Were the global warming and smoking threads both deleted?

>>8414529
Yes, both. Some anon complained that "Apparently /sci/ is allowed to be skeptical of global warming, but not something like smoking. Sounds like a double standard." Result: double deletion.

>>8414529
global warming meme is contained within >>>/x/
smoking isn't dangerous meme is contained within >>>/trash/

>>8414613
now we just need to get rid of that fluoride thread.

File: fataleffectsoffire.gif (19KB, 575x351px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 575x351px

>>8414529
"Burning shit and inhaling it is tooooooooootally safe!"

>>8414634
>smoking over a long term is bad
>forcing mother nature to smoke is not bad

Don't forget the deleter contest.

>>8414679
>fire deaths
Low-energy bait.
Notwithstanding the whole "prodrugs of DNA alkylators" theory is very well-established

>>8414882
>fire deaths
>Low-energy bait.

Well....

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598319/

>>8414908
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598319/
>cigarette‐caused fires

>inhaling car exhaust is unhealthy because driving makes you more likely to get in a crash

>>8414529
Hopefully, take your shit back to /pol/ or /x/

>>8414679
Smoke inhalation =/= smoking cigarettes. Different context to both.

Unfortunately this is what happens when you trigger the mods with facts and logic. Board has gone to complete shit.

>>8414939

The point he's making, moron, is that smoking is dangerous. Regardless of mechanism, if it was dangerous, something needs to be done about it, yes? Fuckwit.

>>8414954
They both told me to fuck off so I'll be staying here

>>8415559
Good, welcome, stay here and don't go back to /pol/. Get comfy, make use of the resources in the sticky, and most importantly: peer review or it didn't happen.

>>8415564
I didn't see any peer reviewed reliable paper on the direct proven effects of smoking, so...

>>8415577
If I found one for you would you accept it as evidence that you're wrong or are you just going to move the goalposts yet again?

>>8415585
It would be a point fo discussion. There are peer reviewed papers about quantum magic too but I'm still a sceptic about it.

>>8415547
>smoking is dangerous

Most successfully spread misconception in the sciencehealth field.

>>8415594
I hope you get your lung cancer already.

>>8415577
>I didn't see any peer reviewed reliable paper on the direct proven effects of smoking

Thats because there probably aren't any. All of it is hoaxes and claiming shit is carcinogenic etc. when it's not.

>>8415594
>carcinogens aren't dangerous
mmhmm

Is tobacco perpetrating lies again using 4chan as a medium? Are they going to have to get bitch slapped with another lawsuit?

>>8415601
Amirite? They did the same thing with cyanide and tricked people into thinking its lethal when its not even dangerous. Poor cynide manufacturers are forced to print scary false labels like they're deadly because of the social pressure with no scientific basis.

>>8415607
Don't even get me started on gravity's unfair treatment. All those videos of people jumping off a building and falling to the ground is complete bullshit. You can actually fly if you take a running leap off a building tall enough with a wingsuit but (((scientists))) don't want you to know that because the airplane industry would lose so much money. There's absolutely no scientific basis saying that jumping off a tall building with a wingsuit will lead to your death.

>>8415604
I didn't say that, I said the contents of cigarette smoke wasn't carcinogenic. It's been demonstrated in scientific studies. But I don't expect anyone here to know this.

https://realsmokersrights.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/formaldehyde-fraud/

>But there’s a bigger fraud involved, namely the claim that formaldehyde is a human carcinogen in the first place. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP) blame formaldehyde for nasopharyngeal carcinoma. But all NPCs, of every histology, contain clonal episomal Epstein-Barr virus genomes, express specific EBV genes and are a clonal expansion of EBV-infected cells. In 1997, the IARC declared that EBV is a human carcinogen, and that it causes nasopharyngeal carcinoma.
>But that IARC claim about formaldehyde included only a single study which considered the role of Epstein-Barr virus! And that study didn’t even have measurements of actual exposure to formaldehyde, just a guess by an industrial hygienist based on job titles. It did, however, have measurements of various anti-EBV antibodies known to be associated with NPC – and it found a whopping 170-fold increased risk from EBV, compared with a puny adjusted RR of 1.6 (95% CI = 0.91-2.9), for formaldehyde, which is non-significant. They claimed that “The association between formaldehyde and NPC was stronger in analyses restricted to EBV seropositive individuals (RR = 2.7; 95% CI = 1.2-5.9). However, no dose response was observed with increasing duration or cumulative use.” But with the huge RR of 170 for EBV, plus lack of measurement of actual actual exposure to formaldehyde, the supposed risk was probably merely a product of confounding.

>>8416206
That's not a peer reviewed scientific article, that's a blog. Blogs have no fact checking in them and you can say literally anything. Trump can make a blog and say global warming is a hoax by the Chinese and add a whole bunch of phony numbers and scientific sounding mumbo jumbo, doesn't make it true.

>>8414660
Nigga it's a perfectly fine thread.

