/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11144129]

If you were to smoke pure tobacco with no additives, would it be any worse than smoking cannabis?

[Anonymous No.11144140]

It's better than smoking cannabis because it doesn't turn you into DUDE WEED moron with reduced memory capability. In fact, tobacco is a nootropic so if anything, it's infinitely better than smoking cannabis which the low IQ person's drug.

[Anonymous No.11144144]

>>11144140
Ever had a TA? chances are they smoke weed, or have smoked weed. Grad students are all druggies dude lol

[Anonymous No.11144147]

>>11144144
>midwits use cannabis
Shocking.

[Anonymous No.11144153]

>>11144147
who do you think becomes professors who then do research which then causes technological advancement?

[Anonymous No.11144160]

>>11144147
>midwits love to quote from Process and Reality after all

[Anonymous No.11144179]

>>11144129
no, it would be worse because unlike cannabis, the tobacco plant naturally accumulates polonium. of course organically grown tobacco with no additives (like turquoise american spirits) have less polonium in them because most of the polonium comes from decay products of elements found in the fossil fuel fertilizers used for standard agriculture tobacco, but they still get some out of the atmosphere from the decay products of radon.

tobacco cultivators tried for years to get rid of this polonium-accumulating feature of the tobacco plant, but to no avail so far. cannabis flowers do not have this same tendency

[Anonymous No.11144183]

>>11144153
>holding professors in great esteem
Second-rate mind detected. The only drugs responsible for true advancement are stimulants and psychedelics. Cannabis has made more people dullards content with masturbation and Taco Bell meals than it has inspired any sort of greatness. James Watson used LSD but never touched the stink weed. Your "professors" are nothing compared to his intellect and greatness.

[Anonymous No.11144185]

>>11144179
All plants contain polonium in virtually insignificant levels, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.11144191]

>>11144183
whatever kid, I smoke daily and am smarter and more successful than you, you have no idea what you're talking about, with 0 experience with any sort of drugs or life in general I imagine. The fact you idolize watson as the only name you know just proves you have no idea what you're talking about and don't belong on this board.
people who do drugs daily are smarter and more successful than you. cope.

[Anonymous No.11144192]

>>11144129
DELETE THIS THREAD IMMEDIATELY

[Anonymous No.11144198]

>>11144191
>I'm smarter than you, ad hominem, projection, cope
The absolute retardation of DUDE WEED users.

[Anonymous No.11144208]

>>11144185
true, but nicotine accumulates it significantly more than most other human-consumption plants. this is well known -- sauce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium#Tobacco

[Anonymous No.11144214]

>>11144198
do you think you made a point or argument here? I hope you're an undergrad, you literally pay my stipend to buy drugs with.

[Anonymous No.11144232]

>>11144191
not gonna lie, i got my phd in a hard science and now work in academia and used to smoke weed regularly through undergrad and during my first couple of years of grad school. i went through a period of not being able to smoke it (due to studying abroad and no hookups there) and i realized that my motivation actually did increase. i gave up smoking regularly because i realized that it makes me lazy, like for 2 days after or so. now i only smoke weed on fridays and saturdays every couple of weeks, because if i do it on sunday or weekdays i just get fucking lazy during work for the next 2-3 days. even if i have a hangover from alcohol it doesn't kill my motivation as much

[Anonymous No.11144233]

>>11144208
"Nicotine" accumulates nothing. The polonium 2-10 does not covalently bind to the nicotine. From your very language, it's clear I'm dealing with a retard. As to your link, this is outdated pseudoscience from the 1960s looking to establish a causative agent responsible for tobacco's carcinogenicity, that refutes nothing of what I said; the reason you take it as any authority because some mouth-breathing imbecile who writes wikipedia articles made strong claims stemming from it. To repeat: all plants uptake very trace amounts. There is no greater instance in tobacco relative to other plants. It is merely the association of tobacco with cancer that invokes confirmation bias in brainlets like you when you selectively see this in isolation with tobacco.

[Anonymous No.11144235]

>>11144214
>first post was ad populum (dude success); ad hominem
You made no argument in the first place.

