7 ms·

Can someone explain the backlash on e-cigarettes to me? I feel like I'm in the midst of a tobacco lobby organized press campaign at times. Here is how my think

Can someone explain the backlash on e-cigarettes to me? I feel like I'm in the midst of a tobacco lobby organized press campaign at times. Here is how my thinking goes: 1) nicotine is essentially another caffeine and not a public health risk, 2) the cancer from smoking is from the literal act of burning things, which emits cancerous material and then by inhalation deposits it in your lungs and finally, 3) e-cigarettes don't emit the same cancerous materials since they only vaporize a nicotine-liquid, and are hence safe. I feel like I can make the conclusion in 3) with just basic understanding of why cigarettes are bad (and e-cigarettes safe), yet it seems no one in the press is prepared to make the small logical leap. Am I overestimating my knowledge here?

muaddirac 11y ago
I'm not an expert, but there is some evidence that nicotine alone can lead to heart disease.
- tptacek 11y ago
  Caffeine also has CVD impact, as well as GI and mental health.
  - Alupis 11y ago
    The difference between caffeine and the chems in e-cigs is that caffeine consumption typically only involves the user. Where-as e-cig consumption too often involves the user, plus all those stuck in the same room/elevator. If this were a nicotine patch, it wouldn't be such an issue.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      E-cigs do not dose bystanders with nicotine.
      - Alupis 11y ago
        They do, plus other chemicals either in the liquid vapor, or created by the heat in the vape.[1][2][3] [1] http://www.medicaldaily.com/secondhand-smoke-goes-electronic-damaging-free-radicals-e-cig-vapor-320740 http://www.medicaldaily.com/secondhand-smoke-goes-electronic... [2] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/281762.php http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/281762.php [3] http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20140903/e-cigarette-vapor-may-be-less-toxic-than-tobacco-smoke-study http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20140903/e-cigar...
        tptacek 11y ago
        None of these links suggest that bystanders are dosed with nicotine by e-cigarettes.
        Alupis 11y ago
        I'm not sure if you are purposefully being obtuse, because you appear to be making the argument that e-cigarettes are "safe" for the user plus those around - which is absurd (as evidenced in the links). Your follow-up will say something to the effect that you specifically said "dosed with nicotine", and yes that phrase is not present in any text I can locate. That does not somehow mean we can jump to a logical conclusion they are "safe" (yes, "safer" is a better term, but that shows disregard for people's health who have explicitly chosen not to participate). Furthermore, since many e-cigarette users insist on using them indoors, it's inevitable other bystanders will inhale their "second hand vape", and thus be exposed to the health risks associated.
        tptacek 11y ago
        Please don't call me names. The thread is right there for everyone to see. Someone said nicotine has CVD impact. I said, so does caffeine. You responded that e-cigs impact bystanders. Well, they don't impact bystanders with CVD impact from nicotine, which is what the thread's about. You then say, "they do", and provide 3 links, none of which support that argument with evidence. I point that out. You then flee to the abstraction of whether e-cigs are "safe".
- VLM 11y ago
