ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net to science@lemmy.worldEnglish · 8 months agoThe WHO declared aspartame "possibly" causes cancer. Here’s what that means. | Voxwww.vox.comexternal-linkmessage-square52fedilinkarrow-up1136arrow-down125
arrow-up1111arrow-down1external-linkThe WHO declared aspartame "possibly" causes cancer. Here’s what that means. | Voxwww.vox.comProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net to science@lemmy.worldEnglish · 8 months agomessage-square52fedilink
minus-squarerockSlayer@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up7·8 months agoBody odor doesn’t increase the likelihood of cancer for the people around you.
minus-squareMelkath@fedia.iolinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down9·8 months agoNeither does second hand tobacco smoke. Again, cite that landmark study that ever proved that. Trillions of dollars into a carpet bomb of MTV commercials and data studies. Still no solid science that can make tobacco more of a cancer causer than refined sugar. Only cherry picked data reviews that claim tenuous correlation.
minus-squarerockSlayer@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up15·edit-28 months agoLet’s trade sources. Here are mine. Secondhand smoking may increase the overall risk of cancer for never smokers, particularly lung and breast cancer, and especially in women. Does secondhand smoke cause cancer? Yes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Toxicology Program, the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer have all classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (a cancer-causing agent) (1, 3, 7, 9) Twenty years after secondhand smoke was first classified as a cause of lung cancer in lifetime nonsmokers, the evidence supporting causation continues to mount (USDHHS 1986). Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke among nonsmokers increases lung cancer risk by about 20 percent. Secondhand smoke is estimated to cause approximately 53,800 deaths annually in the United States. Exposure to tobacco smoke in the home is also a risk factor for asthma in children. Edit: I also did the work for you and checked some of the references in those sources. Here’s the 1986 landmark surgeon general report.
minus-squareMelkath@fedia.iolinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down3·8 months agoEvery source from the propaganda machine, the US Government. None peer reviewed scholarly research.
minus-squarerockSlayer@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2arrow-down1·8 months agoAll of these studies are extensively peer reviewed. What source do you have that proves they are unreliable? Let’s pretend that it’s true, what purpose is served by fabricating this data?
So does B.O.
Body odor doesn’t increase the likelihood of cancer for the people around you.
Neither does second hand tobacco smoke.
Again, cite that landmark study that ever proved that.
Trillions of dollars into a carpet bomb of MTV commercials and data studies.
Still no solid science that can make tobacco more of a cancer causer than refined sugar.
Only cherry picked data reviews that claim tenuous correlation.
Let’s trade sources. Here are mine.
Secondhand smoking may increase the overall risk of cancer for never smokers, particularly lung and breast cancer, and especially in women.
Does secondhand smoke cause cancer? Yes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Toxicology Program, the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer have all classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (a cancer-causing agent) (1, 3, 7, 9)
Twenty years after secondhand smoke was first classified as a cause of lung cancer in lifetime nonsmokers, the evidence supporting causation continues to mount (USDHHS 1986).
Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke among nonsmokers increases lung cancer risk by about 20 percent. Secondhand smoke is estimated to cause approximately 53,800 deaths annually in the United States. Exposure to tobacco smoke in the home is also a risk factor for asthma in children.
Edit: I also did the work for you and checked some of the references in those sources. Here’s the 1986 landmark surgeon general report.
Every source from the propaganda machine, the US Government. None peer reviewed scholarly research.
All of these studies are extensively peer reviewed. What source do you have that proves they are unreliable? Let’s pretend that it’s true, what purpose is served by fabricating this data?