5 ms·

Counterargument: I have seen vaping be MUCH more popular among people who would not otherwise smoke, and relatively little impact among people who do smoke. Th

Counterargument: I have seen vaping be MUCH more popular among people who would not otherwise smoke, and relatively little impact among people who do smoke. That's anecdotal obviously, but I think its pretty clear that the less noxious and more convenient nature makes vaping way more popular among younger people, potentially starting lifelong addictions. There isn't a whole lot of reason to believe these products are particularly safer, either. The heating coils are in direct contact with the fluid and get easily hot enough to decompose it. Glycerine is food-safe and very probably alright to inhale- the other products used in vape fluid and the unwanted side-products from overheating them are reactive unknowns. E-cigs and vaporizers are/have the potential to be way more popular among people who wouldn't otherwise use them and they are not as simple or safe as just nicotine (which itself isn't as simple or safe as just being a stimulant). Because of those two factors and the current and past massive negative effects of smoking, it's an extremely good idea to regulate them carefully or even heavily. We already know how hard it is to get the genie back into the bottle from cigarettes.

Obi_Juan_Kenobi 9y ago
I find it very disappointing that people resort to anecdote when data is available. Granted, it's a new area and there hasn't been enough time for proper longitudinal studies, but what data we do have generally supports EC's for smoking cessation, and also functioning as a replacement for young people that would likely otherwise start smoking cigarettes. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25301815 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25301815 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25888354 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25888354 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26597453 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26597453 As for the safety of the vapor itself, it's a little tricky. Some studies faced a lot of criticism because the 'vaping' method did not reflect actual usage. In one protocol (unfortunately I can't recall the article) it was found they basically burned up the coil and reported combustion products as the vapor profile. Similarly, this study appears to be reasonably executed, at least at first: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4961046/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4961046/ A few takeaways from the article: no long-lived free radicals present, and short-lived radicals in the range of 100 to 1000 fold less than cigarettes. Their estimates for a typical 'vaper' would be about a 10-fold higher dose than typical air pollution exposure for a 24 hour period (200 puffs/day). This certainly represents a real potential hazard, but is also a clear improvement over cigarettes (especially because this isn't the major hazard in cigarette smoke). However, the protocol uses 5 second 'puffs' on a 1.5 ohm coil with an absolutely pathetic 500ml/min flow rate. For reference, 500ml is the typical breath volume for a human at rest, with >10,000ml/min being typical breathing for a person at rest (https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-8-48 https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-06...). In actual use, a puff is usually larger than the typical breath and taken in a span of 2-4 seconds. A flow rate of 20,000-40,000 ml/min is much more representative. It's no surprise that a coil with such a low flow rate would get far hotter than what is seen in actual use. Worth noting that high flow rates make for more comfortable and pleasant vaping, so are common in actual use. Some good work has looked at variation in vaping protocol https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24832759 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24832759 These findings show just how drastic the differences are when you start to use higher power levels in ECs. The data clearly show that high-power vaping likely presents a significant risk, but to date I've yet to see data that is convincingly representative of anything like normal use.

Obi_Juan_Kenobi 9y ago

I find it very disappointing that people resort to anecdote when data is available. Granted, it's a new area and there hasn't been enough time for proper longitudinal studies, but what data we do have generally supports EC's for smoking cessation, and also functioning as a replacement for young people that would likely otherwise start smoking cigarettes. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25301815 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25301815 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25888354 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25888354 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26597453 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26597453 As for the safety of the vapor itself, it's a little tricky. Some studies faced a lot of criticism because the 'vaping' method did not reflect actual usage. In one protocol (unfortunately I can't recall the article) it was found they basically burned up the coil and reported combustion products as the vapor profile. Similarly, this study appears to be reasonably executed, at least at first: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4961046/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4961046/ A few takeaways from the article: no long-lived free radicals present, and short-lived radicals in the range of 100 to 1000 fold less than cigarettes. Their estimates for a typical 'vaper' would be about a 10-fold higher dose than typical air pollution exposure for a 24 hour period (200 puffs/day). This certainly represents a real potential hazard, but is also a clear improvement over cigarettes (especially because this isn't the major hazard in cigarette smoke). However, the protocol uses 5 second 'puffs' on a 1.5 ohm coil with an absolutely pathetic 500ml/min flow rate. For reference, 500ml is the typical breath volume for a human at rest, with >10,000ml/min being typical breathing for a person at rest (https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-8-48 https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-06...). In actual use, a puff is usually larger than the typical breath and taken in a span of 2-4 seconds. A flow rate of 20,000-40,000 ml/min is much more representative. It's no surprise that a coil with such a low flow rate would get far hotter than what is seen in actual use. Worth noting that high flow rates make for more comfortable and pleasant vaping, so are common in actual use. Some good work has looked at variation in vaping protocol https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24832759 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24832759 These findings show just how drastic the differences are when you start to use higher power levels in ECs. The data clearly show that high-power vaping likely presents a significant risk, but to date I've yet to see data that is convincingly representative of anything like normal use.