Talk:Snus/Archives/2019

"Confusion of snus and snuff" section needs rewriting

I find the section addressing the confusion incredibly confusing. It should be rewritten for clarity and consistency. I have no idea what the word "snuff" can actually refer to in different parts of the world (especially after reading that section), so someone more knowledgeable is needed for the job. 80.220.194.85 (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Error or tautology in statement

There is a strange double negative in the sentence. Some mistake has occurred and I have no way of determining which.

Wikipedia

  A 2014 report commissioned by Public Health England on electronic cigarettes said snus "has a risk profile that includes possible increases in risk of oesophageal and pancreatic cancer, and of fatal (but not non-fatal) myocardial infarction, but not COPD or lung cancer." [18]

[18] Britton, John; Bogdanovica, Ilze (15 May 2014). "Electronic cigarettes – A report commissioned by Public Health England" (PDF). Public Health England. p. 11.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/311887/Ecigarettes_report.pdf

It is taken verbatim out of the source which cites two other sources for the sentence fragment. Could it be that one source says fatal and the other says non-fatal and Britton intended to show that the statement was contradicted by the other source. If someone has access to those sources perhaps they can check what was written before it gets quoted from Wikipedia with the current pointless error/tautology.

Source

  Snus is an oral moist tobacco which contains relatively low levels of tobacco specific nitrosamines [65]and has a risk profile that includes possible increases in risk of oesophageal and pancreatic cancer,[66] and of fatal (but not non-fatal) myocardial infarction,[67, 68] but not COPD or lung cancer.[62]

[67] Gartner, C., et al., Assessment of Swedish snus for tobacco harm reduction: an epidemiological modelling study.Lancet, 2007. 369: p. 2010-­‐2014.
[68] Roth, D.H., A.B. Roth, and X. Liu, Health risks of smoking compared to Swedish snus.Inhal.Toxicol, 2005. 17(13): p. 741-­‐748.

Idyllic press (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Idyllic press: The quote is awkward, but correct. Statistically, snus users are no more likely to have heart attacks than non-users, but if they do have one, they're more likely to die from it. --IamNotU (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@IamNotU: Ok, I can see how that could be an interpretation but I still cannot see how a casual reader could come to that conclusion from reading the awkward sentence. In the interest of knowledge it would make more sense to reword like you explained it or something from one of the other sources that may separate the statistically likely and unlikely events. The way it is now it looks like deliberate misinformation and this makes the complete page contents feel suspicious. Idyllic press (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I reworded the sentence to attempt to better clarify what it is saying. Let me know if anyone still thinks it is not clear, or if I somehow made it less clear. Vontheri (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Gum disease?

Why is there an FDA warning about gum disease, but no mention of effects on gums (other than irritation) in the article? Did they issue a warning without any evidence to support it?--88.72.14.153 (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

"Did they issue a warning without any evidence to support it?" Probably. That warning label is one that is required by the US government to be placed on any kind of smokeless tobacco. The labels were originally written with dipping tobacco and chewing tobacco in mind, before snus was really available for sale in the United States. That said, if there has been any relevant research regarding the effects of snus on gum disease and tooth loss, that would certainly be good for someone to add that to the article. Vontheri (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)