>>8416213
It's an analysis of a scientific study and reviews the claims made by anti-smoking science. These claims are just as valid, considering that the points made there make sense.

>>8416321
So then get them to get off their ass and send it in to be published in a scientific journal. Clearly there's nothing wrong in their science because you say so, nothing to stop them from getting peer reviewed and published. While I wait for you to do that have some fun with this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhWpP-vPUcQ

>>8415585
>I found one
bumping for interest
>not irony

>>8416400
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/000291498690665X
I just typed "direct effects smoking" in Google Scholar. There's plenty of articles you can find there yourself if you want to.

>>8416368
>So then get them to get off their ass and send it in to be published in a scientific journal. Clearly there's nothing wrong in their science because you say so, nothing to stop them from getting peer reviewed and published.
>nothing to stop them from getting peer reviewed and published.

That's where you are wrong. Do you seriously not realize by now that special interests, political views, and monetary gain can stop scientific journals from publishing certain things? Being published in a journal is not the end all be all of officially being factual either.

also, I like how you basically seemed to agree that the info I posted was legitimate, or else you would have taken it apart (yet you did not).

>>8416959
>>8416963
Watch the video I linked, it tells you why you're wrong. Or in other words why you think the rest of the world is wrong and how you're the only one with the "truth". Conspiracy theories can never be proven wrong because the conspiracy grows to include any contradictory information. It's a waste of time to discuss with you about science for this very reason.

Lucky for you there is a 4chan board to discuss conspiracy theories on this very website!
>>>/x/

>>8414939
>>8415547
>>8415594

He made a statement about how it's disingenuous to compare smoking related mortality to smoke inhalation deaths from fires, while I was making a joke about people that injured or killed themselves in fires accidentally caused by cigarettes.

I forgot that you're all a bunch of joyless autistics.

>>8417020
Haha I was only pretending to be retarded great bait friend we fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

>>8416963
>tobacco industry
>one of the richest and more powerful on earth
>has interest saying tobacco is wrong

>>8416977
>watch the video I linked

You mean the conspiracies video? Sorry, but a wholesale dismissal of conspiracies sounds more like people trying to maintain the status quo. There's quite a bit of evidence showing that diseases are oral and bacterial, not lifestyle based. I doubt you'll even read any link is post thoroughly so I probably won't bother. It won't be a published journal so you'll immediately dismiss it.

>>8417244
If a conspiracy exists get out there and prove it, put some effort into this. You don't have any evidence that a conspiracy exists so why should I believe you just because you say so?

>>8417244
By the way, just so you know, tobacco companies were in on a real, proven, conspiracy. Conspiracies exist but the difference between yours and mine is that I have actual evidence.
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/21/2/87.full

>>8417259
People have already done this to a far greater extent than I possibly could have. They've put quite a bit of effort into it, actually.

https://realsmokersrights.wordpress.com/2015/12/19/a-hidden-bias-exposed/#more-121

>>8417328
Nice blog, did you write that yourself? I'm so proud of you! Now run along and let the real scientists play.

>>8417329
So you clearly didn't read the link. Well, I guess we're done here.

>>8417373
You don't read other people's shit so why should they read yours? You're basing all your evidence on a personal political belief system. Sorry to be the one to have to reveal this to you but science is heavily based in doubt and skepticism. The fact your blog wasn't even peer reviewed says a lot about its validity and I'm not going to waste my time reading it. You can't go into research with a conclusion and pick parts that you believe in and treat everything else as a conspiracy theory.

>>8417384
>You don't read other people's shit so why should they read yours?

Actually I do, when I read these studies I always have a rebuttal. When there's hints of radiation in fertilizer being the cause I dig up the fact that radioactive fertilizer is a hoax, etc. of course, since they aren't peer reviewed I guess they magically don't mean anything.

>You're basing all your evidence on a personal political belief system.

No, I'm basing it on all of the evidence people in power are deliberately ignoring. The blog I posted is an extension of the larger idea that anti-smoking centric organizations go out of their way to ignore the possibility of genetic or viral causes of cancer and focus on lifestyle instead.

>Sorry to be the one to have to reveal this to you but science is heavily based in doubt and skepticism.

Nobody doubts or is skeptical about smoking being bad and hasn't been since the 60's. That's the problem.

>The fact your blog wasn't even peer reviewed says a lot about its validity and I'm not going to waste my time reading it.

Peer reviews mean nothing when the people doing the reviews have special interests. The James Enstrom study on secondhand smoke used data from the American Cancer Society, which they gave him willingly. When they realized he was reaching the conclusion that passive smoking wasn't a serious health risk, they pulled funding. It didn't fit their worldview.

>You can't go into research with a conclusion and pick parts that you believe in and treat everything else as a conspiracy theory.

Even if the idea comes across as credible? Even if the connections make sense?

>>8414736
Yes this makes perfect sense. Mother nature is essentially just a human body on a larger scale, after all.

>>8418402
Go away flat-earther, there is a board made specifically for you.