3 ms·

> 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'

> 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 ago
Did 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 ago
  DNA 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 ago
    No, it isn’t. That’s why things are tested for carcinogenicity rather than DNA damage before being called carcinogens.
    - thaumasiotes 8y ago
      There 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 ago
        I think I’ll hold out for something firmer than your interpretation of a study conducted on five people.
bb88 8y ago
The 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.

jf- 8y ago

Did 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 ago
DNA 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 ago
  No, it isn’t. That’s why things are tested for carcinogenicity rather than DNA damage before being called carcinogens.
  - thaumasiotes 8y ago
    There 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 ago
      I think I’ll hold out for something firmer than your interpretation of a study conducted on five people.

bb88 8y ago

The 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.