3 ms·

Sure. And if any particulate emitted by an ultrasonic humidifier could be dangerous enough to shorten your life by ~10% with consistent use or 50 minutes per ro

Sure. And if any particulate emitted by an ultrasonic humidifier could be dangerous enough to shorten your life by ~10% with consistent use or 50 minutes per roughly 8-hour night's sleep as this timecuber of yours appears to claim, then I should think the tire and brake dust burden anywhere near an actively used road would be not just instantly but flagrantly fatal. I'm aware of the hundred thousand words spent justifying the idea. I will consider reading them once I've been convinced to ignore the result of this trivial - and I do use the following phrase with careful consideration aforethought - sanity check. You'll more likely give the goalpost another kick, though, I suspect.

jodrellblank 1y ago
Explain where I have given any goalposts any kick at all? From the articles: > A good heuristic is that an increase of 33.3 PM2.5 μg/m³ costs around 1 disability-adjusted life year. Correia et al. (2013) estimated something close to this from different counties in the US, and more recent data from many different countries confirm this. The most polluted cities in the world have levels around 100 PM2.5 μg/m³. > When inhaled during an 8-hr exposure time, and depending on mineral water quality, humidifier aerosols can deposit up to 100s of μg minerals in the human child respiratory tract and 3–4.5 times more μg of minerals in human adult respiratory tract. > (Yao et al., 2020) The amount of particles people breathe in in a night of worst case ultrasonic humidifier use is 8x more than the particle level in the air of the most polluted cities in the world.
- throwanem 1y ago
  And of course every relationship is both bijective and linear from one data point over an infinite domain. We could talk about this utter misrepresentation of https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23211349/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23211349/ but why? You haven't read it. You won't. At most you will follow the examples you cite in prooftexting from it like a Southern Baptist inveighing against homosexuality. Kindly find someone else whose time so to waste.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - jodrellblank 1y ago
    I said, explain where I kicked any goalposts. You haven't, because I didn't. Ad-homs, against the author and against me, pre-deciding your conclusion, refusing to explain your objections, pretending "we could talk about it" while turning to insults to shut down any talking about it. I get it, you're desperate to appear smart and superior, but arguing that lamely isn't doing it. Of course I'm not going to read your link, try and guess what misrepresentations you're coming up with, make some argument about them and their context in the wider post, only for you to ignore it and post some more nonsense in response. Or engage with you further.
    - throwanem 1y ago
      The link I posted leads to a paper you cited. You've attributed a causal claim to the paper which it not only does not make, but even in its abstract very carefully avoids. If that isn't intentional falsity, then it is certainly a remarkable demonstration of intellectual negligence. In any case "desperate" is not how I would describe the simple fact that I did a better job checking your sources than you have, which by the look of the thing is to say that of the two of us I'm the only one who bothered actually investigating your argument at all. You could not by now have done more to prove my point that you aren't bothering to actually know anything about what you present yourself able knowledgeably to discuss. Thanks for that. Feel free to embarrass yourself with further flagrant scientism if you like. Enjoy your day.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - jodrellblank 1y ago
        > a paper you cited. > You've attributed a causal claim > your sources > your argument > what you present yourself able knowledgeably to discuss. No, no, no, nope and no. None of these accusations are correct. Feel free to embarrass yourself with lacking basic reading and quoting comprehension; I am not the author of the Dynomight article.

jodrellblank 1y ago

Explain where I have given any goalposts any kick at all? From the articles: > A good heuristic is that an increase of 33.3 PM2.5 μg/m³ costs around 1 disability-adjusted life year. Correia et al. (2013) estimated something close to this from different counties in the US, and more recent data from many different countries confirm this. The most polluted cities in the world have levels around 100 PM2.5 μg/m³. > When inhaled during an 8-hr exposure time, and depending on mineral water quality, humidifier aerosols can deposit up to 100s of μg minerals in the human child respiratory tract and 3–4.5 times more μg of minerals in human adult respiratory tract. > (Yao et al., 2020) The amount of particles people breathe in in a night of worst case ultrasonic humidifier use is 8x more than the particle level in the air of the most polluted cities in the world.

throwanem 1y ago
And of course every relationship is both bijective and linear from one data point over an infinite domain. We could talk about this utter misrepresentation of https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23211349/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23211349/ but why? You haven't read it. You won't. At most you will follow the examples you cite in prooftexting from it like a Southern Baptist inveighing against homosexuality. Kindly find someone else whose time so to waste.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- jodrellblank 1y ago
  I said, explain where I kicked any goalposts. You haven't, because I didn't. Ad-homs, against the author and against me, pre-deciding your conclusion, refusing to explain your objections, pretending "we could talk about it" while turning to insults to shut down any talking about it. I get it, you're desperate to appear smart and superior, but arguing that lamely isn't doing it. Of course I'm not going to read your link, try and guess what misrepresentations you're coming up with, make some argument about them and their context in the wider post, only for you to ignore it and post some more nonsense in response. Or engage with you further.
  - throwanem 1y ago
    The link I posted leads to a paper you cited. You've attributed a causal claim to the paper which it not only does not make, but even in its abstract very carefully avoids. If that isn't intentional falsity, then it is certainly a remarkable demonstration of intellectual negligence. In any case "desperate" is not how I would describe the simple fact that I did a better job checking your sources than you have, which by the look of the thing is to say that of the two of us I'm the only one who bothered actually investigating your argument at all. You could not by now have done more to prove my point that you aren't bothering to actually know anything about what you present yourself able knowledgeably to discuss. Thanks for that. Feel free to embarrass yourself with further flagrant scientism if you like. Enjoy your day.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - jodrellblank 1y ago
      > a paper you cited. > You've attributed a causal claim > your sources > your argument > what you present yourself able knowledgeably to discuss. No, no, no, nope and no. None of these accusations are correct. Feel free to embarrass yourself with lacking basic reading and quoting comprehension; I am not the author of the Dynomight article.