14 ms·
E-cigarettes ‘Potentially as Harmful as Tobacco Cigarettes’
- Exuma 9y agoYeeks
- xanadu1a 9y agoDegenerates with tattoos can all burn in hell.
- 45h34jh53k4j 9y agoThank goodness we have CRISPR to fix our DNA corruption problems. Keep vaping, crew!
- atemerev 9y agoSince when "potentially" is a valid scientific statement, and not a clickbait?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- iaw 9y agoRead the article, nicotine vapor from e-cigarettes have the potential to cause the same damage to DNA as nicotine from traditional cigarettes depending on the amount of nicotine present and duration of contact. The claim in the title is utterly false because nicotine isn't the only health risk issue with tobacco cigarettes. Essentially the results show that vaporized chemical nicotine can cause the same amount of damage regardless of how the chemical was vaporized. In summary they proved the obvious. Edit: The term 'potential' in the research has a very clear and rigorous meaning, the term 'potential' in the title is clickbait bullshit.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- coldtea 9y ago>Since when "potentially" is a valid scientific statement, and not a clickbait? Anytime results are not conclusive but still point towards a certain outcome?
- iaw 9y ago> UConn researchers found that e-cigarettes loaded with a nicotine-based liquid are potentially as harmful as unfiltered cigarettes when it comes to causing DNA damage I don't like the way they've titled their research. Given that there are numerous chemical additives in traditional chemical cigarettes that are known to cause health issues nicotine may not be the dominantly harmful component in cigarettes. Discouraging cigarette smokers from moving to e-cigarettes is akin to abstinence only programs, it's not a pragmatic approach to the realities of the problem and human behavior. Of course the tobacco industry also has a vested interest in cigarettes so it's favorable to them for media to be as negative as possible about eCigarettes. If eCigarette second hand smoke is less harmful than cigarettes and they aren't banned in the places that regular cigarettes are it would create a strong downward pressure on traditional cigarette smoking... ..and it looks like the Altria group does recruit from UConn, if that actually means anything.
- loeg 9y agoEven if e-cigs are equally harmful on a per-quantity basis (which I'm still somewhat skeptical of), an advantage over regular cigarettes is that you can consume less than one full cigarette at a time.
- yladiz 9y agoAre there statistics or studies on how much one average person consumes from an e-cigarette compared to a regular cigarette?
- dawnerd 9y ago100% anecdotal but the few people I know that use e-cigs are using them all day long. I'm just glad a lot of places treat it the same as smoking and ban it. Nothing worse than being in line with someone that thinks its cool to vape and blow huge clouds.
- dmix 9y agoI smoke slightly more with ecigs than I did with cigarettes and I use the vape throughout the day. But whenever I have a real cigarette now I get a head rush and feel the nicotine quite strong, which is the feeling I would previously get with the first cigarette after the numerous times I quit smoking and started again. Clearly I'm using far less nicotine with e-cigarettes, which surprised me because I didn't notice any side effects (additional "niccing") when I switched to vaping last yr. So even if I smoke 30% more than I used to I'm probably consuming significantly less harmful chemicals in the end, including nicotine. Which means it will probably be easier to quit vaping than cigarettes, especially as I could taper the nicotine percentage from 6mg -> 0mg over a period of time without adjusting behaviour.
- makkesk8 9y agoPotentially, but about 100x less in reality. I guess time will tell.
- mtgx 9y agoOne advantage of e-cigs is that people can lower the nicotine in e-cigs over six months to a year, and eventually even quit. I guess they could theoretically do this with cigarettes, too, but nobody actually does that. Also it may help that you can still smoke for a while on 0% nicotine, just to replicate the action of smoking, but without any nicotine. But at that point you should already be able to quit completely.
- travelton 9y ago> "There are potentially hundreds of chemicals in e-cigarettes that could be contributing to DNA damage, Kadimisetty says." > "...the UConn team targeted three known carcinogenic chemicals..." > "...something in the e-cigarettes was definitely causing damage to the DNA." What three carcinogenic chemicals did they test for? I hate when these studies are locked behind a paywall.
- xaedes 9y agoB[a]P: Benzo[a]pyrene NNK: 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone NNN: N-Nitrosonicotine
- sscarduzio 9y agoRegular cigarettes are much stinkier, burn oxygen and POLLUTE like crazy, as butts are not biodegradable. The use of E-cigarettes should be encouraged as a middle-ground to cure (yes cure, addiction is a disorder) those who still smoke.
