this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2025
54 points (75.5% liked)

Public Health

1168 readers
5 users here now

For issues concerning:

🩺 This community has a broader scope so please feel free to discuss. When it may not be clear, leave a comment talking about why something is important.

Related Communities

See the pinned post in the Medical Community Hub for links and descriptions. link (!medicine@lemmy.world)

Rules

Given the inherent intersection that these topics have with politics, we encourage thoughtful discussions while also adhering to the mander.xyz instance guidelines.

Try to focus on the scientific aspects and refrain from making overly partisan or inflammatory content

Our aim is to foster a respectful environment where we can delve into the scientific foundations of these topics. Thank you!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@mander.xyz
otter@lemmy.ca
54
Inhalers drive carbon emissions equivalent to 530,000 cars each year, study shows (phys.org)
submitted 1 month ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/publichealth@mander.xyz
51 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Inhalers are the frontline treatment for asthma and COPD, but they come with a steep environmental cost, according to a new UCLA Health study—the largest to date quantifying inhaler-related emissions in the United States.

Researchers found that inhalers have generated over 2 million metric tons of carbon emissions annually over the past decade, equivalent to the emissions of roughly 530,000 gas-powered cars on the road each year.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You still haven’t answered the core question. You called the headline “misleading,” but you have not shown:

a) the number is wrong b) the CO2e to cars conversion is wrong c) missing context that would change the conclusion

Your replies keep circling the same move: you dislike that the article points out something bad about inhalers, so you attack the framing. That is an emotional reaction, not a technical critique.

Shifting denominators after the fact, tone policing, and guessing intent, ad hominem about the author or myself: None of that shows a defect in the headline.

If you think it is sensationalist, quote the exact clause that creates a false impression and provide the corrected wording and denominator. If you cannot do that, then you have not supported “misleading.” Dislike is not an argument, which is all you've offered so far.

And "in too deep" bit: Bruh. Its like two days later. You can't have it both ways.