[Anonymous No.11144241]

>>11144232
good on you for that realization. I'll be honest, I smoke sometimes before going to school, especially on experimental days (lots of imaging), it helps motivate me in a weird way, like being stoned makes me appreciate science and my opportunity and playing with expensive instruments and shit. I'm slowly getting an alcohol problem too though, I need to check myself. I dunno, my nights are so fucking boring though, I basically just kill time waiting to go to work/school tomorrow, I'm kind of in a weird rut where I am obsessed about my work and it's unhealthy...
The good thing is I've gone to conferences and shit where I don't smoke and nothing really changes, even not smoking long periods of time (3 weeks or so) just makes me bored and want to do science stoned. I guess it also coincides with vacations, which are also "boring" for me in a way...

[Anonymous No.11144242]

>>11144235
oo are you the dude who doesn't know what ad hoc is? you sound like him. Go ahead, completely ignore the argument because you think you won it because you called out some fallacy. Guess what buddy. Successful people smoke weed. Where's the ad hom there?

[Anonymous No.11144245]

>>11144241
You have the stylometry and the thought-process of a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.11144248]

>>11144242
ad hom*

[Anonymous No.11144250]

>>11144242
>Successful people smoke weed
Ad populum

[Anonymous No.11144252]

>>11144129
Just smoke a pipe like youre support to, without inhaling it.
Get a nice aromatic and enjoy life.
Even einstein said pipe smoking is the secret to intelligence.

[Anonymous No.11144258]

>>11144245
I'm not talking to you kid.
>>11144250
again i'm not talking to you kid. also your fallacy doesnt really apply if my statement directly argues against yours, which is "midwits smoke weed". successful scientists are not midwits.

[Anonymous No.11144264]

>>11144129
tobacco is far more addictive

[Anonymous No.11144266]

>>11144258
>successful scientists are not midwits.
They are.

[Anonymous No.11144267]

>>11144233
i feel like you are arguing against wikipedia and plenty of published articles (some are referenced on the wiki) without citing anything in response. please try to cite better sources, because i suspect you are just talking out your ass. we can continue the discussion once you make your argument better than "just trust me bro"

[Anonymous No.11144269]

>>11144266
who is not a midwit according to you?

[Anonymous No.11144271]

>>11144269
See.

[Anonymous No.11144273]

>>11144271
are you going to answer the question without some idiotic internet meme? who is not a midwit according to you?

[Anonymous No.11144277]

>>11144273
See the intelligence range in the meme.

[Anonymous No.11144280]

Yes. It’s more carcinogenic, and nicotine alone is strongly associated with many serious diseases such as heart disease and emphysema.

Tobacco is very bad for you, and you can easily research this.

[Anonymous No.11144282]

>>11144267
Bioaccumulation of trace elements is well known, and if you're going to be incredulous at a simple fact, then you're incapable if discussing anything advanced.

[Anonymous No.11144290]

>>11144267
PS: i meant tobacco not “nicotine” . more specifically tobacco leaves. you are right on that nitpick but i stand by my claim that cigarettes and other tobacco leaf products are much more rich in polonium than cannabis flower products

[Anonymous No.11144291]

>>11144277
Am I to interpret it as "people with high and low IQ are successful, everyone else is not"? I don't know how that relates to my question. I've never tested my IQ and no one I know, in upper level research both in industry and academia has either. Can you maybe answer my question with words, not memes?

[Anonymous No.11144294]

>>11144267
>i feel like you are arguing against wikipedia
>without citing anything in response.
>please try to cite better sources

[Anonymous No.11144295]

>>11144282
but you can’t deny that tobacco bioaccumulates polonium more than most other human consumption plants. significantly more. this is well supported in the literature

[Anonymous No.11144299]

>>11144291
Any one of middle-range intelligence, is a midwit. Most 'successful' people are indeed midiwts.

[Anonymous No.11144300]

>>11144129
I've read this entire thread and I'm just here to confirm that OP is a massive faggot.

[Anonymous No.11144303]

>>11144295
It isn't supported in the literature; this is a conclusion based off a single paper looking at tobacco alone. Again, al plants uptake trace elements.

[Anonymous No.11144308]

>>11144299
I didn't say successful people, I said successful scientists. People who do research in STEM.

