Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal • Hacker News Board

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#41

Post by richthegeek » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 11:18 AM UTC

Tenoke wrote: post #9

KingOfCoders wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And everyone who doesn't want funny smells in their face. While since some decades cigarette smokers go outside, many ecigarette users spread funny smells without any empathy.

The smell from vaping is not comparable and it goes away quick, at least if you are not using some fancy liquid. Even if it doesn't, it's no worse than the smell of kebab which people are allowed to eat indoors.

But if my colleague was sat at his desk eating a kebab for 8 hours a day, I'd find it problematic.

Not everyone is as able to ignore sounds and smells as you might be.

In particular the sound of someone vaping over a headset/phone makes me shiver.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#42

Post by ajsnigrutin » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 11:18 AM UTC

heavenlyblue wrote: post #21

ud_0 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Scientism has become the state religion and companies are paying for indulgences. I was unfamiliar with that term and googled it: it's described as " excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques ". I'm struggling a bit to understand how a belief in the importance of scientific knowledge and techniques equates to a religious mindset. In an ideal world, I would absolutely prefer my government…

I don't know what parent meant exactly, but I personally think that scientific methods are only useful for people who are smart/educated enough to interpret them. There were so many studies for example about cancer along the lines of "eating apples reduces cancer by 5%" and then you see people start eating apples for this reason. Somebody wrote a paper to get a publication with questionable results and people blindly…

> There were so many studies for example about cancer along the lines of "eating apples reduces cancer by 5%" and then you see people start eating apples for this reason. Somebody wrote a paper to get a publication with questionable results and people blindly believe in the power of science.

This is the problem with interpreting results... you can set up a study witn n=100k people, and find out that people who eat apples die 5% less from cancer, correlation is shown, and somewhere in the conclusion "more research is needed to find exact cause".

In practice, people who eat more fruits probably take care of themselves better, eat better diet,... etc.

I understood the parent as people believieng in something, without actually looking at data itself, thinking about it, considering other posibilities, and of course, declaring others (opposers) as heretics... for example, spring, last year, my government (and our scientists, and probably yours too, depending on where you live) said that masks are useless for fighting covid, even detrimental, so "believers" called the people who bought and wore them fearmongering paranoics.... then a random saturday came, masks became mandatory "from monday on", and those same people called the "antimaskers" conspiracy-theorists and worse for not wanting to wear masks.

Reality is of course a mixed bag... cotton masks prevent you from spitting everywhere, but don't actually block a lot of virus in the air. Surgical masks were practically impossible to buy back then. Masks outside, away from people are useless. etc.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#43

Post by mclightning » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 11:18 AM UTC

uniqueuid wrote: post #33

mclightning wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly this. Science has too much emphasis on the "now", on present knowledge. Take 17th century science... most of it would be ludicrous by any standard today. Now imagine applying that science onto humans/society... Science as a tool to deal with present knowledge, should not be used solely to manage societies or human situations with irreversible consequences.

Then propose another way of getting reliable, robust and explainable guidelines for managing societies? But of course, evidence-based decision making should not be turned into decision-based evidence making; science alone is not a basis for politics.

In your very last sentence there; you summed up what I meant. I don't know why you expect me to come up with a solution on how to manage societies in a comment section.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#44

Post by shusaku » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 11:19 AM UTC

uniqueuid wrote: post #23

shusaku wrote: post #18

> But a Tuesday New York Times article on the subject contained a fascinating nugget midway through, which could be described as a buried lede (journalese for putting the most explosive part of a story in the middle of the piece). I’m going to come down on the opposite side and say that a garbage journal that nobody reads publishing garbage research for money isn’t news. Though it is certainly a good example of why y…

The American Journal of Health Behavior apparently has an impact factor between 1 and 2, which isn't stellar but also isn't "nobody reads".

It’s pretty hard to find a journal with an impact factor below 1 considering how frequently scientists cite their own work. Heck just look at the special edition papers and see how often they cite each other.

