this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2024
411 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
67151 readers
6825 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The real question here is, are there (mostly) harmless?
They fill landfills with descartable batteries, causing a lot of contamination. This is not the reason they're being banned, but it should be.
They also cause popcorn lung, at least the flavoured variety.
They do not. It was suggested that ones with flavour containing diacetyl could cause popcorn lung. However, cigarettes contain a lot more diacetyl, and popcorn lung is not one of the many health risks of smoking. There is some anecdotal connection between diacetyl and popcorn lung, but far from a scientific consensus.
"We know cigars are literally inhaling death, but this thing is marginally better than a cigar, so it's all good"
Not a very good argument.
I seem to recall it being connected to Vitamin E oil being used as an adjunct.
This is no longer true.
All forms of inhalation of substances which aren't air causes damage to the lungs and throat.
The steam from coffee damages your lungs and throat, I never knew that. Are you sure about that?
What about aroma molecules, like sniffing a flower or perfume?
So I attempted to look up the effects of smelling flowers on the lungs for science.
Unfortunately (but not surprisingly) the first few scientific results were about essential oils, the remaining results were just about smell sensitivities.
The interesting thing though, is that this study nebulized people (very small study) with essential oils and found out that they had better running performance afterward.
All this to say, you couldn't pay me enough to do that lol
I applaud your research efforts. I learned some interesting stuff!
Mr. pedantic loves raising pointless nonarguments. Nobody likes mr. pedantic. Don't be like mr. pedantic, kids.
Unless you're functionally illiterate, it should be plentifully obvious that I meant particulate substances not expected to be naturally found in the air.
Alright, Mr Black-and-white. Ozone is naturally found in air, and is toxic, as is methane and any other number of organic particles that are released by natural processes.
Apart from your inaccurate use of language, you also made an unsupported assertion. I don't believe you're correct.
You're insufferable, illiterate and stupid. That's quite the combo!
In incredibly small concentrations. Do you consider yourself as being made of gold because there are micrograms of it in your body?
Again, in incredibly small concentrations. Also, notice the assertion is "particulate substances not expected to be naturally found in the air are harmful", not "only particulate substances [...] are harmful" nor "all non-particulate substances [...] aren't harmful". Even in your brainless interpretation you manage to fail.
During a lightning storm, ozone can be found in large quantities. There is a fairly vast amount of it in the atmosphere. It is naturally occurring and fulfills your arbitrary criteria for what should be (but, in fact, isn't) a perfectly safe substance to breathe.
Methane occurs naturally in huge concentrations. Look it up, a little reading might be good for you!
So your amended assertion is:
I'm sorry mate, but it's still not true . Again, coffee vapour, water vapour, tea vapour, cooked rice vapour, long-chain hydrocarbons. None of these are naturally (i.e. without human activity) expected to be found in air, and none of them are at all harmful. Coffee and tea vapour even contain caffeine, a drug quite similar to nicotine, which is the active ingredient in vapes...
Congratulations on proving, once again, that you're illiterate!
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
It means exactly what I know it means. You, however, I wouldn't expect to have heard of functional illiteracy, considering your education must've been shit.
Mate, you forgot to downvote the above comment. Might want to get on that.
Yeah it was appalling, totally.
Do you see the irony in your calling out other people's command of language using that chaotic turd of a sentence?
Keep digging. Another positive example of your illiteracy.
I obviously don't understand what that means, what with being illiterate, sorry. Could you explain it more unwordishly or something idk
This just reminded me that I saw an advertisement for some kind of "flavored air" device at gas station yesterday, lol.
It was called Popcorn Lung because it was caused by a specific chemical used in early Popcorn ~~flavored vapes~~. That is not a condition caused by all vapes, and the chemical that caused it is no longer used for obvious reasons.
Edited for the pedantic.
It was actually called popcorn lung because it was a condition suffered by workers at prepackaged popcorn factories. Similar to black lung in coal mines.
Ironically a lot of US states have banned reusable vapes but allow disposable ones making the problem worse
That's only true for disposable vapes tho and I think a Pfand system, like we have for plastic bottles in Germany, would be a way better idea. People are already illegaly shipping them in from China, banning them won't stop that.
That's a nonsense nonargument. If the bulk of purchases are already illegal, then there's no harm in banning what is clearly a harmful item.
Except this ban bans non-disposable vapes. The disposable ones were already banned and were just sold under the counter without any regulation, like they'll continue to be.
Good point, I haven't thought of that.
They are an excellent and well understood harm reduction measure compared with smoking.
There's an even better harm reduction measure: not smoking at all.
Don't take any drugs, wish them away. Failing that, start a war on drugs. Prosecute the war for decades with nothing to show for your efforts aside from a pile of bodies and organised crime.
'murican much?
Oh, piss off.
Oof, someone's angry because they didn't get their oral fixation!
That sounds unhygienic, so I don't think I will
Yes but unless they ban cigarettes first, banning vapes will likely just have a negative effect
In a true dichotomy they are the far better option. Unfortunately they were/are attracting new smokers. The rate of teenage smoking had been plummeting for decades and was only at a couple of percent - until vapes became popular and reversed about two decades of progress.