[Anonymous No.11144312]

>>11144303
then cite a source. i can google it and i see many studies related to high levels of polonium in tobacco leaves. if you claim it has been debunked then show me one sauce to support that

otherwise i will trust the abundant literature corroborating my position

[Anonymous No.11144314]

>>11144308
>I said successful scientists. People who do research in STEM.
Predominantly midwits. I would know. I work with them every day.

[Anonymous No.11144316]

>>11144312
>>11144312
Imagine being this fucking stupid unable to follow a basic line of reasoning and expecting to be spoonfed on a source that debunks a 1960s paper examining tobacco in se.

[Anonymous No.11144317]

>>11144308
There are lots of dumb people in stem.

[Anonymous No.11144318]

>>11144314
So who isn't a midwit according to you? Please try not to post IQ memes this time, like I said, no one outside of this board really cares about IQ in the real world.

[Anonymous No.11144319]

>>11144312
>otherwise i will trust the abundant literature corroborating my position
A single paper and a wikipedia article and several alarmist google articles written around it? Shocking.

[Anonymous No.11144320]

>>11144316
Just 1 source is all you have to provide. You have 1 job.

[Anonymous No.11144321]

>>11144317
sure, and yet technological progress marches on, because the vast majority of people in STEM are not dumb. If the majority was, no progress would happen, no?

[Anonymous No.11144322]

>>11144144
can confirm this

[Anonymous No.11144324]

>>11144321
1 single source.

[Anonymous No.11144325]

>>11144318
Anyone with an IQ over 90 and under 140.

[Anonymous No.11144328]

>>11144320
See thousands of articles published on the bioaccumulation of trace elements.

[Anonymous No.11144329]

>>11144324
?
is this controversial? it's not like we've gone stagnant, every STEM field is constantly making minute contributions to technological progress everyday...

[Anonymous No.11144331]

>>11144329
One.

[Anonymous No.11144332]

>>11144325
I just said IQ really is not a factor here, because only people on mensa and circle jerking IQ threads care about IQ in the real world. You are not accomplished because of your IQ. you are accomplished because of your accomplishments. Scientists who are well established in STEM industry and academia make progress. I still have yet to see a substantial argument against this statement.

[Anonymous No.11144333]

>>11144328
1 source

[Anonymous No.11144334]

>>11144331
Should I post a link to pubmed's primary research articles published in 2019 or something? What is it you want? Research is happening whether or not you choose to say it is or not.

[Anonymous No.11144335]

>>11144316
your basic line of reasoning is "oh radioactive isotopes in trace amounts can be found in lots of plants". no duh. but "therefore tobacco isn't much higher in accumulating polonium isotopes" is not a good conclusion. that is basically like saying "oh lots of chemicals don't expand when they freeze, therefore water doesn't expand when it freezes". see how your logic is wrong?

you need to give evidence to back up your claim that the well-established result that tobacco accumulates polonium at a much higher rate than other common plants consumed by humans is debunked. as far as i know, that is true and you claiming it is debunked based on your shit line of argument is just as unjustified as many of the other idiots on the internet making nonscientific claims.

(just to disclose my own biases: i smoke cigarettes and i just face reality. the whole "partially combusted hydrocarbons" is equally bad with cannabis, but the polonium thing is real. i just accept it. and probably the radiation we get from inhaling fossil fuel fumes is on the same level of harmfulness. but you can't deny the polonium-tobacco connection.)

[Anonymous No.11144336]

>>11144332
Imagine being this braindead.

[Anonymous No.11144337]

>>11144336
good argument. how much does your IQ pay you per month?

[Anonymous No.11144338]

>>11144334
Uno.

[Anonymous No.11144339]

>>11144333
>SOURCE SOURCE SOURCE. I AM INCAPABLE OF DISCUSSING RESEARCH METHODS OR HYPOTHESES AND WHENEVER I GET BLOWN THE FUCK OUT, I DEMAND A SOURCE
There you go, midwit.

[Anonymous No.11144343]

>>11144339
1 source.

