3 ms·
> It may turn out that e-cigarettes are, on the balance, safer than cigarettes, however it's way too early to make that claim with any level of certainty. No,
by jf- 8y ago
> It may turn out that e-cigarettes are, on the balance, safer than cigarettes, however it's way too early to make that claim with any level of certainty.
No, it isn't. Tobacco contains 70 known human carcinogens and is known to directly cause lung cancer. No one is claiming that vaping causes cancer. The possibility that's being raised is that after decades of use vaping may cause lung disease. I know which is worse.
And importantly, as you say, the matter in unsettled and it is just as likely that it does not.
Is your point that it should be pre-emptively banned, just in case?
- clumsysmurf 8y ago> No one is claiming that vaping causes cancer "To evaluate possible long-term effects of vaping, the team assessed DNA damage in the cells of the volunteers' mouths." "Dator and Balbo identified three DNA-damaging compounds, formaldehyde, acrolein and methylglyoxal, whose levels increased in the saliva after vaping." "Compared with people who don't vape, four of the five e-cigarette users showed increased DNA damage related to acrolein exposure." "E-cigarettes can damage DNA" https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-08-e-cigarettes-dna.html https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-08-e-cigarettes-dna.html
- jf- 8y agoDid you forget to include the quote where they claim it causes cancer, or did you not include it because it doesn't exist? You're trying to imply something you have no evidence for.
- thaumasiotes 8y agoDNA damage is close enough to cancer for that to be a relevant response. For example, it's completely accepted that radiation causes cancer at the organism level. The mechanism by which it does so is that, at the raw physical level, radiation causes random DNA damage.
- jf- 8y agoNo, it isn’t. That’s why things are tested for carcinogenicity rather than DNA damage before being called carcinogens.
- thaumasiotes 8y agoThere are other ways of being carcinogenic, which testing for carcinogenicity will automatically check. But DNA damage will do the trick. There should be an obvious logical difference in your mind between "DNA damage causes cancer" and "all cancer is caused by DNA damage". If you want to know whether something is a carcinogen, checking whether it causes DNA damage is not enough for you to conclude "no". But it may be enough for you to conclude "yes".
- jf- 8y agoI think I’ll hold out for something firmer than your interpretation of a study conducted on five people.
- bb88 8y agoThe sun damages DNA, as does background radiation. Basically living is the number one cause of damaging DNA. But the thing is the cells can usually repair the damage on their own. While being skeptical of the claim that vaping is healthy is a tenable position, your arguments lack honesty.