  Its unclear and all over the map. There's a famous study from '97 in direct opposition based on nicotine gums and patches and I quote: "Clinical trials of NRT in patients with underlying, stable coronary disease suggest that nicotine does not increase cardiovascular risk" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9180099 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9180099 On the other hand there's something in e-cig fluid aside from nicotine that seems to be a cancer risk "E-cigarette vapor, both with and without nicotine, is cytotoxic to epithelial cell lines and is a DNA strand break-inducing agent. Further assessment of the potential carcinogenic effects of e-cigarette vapor is urgently needed." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26547127 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26547127 To some extent its like arguing with people about a paleo diet. Twinkies may or may not be good or bad for you, none the less removing twinkies from your diet totally utterly freaks some people out. Likewise it seems highly likely that not using ecigs will have no negative health effects, but people will freak out if you suggest not vapeing. In terms of recreational activities, its probably not as bad as numerous activities like being exposed to fumes from drying paint, stripping and refinishing of furniture, etc. On the other hand its likely far more dangerous than watching TV or reading HN articles.
coderdude 11y ago
The vapor from ecigs reminds me of the "liquid smoke" used in old model trains to simulate smoke coming from the stack. I'm concerned about the effects of breathing that stuff in all the time. It's not water vapor as far as I'm aware.
- daheza 11y ago
  Seems to me like it would be similar to what a fog machine produces. Looks like there have been some studies on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fog_machine#Adverse_health_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fog_machine#Adverse_health_eff...
- PeCaN 11y ago
  Breathing high concentrations of water vapor is probably worse for your lungs than propylene glycol. Not that it's good for you, but it's fairly well studied.
- Zigurd 11y ago
  It's glycerine. AFAIK that's about as safe as water.
  - VLM 11y ago
    Pull a MSDS on glycerine, you will not be happy to discover there are all manner of problems, enough mist will kill you quite effectively, externally it kills rabbits at a level corresponding to swimming in it acutely, long term skin exposure is very unclear. Various governments have differing views on how much is safe to breathe in a workplace along the lines of ten or so milligrams per cubic meter which isn't much. I can't get a straight answer on oral toxicity; drinking somewhere around half a percent body weight kills half the mice, so if I did the math right in my head, if you are a man sized mouse, drinking the equivalent of a wine bottle of pure glycerin in one sitting might lead to very serious medical problems (like death, for example). The long term effects listed sound scary for kidneys and "reproductive organs". In the short term it appears fairly hard to get killed by glycerin. Long term it doesn't sound very good at all. In that way, it reminds me of benzene or PCBs where in the short term theres zero risk if you can avoid drowning, but the long term effects are pretty awful. Its definitely not as safe as water. Of course the "real" problem is likely whatever else is in the fluid. Who knows whats in there.
dexwiz 11y ago
Combustion of "safe" molecules can produce unknown chemicals that are potentially hazardous. This is why smoke is bad. Vapes (ecigs) have a pretty wide operating range, especially when modded to operate at different wattages. They claim to only vaporize liquid, but at high operating temperatures they could break down molecules, which is still combustion, just to a lesser degree. When you start adding all assortments of aromatic compounds used in flavoring, saying everything is safe is impossible. They may be food grade flavorings, but they probably weren't all tested under the conditions seen in a vaporizer. The main argument for vapes is that hey don't produce tar, which is one of the worst parts of cigarettes. Are they as bad a normal cigs? Probably not. Are they completely, 100% safe? No.
- tptacek 11y ago
  On the one hand, a known and potent human carcinogen. On the other, an application of the precautionary principle that may well be just as applicable to the acrylamide on french fries. How does this make sense as a vector for backlash?
  - Alupis 11y ago
    The "backlash" is largely propelled by user's disregard for others around them. Users regularly can be witnessed using their e-cig indoors and in close proximity to others. These users often say "it's only water vapor", which is absurdly false.
