Isn’t everything, though?

  • afraid_of_zombies2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Meh. If you ignore every cancer long enough you don’t have to worry about any of them.

    We need a neutral body that is willing to treat it like binary. Does it increase the odds of cancer above a certain threshold given situations that normal users would deal with? Then yes it causes cancer. Else no. I am sick of these governing bodies using weasel words to defend their claims. Statements like this make people do averaging. Suddenly these super hypothetical situations are rated as deadily as smoking.

    • panicky_patzer@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think a binary system leaves no room for nuance, and therefore, no ability for consumers to make informed decisions. What about a scale instead? 1 could mean “Cancerous? Technically, but don’t worry about it unless you’re mainlining it 23 hours a day, dude.” And 10 could mean, “Seriously, make sure your will is updated.”

      • wolfpack86@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Like cooking meat creates carcinogens if any of it is burned.

        At some point, who the fuck cares. I have to die of something.