From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Asbestos (pronounced: /æsˈbɛstɒs/ or /æsˈbɛstəs/) is a naturally occurring fibrous silicate mineral. There are six types, all of which are composed of long and thin fibrous crystals, each fibre being composed of many microscopic "fibrils" that can be released into the atmosphere by abrasion and other processes. Inhalation of asbestos fibres can lead to various dangerous lung conditions, including mesothelioma, asbestosis, and lung cancer, so it is now notorious as a serious health and safety hazard.

You cruel bastard! That would be like rubbing your junk on a cactus!

20+ year professional game dev here. This commercial conflates a mix of common game client bugs (eg: texture streaming errors, physics glitches, and animation attachment offsets) with straight up nonsense (upper half of coffee mug popping in with a phone over and over is caused by a slow network connection?). They never show any actual network performance problems that they, as a company, have been responsible for causing in real life.

It's as if a city council came out with electrified upgrades to their formerly-diesel city buses and to promote this fact, they cut an ad showing:

- monkeys driving the bus
- constant gunfights between the elderly
- piles of feces on the floor
- bus stops existing in a quantum superposition of clearly identified and invisible
- tribal warriors on the roof spitting blowdarts at passersby
- every seat is actually a block of super-chilled ice

Never once would they point out reduction in chronic asthma to the local schoolkids or lung cancer in their bus drivers. But hey, so long as the company looks good, who cares about accuracy in ads?

Bye you lying hate filled rape supporting opiate addict. Burn in hell for eternity.

Rush Limbaugh died today at 70 from lung cancer. I can only hope it caused him 1/10 the pain he intentionally inflicted on others for profit with zeal and glee.

without doubt, the garbage that was tested is worthless - but the testing presented was a bit naive. Alpha particles do have a very short path-length - the alpha radiation that he was detecting (while the emitter was covered) may well have been from radon gas that is being produced by the the thorium in these devices. The threat from skin exposure to directly generated alphas is likely negligible - but the threat from ingestion of the thorium oxide coming off these dangerous trinkets is likely much greater than he recognized. A significant fraction of lung cancer deaths are from inhaled radon daughter products that occur naturally - all these products are part of the decay series for thorium...

I had never heard it claimed that cigars pose less/different cancer risks than cigarettes.

Google search provides mixed (as you might expect) results.

Cancer.gov, the Mayo Clinic, and WebMD all seem to suggest that cigar smokers in general tend to have lower rates of lung cancer than cigarette smokers (because they generally don't inhale, which I didn't know), but higher than non-smokers. And they have comparable or possibly higher rates of other cancers (oral, esophageal ... pancreatic) as compared to cigarette smokers.

Several results suggest that there is less data about cigars, results aren't statistically significant, etc. etc. and that they believe that cigars are much safer than cigarettes, if not entirely safe. But frankly, the pages I see (in a cursory search that I don't really have a personal stake in) promoting that view don't seem as ... trustworthy to me as the Mayo Clinic, or Healthcare Triage videos like this one (that list references right in the video).


No holier-than-thou attitude intended. ...Although I can say that I'm personally very glad I never acquired a taste for tobacco products of any kind. And a very low interest in alcohol consumption -- I go months on up to a year+ between drinks of booze without ever missing it. I sometimes avoid social situations because of smoke, which I suppose is a downside. But on the other hand, I'm enough of an introvert that avoiding social situations is probably something I'd be doing anyway... So at the very least I have more money to waste on other things since I'm not a smoker or much of a drinker.

Awesome to have real concrete information presented in a way that seems very distinct from what you'd get from sources on the far ends of the spectrum, like High Times or the DEA.

I'm quite surprised that smoking pot seems to carry an increased risk of bronchitis, like tobacco, but apparently NOT lung cancer (unlike tobacco). Are the carcinogens in tobacco cigarettes all from additional ingredients? Could people be growing their own tobacco and rolling their own cigarettes and avoiding one of the biggest health consequences? If so, shouldn't there be a market for tobacco cigarettes without any added ingredients?


I have never smoked pot OR tobacco. A lot of my reasons for avoiding either come down to a hatred of and pretty real sensitivity to / negative reactions to exposure to smoke. Some of my bias against that transfers into bias against pot in general, since smoking it is the default method.

At the same time, it seems ridiculous to me that pot is double-secret schedule 1 illegal while alcohol and tobacco are both perfectly legal. Especially when it seems apparent (although I don't really know what I'm talking about since I've never used it myself) that the intoxicating effects of pot are comparable to but generally LESS dangerous than alcohol, and the negative health consequences of pot are FAR LESS than either alcohol OR tobacco.

