this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2026
260 points (93.3% liked)

World News

55154 readers
3578 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (2 children)

how so? isn't it the smoke that's bad?

[–] Halcyon@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 58 minutes ago

Lungs are simply not made for absorption of substances. The tissues are very delicate and are there for the exchange of gases. Everything else is a pollution.

[–] wabafee@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (2 children)

I suspect it's what got mixed in the nicotine. It is probably impossible economically to have a pure nicotine probably dangerous even. I haven't read the article to be fair.

I suspect it has to do with repeated inhalation of something that is not air, but I'm not a doctor nor a scientist so this is purely vibes

[–] BygoneNeutrino@lemmy.world 1 points 45 minutes ago* (last edited 19 minutes ago)

I read it. It's not compelling.

The first cited research regarding DNA damage is a dead link. It says "error: this is not a published article" or something like that.

The second cited research is an abstract claiming that 20% of mice developed lung cancer after being exposed to vape smoke for 9 weeks. The methodology is blocked behind a paywall, but I'm betting they concentrated trace components and blasted mice with it for two months straight. This isn't very informative; if I concentrated the carcinogens found in normal city air, I could probably achieve a higher kill rate.

A better example of this strategy would be if I blasted mice with extremely high intensity UV radiation to prove that the sun was dangerous. Sure, 90% of mice would quickly get skin cancer, but it doesn't tell us how harmful the sun is in real scenarios. Blasting an animal with a lifetime worth of sun in an hour is more dangerous than gradual exposure.

Tobacco the plant has a host of carcinogens. No matter where you put tobacco -mouth, lungs, bladder, nose, ass, wherever-it causes cancer. The article's claim that nicotine causes lung cancer but nicotine gum is safe is pretty ridiculous.

Source: I'm a chemist. Part of my schooling was making mundane results appear as sensational as possible.