6 ms·

I don't understand why people are anywhere near as worried about vaping as they are about cigarettes. Yeah, it's addictive because of nicotine. But there's no

I don't understand why people are anywhere near as worried about vaping as they are about cigarettes. Yeah, it's addictive because of nicotine. But there's no evidence that nicotine is harmful, in fact it may be neuroprotective, and vaping simply does not produce the type and quantity of carcinogens that cigarette smoking does. I think this amounts to hysteria because people associate nicotine with cancer. Not sure why the addiction is such a big deal.

carbocation 8y ago
Does the best available evidence support your claim? I believe that vaping is likely to be healthier than smoking. I would need to see high quality evidence to believe that it’s harmless. If you can provide it in the form of published articles, I will read it and offer commentary. Nicotine products have killed millions of people prematurely. These companies have stoked a resurgence in nicotine use among young people. This is concerning.
- thatswrong0 8y ago
  What nicotine products besides tobacco kill people? Patches? Gum? Sure the level of use is a bit concerning, but I don’t think it’s going to be the health epidemic that the media is making it out to be.
  - carbocation 8y ago
    Does your argument hinge upon an absence of evidence, or do you have evidence to support your position?
    - thatswrong0 8y ago
      Do you always demand that every person who comments on a subject compile a meta-study for your perusal? From what I’ve read, most of the damage from cigarettes comes not from nicotine but other carcinogens present along with the combustion. Of course more research needs to be done on nicotine itself as well as the other compounds present in vaping liquids.. but nothing I’ve read has indicated that nicotine is even close to being as dangerous on its own. It’s probably not harmless, but then again, many things people consume on a daily basis, like coffee, probably aren’t either.
      - carbocation 8y ago
        Yes, for people making bold claims about a major public health threat, I don’t see why I shouldn’t. The subtext is that this is a field that I’m very familiar with, but I’m willing to have someone show me evidence that I have missed. It’s hard to keep up with it all.
    - fromthestart 8y ago
      Do you assume that every substance you're unfamiliar with is a poison? You're going on about a "public health threat" but the only evidence you have for your hysteria is a circumstantial link between nicotine and carcinogens in cigarettes? What proof do you have that nicotine itself is harmful? The other components to vape juice are safe for consumption. Sure, that doesn't mean they're safe to inhale, but you're talking about 1-3 total substances, which are not known carcinogens, versus what, 100s of carcinogenic compounds in cigs? You're biased by an emotional association between the words nicotine and cigarettes.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        This is a rude response to someone who is, believe it or not, something close to an actual domain expert on the topic we're discussing. Even if he wasn't, the way you're responding to him wouldn't be acceptable on HN, but making personal attacks to try to chase an expert out of a thread is even worse. Please don't comment on HN like this.
  - hannasanarion 8y ago
    "insufficient data" isn't the same as "totally harmless" Until now, nicotine was used exclusively by smokers and ex-smokers. Reducing smoking was the goal, and anything less harmful than smoking was considered a win.
    - kbenson 8y ago
      > Until now, nicotine was used exclusively by smokers and ex-smokers. You're forgetting chewing tobacco. Also, I hardly think we have insufficient data on nicotine itself, with all the people using and the testing done on nicotine patches. Those had to go through FDA approval.
      - hannasanarion 8y ago
        Yeah, and it's FDA certified to be less deadly than cigarettes. Forgive me for having a higher standard for calling something "healthy"
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Until now, nicotine was used exclusively by smokers and ex-smokers. No, there have been people who dip without smoking. But that doesn't really change the equation much.
  - heavyset_go 8y ago
    I've heard that certain compounds in tobacco act as MAOIs that synergize with nicotine, creating a more rewarding experience. People that would have never smoked before they were introduced to vaping might be more likely to try and enjoy tobacco products because they feel better than nicotine does on its own.
jcoffland 8y ago
> But there's no evidence that nicotine is harmful LD50 of nicotine in humans is 6.5–13 mg/kg orally.
- ekianjo 8y ago
  Orally has no meaning since there is no clealy fixed LD50 for inhalation. which is what mattersin this discussion. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/54115.html https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/54115.html Note that rats have a LD50 at 50 so the measureyou gave for LD50 in humans seems very, very conservative.
  - jcoffland 8y ago
    Actually the conservative estimate in humans, according to Wikipedia is 0.5–1.0 mg/kg. Rats are a lot tougher than humans.
    - ekianjo 8y ago
      Wikipedia is not the place you should look for reliable toxicological information. There are better places online (and free of access, too). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3880486/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3880486/ > Although an LD50 of 0.8 mg/kg would implicate that the toxicity of nicotine is similar to or even higher than that of cyanide, fatal nicotine intoxications are relatively rare, and there are countless records of subjects who survived consumption of nicotine in amounts far higher than 60 mg (Larson et al. 1961). The most drastic example is probably survival of a suicide attempt with 4 g of pure nicotine (Schmidt 1931). While this is certainly an exceptional case, in which the amount of bioavailable nicotine was markedly reduced by vomiting, ingestion of tobacco or nicotine gums at doses up to 6 mg/kg nicotine was reported to evoke symptoms of intoxication without causing death (Malizia et al. 1983; Smolinske et al. 1988). These and many other literature reports on nonfatal nicotine intoxications are hardly compatible with a lethal dose of 60 mg or less. > Several detailed reviews are available on fatal nicotine intoxications caused by either suicidal intent or accidents, latter mainly resulting from misusage of nicotine-containing solutions marketed as pesticides (Esser and Kühn 1933; Larson et al. 1961; Maehly and Bonnichsen 1963; Tiess and Nagel 1966; Hayes 1982; Corkery et al. 2010; Solarino et al. 2010). The postmortem data reviewed by Maehly and Bonnichsen (1963) and more recently by Corkery et al. (2010) and Solarino et al. (2010) revealed minimal nicotine blood levels of 2 mg/L, but rapid decline of blood nicotine after death (Sanchez et al. 1996) may have led to underestimation of the actual lethal concentration in delayed autopsies. > Despite these uncertainties and the complex pharmacokinetics of nicotine (Hukkanen et al. 2005), a rough estimate of the amount of ingested nicotine from postmortem analyses of blood levels appears feasible. Smoking a cigarette results in uptake of approximately 2 mg of nicotine and gives rise to mean arterial plasma concentrations of about 0.03 mg/L (30 ng/ml) (Gourlay and Benowitz 1997). Based on 20 % oral bioavailability of nicotine (Hukkanen et al. 2005) and assuming linear kinetics, an oral dose of 60 mg would give rise to a plasma concentration of about 0.18 mg/L. The literature reports on fatal nicotine intoxications suggest that the lower limit of lethal nicotine blood concentrations is about 2 mg/L, corresponding to 4 mg/L plasma, a concentration that is around 20-fold higher than that caused by intake of 60 mg nicotine. Thus, a careful estimate suggests that the lower limit causing fatal outcomes is 0.5–1 g of ingested nicotine, corresponding to an oral LD50 of 6.5–13 mg/kg. This dose agrees well with nicotine toxicity in dogs, which exhibit responses to nicotine similar to humans (Matsushima et al. 1995). So, in reality the LD50 is much more likely to be an order of magnitude higher than the number you provided from Wikipedia. This however agrees with the former number you provided, and I guess this is the study where it came from.
aaronbrethorst 8y ago
This paper isn’t nearly as certain as you are. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4553893/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4553893/

