10 ms·

Vaping 'can damage vital immune system cells'

78 points by sjcsjc 8y ago

lingzb 8y ago
I've been wondering about the safety of vaping. Glad to see it's not as bad as smoking (a low bar) but will still kill you.
- compcoffee 8y ago
  >Glad to see it's not as bad as smoking (a low bar) but will still kill you. I think inhaling anything into your lungs will probably affect them negatively. But it wouldn't surprise me if vaping was healthier than LA (or Beijing) air. Everything in moderation.
  - trollopTheJope 8y ago
    Crack cocaine, in moderation. Snorting detergent, in moderation. Inhaling strawberry-scented RCs because it's "probably" healthier than LA air - okay, in moderation.
  - sjg007 8y ago
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/no-the-economist-1-day-in-beijing-is-still-not-equal-to-smoking-40-cigarettes/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/no-the-econo...
- leshow 8y ago
  > but will still kill you This does not say that 'vaping will still kill you'. It doesn't say anything close. What it says is that in a laboratory over a 48 hour period lung samples exposed to vapour caused inflammation and 'impaired activity'.
- jotm 8y ago
  I've been wondering about the safety of all these cars in a city with a million people. Glad to see it's not as bad as (frequent) smoking, but will still kill you.
djohnston 8y ago
"They caution the results are only in laboratory conditions and advise further research is needed to better understand the long-term health impact - the changes recorded took place only over 48 hours."
- compcoffee 8y ago
  Are we supposed to look negatively upon this study because they say "more research is needed"? Sounds like good science to me.
  - wccrawford 8y ago
    We're supposed to realize that it isn't a "fact". It's a study that has produced interesting results that point to something, but until more research is done, it doesn't mean anything yet. If that's your version of "negative", then yes, we should look negatively on it. But more correctly, we should look skeptically on it. Just like all other studies that haven't been replicated scientifically.
  - Obi_Juan_Kenobi 8y ago
    In the right context, it's good science. The issue with this, and most science reporting, is that the context is missing or otherwise difficult to understand. This is quite preliminary work, using cell cultures instead of actual organisms. It's quite common for effects seen in cell cultures to be very different from what is observed in whole, living tissue. But it can still be very useful for research: it can identify key diagnostic metrics, suggest mechanisms, and otherwise guide future research. One issue here is that we already look at general lung function quite well: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-14043-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-14043-2 This study examines the general lung function of non smokers who began vaping, with metrics taken from the start of vaporizer usage. This is about as direct as you can get, though is still an observational study (i.e. they did not randomly assign people to start vaping, for obvious ethical and adherence issues). The synthesis of these studies would be to include more analysis of lung immune function. The results already suggest that inflammation is not an issue as suggested by the cell culture.
- 8y ago
luizfzs 8y ago
More than smoking damages it?
- lainga 8y ago
  No, according to TFA, but I don't see how that's relevant.
  - dopamean 8y ago
    From what I understand, some people have switched from smoking to vaping. Harm reduction and whatnot. Seems bit relevant no?
    - lainga 8y ago
      It's a good phenomenon, but it has nothing to do with the health effects of vaping. Bringing it up just muddles the waters. If a bunch of people switched from crack cocaine to cigarettes, would that warrant bringing it up every time a study came out about tobacco-related cancer?
      - rsynnott 8y ago
        A bit different, in that the primary use of e-cigarettes is for giving up proper cigarettes. So the fact that they're still considered preferable to real cigarettes is relevant.
        moate 8y ago
        The primary use of e-cigarettes/vapes is ingesting nicotine. Some people used e-cigarettes as a cessation aid. There are tons of young people who are growing up having never smoked cigarettes and who went directly to vaping. Their choice wasn't exactly "cigarettes or vape" it was "vape or not vape".
        lainga 8y ago
        Not among my age cohort, many of whom have never encountered cigarettes.
dave7 8y ago
Key point from the article: "Any smoker considering e-cigarettes should switch completely without delay."
- rincebrain 8y ago
