You do you man… but the Charles River is a historically polluted river dating back to colonial times before most of Boston burned down, that’s still having efforts to clean it, which it looks better but it’s still polluted.
What is your baseline comparison for the two? I’d agree that combustion byproducts are not great to inhale, though I do think our bodies are moderately equipped to deal with it. This should be studied but it’s hard to trust authorities about is because they’ve been lying about negative effects for 80 years or so to be dicks as governments do.
A key difference between cannabis and tobacco is the amount smoked. The average cannabis user probably uses between once per week to once per day on the order of 0.5-1g per use ranging between 0.5 to 7g of cannabis smoked per week.
The average cigarette smoker smokes between 14 and 26 cigarettes smoked per day (may be skewed because the term smoker implies self-reporting). A cigarette is ~1g so that’s 98 to 182g per week.
Even ceding the ground that cannabis smoke is somehow equally bad to cigarette smoke (I doubt it), there’s an order of magnitude increase in combusted material between regular users.
I’d agree to say that negative effects of using cannabis should be discussed, but this article (like most mainstream articles relating to cannabis) are disingenuous and poorly conducted. The fact that hotboxing a room was what was compared to regular 2nd hand smoke is a great example. The fact that they ‘did not control how they smoked the bong’ makes this intrinsically unscientific.
5 Likes
I mean reading 3 lines of the garbage article was enough to tell you not to waste your time reading the shit study they were reporting lol. But yea i agree going straight to the source is better.
What about the weed they smoked? Was it clean?
As that is what I believe to have impacts on this. The quality and cleanliness of your flower and how often you clean your bong.
1 Like
Oh RIP to Pontius
1 Like
1 Like
That isn’t an actual scence experiment, that is using certain facts that are different
The plant absorbed radiation, through its stomata and through the rhisosphere.
People who chainsmoked cigarettes absorbed smoke/vapor, from a combusted substance, through the oral mucousa and the alveoli , two places on the human body that absorb the most substances.
Hmmmmm, cigarettes are bad but that’s like the pigs that say another pig in San Diego overdosed on fentanyl, by touching the shit , when he did not(at least as far as the lack of going to the hospital, pigs saying he ODed and narcan saved him, and science
Dude… no. Pulonium 210.
“Tobacco products, like cigarettes, contain small amounts of radionuclides, which is one of the many reasons to stay away from the substance. [2] Although we are aware that tobacco smoke are the main harms of cigarettes that is significant in the development of lung cancer, radiation also plays a role. These radioactive materials found in cigarettes have been argued to have been involved in the origin of lung cancer. [2] Studies reveal that Po-210, Pb-210, and small quantities of Ra-226 are present in tobacco. [2] Additionally, studies reveal that values for Po-210 in inhaled smoking ranged from 11% to 35.7% in the total cigarette. Studies reveal that the level of polonium-210 is higher in four/five organs tested from smokers than nonsmokers. [2] For lungs, smokers were found to have 3.16 times more Po-210 (measured in picocuries per gram) than non smokers. [2] Absorbed doses of radiation is measured using units called, rads (1 gray = 1 Joule/kilogram = 100 rad). If a smoker averages two packs a day for 25 years, they would absorb about 75 rads of polonium. [3] The lung tissues of smokers who have died of lung cancer have absorbed about 80-100 rads of radiation.”
Where is the proof that this study is true?
As if people were getting exposed to this much radiation, specifically people like my father who smoke over a pack a day, how have they not collapsed and died?
I heard about this in 8th grade when they said pulonium 210 was in cigarettes along with plutonium.
I still personally would like a long, in depth analysis and not 3 paragraphs.
You need to think about the chemicals they use on tobacco and conditions the tobacco is grown and processed in that make it harmful.
I call major bullshit on this “study” from 2007 with 3 paragraphs, based from Greece.
k…do you now how to use google?
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C6&q=polonium+in+cigarettes&btnG=
2 Likes
You can call BS all you want, doesn’t make cigarettes any less healthy. Consider your father lucky.
For what it’s worth, there are far more carcinogens in tobacco than just Polonium 210.
2 Likes
Not denying that
I’m saying that plant material absorbs less shit than smoke in the inside of the lungs
So using plants absorbing shit in Chernobyl in the same experiment as using what lungs absorbed…not the same thing
2 Likes
Typical.
If you’re not going to bother to make an argument or back it up YOURSELF, than I won’t even bother.
Sad you just say “bro google it”
Thats my point. There are FAR more dangerous stuff thats 100% proven to be in cigarettes. Not plutonium or polonium that is more based off fear mongering.
Tobacco companies growing and selling tobacco in bad conditions with chemicals being sprayed for flavor and more is the issue.
Its the same shit vape carts go through.
lol…k chad.
1 Like
There were studies done with certain kinds of radiation that actually benefit some kinds of plants growth. Can’t remember much on it though, but I do remember the low dose rads in a certain radius can benefit SOME species.
1 Like
Yes, thats my name.
Problem?
asks for in depth analysis
receives link to dozens of studies giving exactly that
lulz… Only problem I see is your reading comprehension/laziness.
2 Likes
Just like cannabis leaches minerals from the soil, tobacco does and in particular polonium which can be a contaminant in industrial fertilizers. This has been known for decades.