It's worrying tho because this kind of messaging will rapidly gain traction. Which is fine if it has an evidence base. But if it doesn't...
-
-
Replying to @coopesdetat @amyneilson12
Well there’s folks on here we could ask for second opinion . Doesn’t
@dr_ashwitt do respiratory med and her consultant on here? There’s also pulmonology docs like@virenkaul1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ketaminh @amyneilson12 and
Yes I would be very interested to know what
@dr_ashwitt & her boss think about this and if they know of any evidence delineating industrial v woodsmoke PM exposure and one being more harmful than the other2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @coopesdetat @ketaminh and
There is certainly knowledge on effects of forest fires: eg: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S001393511930194X … And as is there data on lung effects of living in polluted areas, with some comparisons to smoking. Don’t think there’s head to head data on effects of wildfire vs smoking
4 replies 2 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @virenkaul @ketaminh and
I've actually had a few people ask me if it is the same level of concern and I haven't had the answer, so I was interested to see these remarks and wanted to know if there was evidence to back it up
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @coopesdetat @ketaminh and
I’d say there is very much similar if not the same level of concern: it’s smoke / particulate / irritant exposure I’m high quantities over long periods of time (the fires have been ongoing!). Data from pollution, other irritant inhalation would suggest absolute cause of concern!
1 reply 2 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @virenkaul @coopesdetat and
I don't know that I'd agree with the long periods of time per se. From what I've heard, the high levels of particulate matter come and go - you might have a week or two with very high levels followed by a similar length without
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @virenkaul and
Mate we have probably had, out here, one or two days at most below hazardous or very poor, in a number of weeks. You might get reprieve on the coast, inland we really don't
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @coopesdetat @virenkaul and
I guess it's more the comparison to smoking. AFAIK, that's based on levels of PM2.5 and/or PM10 particles - are they high enough to match smoking all the time, for extended periods of time?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @virenkaul and
I don't so much care about what he has said ref smoking comparison, and take your point there. I do absolutely have a problem with him asserting that bushfire smoke has short term effects only cf other kinds of pollution. It's not correct
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes
I feel like that's an attitude based on past experiences - if the fires only last a few weeks/month, it's probably true. But these have been going on for months already, and could last for months more
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.