  Yeah, this really strikes me as the difference between "breathing car exhaust without a catalytic converter is toxic" and "breathing car exhaust can still be toxic" - yeah, both are bad, but one of them is orders of magnitude worse.
  - gaius 8y ago
    yeah, both are bad So vaping should continue to be banned everywhere that smoking is banned. Most people do not consent to breathing other peoples second-hand drugs.
    - dionian 8y ago
      is it even possible to get a perceptible amount of nicotine through second hand smoke? isn't it mostly water vapor and annoying smells?
      - gaius 8y ago
        Lung damage too, according to this research. How does anyone even think it's OK to do that to other people?
        firemancoder 8y ago
        You do a lot more lung damage by driving by them in car. I'm not a vaper, never have been never will but I'd rather deal with the faint smell of strawberry than cigarette smoke any day.
    - Obi_Juan_Kenobi 8y ago
      Did you read the article? > The review concluded there was "overwhelming evidence" they were far safer than smoking and "of negligible risk to bystanders" And isn't this just a strawman? Are people proposing indoor vaping laws?
oliveshell 8y ago
In this experiment, vapor "caused inflammation" and "impaired the activity of alveolar macrophages, cells that remove potentially damaging dust particles, bacteria and allergens." So it's not great for lung function, but sounds orders of magnitude less bad for you than smoking cigarettes. Anecdotally, I quit vaping recently, as I'd grown frustrated with the 'chasing the dragon' aspect (I was using its stimulant properties to help manage my ADHD). I now find I get winded much less easily and generally have a little more energy, which I've attributed to slightly improved lung function.
- nyeus 8y ago
  Off-topic: What did you end up replacing vaping for to help manage your ADHD? Or have you not found/(considered looking for) a replacement?
  - oliveshell 8y ago
    Firstly, I'm prescribed Vyvanse, which I find helps a lot— it's certainly my primary treatment method. I viewed the nicotine as a smaller, as-needed aid in persevering through long projects. When I stopped (because I had my wisdom teeth extracted), I used a nicotine patch for a few weeks; however, I eventually found that simply being a little more physically active helped enough that I no longer feel the need for that extra cognitive "push".
    - LyndsySimon 8y ago
      Your story sounds much like mine - I took up vaping when I didn't have access to Vyvanse (between jobs). It helps, but I found I liked it enough to continue. These days I use 6mg/ml juice, and use ~5ml per day on average. I've not found any real negative effects after about a year. I go increase and decrease my intake periodically, and the worst effect I've had is a "stuffy" feeling in the morning when I hadn't vaped anything the evening before. Even that doesn't seem to happen when I'm in a period of decreased usage; I've stopped for a day or two before and didn't really notice. FWIW, nicotine does work as a cognitive stimulant, at least for me. It's nowhere near as powerful as Vyvanse, but it's effective enough that it helps me "get back in the flow" when I'm not interested in something but need to get it done.
onemoresoop 8y ago
I applaud that they state it's still safer than regular cigarettes. I gifted a friend who is a smoker with an e-cig package. A couple of months later he is still smoking cigarettes as he thinks these may be more dangerous..
- acchow 8y ago
  What does he base that conclusion on?
  - onemoresoop 8y ago
    Silly headlines like e-cigarettes not as harmless as thought, etc..
    - ben509 8y ago
      Even this expert phrases it in a way that gives an impression that is completely contrary to reality: > "I don't believe e-cigarettes are more harmful than ordinary cigarettes - but we should have a cautious scepticism that they are as safe as we are being led to believe." I don't believe that crossing the street is more dangerous than cliff-diving, but we should be cautiously skeptical that it's safe.
  - leshow 8y ago
    resolution of cognitive dissonance?
- firemancoder 8y ago
  Fear of the unknown. We still don't know the long term effects, so he may be on to something. Also it's pretty crazy to put a battery that close to your face regularly. I know only a few have exploded, but the risk of that alone would deter me.
  - AmericanChopper 8y ago
    >it's pretty crazy to put a battery that close to your face regularly Well... Do you ever answer the phone?
johnbustram 8y ago