carbocation 8y ago

Does the best available evidence support your claim? I believe that vaping is likely to be healthier than smoking. I would need to see high quality evidence to believe that it’s harmless. If you can provide it in the form of published articles, I will read it and offer commentary. Nicotine products have killed millions of people prematurely. These companies have stoked a resurgence in nicotine use among young people. This is concerning.

thatswrong0 8y ago
What nicotine products besides tobacco kill people? Patches? Gum? Sure the level of use is a bit concerning, but I don’t think it’s going to be the health epidemic that the media is making it out to be.
- carbocation 8y ago
  Does your argument hinge upon an absence of evidence, or do you have evidence to support your position?
  - thatswrong0 8y ago
    Do you always demand that every person who comments on a subject compile a meta-study for your perusal? From what I’ve read, most of the damage from cigarettes comes not from nicotine but other carcinogens present along with the combustion. Of course more research needs to be done on nicotine itself as well as the other compounds present in vaping liquids.. but nothing I’ve read has indicated that nicotine is even close to being as dangerous on its own. It’s probably not harmless, but then again, many things people consume on a daily basis, like coffee, probably aren’t either.
    - carbocation 8y ago
      Yes, for people making bold claims about a major public health threat, I don’t see why I shouldn’t. The subtext is that this is a field that I’m very familiar with, but I’m willing to have someone show me evidence that I have missed. It’s hard to keep up with it all.
  - fromthestart 8y ago
    Do you assume that every substance you're unfamiliar with is a poison? You're going on about a "public health threat" but the only evidence you have for your hysteria is a circumstantial link between nicotine and carcinogens in cigarettes? What proof do you have that nicotine itself is harmful? The other components to vape juice are safe for consumption. Sure, that doesn't mean they're safe to inhale, but you're talking about 1-3 total substances, which are not known carcinogens, versus what, 100s of carcinogenic compounds in cigs? You're biased by an emotional association between the words nicotine and cigarettes.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      This is a rude response to someone who is, believe it or not, something close to an actual domain expert on the topic we're discussing. Even if he wasn't, the way you're responding to him wouldn't be acceptable on HN, but making personal attacks to try to chase an expert out of a thread is even worse. Please don't comment on HN like this.
- hannasanarion 8y ago
  "insufficient data" isn't the same as "totally harmless" Until now, nicotine was used exclusively by smokers and ex-smokers. Reducing smoking was the goal, and anything less harmful than smoking was considered a win.
  - kbenson 8y ago
    > Until now, nicotine was used exclusively by smokers and ex-smokers. You're forgetting chewing tobacco. Also, I hardly think we have insufficient data on nicotine itself, with all the people using and the testing done on nicotine patches. Those had to go through FDA approval.
    - hannasanarion 8y ago
      Yeah, and it's FDA certified to be less deadly than cigarettes. Forgive me for having a higher standard for calling something "healthy"
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Until now, nicotine was used exclusively by smokers and ex-smokers. No, there have been people who dip without smoking. But that doesn't really change the equation much.
- heavyset_go 8y ago
  I've heard that certain compounds in tobacco act as MAOIs that synergize with nicotine, creating a more rewarding experience. People that would have never smoked before they were introduced to vaping might be more likely to try and enjoy tobacco products because they feel better than nicotine does on its own.