[Anonymous No.11144344]

>>11144338
I mean, ok....
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=advancements
halfwits right? people who get paid by the government to study cutting edge molecular biology research, which helps form drugs which have provable efficacy of their effects?

[Anonymous No.11144346]

>>11144344
This is a source! Now I'm not the guy you were originally arguing with, but I wanted you to know that a source is has citations and this is what I was looking for. Just some link.

[Anonymous No.11144347]

>>11144343
See the previous image, imbecile.

From
>An assessment of the (210)Po ingestion dose due to the consumption of agricultural, marine, fresh water and forest foodstuffs in Gudalore (India).

[Anonymous No.11144348]

>>11144346
Dude I have 2 3rd author and 2 1st author publications, I mean... making me prove that I know how to search research articles didn't have a point.

[Anonymous No.11144349]

>>11144347
Source

[Anonymous No.11144353]

>>11144339
your source doesn't include tobacco? how does this have anything to do with the discussion then?

find a real source.

[Anonymous No.11144356]

>>11144349
>An assessment of the (210)Po ingestion dose due to the consumption of agricultural, marine, fresh water and forest foodstuffs in Gudalore (India).

[Anonymous No.11144358]

>>11144348
I know. I just like typing the word source. Its a nice word. None of the matters and weed is better than tobacco.

[Anonymous No.11144363]

>>11144344
uh, this is a link to an search of the word "advancements" and has nothing to do with polonium-tobacco or anything else ITT

[Anonymous No.11144364]

>>11144356
SOURCE

[Anonymous No.11144368]

>>11144353
Your source doesn't include anything but tobacco. The range of (210)Po in other plants is equitable if not higher than that of tobacco.

[Anonymous No.11144369]

>>11144363
I'm not arguing with you about your stupid polonium shit. I'm having the other argument.
>>11144358
eh tobacco is worse but only because of the processing, I'd smoke tobacco the rest of my life if i knew I wouldn't get negative symptoms, that being said I'll smoke weed the rest of my life even knowing I could get the negative symptoms.

[Anonymous No.11144370]

>>11144363
That's because this thread is a bunch of retards trying to out-tard each over by screaming "muh IQ" and "muh sources". I started trolling it while high, by making both idiots provide sources.

[Anonymous No.11144372]

>>11144364
An assessment of the (210)Po ingestion dose due to the consumption of agricultural, marine, fresh water and forest foodstuffs in Gudalore (India), Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 2014 Nov;137:96-104. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2014.06.019.

[Anonymous No.11144373]

>>11144369
>I'll smoke weed the rest of my life
SOURCE PLZ NAO

[Anonymous No.11144374]

>>11144191
I thought potheads weren't supposed to get so angry

[Anonymous No.11144376]

>>11144372
PROVIDE SOURCE

[Anonymous No.11144378]

>>11144356
so you post an image that leaves out tobacco completely and refuse to post a link to whatever study it is from?

sounds like you are a complete shill trying real hard at sophistry since you failed at finding any good sources you could post links to

[Anonymous No.11144379]

>>11144374
SOURCE PLZ NAO OR I REPORT YOU TO r/TIL

[Anonymous No.11144381]

>>11144378
See >>11144368

[Anonymous No.11144385]

>>11144381
PROVIDE SAWRSE

[Anonymous No.11144386]

Do you have a source on that?

Source?

A source. I need a source.

Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.

No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered. You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.

You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.

Nope, still haven't.

[Anonymous No.11144392]

>>11144372
this article is not open-access and it's written by some shitty saudi arabian single author and it doesn't even mention tobacco in the abstract (which is the only thing available openly)

i think this is a completely irrelevant paper, and even if it were relevant, i discard single-authored papers from meme saudi universities out of hand.

btw saudis love cigarettes and their funding all comes from completely biased funding agencies, so i discard this even if it were relevant.

find a real source

[Anonymous No.11144399]

>>11144392
>offers study only with tobacco
>gets called out that other plants have (210)Po
>no they don't
>proves that they do
>no this isn't good, you need a study that explicitly uses tobacco and other plants and if you cant find it, that means the pseudoscience written around some shit-tier 1960s studies is right
You need a lobotomy. It's fruitless to discuss anything with you.