    - dexwiz 11y ago
      In my state its illegal to smoke vapes anywhere its illegal to smoke cigarettes. This largely keeps it out of public spaces. I don't know how this applies to other states. Also there is debate in the community about respect. I have more friends that step out for a vape, just like they would for cig, so they don't bother non smokers, than puff away like its nothing. But that's purely anecdotal.
    - AlexandrB 11y ago
      > The "backlash" is largely propelled by user's disregard for others around them. I can say the same thing about those having backyard firepits [1] whose output affects FAR more people than a single (e)cigarette. To my knowledge no one is campaigning against big campfire though. Edit: > These users often say "it's only water vapor", which is absurdly false. Yes, but does second-hand e-cigarette smoke cause significant harm? For example second-hand cigarette smoke increases the chance of lung cancer by 20% when living with a smoker [2]. Contrast that with inhaling a puff of e-cigarette second-hand-smoke in a public place once in a while. I understand that you may find e-cigarette smoke annoying but that's not a sufficient reason to ban something in a free society. [1] http://www.ehhi.org/woodsmoke/health_effects.shtml http://www.ehhi.org/woodsmoke/health_effects.shtml [2] http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/secondhandsmoke/chapter7.pdf http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/secondhandsmok...
bsder 11y ago
> Can someone explain the backlash on e-cigarettes to me? Mostly everybody distrusts the companies involved. I suspect there is also some PR by tobacco since these liquids don't require the tobacco industrial complex. E-cigarettes do seem to be "better" for you than standard cigarettes. However, you probably still don't want adolescents using them. We have mounting evidence that habitual use of nicotine, alcohol, marijuana, etc. all have negative effects on a developing brain that they don't have later on an adult. In addition, I really don't want to be breathing a miasma of stuff somebody exhales. However, I'm still torn on bans. Cigarette bans seem to kill local music scenes--which I like very much. I don't know if the ban is the cause, though--it could just be that bans only follow an influx of boring, rich people who displace the artists.
- pcthrowaway 11y ago
  You realize that you're breathing stuff somebody exhales every time you're around other people, right?
  - dexwiz 11y ago
    If most people around you are exhaling clouds of "vapor" at regular intervals, you may need to re-evaluate your surroundings.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      I can't tell if you're joking. If joke: well played.
    - pcthrowaway 11y ago
      News flash: You're exhaling clouds of vapor with every breath. However, you can't generally see it.
  - bsder 11y ago
    Yes, but normally they aren't exhaling toxic junk. And, in flu season, I tend to cut back on group gatherings as much as possible because, exactly, they ARE exhaling toxic junk.
VLM 11y ago
Don't forget the cultural effects such as neopuritanism and anti-hipster-ism. Some of the backlash is of course the smell, from people insisting on using them indoors or generally in close quarters. What chemicals are in the liquid is mysterious and vaguely unregulated so who knows. Its not as regulated as food and drink or pharmaceuticals. Its not unrealistic to assume its just different cancer causing materials, not no cancer causing materials at all. Its basically at the patent medicine level of regulation.
no_wave 11y ago
Main concern is that people fully expect issues to be found down the line. Would I bet $100,000 that we won't discover any currently-unknown harmful side effects from vaping in the next thirty years? I wouldn't. It's similar to how with each iteration of safer food-grade plastic we end up finding something harmful about it. It's not a good reason to make it illegal, as I think harm should be proven before making something illegal, but I like that people are exercising some skepticism and concern over the unknown unknowns for a new technology, especially one that involves smoking.

