4 ms·

You're arguing inferred, postulated, or plausible effects from the chemical nicotine specifically in a combustion process that releases thousands of different v

by mapt 11y ago

You're arguing inferred, postulated, or plausible effects from the chemical nicotine specifically in a combustion process that releases thousands of different varieties of volatile chemicals into the lungs and bloodstream, including things like chemical asphyxiants. That's a hell of a confounder to be observing any effect beneath whatsoever. To illustrate: "Cocaine-coated axes are shown to cause increased adrenaline response when administered to the subject's ribcage at a high rate of speed. This makes sense, because we postulate cocaine to be a stimulant. [uncoated axes not tested]"

tomhoward 11y ago
You're arguing inferred, postulated, or plausible effects from the chemical nicotine specifically in a combustion process that releases thousands of different varieties of volatile chemicals... Not really, but I get what you're saying. I can accept that e-cigs are likely vastly less harmful than smoked tobacco cigarettes. It will take a lot of time and rigorous research to establish what the difference really is, but I would expect it to be profound. But my point stands that there is likely not any way to get all the "benefits" of smoking without any of the harms. If it were just about nicotine, I'd expect to see everyone stop smoking and switch to nicotine patches or gum. Clearly that hasn't happened. So it's not just about finding a safer way to deliver nicotine. Of the thousands of chemicals inhaled in cigarettes, I know of at least one - cadmium, which is both a known adrenal stimulant ("benefit") and a known carcinogen ("harm"). And sure enough, cadmium is right there among the components of e-cig vapors, though not in dangerous amounts, according to the lobbyists. [1] We'll see. [1] http://www.ecigarette-research.org/research/index.php/research/research-2015/209-metals http://www.ecigarette-research.org/research/index.php/resear...

by mapt 11y ago

You're arguing inferred, postulated, or plausible effects from the chemical nicotine specifically in a combustion process that releases thousands of different varieties of volatile chemicals into the lungs and bloodstream, including things like chemical asphyxiants. That's a hell of a confounder to be observing any effect beneath whatsoever. To illustrate: "Cocaine-coated axes are shown to cause increased adrenaline response when administered to the subject's ribcage at a high rate of speed. This makes sense, because we postulate cocaine to be a stimulant. [uncoated axes not tested]"

tomhoward 11y ago

You're arguing inferred, postulated, or plausible effects from the chemical nicotine specifically in a combustion process that releases thousands of different varieties of volatile chemicals... Not really, but I get what you're saying. I can accept that e-cigs are likely vastly less harmful than smoked tobacco cigarettes. It will take a lot of time and rigorous research to establish what the difference really is, but I would expect it to be profound. But my point stands that there is likely not any way to get all the "benefits" of smoking without any of the harms. If it were just about nicotine, I'd expect to see everyone stop smoking and switch to nicotine patches or gum. Clearly that hasn't happened. So it's not just about finding a safer way to deliver nicotine. Of the thousands of chemicals inhaled in cigarettes, I know of at least one - cadmium, which is both a known adrenal stimulant ("benefit") and a known carcinogen ("harm"). And sure enough, cadmium is right there among the components of e-cig vapors, though not in dangerous amounts, according to the lobbyists. [1] We'll see. [1] http://www.ecigarette-research.org/research/index.php/research/research-2015/209-metals http://www.ecigarette-research.org/research/index.php/resear...