Getting real facts and knowledge out there like this video is doing has to have a positive effect on that very questionable policy.

! Nice. Technically, no, but I see how it could be read that way. They need a better editor. They should call my mom, she worked at Stanford for decades as lead editor.
Clearly what it means is , 'the magnitude or level of risk associated with smoking is considerably higher from those associated with daily consumption of processed meat. (for example, for lung cancer from smoking, there's about a 20 fold, or 2000% increased risk, while for colorectal cancer from daily eating processed foods there's about an 18% increased risk).
I'm pretty sure you're intelligent enough to understand that.

"Smoking vs. high consumption of processed meat
Even though smoking is in the same category as processed meat (Group 1 carcinogen), the magnitude or level of risk associated with smoking is considerably higher (e.g., for lung cancer about 20 fold or 2000% increased risk) from those associated with processed meat."

I could be reading this wrong - but are they saying that you're 2000% more likely to get lung cancer from smoking, than getting lung cancer from processed meat?
If that's the case then my response is "Duh, you don't put processed meat into your lungs"

OK, assuming what you say is correct (I'm not taking the time now to check) you have a point, but the stats, even if only 1/2 as bad as it seems, still show there's absolutely no equivalence.

Well, if you ate like that, no wonder you think meat is deadly. Eating like that, it is. Eaten in moderation, meaning <50g of CURED meats, and probably less than 1/3 lb of non cured lean red meats, the conclusion I came to is reasonable....that it's in no way comparable to smoking in it's danger. it's not even comparable if you eat 5 times the studied portion of cured meats, although it is clearly not healthy to do so. I eat < 1/2 lb of steak, on the rare occasions I eat it. I eat 1/2 a chicken breast on a normal day, baked. Because I eat good meat, properly prepared, in moderation, there's little to no statistical increase in danger to my health over eating pure vegetarian.

No sir, your stats are wrong....here's direct from the WHO.....
http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
12. How many cancer cases every year can be attributed to consumption of processed meat and red meat?

According to the most recent estimates by the Global Burden of Disease Project, an independent academic research organization, about 34 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to diets high in processed meat.
Eating red meat has not yet been established as a cause of cancer. However, if the reported associations were proven to be causal, the Global Burden of Disease Project has estimated that diets high in red meat could be responsible for 50 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide.
These numbers contrast with about 1 million cancer deaths per year globally due to tobacco smoking, 600 000 per year due to alcohol consumption, and more than 200 000 per year due to air pollution.

So, it's 34000 cancer deaths for cured meats (and IF the correlative results with red meat are in fact causative, another 50000 worldwide for red meat) VS 1000000 cancer tobacco deaths. So no, it's not 2/3 there, it's at best, IF red meat is the cause of cancers at the highest level possible (not at all proven) it's 1/12 of the way there....around 8.4%. Agreed, that's not good, but no where near what you (and he) claims.

Cholesterol and saturated fat only MAY cause heart disease and diabetes, not 'do without a doubt', and then usually only in high levels (in normal people). They raise the risk factor for those diseases, but do not automatically cause heart disease and/or diabetes, even in people with incredibly high levels.

Research indicates that you missed the mark with the 644000 number, it's more like 34000 (and maybe another 50000, unproven) according to the WHO, I'll take the stats of the organization whose study is being discussed.

So if you look at the real numbers, it's still not comparable at all. Cancer, and death rates are orders of magnitude different, far more than 10 times higher for smoking with every possible benefit of a doubt given to meats toxicity/effects, so not at all easily matched. Sorry.

(and you also appear to be 100% wrong about cancer survivability)
http://www.Cancer.org -Colon cancer-For stage IIB cancer, the survival rate is about 63%. The 5-year relative survival rate for stage IIIA colon cancers is about 89%. For stage IIIB cancers the survival rate is about 69%, and for stage IIIC cancers the survival rate is about 53%.
http://www.lung.org - Lung cancer-The five-year survival rate for lung cancer is 54 percent for cases detected when the disease is still localized (within the lungs). However, only 15 percent of lung cancer cases are diagnosed at an early stage. For distant tumors (spread to other organs) the five-year survival rate is only 4 percent.

So, to summarize, colon cancer 53%-89% survivability (depending largely on when it's caught) VS lung cancer 4% (for 85% of cases, and 54% for the 15% of lucky few with early detections)

I'll address your linked report first because I have a problem with the statistics on there. It's a little misleading because the bit you mentioned only considers cancer deaths attributable with processed meats.