- LostWanderer 9y agoIf i consume 100 smokes vs 100 vapes equivalent then what will be the total damage done to the enviornment in each case,starting from the production to disposal?
- baddox 9y agoThe environmental advantage, if there is one, is almost certainly on the margins, and I don't know if the equivalent of 100 cigarettes would be enough to realize an advantage.
- naravara 9y agoOn the other hand, eCigs use replaceable batteries that will wind up being disposed of when you’re done.
- elldoubleyew 9y agoMost e cigarettes use rechargeable batteries that can last for years. Much better than butts.
- tmearnest 9y agoThey did not report their methods for the ecig sample acquisition. It's quite possible that they were not using the vaporizer under the normal conditions. There was a previous study where they were running the device at excessive voltages over tens of seconds, causing pyrolysis which would never happen under normal usage. Simply because it would taste awful and make the user cough a lot. I would have liked to see control experiments: analyse the e-liquid without vaporization, and analyse pure glycerol/propylene glycol. The former may show a response, but the latter should not show any at all.
- xaedes 9y agoHere it is documented a bit: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acssensors.7b00118 http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acssensors.7b00118 http://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/acssensors.7b00118/suppl_file/se7b00118_si_001.pdf http://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/acssensors.7b00118/sup...
- tmearnest 9y agoIt's not though. No mention of the device, eliquid, device parameters (power or temperature depending on the model), or puff duration. It's a pretty significant omission.
- prodikl 9y agoExactly, as anyone who used ecigs knows, if you pull when the coil is too hot, you get what i'm assuming is formaldehyde and friends. when used normally, the ecig should only vaporize the PG and nicotine (2 ingredients). if you burn the mixture, that's where you get a cocktail of chemicals akin to a cigarette it's admittedly hard to describe but a really vital difference. its the difference between warming a cookie and burning a cookie. the soot from the burnt cookie is way more toxic than a properly warmed cookie that said, i welcome more information about e-cigs for sure. but as an ex-smoker who used ecigs's step-down method and finally quit last year, we need to be very careful before crucifying this very effective cessation device
- Kequc 9y agoI was one of those people who was pretty well convinced that e-cigarettes and cigarettes were both about equal as far as danger due to the nicotine. E-cigarettes delivering on average throughout the day more nicotine than cigarettes. And cigarettes, delivering ash. A few years ago I read a convincing article to the contrary from the NHS. Detailing how the most dangerous carcinogens came from combustion of tobacco. Smoking related signalling has been a train wreck for a decade or more now, so of course after this article came out the very same NHS started talking about banning certain types of e-cigarettes. I don't know what's going on anymore. It doesn't help that there are zealots that spam information about e-cigarettes being perfectly safe, and charities that spam information about cigarettes killing you and everyone around you so donate right away. The internet has utterly failed us on data about smoking. If anyone knows what's actually going on, then they are lost in a sea of other people that are doing their best to shout over one another.
- rb808 9y ago> The XXXX has utterly failed us on data about YYYY. If anyone knows what's actually going on, then they are lost in a sea of other people that are doing their best to shout over one another. Lol - like most of the modern world - Internet or not. :)
- VLM 9y ago"The internet has utterly failed us on data about smoking." Wikipedia seems fairly rational about nicotine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine It seems to boil down to "mostly harmless" whereas all the delivery technologies for it, other than the patch, seem to be almost infinitely more dangerous than the nicotine itself.
- kwhitefoot 9y ago"mostly harmless" perhaps but definitely not "harmless". From the Wikipedia article: > by the 1980s the use of nicotine insecticide had declined below 200 tons. This was due to the availability of other insecticides that are cheaper and less harmful to mammals. > Currently, nicotine, even in the form of tobacco dust, is prohibited as a pesticide for organic farming in the United States/ Actually the thing that pisses me off about e-cigs is the clouds of flavoured vapour that I get bombarded with. I don't want to inhale second hand raspberry flavoured steam.
- dgfgfdagasdfgfa 9y agoWhat an odd way to measure harm. It turns out being outside is more dangerous than smoking is! This is also laughable considering how utterly terrible cigarette smoke is—I can't even imagine how I would make a vapor that harmful without combusting something. This is exactly the type of study you see when someone has it out for e-cigarettes. Who is it? I smell Philip Morris cash.
