Scientific American Article

[Bob Chill]

http://www.scientificamerican.bom/a...-but-e-cigarettes-can-get-people-off-tobacco/

I broke the link but probably didn't need to. It's not an awful article. The risks may be overstated but overall this is the point of the article:

"In the meantime, however, we cannot ignore the fact that as many as one billion people could be killed by tobacco use during this century. Bringing this number down substantially is an opportunity we cannot miss.

Purists will never be happy with a product that is probably more dangerous than anything we would allow to come to the market in any other industry. They are right. But pragmatic health professionals will see the chance to get many smokers to quit smoking tobacco as a big step in the right direction."

 

[VNeil]

Purists will never be happy with a product that is probably more dangerous than anything we would allow to come to the market in any other industry.

WRONG: sugar

 

[LaraC]

I think you were right to break the link, Bob.

I read it as a hatchet job against e-cigs, cloaked in see-how-reasonably-I'm-presenting-both-sides scribbling.

 

[bobwho77]

They're safer than traditional cigarettes, but...
The "Letters to the Editor" page in next month's issue should be fun.

 

[Bill Godshall]

The Scientific American article falsely claimed vaping is as harmful as inhaling 2nd hand smoke everyday (despite no evidence, and even though 2nd hand smoke contains 10,000 different constituents)

 

[VNeil]

The Scientific American article falsely claimed vaping is as harmful as inhaling 2nd hand smoke everyday (despite no evidence, and even though 2nd hand smoke contains 10,000 different constituents)

Another old scientific institution totally discredited by any capable of critical thought.

 

[Vaslovik]

In years past I loved Scientific American, they had so many good articles about varied scientific interests of mine, and they wrote good articles in great detail about serious science, but it's clear now that they have been bought off by big money, like the rest of our hopelessly corrupt society and government.

Now, if you have a political agenda you want to push you buy the scientists first and then blather that "the science is settled."

 

[VNeil]

The Scientific American article falsely claimed vaping is as harmful as inhaling 2nd hand smoke everyday (despite no evidence, and even though 2nd hand smoke contains 10,000 different constituents)

On second thought, maybe there's a grain of truth since both are likely quite harmless

 

[OldBatty]

On second thought, maybe there's a grain of truth since both are likely quite harmless

Yes, but they did not point that out so they get no points for being correct out of ignorance and / or malice.

 

[VNeil]

Yes, but they did not point that out so they get no points for being correct out of ignorance and / or malice.

Perhaps you missed my emoticon

 

[OldBatty]

Perhaps you missed my emoticon

Not at all, though I may have been mistaken as to its intent? Almost replied to Bill's post myself but did not want to waste his time since the gross exaggerations about secondhand smoke is not our fight.

 

[VNeil]

Not at all, though I may have been mistaken as to its intent? Almost replied to Bill's post myself but did not want to waste his time since the gross exaggerations about secondhand smoke is not our fight.

It is our fight. Govt lies are our fight

 

[OldBatty]

It is our fight. Govt lies are our fight

Ah, good point! Our fight but not necessarily ECF's fight. At least not yet

 

[DC2]

It is our fight. Govt lies are our fight

Meh. I'm kinda lukewarm on that one.
Government is going to lie all day long, at all times, in every country everywhere.

It seems to me that mainstream media biased coverage is our fight.

The lies can not gain traction without their help.
The truth can not be suppressed without their help.

What ever happened to a free press?
Is it money or is it power that has destroyed it in this country?

Here's a fun read if you're bored...
1-Introduction to Four Theories of the Press

 

[Lessifer]

Meh. I'm kinda lukewarm on that one.
Government is going to lie all day long, at all times, in every country everywhere.

It seems to me that mainstream media biased coverage is our fight.

The lies can not gain traction without their help.
The truth can not be suppressed without their help.

What ever happened to a free press?
Is it money or is it power that has destroyed it in this country?

Here's a fun read if you're bored...
1-Introduction to Four Theories of the Press

both?
These 15 Billionaires Own America's News Media Companies

 

[Kent C]

both?
These 15 Billionaires Own America's News Media Companies

Almost all being privately held companies by liberal billionaires. Sheldon Adelson – The Las Vegas Review-Journal is an exception, and Rupert Murdock's News Corp (Fox News, etc.) is a publically held company with millions of stockholders 'owning' the corporation.

 

[Lessifer]

Almost all being privately held companies by liberal billionaires. Sheldon Adelson – The Las Vegas Review-Journal is an exception, and Rupert Murdock's News Corp (Fox News, etc.) is a publically held company with millions of stockholders 'owning' the corporation.

More and more I see liberals and conservatives as two sides of the same coin. Both seek control, often the only difference is their supposed motivation. One out of their "all knowing benevolence" and the other through "religious moral superiority."

 

[Kent C]

More and more I see liberals and conservatives as two sides of the same coin. Both seek control, often the only difference is their supposed motivation. One out of their "all knowing benevolence" and the other through "religious moral superiority."

Basically what I said in my 'other' post, different thread...
Trump Picks Indiana Gov. Pence for VP

...on 'why'?... and for the one party, it consumes nearly everyone, but for the other party, only a faction.... but here, liberals dominate the news media in no uncertain terms - which speaks to DC2's point above:

The lies can not gain traction without their help.
The truth can not be suppressed without their help.

 

[Lessifer]

...on 'why'?... and for the one party, it consumes nearly everyone, but for the other party, only a faction.... but here, liberals dominate the news media in no uncertain terms

I'm not sure that it consumes nearly everyone in the one party, or that it's at all a (small)faction of the other. As far as the politicians are concerned, they all give lip service(at the very least) to the core belief, on both sides. I would argue that on either side, the number people who consider protecting people's bodies or souls from themselves as paramount is relatively small.

 

[Kent C]

I'm not sure that it consumes nearly everyone in the one party, or that it's at all a (small)faction of the other. As far as the politicians are concerned, they all give lip service(at the very least) to the core belief, on both sides. I would argue that on either side, the number people who consider protecting people's bodies or souls from themselves as paramount is relatively small.

I disagree. I said 'nearly' and there are clear exceptions. And I said 'faction' not 'small faction' :- ) There can be little objection to the fact that the one party believes (has as part of their platform) that gov't is the solution to almost any problem, and that the other party believes (also in their platform) more in privatization of many gov't functions.

But, to the topic you brought up - liberal billionaires control a supermajority of the media.