But then goes to includes all diseases attributable with smoking, not just cancer.
So it's not comparing cancer to cancer rates. The report is comparing processed meat cancer with ALL smoking diseases.

And this makes smoking look a lot worse. For a fair comparison we'd need to compare only smoking caused cancers to processed meat cancers.
Or we'd need to compare diseases from processed meat, to all diseases from smoking.

Further the report, states that it's an 18% risk for only 50g of processed meat.
I don't know about anyone else, but when I ate the stuff, it wasn't just 50g. That's like 3 chicken nuggets. I'd eat 9 at least in one sitting for lunch(150g). Maybe I had 2 rashers of bacon for breakfast, another 50g, and then I might have a few slices of salami for dinner, another 50g.

So in a day I might have eaten 250g of processed meat. So it might only be 18% chance to get cancer, but that's 5 times I've rolled the dice(250 divded by 50g = 5). So even low odds get pretty dangerous if you roll the dice often enough.


Right after that paragraph, it goes on to say that the total number of attributable deaths to processed meat is 644,000.

So now we're finally comparing apples with apples. 644,000 processed meat deaths vs. 1 million tobacco deaths.

Still smoking is the clear winner here, but it's 2/3 the way there. So to me Dr. Greger's statement is starting to ring true.

Of course Dr. Greger isn't only talking about processed meat, he's talking about all meat, including poultry and fish too. Because just like processed meat, they have cholesterol and saturated fat which causes heart disease and diabetes without a doubt.
The heart disease statistics are (google says:) "An estimated 17.5 million people died from CVDs in 2012, representing 31% of all global deaths"
Now granted not all of these cardiovascular diseases will be diet related. But we only need to another 366,000 out of that 17.5 million to be caused by diet, and now we're comparing 1 million meat related deaths to 1 million tobacco related deaths.

So it's totally comparable in my eyes. And in the end, regardless of which has higher chances of cancer. The death rates are easily matched.

(not to mention colorectal cancer is kills more people, even though more people get lung cancer. Because lung cancer is more survivable).

OK, so cured meats cured with nitrates are now classified carcinogenic, but non cured meats, and meats cured without nitrates, salt, or smoke only "may" be slightly carcinogenic...or may not. So still, not all deli turkey, not all chicken nuggets (I make them at home from whole chicken with no preservatives) or bacon (I had some uncured bacon a few years back...it sucked, but it does exist)....so not ALL processed meats are in that category, and certainly not all nuggets, sliced turkey, or bacon...so exaggeration, even if you wish to say it's only exaggeration by omission of detail.

Because he strongly implies it's because they are meats, says "The World Health Organization recently published a report that puts chicken nuggets, deli turkey slices, bacon and other processed meats in the same category as cigarettes and asbestos: known carcinogens" without explanation, and extrapolates to imply that all meats are as carcinogenic as habitually smoking processed tobacco cigarettes.

In terms of disease, overall danger to a person's health, and morality, it's completely inaccurate, and grossly misleading. A processed plant diet (the norm) can be FAR worse for you and the environment than a sustainably raised, non processed meat based diet (which is not the norm). It's not cut and dry, details matter.
"The International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) used clearly defined guidelines to identify hazards (qualitative evaluation), i.e. whether an agent can cause cancer, but IARC does not assess level or the magnitude of risk.
Even though smoking is in the same category as processed meat (Group 1 carcinogen), the magnitude or level of risk associated with smoking is considerably higher (e.g., for lung cancer about 20 fold or 2000% increased risk) from those associated with processed meat – an analysis of data from 10 studies, cited in the IARC report showed an 18 percent increased risk in colorectal cancer per 50g processed meat increase per day. To put this in perspective, according to the Global Disease Burden Project 2012, over 34,000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to high processed meat intake vs. 1 million deaths per year attributable to tobacco smoke."
source- https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/report-says-eating-processed-meat-is-carcinogenic-understanding-the-findings/
So, smoking =2000% greater risk, eating meat daily-18% greater risk....so not honestly equivalent by any stretch.

I would agree that switching from a processed meat based diet to a non processed plant based (not even necessarily pure vegetarian) diet, in general, might be equivalent to quitting smoking (but smoking how much, and smoking what, depends on MANY variable factors, and it appears it's generally equivalent to smoking <2 cigarettes per week, while breathing air in most cities is equivalent to smoking a pack a day).