One thing I'm confused about with vaping: There is plenty of information about vaping w/ e-cigarettes. The negative effects and what not. However this information is not extended to vaping marijuana. I understand that e-cigs use oil/liquid of some sort. In the marijuana world there is dry herb vaping (heating the plant until it vaporizes), oil, wax, etc. I imagine some of the e-cig issues extends to marijuana for oil and wax perhaps but does dry herb suffer the same consequences. I've tried researching this information but usually all the comes up are "e-cigs are bad" or "vaping vs smoking marijuana" articles. It would seem marijuana is relatively hush hush in this category.
- waylayla 8y ago
  Part of the reason you see less research on marijuana is because there are more obstacles to doing such research. Here is a 2017 National Academy of Sciences report on the topic: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK425757/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK425757/
  - gdaxthrowaway 8y ago
    > [...] the federal government has not legalized cannabis and continues to enforce restrictive policies and regulations on research into the health harms or benefits of cannabis products that are available to consumers in a majority of states FFS, if I would want to invest into something that has barriers to conduct a research, I'd give zero fucks about the law. Zero. These governments drive me nuts.
    - freeone3000 8y ago
      This is not a position that can be taken by people who intend to publish research under their own names. It'd be akin to signing a confession.
      - gdaxthrowaway 8y ago
        Correct. This is exactly what I wouldn't care about. You first create it and then you let it evolve on its own. Like Bitcoin. Anonymously.
frozenport 8y ago
These comments make me sad. People here are mostly saying "its better than smoking", but vaping is becoming extremely popular among kids who would never think of smoking. We need to get rid of nicotine.
CosmicSteve 8y ago
I think it could be safely assumed that vaporizing nicotine and propylene glycol would lead to some negative health implications. Still, great job by the researchers in building precident. That being said, I'm personally curious above the health implications of dry herb being vaporized at a controlled temperature, that prevents any combustion, and controls the release of carcinogenic materials like Benzene/ammonia.(produced at around 400 degrees by marijuana vaporization) Think of a scenario like this: what if one uses a Volcano Vaporizer with dry herb (marijuana). What are the negative health implications there at certain, controlled temperatures? What about the beneficial implications? Do they cancel out? Or are the negative health implications on par with the sensationalized articles about eating cured meat giving you a whopping 2% overall increased risk of cancer? Basically, I'm very curious if there is a way to drastically reduce the risk of vaporizing with the controlled vaping of dry herbs vs. these e-liquids containing nicotine/other nasty things.
- alexisnorman 8y ago
  With marijuana cartridges, I have been wondering what kind of temperature something like a 1100mAh c-cell battery maxes out at; because they can get hot. I use mmj for an autoimmune disease, so it feels pretty ironic to read vaping damages immune system cells; will have to go back to the Volcano.
  - snark42 8y ago
    > I use mmj for an autoimmune disease, so it feels pretty ironic to read vaping damages immune system cells; will have to go back to the Volcano. Pure MMJ extracts are a different beast. This is almost definitely related to PG/VG base used in electronic cigarettes. PG is used to kill airborne bacteria in hospitals for instance.
dqpb 8y ago
Though I've grown up surrounded by drug use, I still find it shocking and fascinating to read people's comments about their addiction. It's hard to fully grasp the mind-fuck of being reliant on your own self destruction.
1996 8y ago
And it is known by the state of California to give cancer to rats - just like anything else in California
- dqpb 8y ago
  I've never understood the point of those signs that say "Some products in this store are known by the State of California to cause cancer". What is the law that requires them to tell customers they are at risk but not have to disclose which items put them at risk?
  - criddell 8y ago
    https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/health-and-safety-code/hsc-sect-25249-6.html https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/health-and-safety-code/hsc-sect...
RickJWagner 8y ago
Seems intuitive to me-- anything you ingest into your body has potential for harm. We pay a price every time we take something in. Vaping and marijuana are two hot topics these days. They're less costly than tobacco and alcohol, but are certainly not free. In the end, we all decide how to spend our lives. Some pleasures are worth the cost, others are not.
blubb-fish 8y ago
for a second I was worried that this refers to vaping weed - my little VapCap M can't do no harm ...

