, it depends on how much you smoke and how much you travel. Thing is if I smoke even one cigarette like as a digestive after a big dinner once every four months I have to pay 600 dollars of extra health insurance per year because of how all this bullshit messaging about how nicotine works. And of course it's to protect something like only 35% of the human population that will get addicted to it. I stopped smoking for months or years many times and I never ever had any side effect except maybe I'm a bit tired the first days. I don't even put up extra weight or anything like that. I feel like an adult baby being treated like I need financial punishment to help me be a healthy person.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    > Well, it depends on how much you smoke and how much you travel. I find it hard to believe that smoking could be less dangerous than flying even for people who work as airline pilots or flight attendants.
    - pvarangot 5y ago
      Smoking every day? Sure it's more dangerous. Vaping at a party once per month? I don't think so.
      - josephcsible 5y ago
        If you say vaping now, then maybe. But actually smoking once a month I still doubt.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    > Thing is if I smoke even one cigarette like as a digestive after a big dinner once every four months I have to pay 600 dollars of extra health insurance per year because of how all this bullshit messaging about how nicotine works. Really? Where do you live? Because I'm not aware of any country that does this (other than with sin taxes on tobacco).
    - avar 5y ago
      Health insurance in various places goes up if you consume tobacco products, and doesn't take the amount consumed into account: https://www.kff.org/faqs/faqs-health-insurance-marketplace-and-the-aca/can-i-be-charged-higher-premiums-in-the-marketplace-if-i-smoke/ https://www.kff.org/faqs/faqs-health-insurance-marketplace-a...
      - HWR_14 5y ago
        That's what I figured he was referring to, but you (and he, if that's what he meant) are just wrong. Your source points out that the amount consumed is taken into account: https://www.kff.org/faqs/faqs-health-insurance-marketplace-and-the-aca/what-does-it-mean-to-use-tobacco-im-pretty-sure-my-teenager-has-smoked-at-least-a-couple-of-times-do-i-have-to-pay-a-higher-rate-because-of-her/ https://www.kff.org/faqs/faqs-health-insurance-marketplace-a... Now, it is binary. But US federal law puts "an afterdinner cigarette once every four months" very much in the "nonsmoker" category.
        avar 5y ago
        Where does it say that the amount consumed is taken into account? That guideline is referring to the number of consumption occurrences per-week, not the amount used. Which is the tobacco equivalent of classifying someone as a heavy drinker because they're using red wine as a trace ingredient in cooking several times a week, and considering that the same as consuming 4 vodka bottles over a span of 4 evenings every week. Or, to bring this back to the example that started this thread, and which you seem to be thoroughly missing, to regulate numbers of radiation exposures per week. Without taking into account whether that's from standing outside in the sun for 10 minutes, eating a banana, or standing next to an unshielded nuclear reactor. It's not some pedantic theoretical concern. There's an astronomical difference in the health risks between smoking a pack of cigarettes 4 times a week, using E-cigarettes 4 times a week, or applying a nicotine patch 4 times a week.

by avar 5y ago

kaba0 5y ago

Is the risk for the two even remotely in the same ballpark?

pas 5y ago
No, but the problem is that a scientifically informed (evidence based) public health site communicating risks should be consistent and shouldn't use inconsistent absolutist language.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pvarangot 5y ago
Well, it depends on how much you smoke and how much you travel. Thing is if I smoke even one cigarette like as a digestive after a big dinner once every four months I have to pay 600 dollars of extra health insurance per year because of how all this bullshit messaging about how nicotine works. And of course it's to protect something like only 35% of the human population that will get addicted to it. I stopped smoking for months or years many times and I never ever had any side effect except maybe I'm a bit tired the first days. I don't even put up extra weight or anything like that. I feel like an adult baby being treated like I need financial punishment to help me be a healthy person.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  > Well, it depends on how much you smoke and how much you travel. I find it hard to believe that smoking could be less dangerous than flying even for people who work as airline pilots or flight attendants.
  - pvarangot 5y ago
    Smoking every day? Sure it's more dangerous. Vaping at a party once per month? I don't think so.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      If you say vaping now, then maybe. But actually smoking once a month I still doubt.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  > Thing is if I smoke even one cigarette like as a digestive after a big dinner once every four months I have to pay 600 dollars of extra health insurance per year because of how all this bullshit messaging about how nicotine works. Really? Where do you live? Because I'm not aware of any country that does this (other than with sin taxes on tobacco).
  - avar 5y ago
    Health insurance in various places goes up if you consume tobacco products, and doesn't take the amount consumed into account: https://www.kff.org/faqs/faqs-health-insurance-marketplace-and-the-aca/can-i-be-charged-higher-premiums-in-the-marketplace-if-i-smoke/ https://www.kff.org/faqs/faqs-health-insurance-marketplace-a...
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      That's what I figured he was referring to, but you (and he, if that's what he meant) are just wrong. Your source points out that the amount consumed is taken into account: https://www.kff.org/faqs/faqs-health-insurance-marketplace-and-the-aca/what-does-it-mean-to-use-tobacco-im-pretty-sure-my-teenager-has-smoked-at-least-a-couple-of-times-do-i-have-to-pay-a-higher-rate-because-of-her/ https://www.kff.org/faqs/faqs-health-insurance-marketplace-a... Now, it is binary. But US federal law puts "an afterdinner cigarette once every four months" very much in the "nonsmoker" category.
      - avar 5y ago
        Where does it say that the amount consumed is taken into account? That guideline is referring to the number of consumption occurrences per-week, not the amount used. Which is the tobacco equivalent of classifying someone as a heavy drinker because they're using red wine as a trace ingredient in cooking several times a week, and considering that the same as consuming 4 vodka bottles over a span of 4 evenings every week. Or, to bring this back to the example that started this thread, and which you seem to be thoroughly missing, to regulate numbers of radiation exposures per week. Without taking into account whether that's from standing outside in the sun for 10 minutes, eating a banana, or standing next to an unshielded nuclear reactor. It's not some pedantic theoretical concern. There's an astronomical difference in the health risks between smoking a pack of cigarettes 4 times a week, using E-cigarettes 4 times a week, or applying a nicotine patch 4 times a week.