muaddirac 11y ago

I'm not an expert, but there is some evidence that nicotine alone can lead to heart disease.

tptacek 11y ago
Caffeine also has CVD impact, as well as GI and mental health.
- Alupis 11y ago
  The difference between caffeine and the chems in e-cigs is that caffeine consumption typically only involves the user. Where-as e-cig consumption too often involves the user, plus all those stuck in the same room/elevator. If this were a nicotine patch, it wouldn't be such an issue.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    E-cigs do not dose bystanders with nicotine.
    - Alupis 11y ago
      They do, plus other chemicals either in the liquid vapor, or created by the heat in the vape.[1][2][3] [1] http://www.medicaldaily.com/secondhand-smoke-goes-electronic-damaging-free-radicals-e-cig-vapor-320740 http://www.medicaldaily.com/secondhand-smoke-goes-electronic... [2] http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/281762.php http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/281762.php [3] http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20140903/e-cigarette-vapor-may-be-less-toxic-than-tobacco-smoke-study http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20140903/e-cigar...
      - tptacek 11y ago
        None of these links suggest that bystanders are dosed with nicotine by e-cigarettes.
        Alupis 11y ago
        I'm not sure if you are purposefully being obtuse, because you appear to be making the argument that e-cigarettes are "safe" for the user plus those around - which is absurd (as evidenced in the links). Your follow-up will say something to the effect that you specifically said "dosed with nicotine", and yes that phrase is not present in any text I can locate. That does not somehow mean we can jump to a logical conclusion they are "safe" (yes, "safer" is a better term, but that shows disregard for people's health who have explicitly chosen not to participate). Furthermore, since many e-cigarette users insist on using them indoors, it's inevitable other bystanders will inhale their "second hand vape", and thus be exposed to the health risks associated.
        tptacek 11y ago
        Please don't call me names. The thread is right there for everyone to see. Someone said nicotine has CVD impact. I said, so does caffeine. You responded that e-cigs impact bystanders. Well, they don't impact bystanders with CVD impact from nicotine, which is what the thread's about. You then say, "they do", and provide 3 links, none of which support that argument with evidence. I point that out. You then flee to the abstraction of whether e-cigs are "safe".
VLM 11y ago
Its unclear and all over the map. There's a famous study from '97 in direct opposition based on nicotine gums and patches and I quote: "Clinical trials of NRT in patients with underlying, stable coronary disease suggest that nicotine does not increase cardiovascular risk" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9180099 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9180099 On the other hand there's something in e-cig fluid aside from nicotine that seems to be a cancer risk "E-cigarette vapor, both with and without nicotine, is cytotoxic to epithelial cell lines and is a DNA strand break-inducing agent. Further assessment of the potential carcinogenic effects of e-cigarette vapor is urgently needed." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26547127 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26547127 To some extent its like arguing with people about a paleo diet. Twinkies may or may not be good or bad for you, none the less removing twinkies from your diet totally utterly freaks some people out. Likewise it seems highly likely that not using ecigs will have no negative health effects, but people will freak out if you suggest not vapeing. In terms of recreational activities, its probably not as bad as numerous activities like being exposed to fumes from drying paint, stripping and refinishing of furniture, etc. On the other hand its likely far more dangerous than watching TV or reading HN articles.

coderdude 11y ago

The vapor from ecigs reminds me of the "liquid smoke" used in old model trains to simulate smoke coming from the stack. I'm concerned about the effects of breathing that stuff in all the time. It's not water vapor as far as I'm aware.

daheza 11y ago
Seems to me like it would be similar to what a fog machine produces. Looks like there have been some studies on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fog_machine#Adverse_health_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fog_machine#Adverse_health_eff...
PeCaN 11y ago
Breathing high concentrations of water vapor is probably worse for your lungs than propylene glycol. Not that it's good for you, but it's fairly well studied.
Zigurd 11y ago
It's glycerine. AFAIK that's about as safe as water.
- VLM 11y ago
  Pull a MSDS on glycerine, you will not be happy to discover there are all manner of problems, enough mist will kill you quite effectively, externally it kills rabbits at a level corresponding to swimming in it acutely, long term skin exposure is very unclear. Various governments have differing views on how much is safe to breathe in a workplace along the lines of ten or so milligrams per cubic meter which isn't much. I can't get a straight answer on oral toxicity; drinking somewhere around half a percent body weight kills half the mice, so if I did the math right in my head, if you are a man sized mouse, drinking the equivalent of a wine bottle of pure glycerin in one sitting might lead to very serious medical problems (like death, for example). The long term effects listed sound scary for kidneys and "reproductive organs". In the short term it appears fairly hard to get killed by glycerin. Long term it doesn't sound very good at all. In that way, it reminds me of benzene or PCBs where in the short term theres zero risk if you can avoid drowning, but the long term effects are pretty awful. Its definitely not as safe as water. Of course the "real" problem is likely whatever else is in the fluid. Who knows whats in there.

dexwiz 11y ago

Combustion of "safe" molecules can produce unknown chemicals that are potentially hazardous. This is why smoke is bad. Vapes (ecigs) have a pretty wide operating range, especially when modded to operate at different wattages. They claim to only vaporize liquid, but at high operating temperatures they could break down molecules, which is still combustion, just to a lesser degree. When you start adding all assortments of aromatic compounds used in flavoring, saying everything is safe is impossible. They may be food grade flavorings, but they probably weren't all tested under the conditions seen in a vaporizer. The main argument for vapes is that hey don't produce tar, which is one of the worst parts of cigarettes. Are they as bad a normal cigs? Probably not. Are they completely, 100% safe? No.