- mistercow 9y ago> I can't even imagine how I would make a vapor that harmful without combusting something I mean, it wouldn't be hard. Plenty of simple chemical reactions produce dangerous vapors.
- joekrill 9y agoIt amazes me to read the comments on articles related to e-cigarettes. Everyone is quick to point out any potential flaws -- or even point out that this is still _better_ than regular cigarettes. I suspect it's like taking a time machine back 50 years and experiencing the same thing that happened with cigarettes. The fact remains, folks using e-cigarettes are still inhaling dangerous chemicals. You'd have to be crazy to suggest this is probably not dangerous. Just because it's delivered slightly differently doesn't really make it ok.
- tomelders 9y agoE-Cigarrete smokers are becoming like a club of fanatics. I'm a smoker, and the gusto with which people encourage me to switch to e-cigs I find disturbing.
- rfrank 9y agoHah, feels like it's been that way for a while now. Definitely strange to me, and I'm going on two years of only my vape after being about a pack a day. Imagine people treated patches or nincorette like they do e-cigs.
- moosey 9y agoI used to smoke, now vape, and what I like most about it is that I both get my nicotine and I can also be very physically active. Physical activity is something that I could never do when I smoked. Edit: And I do accept that vaping is probably not safe, and I'm cool with that. Not everyone has their vices but I have mine.
- rfrank 9y agoAgreed on all counts, my lungs definitely feel significantly better.
- nyolfen 9y agoit's certainly a 'tribe' for reasons that escape me. i don't find personal identity in my nicotine delivery method but many appear to.
- 013a 9y agoTheir testing methodology doesn't appear to have vaporized the liquid. I wonder if this has an impact on the results, given that the method of producing the gas is different.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- therein 9y agoPretty low quality research to be honest. And I have read the paper. This is the sort of smearing why we can't have nice things.
- mistermann 9y agoWhat were the three chemicals they tested for? (Conveniently left out from the article.)
- tryitnow 9y agoIt looks like two things are being tested here: 1) Toxicity of e-cigs 2) the validity of this new testing device created from a 3D printer That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. A demonstration of the toxicity of e-cigs should be based on well-established testing methods. And a new testing device should be tested to see if it reliably replicate findings that used well-established testing methods.
- 1_800_UNICORN 9y agoI'm surprised this isn't higher up, that's what confused me. How can they report a new discovery while simultaneously testing a new measuring device? There's a lot about the article that smells bad.
- mistermann 9y agoIt's not even close to conclusive, I think you'd be hard pressed to call it science. Whenever you read these "studies" there is so much defensive language and obvious outright lies, you can tell it is a propaganda piece. > "potentially as harmful" > "may contain" > "have as much potential to cause DNA damage" > "found that vapor from non-nicotine e-cigarettes caused as much DNA damage as filtered cigarettes" (at best they have a theory) > "whether they serve as a gateway for future tobacco smokers remains the subject of much debate" (if you call lobbyist propoganda "debate") > "new metabolites that have the potential to cause DNA damage are formed" > "The device is unique in that it converts chemicals into their metabolites during testing, which replicates what happens in the human body, Kadimisetty says." (Does it? Is this scientifically confirmed with high certainty?) > "Bioassays currently used to determine the genotoxicity of environmental samples may be more comprehensive" ("May" be? If you are speculating on that, then how do you know that the results from these tests are trustworthy, as you are claiming?) > "There are potentially hundreds of chemicals in e-cigarettes that could be contributing to DNA damage, Kadimisetty says." (Well, depends on your definition of chemicals) > "Rather than test for all of them, the UConn team targeted three known carcinogenic chemicals found in tobacco cigarettes." (Oh? Which ones? And what was the source of the ejuice used for testing?) EDIT: The three chemicals (thanks xaedes): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14539062 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14539062 B[a]P: Benzo[a]pyrene NNK: 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone NNN: N-Nitrosonicotine I haven't a clue what these are, and in which component of the juice (PG, VG, nicotine, flavor) would contain them....anyone?
- mrleinad 9y agoWell, if they're "potentially as harmful", then probability is on the side of making the switch to an e-cig. It can be better, or the same. Can't be worse, and you might leave it altogether in the end if you make the switch.