1. My family was considered to be a 'organized crime' family by the police in Tucson, AZ.
2. I've committed 2 crimes in my life. My first was when I was 13, I shoplifted a Gen 1 Transformer from Kmart and was banned from the store until 18. The second was helping a friend load an illegally poached deer into his truck.
3. My first car was a 1974 Dodge Challenger
4. When I was 19, I almost ran away from my future wife to go to Dallas and open one of the first ink cartridge refilling companies with a friend.
5. My mother never married and let my Grandparents raise me.
6. I started smoking at 14, rolling my own from my Grandfather's Bugler tobacco.
7. I smoked for many years, quitting twice. Once when my Grandfather died from Emphysema and then for good when my Grandmother died of lung cancer.
8. I worked for Texas Instruments, Dell, and Apple. Their stock allowed me to retire early.
9. I've had a mental breakdown that lead to me retiring early.
10. I still suffer from depression and anxiety.
11. Online I can interact with people much better than I can in real life. I find it very hard to deal with people in person.
12. My wife embarrasses me in public because she is very outgoing.
13. I hate doing dishes. I mean I really loathe doing them.
14. I have two dogs.
15. I don't like cats very much.
16. I sometimes have weird dreams that my best friend is still alive.
17. I prefer being indoors vs being outdoors.
18. Other than my mother, my family is all dead or estranged.
19. I am a video game enthusiast.
20. I don't want children.
21. I once had a 4-wheeler roll over on top of me and pin me under creek water.
22. I used to use twilight as my online handle until Stephenie Meyer ruined that for me forever.
23. My favorite animated cartoon was the 1990's Batman animated series.
24. I used to be a huge Stephen King fan until he was hit by that vehicle and his writing suddenly started sucking.
25. I have very poor eyesight without my glasses.

Your statement that other forms of preventable death have no bearing on the argument may be correct for your interpretation of that argument, but you are clearly missing the point of the comparison. Nobody is saying that we shouldn't regulate guns because people smoke. The comparison is that if society can sit by and watch people die from totally preventable deaths due to cigarettes and alcohol, at a rate 35x higher than gun related deaths, then why not start there, or even include guns, alcohol and cigs in the same crackdown? In the hands of responsible people, who are the majority of owners, guns are a very low threat and can serve a purpose other than killing people. Cigarettes, in contrast, are perfect killing machines, and 100% of the time are harmful to anyone who sticks them in their mouth and serve one purpose and one purpose only - to degrade your health. If you're fortunate enough to be stuck near someone who smokes, they are harming your health as well. If those who wish to start imposing limits or controls on peoples personal freedoms by controlling access to things that kill people, why not start with something that affects 35x more people than guns do? And if anyone tells you death by gunshot is a gruesome horrible death that nobody should have to endure (and hyped to be so by media and anti-gun activists), go spend some time in a cancer ward to experience what these poor bastards go through during a prolonged death from lung cancer. Give me a bullet any time over that.

Yes, millions of unvaccinated peopled did survive, and still do. Congratulations to you and your son for being among those.

But millions have also died. In 1980, before widespread vaccination, about 2.6 million people died of measles. [1] In 2013, about 145,000 people still died from measles globally, most under the age of 5.

I know people who smoked but did not get lung cancer. I know people who do not wear a seat belt but have not died in a car accident. These anecdotes do not bring back the millions of people whose early death could have been prevented. Easily prevented.

[1] http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/

I can't speak to Canada's system, but I can weigh in on Medicare quality of care. My Grandmother, the woman who raised me, was diagnosed with lung cancer in her early 70's. Since I was helping to take care of her at the time, I got to see what I have to look forward to in my later life.

Consistently we had to wait for treatments to be approved and she was often delayed for patients that were not on Medicare. Additionally, every single therapy or quality of life aid was scrutinized beyond belief.

As an example, the doctor gave her a prescription for an oxygen tank and delivery system after they removed part of her lung that was not responding to chemo. Medicare refused to cover it without an 'oxygen saturation level test'. This 'test' was horrible. She had to try to breathe without the machine for multiple minutes, struggling and gasping for air. It was fucking brutal to watch, but the people that Medicare sent to verify didn't give a shit. They basically told me that if her saturation wasn't low enough after 15 minutes, she couldn't be covered for the machine. I couldn't take it, so I told them to fuck off out of her house and paid out of my own pocket for the rental.

These are just some examples, there were others before she died that made it quite clear that Medicare is not quality care. It's basically the bare minimum they have to give you to keep you alive. So this video comparing Canada's care to Medicare doesn't reassure me in the slightest and it's almost certainly an unfair comparison to their system. I can tell you I am dreading making the swap to Medicare in 20-25 years, let alone being forced into something similar sooner. As far as ACA, I don't really care. It's probably good for people who don't have good jobs or who are unemployed, but I will be more than happy to hang onto my extremely good insurance provided through my employment.