• Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    In a scientific context “significantly less” essentially means “we were able to prove beyond our error threshold that there was less nicotine”

    As such, it doesn’t mean squat without numbers to back it up. There could be 1% less nicotine and it’d still be significant if their testing method was sensitive enough to reliably capture the difference.

    Whereas this:

    There’s evidence that nonsmokers exposed to secondhand vape aerosol absorb similar levels of nicotine as people exposed to secondhand cigarette smoke.

    Along with nicotine, nonvapers are also exposed to ultrafine particles from secondhand vape aerosol, which may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.

    Would mean exactly what the person you’re replying to has said it means, assuming it’s true, aka. It’s patently false to say it’s safer for non-smokers to be around.

    • Sausage@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      There are numbers to back it up, in the study I linked. Is 10 times less not significant?

      The primary harm from cigarettes doesn’t come from the nicotine, it comes from all the other toxic chemicals released by combustion, which aren’t present in the aerosol exhaled from a vape.

      Nobody is claiming it to be 100% safe (what is?), but it’s not even in the same ballpark of harm as smoking is.