• ColeSloth
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    2 months ago

    Your smart-ass little comment was about if it increases more than walking around outside. You made it without reading the article, and now you’re trying to strawman your way around it by talking about what a 400% increase actually means, as if everyone in here is as dumb as you think they are. Newsflash for ya. Most arent.

    • orclev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      You completely missed the point. 400% is meaningless without more context. If I increase my odds of winning the lottery by 400%, I’d still be a moron for wasting my money in the lottery. Percentages are constantly abused in marketing and news articles to imply things that don’t really apply.

      So yes, the article doesn’t actually specify how much your risk increases due to being exposed to those chemicals, just saying 400% is about as informative as saying 6 or 10,000. It implies a significant risk, but doesn’t support it. Without knowing how much risk there actually is it’s impossible to evaluate if the benefits outweigh the risks.

      • ColeSloth
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Your “risk” increases 400%. Your risk of getting a specific cancer before may have only been something like 0.02%, but now it’s 0.08%. That’s still a 400% increase.