Advertentie | |
|
02-02-2008, 12:09 | |
Ik had het ook gelezen ja. Zat een maand geleden nog in Nieuw-Zeeland en zit nu in Australie, ook hier worden allemaal flyers neergelegd over de nadelige gevolgen wiet roken. Maarja, 't blijft zo relaxt en ik persoonlijk leef liever korter en geniet van m'n jointjes dan dat ik heel oud word zonder. Ik vergeet dit soort berichten dus et liefst zo snel mogelijk en steek er weer een op
|
02-02-2008, 13:53 | |
Verwijderd
|
Nieuw-Zeeland is dan ook wel het walhalla van de potheads, met het hoogste percentage wietgebruikers ter wereld (ongeveer 6 keer zo veel gebruikers per hoofd van de bevolking, vergeleken met Nederland). Dan vind ik 1 op de 20 nog wel meevallen, het lijkt me dat je je er geen zorgen over hoeft te maken als je af een toe een jointje opsteekt.
|
02-02-2008, 17:18 | ||
Citaat:
__________________
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
|
04-02-2008, 11:52 | |
niet leuk om te horen, en ik geloof het op zich ook wel. De rook uit een joint is natuurlijk ook veel zwaarder op je longen dan die uit een sigaret.
Maar ik denk dat het onderzoek niet helemaal klopt, want mensen die joints roken, roken over het algemeen ook sigaretten. En als ik het over mezelf heb: ik ga alleen maar meer roken als ik stoned ben. Daar komt die longkanker natuurlijk ook door.
__________________
i'm not even supposed to be here today
|
05-02-2008, 01:03 | ||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
Austin Powers Evolution Blergh, die hebben we allemaal wel honderd keer gezien geloof ik |
05-02-2008, 09:03 | ||
Citaat:
__________________
Freedom is indivisible. As soon as one starts to restrict it, one enters upon a decline on which it is difficult to stop.
|
05-02-2008, 21:07 | |
"De onderzoekers onderzochten 79 longkankerpatiënten om de grootste risicofactoren te vinden. Naast familiegeschiedenis en beroepen werd ook gevraagd naar roken, drank en drugsgebruik. En wat bleek, als mensen tien jaar lang 1 joint per dag, of vijf jaar lang 2 joints per dag roken, hebben ze 5,7 keer meer kans om longkanker te krijgen."
dit is epidemiologisch onderzoek, de ziekte is opgetreden en men kijkt welke eigenschappen/gewoonten bij de patienten vaker voorkomen dan gemiddeld.
__________________
Freedom is indivisible. As soon as one starts to restrict it, one enters upon a decline on which it is difficult to stop.
|
06-02-2008, 15:15 | |
Sorry hoor, maar zo'n onderzoek onder 79 mensen kan ik echt niet serieus nemen. Omdat je de omgevingsfactoren niet kan reguleren moet je eerder naar 7.900 mensen kijken wil je wat zinnigs kunnen zeggen.
__________________
Nothing says "I love you" like fisting.
Een gat is een gat en mijn lul heeft geen ogen. |
06-02-2008, 20:12 | ||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
|
Ads door Google |
06-02-2008, 23:11 | ||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
|
06-02-2008, 23:17 | ||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
|
07-02-2008, 11:31 | ||
Citaat:
Bij een klein onderzoek als deze kan je slechts zeggen dat het vermoedelijk schadelijker is; voor de rest vallen hier echt geen harde conclusies uit te trekken.
__________________
Nothing says "I love you" like fisting.
Een gat is een gat en mijn lul heeft geen ogen. |
07-02-2008, 11:59 | ||
Citaat:
__________________
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
|
09-02-2008, 15:26 | ||
Citaat:
__________________
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
|
12-02-2008, 13:28 | |
Latest Anti-Pot Quack Science: 'Marijuana Makes Your Teeth Fall Out'
By Bruce Mirken, AlterNet. Posted February 9, 2008. A rash of new studies of marijuana has hit the mass media, generating absurd headlines like "Smoking Pot Rots Your Gums." Recent weeks have seen a rash of new studies of marijuana hitting the mass media, generating scary headlines like "Smoking Pot Rots Your Gums," "Cannabis Bigger Cancer Risk Than Cigarettes" and "Pot Withdrawal Similar to Quitting Cigarettes. Most of this coverage can be boiled down to a fairly simple equation: Flawed science + uncritical reporting = misinformation. Mercifully, the U.S. mass media were so distracted by Super Tuesday, Heath Ledger's autopsy and the latest Britney Spears trauma that reports of these studies didn't get as much play as they might have. That's good, because the research had significant gaps, and the reporting ranged from slapdash to flat wretched. Lung cancer: One joint = 20 cigarettes? The lung cancer study was the scariest. Since cigarettes are a known lung cancer risk, it seems plausible that marijuana might carry similar risks. In fact, most of the scientific evidence tends in the opposite direction -- though one would never know it from reading either the study or the Reuters wire story that got the heaviest circulation. Conducted in New Zealand, this was what is called a "case-control" study, in which researchers looked at a group of patients who had lung cancer and compared them to a group without cancer -- the controls -- matched for age and other demographics. All were asked about various factors that might increase their lung cancer risk, including smoking cigarettes or marijuana. After running the data on 79 cancer cases and 324 controls through myriad equations and mathematical analyses, the researchers proclaimed that one joint packed a cancer risk roughly equal to 20 cigarettes -- an assertion that became Reuters' lead. What was downplayed in the study, published in the European Respiratory Journal, and missing entirely from most media reports was context -- context that strongly suggests that its alarming conclusion is wrong. For one thing, the new conflicts with other, much larger studies. In a study published in 1997, Kaiser-Permanente researchers followed 65,000 patients for 10 years and saw no sign of marijuana use increasing the risk of lung cancer or other smoking-related cancers. And a UCLA study similar in design to this one, published in 2006, found a trend toward lower lung cancer rates among marijuana smokers. Instead of 79 cancer cases, the UCLA team looked at 1,212. The result was