Charlotte McDonald

Hello and thanks for downloading the More or Less podcast. With a programme that looks at the numbers in the news and in life and in nicotine. I'm Charlotte MacDonald.

Suomalaisen terveydenhuollon mukaan nukkuu noin seitsemän miljoonaa ihmistä joka vuosi. Se on yksi maailman tärkeimmistä syrjintäkohdista. Koska nukkuu syrjintäkohdista ja muista huonosti terveydenhuollosta, moni nukkuu vapauksesta nikotiinipalveluissa.

But the World Health Organization is also concerned about vaping. Last year they said 100 million people around the world are now using e-cigarettes, including millions of children, and warned that they were fueling a new wave of nicotine addiction. But how do the health risks of these two means of getting nicotine into your bloodstream compare? According to a recent article in the Daily Mail, they're basically the same. Here's the headline.

Tom Coles on katsomassa tätä. Hei Tom. Hei Charlotte. Me tiedämme, että pöydän on yksi tärkeimmistä esimerkkeistä jotain, mikä ei ole väärin pahaa sinulle. Me tiedämme, että se vaikuttaa kansalaisuuteen, syrjinnän, syrjinnän, ja niin edelleen. Ja me tiedämme, miksi se on. Koska sinä asetat kemikallisesti käsitellyt pöydän pöydän ja nukkutat pöydän, joka kokoaa pöydän toksissaan.

Now, the headline in the mail seems to be saying two things. First, that a major new study has found that vaping is linked to cancer. And second, that this means that it's not safer than smoking. Is that right?

No, but the authors of the Australian paper told me that these kind of experiments have helped to identify carcinogens in the past. Okay, but just because you've identified a chemical that can potentially cause cancer in mice under extreme conditions, that doesn't mean that it'll do the same in people who vape, does it?

But if you don't smoke or vape and you want to live a healthy life, then probably don't start vaping. It's not good for you and nicotine is highly addictive. Got it. Thanks Tom. And thanks to Professor Leon Shahab. If you've seen a number or stat in the news you think we should take a look at, email moreorless at bbc.co.uk. That's it for this week. Goodbye!

We're the program that looks at the numbers in the news, in life and in beef.

I'm Charlotte McDonald.

If you spend much time on social media, and we don't necessarily recommend it, then you've probably come across a strange fascination with water consumption.

Mainly, this is people telling you that using AI is terrible for the planet because of how much water it uses.

We've already made a couple of programmes about the numbers in those arguments, and long story short, they probably aren't saying what you think they're saying.

But on the platforms like X, Blue Sky and TikTok, an opportunity to keep an argument going is rarely missed.

And one of the numbers that's been enlisted in that glorious cause concerns the water that's used for a seemingly unrelated pastime, eating beef.

Does it actually take 15,000 litres of water to produce a kilogram of beef?

This is Mesvin Meekanen, an assistant professor at the University of Alabama, and he definitely knows what this 15,000 number means.

It features in scientific papers from the early 2010s that he co-wrote with Arjen Hoekstra, a Dutch professor who pioneered the idea of the water footprint.

The issue is that the water footprint is being used to say that the amount of water beef uses is bad.

And the story explaining what's wrong with that goes back to before the water footprint was developed.

Quick botany lesson.