78 points by sjcsjc 8y ago

I've been wondering about the safety of vaping. Glad to see it's not as bad as smoking (a low bar) but will still kill you.

compcoffee 8y ago
>Glad to see it's not as bad as smoking (a low bar) but will still kill you. I think inhaling anything into your lungs will probably affect them negatively. But it wouldn't surprise me if vaping was healthier than LA (or Beijing) air. Everything in moderation.
- trollopTheJope 8y ago
  Crack cocaine, in moderation. Snorting detergent, in moderation. Inhaling strawberry-scented RCs because it's "probably" healthier than LA air - okay, in moderation.
- sjg007 8y ago
  https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/no-the-economist-1-day-in-beijing-is-still-not-equal-to-smoking-40-cigarettes/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/no-the-econo...
leshow 8y ago
> but will still kill you This does not say that 'vaping will still kill you'. It doesn't say anything close. What it says is that in a laboratory over a 48 hour period lung samples exposed to vapour caused inflammation and 'impaired activity'.
jotm 8y ago
I've been wondering about the safety of all these cars in a city with a million people. Glad to see it's not as bad as (frequent) smoking, but will still kill you.

djohnston 8y ago

"They caution the results are only in laboratory conditions and advise further research is needed to better understand the long-term health impact - the changes recorded took place only over 48 hours."

compcoffee 8y ago
Are we supposed to look negatively upon this study because they say "more research is needed"? Sounds like good science to me.
- wccrawford 8y ago
  We're supposed to realize that it isn't a "fact". It's a study that has produced interesting results that point to something, but until more research is done, it doesn't mean anything yet. If that's your version of "negative", then yes, we should look negatively on it. But more correctly, we should look skeptically on it. Just like all other studies that haven't been replicated scientifically.
- Obi_Juan_Kenobi 8y ago
  In the right context, it's good science. The issue with this, and most science reporting, is that the context is missing or otherwise difficult to understand. This is quite preliminary work, using cell cultures instead of actual organisms. It's quite common for effects seen in cell cultures to be very different from what is observed in whole, living tissue. But it can still be very useful for research: it can identify key diagnostic metrics, suggest mechanisms, and otherwise guide future research. One issue here is that we already look at general lung function quite well: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-14043-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-14043-2 This study examines the general lung function of non smokers who began vaping, with metrics taken from the start of vaporizer usage. This is about as direct as you can get, though is still an observational study (i.e. they did not randomly assign people to start vaping, for obvious ethical and adherence issues). The synthesis of these studies would be to include more analysis of lung immune function. The results already suggest that inflammation is not an issue as suggested by the cell culture.
8y ago

luizfzs 8y ago

More than smoking damages it?

lainga 8y ago
No, according to TFA, but I don't see how that's relevant.
- dopamean 8y ago
  From what I understand, some people have switched from smoking to vaping. Harm reduction and whatnot. Seems bit relevant no?
  - lainga 8y ago
    It's a good phenomenon, but it has nothing to do with the health effects of vaping. Bringing it up just muddles the waters. If a bunch of people switched from crack cocaine to cigarettes, would that warrant bringing it up every time a study came out about tobacco-related cancer?
    - rsynnott 8y ago
      A bit different, in that the primary use of e-cigarettes is for giving up proper cigarettes. So the fact that they're still considered preferable to real cigarettes is relevant.
      - moate 8y ago
        The primary use of e-cigarettes/vapes is ingesting nicotine. Some people used e-cigarettes as a cessation aid. There are tons of young people who are growing up having never smoked cigarettes and who went directly to vaping. Their choice wasn't exactly "cigarettes or vape" it was "vape or not vape".
      - lainga 8y ago
        Not among my age cohort, many of whom have never encountered cigarettes.

dave7 8y ago

Key point from the article: "Any smoker considering e-cigarettes should switch completely without delay."