Edit: but I also don’t want to argue this point too much because impact factor is not a good measure of the quality of a journal

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#45

Post by symlinkk » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 11:19 AM UTC

uniqueuid wrote: post #37

lemonberry wrote: post #34

My father has COPD from over 50 years of smoking. I convinced him to switch to vaping and he's been using a Juul for a few years now. Awhile after the switch his primary care physician listened to his lungs and said they sounded a lot better. She said she because the science isn't in "I can't tell you to vape but I can tell you to keep doing what you're doing". Should non-smokers pick up vaping? Probably not. But in…

Congratulations on your father's change of habit, I hope he continues to recover and has a long life! That aside, the collective balance is: - how many cigarette smokers will switch (benefit) - how many people will start vaping instead of smoking (benefit) - how many people will switch from vaping to smoking (harm) - how many people will start vaping but wouldn't have started smoking (harm) Perhaps someone with exper…

We don’t know that vaping is harmful. It’s addictive, yes, but not necessarily harmful.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#46

Post by dkersten » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 11:19 AM UTC

lemonberry wrote: post #34

My father has COPD from over 50 years of smoking. I convinced him to switch to vaping and he's been using a Juul for a few years now. Awhile after the switch his primary care physician listened to his lungs and said they sounded a lot better. She said she because the science isn't in "I can't tell you to vape but I can tell you to keep doing what you're doing". Should non-smokers pick up vaping? Probably not. But in…

> "I can't tell you to vape but I can tell you to keep doing what you're doing".

> Should non-smokers pick up vaping? Probably not

Yeah, I imagine that its a lot better than smoking cigarettes, but still worse than not smoking at all. So for your father, its a benefit because its something he finds sustainable (I assume quitting would be even better, but maybe rather difficult), but for a non-smoker, they would do themselves damage (even if not as much as smoking cigarettes would). So definitely good for smokers, but maybe not the best for non-smokers (although I'd love to know how it compares to other common unhealthy things we do like alcohol or fast food)

I have heard some negative things about vaping, but I assume its like you say: the quality and health effects vary widely between the "juice".

In any case, regardless of overall "good" or not, it seems to be a benefit for smokers, so that's a good thing!

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#47

Post by totalZero » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 11:20 AM UTC

lemonberry wrote: post #34

My father has COPD from over 50 years of smoking. I convinced him to switch to vaping and he's been using a Juul for a few years now. Awhile after the switch his primary care physician listened to his lungs and said they sounded a lot better. She said she because the science isn't in "I can't tell you to vape but I can tell you to keep doing what you're doing". Should non-smokers pick up vaping? Probably not. But in…

> the arguments against the flavored juices are hysterical/hypocritical given the variety of flavors of liquor one can find.

I would assume a significant difference in impact between putting flavor substances in your lungs and putting flavor substances in your esophagus/stomach.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#48

Post by k__ » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 11:20 AM UTC

lemonberry wrote: post #34

My father has COPD from over 50 years of smoking. I convinced him to switch to vaping and he's been using a Juul for a few years now. Awhile after the switch his primary care physician listened to his lungs and said they sounded a lot better. She said she because the science isn't in "I can't tell you to vape but I can tell you to keep doing what you're doing". Should non-smokers pick up vaping? Probably not. But in…

My girlfriend switched to vaping 10 years ago.

It saved her thousands of Euros and she is much fitter, and her breath smells delicious, haha. But she doesn't use big brands, she mixes her liquid at home and tries to lower the dose over years.

But every time she can't vape, because her machine broke, or she lost it, or whatever, she get's quiet angry and smokes a few regular cigs.

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#49

Post by nabla9 » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 11:21 AM UTC

uniqueuid wrote: post #23

shusaku wrote: post #18

> But a Tuesday New York Times article on the subject contained a fascinating nugget midway through, which could be described as a buried lede (journalese for putting the most explosive part of a story in the middle of the piece). I’m going to come down on the opposite side and say that a garbage journal that nobody reads publishing garbage research for money isn’t news. Though it is certainly a good example of why y…

The American Journal of Health Behavior apparently has an impact factor between 1 and 2, which isn't stellar but also isn't "nobody reads".

Impact factor 2 is bad.

Nature Scientific Reports has 5-year impact factor ~4.5 and it's very low quality megajournal with tendency to publish junk science. The peer-review is designed to be very low quality (scientific importance is not criteria for example).

Re: Juul bought an entire issue of a scholarly journal

#50

Post by BoxOfRain » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 11:21 AM UTC

lemonberry wrote: post #34

My father has COPD from over 50 years of smoking. I convinced him to switch to vaping and he's been using a Juul for a few years now. Awhile after the switch his primary care physician listened to his lungs and said they sounded a lot better. She said she because the science isn't in "I can't tell you to vape but I can tell you to keep doing what you're doing". Should non-smokers pick up vaping? Probably not. But in…

I can't speak for Juul but I credit my smoking cessation entirely to vaping. I've not had any nicotine since 2020, vaping or smoking!

I think there's a real attitude among a small number of non-smokers that quitting without some form of sustained suffering is "doing it wrong" and that addicts of any kind deserve pain to atone for the sin of being an addict. This attitude is extremely unhelpful and should be condemned along with all other types of moral puritanism in my opinion.