Glad you're still documenting this level of lunacy.
Via Carl Henegan and Tom Jeffersons excellent Substack I learned of a very thorough study that showed that yes, again, moderate alcohol intake IS beneficial:
Maybe with another ten years and millions of dollars of research funding, the public health people could eventually discover a larger number - five - that comes after four, thereby enabling a new categorisation of tobacco exposure.
There are around 1.3 billion microgrammes of air in a cubic metre.
And the background level is 1/30th of a microgramme, and the enhanced level is around 1/10th of a microgramme.
As you say, these are homeopathic levels of nicotene. The source article should really conclude what a miracle it is that modern instruments have advanced so far that they can measure this, and throw in an advert for the technologists with a suitable tag line "we can analyse what's in your draft, but can't measure daft, give us your $"
Be careful in bars & restaurants. There’s probably trace levels of alcohol in the air. Maybe not safe.
You should institute an annual award for the dumbest research claim you have encountered.
Glad you're still documenting this level of lunacy.
Via Carl Henegan and Tom Jeffersons excellent Substack I learned of a very thorough study that showed that yes, again, moderate alcohol intake IS beneficial:
https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d671
But just look at some of the responses! The very idea of the J curve is a direct affront to the puritan dogma of safetyism...
So now it's time for my evening shot of rum :-)
Maybe with another ten years and millions of dollars of research funding, the public health people could eventually discover a larger number - five - that comes after four, thereby enabling a new categorisation of tobacco exposure.
There are around 1.3 billion microgrammes of air in a cubic metre.
And the background level is 1/30th of a microgramme, and the enhanced level is around 1/10th of a microgramme.
As you say, these are homeopathic levels of nicotene. The source article should really conclude what a miracle it is that modern instruments have advanced so far that they can measure this, and throw in an advert for the technologists with a suitable tag line "we can analyse what's in your draft, but can't measure daft, give us your $"
I wonder how many picogrammes of nicotine they would detect next to the aubergines in the supermarket?