tptacek 11y ago
On the one hand, a known and potent human carcinogen. On the other, an application of the precautionary principle that may well be just as applicable to the acrylamide on french fries. How does this make sense as a vector for backlash?
- Alupis 11y ago
  The "backlash" is largely propelled by user's disregard for others around them. Users regularly can be witnessed using their e-cig indoors and in close proximity to others. These users often say "it's only water vapor", which is absurdly false.
  - dexwiz 11y ago
    In my state its illegal to smoke vapes anywhere its illegal to smoke cigarettes. This largely keeps it out of public spaces. I don't know how this applies to other states. Also there is debate in the community about respect. I have more friends that step out for a vape, just like they would for cig, so they don't bother non smokers, than puff away like its nothing. But that's purely anecdotal.
  - AlexandrB 11y ago
    > The "backlash" is largely propelled by user's disregard for others around them. I can say the same thing about those having backyard firepits [1] whose output affects FAR more people than a single (e)cigarette. To my knowledge no one is campaigning against big campfire though. Edit: > These users often say "it's only water vapor", which is absurdly false. Yes, but does second-hand e-cigarette smoke cause significant harm? For example second-hand cigarette smoke increases the chance of lung cancer by 20% when living with a smoker [2]. Contrast that with inhaling a puff of e-cigarette second-hand-smoke in a public place once in a while. I understand that you may find e-cigarette smoke annoying but that's not a sufficient reason to ban something in a free society. [1] http://www.ehhi.org/woodsmoke/health_effects.shtml http://www.ehhi.org/woodsmoke/health_effects.shtml [2] http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/secondhandsmoke/chapter7.pdf http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/secondhandsmok...

bsder 11y ago

> Can someone explain the backlash on e-cigarettes to me? Mostly everybody distrusts the companies involved. I suspect there is also some PR by tobacco since these liquids don't require the tobacco industrial complex. E-cigarettes do seem to be "better" for you than standard cigarettes. However, you probably still don't want adolescents using them. We have mounting evidence that habitual use of nicotine, alcohol, marijuana, etc. all have negative effects on a developing brain that they don't have later on an adult. In addition, I really don't want to be breathing a miasma of stuff somebody exhales. However, I'm still torn on bans. Cigarette bans seem to kill local music scenes--which I like very much. I don't know if the ban is the cause, though--it could just be that bans only follow an influx of boring, rich people who displace the artists.

pcthrowaway 11y ago
You realize that you're breathing stuff somebody exhales every time you're around other people, right?
- dexwiz 11y ago
  If most people around you are exhaling clouds of "vapor" at regular intervals, you may need to re-evaluate your surroundings.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    I can't tell if you're joking. If joke: well played.
  - pcthrowaway 11y ago
    News flash: You're exhaling clouds of vapor with every breath. However, you can't generally see it.
- bsder 11y ago
  Yes, but normally they aren't exhaling toxic junk. And, in flu season, I tend to cut back on group gatherings as much as possible because, exactly, they ARE exhaling toxic junk.

VLM 11y ago

Don't forget the cultural effects such as neopuritanism and anti-hipster-ism. Some of the backlash is of course the smell, from people insisting on using them indoors or generally in close quarters. What chemicals are in the liquid is mysterious and vaguely unregulated so who knows. Its not as regulated as food and drink or pharmaceuticals. Its not unrealistic to assume its just different cancer causing materials, not no cancer causing materials at all. Its basically at the patent medicine level of regulation.

no_wave 11y ago

Main concern is that people fully expect issues to be found down the line. Would I bet $100,000 that we won't discover any currently-unknown harmful side effects from vaping in the next thirty years? I wouldn't. It's similar to how with each iteration of safer food-grade plastic we end up finding something harmful about it. It's not a good reason to make it illegal, as I think harm should be proven before making something illegal, but I like that people are exercising some skepticism and concern over the unknown unknowns for a new technology, especially one that involves smoking.