rincebrain 8y ago
Yeah, this really strikes me as the difference between "breathing car exhaust without a catalytic converter is toxic" and "breathing car exhaust can still be toxic" - yeah, both are bad, but one of them is orders of magnitude worse.
- gaius 8y ago
  yeah, both are bad So vaping should continue to be banned everywhere that smoking is banned. Most people do not consent to breathing other peoples second-hand drugs.
  - dionian 8y ago
    is it even possible to get a perceptible amount of nicotine through second hand smoke? isn't it mostly water vapor and annoying smells?
    - gaius 8y ago
      Lung damage too, according to this research. How does anyone even think it's OK to do that to other people?
      - firemancoder 8y ago
        You do a lot more lung damage by driving by them in car. I'm not a vaper, never have been never will but I'd rather deal with the faint smell of strawberry than cigarette smoke any day.
  - Obi_Juan_Kenobi 8y ago
    Did you read the article? > The review concluded there was "overwhelming evidence" they were far safer than smoking and "of negligible risk to bystanders" And isn't this just a strawman? Are people proposing indoor vaping laws?

oliveshell 8y ago

In this experiment, vapor "caused inflammation" and "impaired the activity of alveolar macrophages, cells that remove potentially damaging dust particles, bacteria and allergens." So it's not great for lung function, but sounds orders of magnitude less bad for you than smoking cigarettes. Anecdotally, I quit vaping recently, as I'd grown frustrated with the 'chasing the dragon' aspect (I was using its stimulant properties to help manage my ADHD). I now find I get winded much less easily and generally have a little more energy, which I've attributed to slightly improved lung function.

nyeus 8y ago
Off-topic: What did you end up replacing vaping for to help manage your ADHD? Or have you not found/(considered looking for) a replacement?
- oliveshell 8y ago
  Firstly, I'm prescribed Vyvanse, which I find helps a lot— it's certainly my primary treatment method. I viewed the nicotine as a smaller, as-needed aid in persevering through long projects. When I stopped (because I had my wisdom teeth extracted), I used a nicotine patch for a few weeks; however, I eventually found that simply being a little more physically active helped enough that I no longer feel the need for that extra cognitive "push".
  - LyndsySimon 8y ago
    Your story sounds much like mine - I took up vaping when I didn't have access to Vyvanse (between jobs). It helps, but I found I liked it enough to continue. These days I use 6mg/ml juice, and use ~5ml per day on average. I've not found any real negative effects after about a year. I go increase and decrease my intake periodically, and the worst effect I've had is a "stuffy" feeling in the morning when I hadn't vaped anything the evening before. Even that doesn't seem to happen when I'm in a period of decreased usage; I've stopped for a day or two before and didn't really notice. FWIW, nicotine does work as a cognitive stimulant, at least for me. It's nowhere near as powerful as Vyvanse, but it's effective enough that it helps me "get back in the flow" when I'm not interested in something but need to get it done.

onemoresoop 8y ago

I applaud that they state it's still safer than regular cigarettes. I gifted a friend who is a smoker with an e-cig package. A couple of months later he is still smoking cigarettes as he thinks these may be more dangerous..

acchow 8y ago
What does he base that conclusion on?
- onemoresoop 8y ago
  Silly headlines like e-cigarettes not as harmless as thought, etc..
  - ben509 8y ago
    Even this expert phrases it in a way that gives an impression that is completely contrary to reality: > "I don't believe e-cigarettes are more harmful than ordinary cigarettes - but we should have a cautious scepticism that they are as safe as we are being led to believe." I don't believe that crossing the street is more dangerous than cliff-diving, but we should be cautiously skeptical that it's safe.
- leshow 8y ago
  resolution of cognitive dissonance?
firemancoder 8y ago
Fear of the unknown. We still don't know the long term effects, so he may be on to something. Also it's pretty crazy to put a battery that close to your face regularly. I know only a few have exploded, but the risk of that alone would deter me.
- AmericanChopper 8y ago
  >it's pretty crazy to put a battery that close to your face regularly Well... Do you ever answer the phone?

