• SW42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    4 days ago

    The smell of perfume doesn’t cause cancer. Second-hand smoke is proven to do so.

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      4 days ago

      You must have a hard time being anywhere close to a car if you think you are getting cancer because of a 2 second wiff from some guys cig on a beach. Seems like exaggeration, cancer isnt some lightning bolt that hits you the moment you get a hint of something bad near you.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        cancer isnt some lightning bolt that hits you the moment you get a hint of something bad near you.

        You’re correct, it isn’t a lightning bolt. This goes against your statement, not with it. It’s an accumulation of increased risk, and eventually it just happens (or doesn’t). The more things that increase your risk the higher the odds. You don’t just get cancer because someone smoked near you. You have an increased risk of cancer based on how much you’ve been around your entire life, and everything else that contributes. Reducing risk means reducing as many contributors as possible.

        You must have a hard time being anywhere close to a car if you think you are getting cancer because of a 2 second wiff from some guys cig on a beach.

        One thing is bad, so we can’t do anything about another thing? “People are being killed by cars, but we can’t work to reduce that because people are dying from heart disease!” How silly.

        • Grimy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          The impact from those few odd times someone is smoking near you in an open areas is not proportional to the risk you are attributing to it imo. I am bringing up cars to highlight that.

          • Soggy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            Less exposure to smoking also makes some people less likely to take up smoking, as its presence isn’t so normalized. So that’s a lesser burden on medical infrastructure and fewer sources of secondhand smoke. Wins all around.

      • SW42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        Cars don’t make me choke, but good point! I’d ban them from the cities as well.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        Yes, we need to ban cars as well, pretty much all internal combustion. Unfortunately there are technical reasons that will take a while, but we’re making progress. Even worse my country has turned it political with regressives gleefully trying to turn back what progress we’ve made

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      28
      ·
      4 days ago

      Oh FFS, yeah, cancer for people living in the same house. Getting a whiff of cigarette smoke isn’t doing jack shit to you.