jcoffland 8y ago

> But there's no evidence that nicotine is harmful LD50 of nicotine in humans is 6.5–13 mg/kg orally.

ekianjo 8y ago
Orally has no meaning since there is no clealy fixed LD50 for inhalation. which is what mattersin this discussion. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/54115.html https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/54115.html Note that rats have a LD50 at 50 so the measureyou gave for LD50 in humans seems very, very conservative.
- jcoffland 8y ago
  Actually the conservative estimate in humans, according to Wikipedia is 0.5–1.0 mg/kg. Rats are a lot tougher than humans.
  - ekianjo 8y ago
    Wikipedia is not the place you should look for reliable toxicological information. There are better places online (and free of access, too). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3880486/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3880486/ > Although an LD50 of 0.8 mg/kg would implicate that the toxicity of nicotine is similar to or even higher than that of cyanide, fatal nicotine intoxications are relatively rare, and there are countless records of subjects who survived consumption of nicotine in amounts far higher than 60 mg (Larson et al. 1961). The most drastic example is probably survival of a suicide attempt with 4 g of pure nicotine (Schmidt 1931). While this is certainly an exceptional case, in which the amount of bioavailable nicotine was markedly reduced by vomiting, ingestion of tobacco or nicotine gums at doses up to 6 mg/kg nicotine was reported to evoke symptoms of intoxication without causing death (Malizia et al. 1983; Smolinske et al. 1988). These and many other literature reports on nonfatal nicotine intoxications are hardly compatible with a lethal dose of 60 mg or less. > Several detailed reviews are available on fatal nicotine intoxications caused by either suicidal intent or accidents, latter mainly resulting from misusage of nicotine-containing solutions marketed as pesticides (Esser and Kühn 1933; Larson et al. 1961; Maehly and Bonnichsen 1963; Tiess and Nagel 1966; Hayes 1982; Corkery et al. 2010; Solarino et al. 2010). The postmortem data reviewed by Maehly and Bonnichsen (1963) and more recently by Corkery et al. (2010) and Solarino et al. (2010) revealed minimal nicotine blood levels of 2 mg/L, but rapid decline of blood nicotine after death (Sanchez et al. 1996) may have led to underestimation of the actual lethal concentration in delayed autopsies. > Despite these uncertainties and the complex pharmacokinetics of nicotine (Hukkanen et al. 2005), a rough estimate of the amount of ingested nicotine from postmortem analyses of blood levels appears feasible. Smoking a cigarette results in uptake of approximately 2 mg of nicotine and gives rise to mean arterial plasma concentrations of about 0.03 mg/L (30 ng/ml) (Gourlay and Benowitz 1997). Based on 20 % oral bioavailability of nicotine (Hukkanen et al. 2005) and assuming linear kinetics, an oral dose of 60 mg would give rise to a plasma concentration of about 0.18 mg/L. The literature reports on fatal nicotine intoxications suggest that the lower limit of lethal nicotine blood concentrations is about 2 mg/L, corresponding to 4 mg/L plasma, a concentration that is around 20-fold higher than that caused by intake of 60 mg nicotine. Thus, a careful estimate suggests that the lower limit causing fatal outcomes is 0.5–1 g of ingested nicotine, corresponding to an oral LD50 of 6.5–13 mg/kg. This dose agrees well with nicotine toxicity in dogs, which exhibit responses to nicotine similar to humans (Matsushima et al. 1995). So, in reality the LD50 is much more likely to be an order of magnitude higher than the number you provided from Wikipedia. This however agrees with the former number you provided, and I guess this is the study where it came from.

aaronbrethorst 8y ago

This paper isn’t nearly as certain as you are. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4553893/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4553893/