"Even if you don't inhale, you can get cancer from smoking pipes and cigars. People who smoke cigars regularly are 4 to 10 times more likely than nonsmokers to die from cancers of the mouth, larynx, and esophagus." [1]
"Between pipe and cigarette smokers, no or only minor differences were found in mortality from any cause and the specified smoking-related diseases. Pipe smoking is not safer than cigarette smoking." [2]
Not sure if pipe smoking is a better alternative. Would love to hear your thoughts on what I've shared.
The trouble here is that I can't see actual paper in [2], cigars don't enter into it, and that the study I referenced, and subsequent studies, show that what causes cancer is carcinogens, which are intentionally addrd by Big Tobacco to increase addictiveness. The fact is everyone has cancer, but we're not all sick because we naturally slough off cancer cells. Is anyone particularly aware of cancer rates in Native Americans from the 1300s to the 1940s? Why aren't we? Probably because they were low enough to be noise against the natural occurrences of cancer.
Smoking anything can cause emphysema, and I wasn't ever making a claim that smoking is healthy or safe, so there are some straw man fallacies present in your reply. What I was drawing attention to is that cigarettes are not tobacco, and that due to the intentional infusion of 300+ known carcinogens [1], it is no wonder it kills so many people every year. I don't have any references, but I expect before the chemical revolution in the 1950's, smoking cigarettes didn't kill remotely as many people.
"Amazon's Choice" are also littered with fake reviews. WSJ did a story on this and looked at hundreds of "[AC]" listings and found majority of listings had fake reviews; many of the fake reviews being the top reviews.
Wait, Romans won because a war of attrition was not in favor for Carthage. Carthage won more naval battles yet the loses from each battle weren't replenished like the Romans.
Thats right, corporations have legal person status & protection (kinda odd) like any other American citizen, but you can argue they have more rights than the average american citizen.
Anyway, corporations, for-profit that is, are driven by one tenet & one tenet alone, which is their bottom-line. And they only answer to their ruling shareholders. Customers, employees, their own product, the USA govt, etc are all secondary.
> Burmese people seemingly accepting the false claim the ethnically-cleansed Rohingya actually were Bangladeshi regardless of where they stand on other things
That was largely a result of campaigning against giving rights to the Rohingya.
> the outpouring of support for Aung Sung Suu Kyi after Western criticism that might have been signals that they believed the conflict was the generals' doing rather than hers or might have been mass endorsement of the government's violence
Yeah, because Aung Sung Suu Kyi keeps denying, on live TV, that any problem exist other than the insurrectionists are responsible for everything thats happened thus far. The insurrectionists/terrorist according to her are composed of muslim Rohingya that are financed by foreign "Muslim" powers.
The matter of the fact is that most power is held by the military, NOT Aung Sung Suu Kyi. Thus, Aung Sung Suu Kyi stance on this issue is probably a result of the military's position. At any moment, the army can choose to remove her from power. Her position is that fragile.
Couldn't agree more. Read a couple of battle analysis by the USA army , which constantly compared decisions to what the decision should be accordingly to the USA army field manual to explain. You're absolutely right!
reply