[Anonymous No.11144401]

I'm just happy that the retard couldn't provide a source because some anon kept typing "provide source" over and over again lol.

[Anonymous No.11144402]

>>11144401
source

[Anonymous No.11144403]

>>11144399
PROVIDE SOURCE

[Anonymous No.11144410]

>>11144402
>>11144129

[Anonymous No.11144412]

>>11144392
The study had nothing to do with tobacco brainlet. It showed that other plants uptake polonium. If you compare that to the tobacco study, it's similar if not higher.

[Anonymous No.11144415]

>>11144399
everything you said is completely trolling, since nothing you said relates to anything in any of your fictitious "citations" whatsoever.

please, if you aren't completely trolling, be very clear and post a link to a study about tobacco and polonium with a relevant quote from that study that i can verify by clicking your link. so far you have posted completely random shit that has nothing to do with anything and claimed victory, in true troll form, and then acted like you're trustworthy. if anything, everything you have posted has proven that you are the epitome of a troll posting nonsense that should be ignored

[Anonymous No.11144416]

>>11144403
One was indeed provided.

[Anonymous No.11144422]

>>11144416
PROVIDE SOURCE

[Anonymous No.11144426]

>>11144412
i don't think that you can compare two different studies apples-to-apples like that. if someone is claiming that the well-established fact that tobacco plants accumulate polonium more than most comparable plants, then i hope they have _one_ study that says that. cross-referencing different papers with different methodologies is definitely not going to be reliable versus the dedicated one-paper studies that DO exist and which disagree with what you would conclude from naiive cross-comparison of non-comparable studies

[Anonymous No.11144430]

>>11144415
You're the one who made the extraordinary claim that tobacco has a "polonium-accumulating feature" and that "nicotine accumulates it significantly more than most other human-consumption plants", both of which make little sense at face value alone. That aside, this hypothesis was contested with the simple fact that all plants bioaccumulate trace elements and substantiated with a paper showing respective levels, which if extrapolated, are comparable to the trace amounts listed in the 1960s studies you found on Wikipedia. You're not very smart.

[Anonymous No.11144431]

>>11144426
>well-established fact that tobacco plants accumulate polonium more than most comparable plants
This isn't a well-establish fact.

[Anonymous No.11144433]

yes, it would. youd still get cancer.

see: chewing tobacco gives you mouth and throat cancer

[Anonymous No.11144435]

>>11144430
no, your extrapolating your lame ideas is something i already addressed:
>>11144335
the polonium-tobacco link has not been debunked and is in fact corroborated by many studies that are much newer.

the burden of proof is on you, since you claim the tobacco-polonium connection is debunked. you have 0 citations so far to support that. even if the wikipedia article and the citations therein are too "1960s" for you, that's still better than 0 citations from your side

[Anonymous No.11144438]

>>11144431
it appears in the literature and on wikipedia. i cited it above. if you disagree, then post something to back that up

[Anonymous No.11144439]

>>11144335
>well-established result that tobacco accumulates polonium at a much higher rate than other common plants
This is not well-established.

[Anonymous No.11144442]

>>11144438
The papers do not examine Po content of other consumable plants.

[Anonymous No.11144448]

>>11144442
well then find a citation to compare them. i’m sure it’s been done but you like to deny science instead of reading up

[Anonymous No.11144456]

>click on thread vaguely hoping for a discussion on the health effects of nicotine itself
>autistic screeching about weed and polonium

[Anonymous No.11144461]

>>11144456
Its the low IQ poster of /sci/. He's the same guy who makes all the anti-nuclear posts.

[Anonymous No.11144565]

>>11144191
The irony here...

[magellan gps updates No.11144565,2]

When it comes to talking about its features, this Magellan device or Magellan GPS updates are loaded; with various sorts of exciting features. Once you start using this great device, you’ll learn about the traffic alerts, weather conditions, and a lot more. While using it, you’ll get to know which road route you should choose and which you should avoid. As many GPS devices are available in the market, one can opt for Magellan to make traveling easy and smooth. It will happen only just because of this advanced and modified device. But there is the thing about it that it needs updates from time to time. Simply put, you will need to update this device to have a comfortable experience of your journey.