johnbustram 8y ago

One thing I'm confused about with vaping: There is plenty of information about vaping w/ e-cigarettes. The negative effects and what not. However this information is not extended to vaping marijuana. I understand that e-cigs use oil/liquid of some sort. In the marijuana world there is dry herb vaping (heating the plant until it vaporizes), oil, wax, etc. I imagine some of the e-cig issues extends to marijuana for oil and wax perhaps but does dry herb suffer the same consequences. I've tried researching this information but usually all the comes up are "e-cigs are bad" or "vaping vs smoking marijuana" articles. It would seem marijuana is relatively hush hush in this category.

waylayla 8y ago
Part of the reason you see less research on marijuana is because there are more obstacles to doing such research. Here is a 2017 National Academy of Sciences report on the topic: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK425757/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK425757/
- gdaxthrowaway 8y ago
  > [...] the federal government has not legalized cannabis and continues to enforce restrictive policies and regulations on research into the health harms or benefits of cannabis products that are available to consumers in a majority of states FFS, if I would want to invest into something that has barriers to conduct a research, I'd give zero fucks about the law. Zero. These governments drive me nuts.
  - freeone3000 8y ago
    This is not a position that can be taken by people who intend to publish research under their own names. It'd be akin to signing a confession.
    - gdaxthrowaway 8y ago
      Correct. This is exactly what I wouldn't care about. You first create it and then you let it evolve on its own. Like Bitcoin. Anonymously.

frozenport 8y ago

These comments make me sad. People here are mostly saying "its better than smoking", but vaping is becoming extremely popular among kids who would never think of smoking. We need to get rid of nicotine.

CosmicSteve 8y ago

I think it could be safely assumed that vaporizing nicotine and propylene glycol would lead to some negative health implications. Still, great job by the researchers in building precident. That being said, I'm personally curious above the health implications of dry herb being vaporized at a controlled temperature, that prevents any combustion, and controls the release of carcinogenic materials like Benzene/ammonia.(produced at around 400 degrees by marijuana vaporization) Think of a scenario like this: what if one uses a Volcano Vaporizer with dry herb (marijuana). What are the negative health implications there at certain, controlled temperatures? What about the beneficial implications? Do they cancel out? Or are the negative health implications on par with the sensationalized articles about eating cured meat giving you a whopping 2% overall increased risk of cancer? Basically, I'm very curious if there is a way to drastically reduce the risk of vaporizing with the controlled vaping of dry herbs vs. these e-liquids containing nicotine/other nasty things.

alexisnorman 8y ago
With marijuana cartridges, I have been wondering what kind of temperature something like a 1100mAh c-cell battery maxes out at; because they can get hot. I use mmj for an autoimmune disease, so it feels pretty ironic to read vaping damages immune system cells; will have to go back to the Volcano.
- snark42 8y ago
  > I use mmj for an autoimmune disease, so it feels pretty ironic to read vaping damages immune system cells; will have to go back to the Volcano. Pure MMJ extracts are a different beast. This is almost definitely related to PG/VG base used in electronic cigarettes. PG is used to kill airborne bacteria in hospitals for instance.

dqpb 8y ago

Though I've grown up surrounded by drug use, I still find it shocking and fascinating to read people's comments about their addiction. It's hard to fully grasp the mind-fuck of being reliant on your own self destruction.

1996 8y ago

And it is known by the state of California to give cancer to rats - just like anything else in California

dqpb 8y ago
I've never understood the point of those signs that say "Some products in this store are known by the State of California to cause cancer". What is the law that requires them to tell customers they are at risk but not have to disclose which items put them at risk?
- criddell 8y ago
  https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/health-and-safety-code/hsc-sect-25249-6.html https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/health-and-safety-code/hsc-sect...

RickJWagner 8y ago

Seems intuitive to me-- anything you ingest into your body has potential for harm. We pay a price every time we take something in. Vaping and marijuana are two hot topics these days. They're less costly than tobacco and alcohol, but are certainly not free. In the end, we all decide how to spend our lives. Some pleasures are worth the cost, others are not.

blubb-fish 8y ago

for a second I was worried that this refers to vaping weed - my little VapCap M can't do no harm ...