4 ms·
The SF Chronicle article is a bit more colorful: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Bong-smoke-is-worse-than-secondhand-tobacco-17037945.php https://ww
by et-al 5y ago
The SF Chronicle article is a bit more colorful: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Bong-smoke-is-worse-than-secondhand-tobacco-17037945.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Bong-smoke-is-wo...
> The research was done in the living room of an off-campus apartment of an undergraduate student who came up with the idea, according to Professor S. Katharine Hammond, who oversaw the study and co-wrote the report with graduate student Patton Khuu Nguyen. The subjects were students who supplied their own cannabis and bong of their choosing. They were not observed while partaking of the bong in the apartment. They were aware their recreational usage was being measured but remained anonymous throughout.
> The experiment ran for two months in 2018 and served as the master’s project for Nguyen. Hammond, a tenured professor who has been at UC Berkeley for 28 years, was his faculty adviser.
- SauciestGNU 5y agoThis design of experiment is interesting. Although the conditions are extremely loosely controlled (thus leaving replication more difficult), I would expect the quality of the data to be higher since this is essentially gathering field-testing data.
- kn0where 5y agoI’m not going to claim that weed smoke is totally fine… but is all PM2.5 equally dangerous? Anyone with an air quality monitor near their kitchen can see that PM2.5 levels skyrocket when cooking. How do those particles compare to the ones in wildfire smoke or diesel exhaust? The statistics indicating that smoking weed doesn’t significantly raise lung cancer risk when controlling for users who also smoke tobacco, despite higher carcinogen levels in weed smoke, tells me our understanding has a long way to go.