so striking that they speculated that it "may reflect a protective effect of marijuana." That's right: Marijuana might protect from cancer. Piles of published studies going back to the mid-1970s document the cancer-fighting properties of marijuana's active components, THC and other chemicals called cannabinoids. Anticancer activity has been shown in many types of malignant cells, including lung cancer cells. So even though marijuana smoke contains tars and other potentially carcinogenic compounds, it is entirely plausible that cannabinoids counter any harmful effects. But even without such context, a closer look at the New Zealand data raises questions that should have been asked by reporters. For example, most marijuana smokers in the study actually didn't show an increased risk of cancer. The only group that did was those whose marijuana use equaled at least 10.5 "joint-years" (one joint-year equals smoking a joint every day for one year). That group constituted a whopping 14 people. All those complicated mathematical models leading to the "20 times the risk" assertion, and contradicting reams of published research, rest on exactly 14 people. Does marijuana rot your gums? The gum disease study was even more tenuous, but again you would never know it from most of the coverage. Researchers -- also in New Zealand -- followed 903 participants from birth through age 32. At ages 18, 21, 26 and 32, they were asked whether they had used marijuana in the past year, and how often. The heaviest marijuana users had a 60 percent increased risk for gum disease after controlling for several factors that might affect their risk, including cigarette use and professional dental care. The researchers were careful to say they hadn't proved cause and effect, but simply what scientists called an "association." But that didn't stop one U.S. reporter from writing that marijuana "could ... destroy gum tissue" and an Australian headline writer from declaring that marijuana "makes teeth fall out." Reading the actual study -- something one suspects most reporters never did -- raises questions the media never asked. Why is there no indication that participants were questioned about use of alcohol or other illicit drugs, both of which are known risk factors for dental and gum problems? Why were they not asked about brushing and flossing habits? Given the relatively small effect -- the statistical margin of error meant that the increased risk could be as low as 16 percent -- confounding by alcohol/drug use or poor dental hygiene could easily explain the whole difference. In other words, there is a very good chance this study found nothing real at all. I raised this issue with an editor at one news organization, whose story had been particularly hysterical and lacking in context, asking why they hadn't noted these potential doubts. The rather snippy reply: "As for the rest of your concerns, we are dealing with a peer-reviewed journal study, and I don't feel at all comfortable going beyond what they are publishing. That is not our role." Memo to editors: Journal peer-reviewers are human. They sometimes miss stuff. When did it stop being a reporter's job to ask questions? Marijuana as addictive as tobacco? If you haven't lost your teeth or died of lung cancer yet, another set of grim headlines warned that marijuana is as addictive as tobacco -- again, a conclusion that went beyond the study's findings and which was almost certainly wrong. In this U.S. study, researchers took 12 people who regularly smoked both marijuana and cigarettes and had them stop using one, the other and both, in varying orders. Physiological tests and responses to questionnaires were used to assess withdrawal symptoms such as irritability and difficulty sleeping. The withdrawal symptoms reported were roughly comparable. But the limitations of this research are obvious. In fairness, most were acknowledged in the study, published in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence. For one, the study looked only at regular users of both substances, so it tells nothing about marijuana users who do not use tobacco -- a considerable number, by most accounts. Second, the researchers did not publish the results for individual participants. In a sample of 12, one or two extreme responses can skew the averages enough to make them meaningless. The researchers also did not note any changes in participants' use of caffeine or alcohol, which could easily have affected their findings. Volunteers were asked not to change their use of these substances, but we have no clue whether they followed these instructions. And though the overall withdrawal symptom ratings were similar, ratings of anger and craving were higher for tobacco than for marijuana. And even in areas where the two substances were statistically comparable, there was often a trend toward the tobacco withdrawals being stronger. Had this been a larger study, those trends might have reached statistical significance. Also, the five-day abstinence period may not have been enough to fully gauge withdrawal effects. For longtime cigarette smokers, tobacco cravings can continue for years. Finally, a reality check: It is an established fact that about 32 percent of those who ever touch a cigarette become dependent on tobacco. For marijuana, the figure is nine percent. In the real world, it's clear that marijuana is nowhere near as addictive as tobacco -- but again, you'd never know it from the coverage of this study. In fact, you wouldn't learn much from the coverage of any of these studies. ------ booyakasha 8)
__________________
As the pattern gets more intricate and subtle, being swept along is no longer enough.
|
22-02-2008, 11:16 | |
volgens mij kan wiet niet veel kwaad hoor ik rook zelf ook dus maakt het niet uit voor maij ik denk gewoon ik ga toch een keer dood dus wat maakt het uit er zijn zoveel lui hier die blowen spuiten wiet roken en sigaretten en zuipen als een grote
en wat dan nog tis maar wiet gr maaike |
22-02-2008, 11:47 | ||
Citaat:
__________________
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
|
|
|