[throwanem]

Sure. And if any particulate emitted by an ultrasonic humidifier could be dangerous enough to shorten your life by ~10% with consistent use or 50 minutes per roughly 8-hour night's sleep as this timecuber of yours appears to claim, then I should think the tire and brake dust burden anywhere near an actively used road would be not just instantly but flagrantly fatal.

I'm aware of the hundred thousand words spent justifying the idea. I will consider reading them once I've been convinced to ignore the result of this trivial - and I do use the following phrase with careful consideration aforethought - sanity check. You'll more likely give the goalpost another kick, though, I suspect.

[jodrellblank]

Explain where I have given any goalposts any kick at all?

From the articles:

> A good heuristic is that an increase of 33.3 PM2.5 μg/m³ costs around 1 disability-adjusted life year. Correia et al. (2013) estimated something close to this from different counties in the US, and more recent data from many different countries confirm this. The most polluted cities in the world have levels around 100 PM2.5 μg/m³.

> When inhaled during an 8-hr exposure time, and depending on mineral water quality, humidifier aerosols can deposit up to 100s of μg minerals in the human child respiratory tract and 3–4.5 times more μg of minerals in human adult respiratory tract. > (Yao et al., 2020)

The amount of particles people breathe in in a night of worst case ultrasonic humidifier use is 8x more than the particle level in the air of the most polluted cities in the world.

[throwanem]

And of course every relationship is both bijective and linear from one data point over an infinite domain.

We could talk about this utter misrepresentation of https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23211349/ but why? You haven't read it. You won't. At most you will follow the examples you cite in prooftexting from it like a Southern Baptist inveighing against homosexuality. Kindly find someone else whose time so to waste.

[jodrellblank]

I said, explain where I kicked any goalposts. You haven't, because I didn't. Ad-homs, against the author and against me, pre-deciding your conclusion, refusing to explain your objections, pretending "we could talk about it" while turning to insults to shut down any talking about it.

I get it, you're desperate to appear smart and superior, but arguing that lamely isn't doing it. Of course I'm not going to read your link, try and guess what misrepresentations you're coming up with, make some argument about them and their context in the wider post, only for you to ignore it and post some more nonsense in response. Or engage with you further.

[throwanem]

The link I posted leads to a paper you cited. You've attributed a causal claim to the paper which it not only does not make, but even in its abstract very carefully avoids. If that isn't intentional falsity, then it is certainly a remarkable demonstration of intellectual negligence. In any case "desperate" is not how I would describe the simple fact that I did a better job checking your sources than you have, which by the look of the thing is to say that of the two of us I'm the only one who bothered actually investigating your argument at all.

You could not by now have done more to prove my point that you aren't bothering to actually know anything about what you present yourself able knowledgeably to discuss. Thanks for that. Feel free to embarrass yourself with further flagrant scientism if you like. Enjoy your day.

[jodrellblank]

> a paper you cited.

> You've attributed a causal claim

> your sources

> your argument

> what you present yourself able knowledgeably to discuss.

No, no, no, nope and no. None of these accusations are correct. Feel free to embarrass yourself with lacking basic reading and quoting comprehension; I am not the author of the Dynomight article.

[throwanem]

> I am not the author of the Dynomight article.

Who chose to bring it up? Who chose to insist on its baseless conclusions? Who then demonstrated the inability to defend those conclusions for their total lack of substance?

No, you don't get to represent the source you chose as accurate only until that fails to go your way, and then turn around and try to disclaim it. The embarrassment you now feel is amply earned.

This is what it feels like to have failed to evaluate your sources, argued strenuously in support of total nonsense, and thus made a complete and negligent fool of yourself. You should draw a lesson from that for next time you consider starting a conversation like this one.

You won't; you are too deeply in love with the idea of yourself as a clever person, and you won't dismiss the offense I gave to consider the substance of my remarks. This is a level of predictability I would not be comfortable with in myself. But that, too, is no problem of mine.

You've tried moving the goalposts again, had you noticed? If I let you get away with it, we wouldn't be talking about the factual inaccuracies, facial implausibilities, and ignorant misrepresentations of research, in the source you so uncritically chose, at all...

[mass_and_energy]

This isn't reddit. Please kindly take your anger, ad homonims, and bad-faith arguments back over there. I'm sorry you had a bad day but nobody in this thread caused it, so take a deep breath.

[throwanem]

Sorry, did you have something substantive to add? Your comment history says not, as does that you carefully avoid substance here, preferring to - actually, that is not obvious and makes an interesting question. What is your purpose here?