- BurningFrog 9y ago1. Note the weasel word "potentially". Almost any statement is potentially true. 2. "...when it comes to causing DNA damage" is the far less sensationalist claim in the actual text.
- bougiefever 9y agoRight? A fall from a ladder is "potentially" as fatal as a fall from an airplane, amirite?
- posterboy 9y agoLadder accidents are actually far more fatal, because hardly anyone falls from a plane, if I am not mistaken.
- Alex3917 9y ago"UConn researchers found that e-cigarettes loaded with a nicotine-based liquid are potentially as harmful as unfiltered cigarettes when it comes to causing DNA damage." So in other words, less dangerous. (Given that most of the harms caused by smoking don't come from DNA damage.)
- ThrustVectoring 9y agoPharmaceutical smoking cessation aids have something like $6B in annual sales. E-cigarettes are generally more effective at quitting smoking than other means like patches or gums. They're also a market where there are much fewer patent protections for extracting rents out of. I generally take a pretty cynical look at scientific findings that help protect multi-billion dollar industries.
- LinuxBender 9y agoFresh water is potentially as harmful as salt water, depending on how you utilize it. E-Cigs potentially saved my sons life. He grew up around smokers. I had no control over this. Now that he lives with me, I fully support the use of E-Cigs. He has almost stopped using E-Cigs and he has stopped smoking tar+tobacco cigarettes completely. Traditional cigarettes for certain are carcinogens and there is no dispute they cause cancer and kill people.
- juandazapata 9y agoI would like to know who put the money to conduct this study.
- snarfy 9y agoI would very much like them to list out all of those harmful chemicals. I use unflavored e-juice. It's VG, PG, and nicotine. Three ingredients.
- carlgueck 9y agoAnybody read the actual paper? I'm wondering what concoction of PG VG nicotine and what flavorings were used. It's already been shown that fruity juices vaporize into formaldehyde, so I'm wondering if they tested pure vegetable glycerin vapor as a control and what were the effects.
- bougiefever 9y agoThe researcher was equating 20 puffs to one cigarette, but the article doesn't say how that figure got selected. For a pack-a-day smoker, that would be 400 puffs a day. In a 10 hour period, 40 puffs each hour. I don't smoke or use e-cigs. For someone who does, how many puffs are you taking in a typical day? Do you think this is a good correlation? Do you typically, when puffing your e-cig, take 20 puffs in a few minutes as you would a cigarette? When you did smoke cigarettes (assuming you once did), does the number of puffs you take on the e-cig correspond to how many cigarettes you would smoke? Maybe people take fewer puffs to replace the same amount of cigarettes, which would undercut some of the conclusions reached.
- kostarelo 9y agoNaah, maybe an average of 150 puffs I would say. Not sure though. But 400 puffs seems a lot and I certainly don't vape that much.
- theincredulousk 9y agoThis seems like a shill study because someone unhappy with cigarettes declining sales helped fund development of their neat-o 3D printed testing device. It is already a red-flag that they say "3D printed"... they didn't 3D print the (likely) massively expensive electro-optical sensing device, from what I can tell they 3D printed the little sample slides that go in, and that is what costs a dollar. I'm sure that will save some shekels but otherwise... Saying "e-cigarettes" is nonsensical. There are 1000s of varieties of vaporizers and liquids. I'd wager if you take some bright, sketchy liquid from the corner vape shop and combine it with a $10 generic imported vaporizer there is going to be some significant deviation with impurities/toxins relative to e.g. JUUL or other products sold by a company that frankly has something to lose if they get sued. As far as I understand, most of the unexpected chemicals are coming from vaporization or reactions based on the flavorings that were never designed for that. Or vaporizers that are poorly constructed and burn glue/adhesives/etc from the device as well as the liquid. So again you'd want to focus on those individual components or chemicals, and it makes no sense to generalize "e-cigarettes" by analysis of any one (for better or worse). Also, not intuitively buying without far more evidence that vaporizing glycol/glycerine, nicotine, and water shares a rough equivalence in DNA damage potential to the raw combustion products of unfiltered cigarettes. There are some 7000 chemicals in tobacco smoke, and the list of the known carcinogens is over a page long on Wikipedia... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cigarette_smoke_carcinogens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cigarette_smoke_carcin...