4 ms·

> it seems like the jury is still out on how much better they actually are than cigarettes No. IT IS NOT. You have been mislead. Unfortunately, for whatever r

by Reelin 7y ago

> it seems like the jury is still out on how much better they actually are than cigarettes No. IT IS NOT. You have been mislead. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, there is currently a lot of FUD and propaganda surrounding vaping. Perhaps due to the term "e-cigarette"? Other than artificial flavors, the major constituents in the liquid are what I listed above - propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, and nicotine. Only nicotine has significant documented health effects (at least that I am aware of), and even that's almost entirely down to it being addictive. Bear in mind that I'm comparing this to smoking weed or drinking alcohol - both extremely common pastimes throughout the world, and both clearly more harmful than vaping. Anyone trying to scare you off of vaping while not worrying about those other two activities is out of touch with reality. Of course, abstaining from all of those would be the best advice as far as your long term health is concerned.

atlasunshrugged 7y ago
Do you have any solid RCTs or meta analysis you could point me to about how much better they are than cigarettes? Agreed, there's a lot of FUD, but a lot of it is coming from sources that give me a lot of hesitation to doubt (lots of public health leaders, tobacco control groups, WHO people) I understand alcohol or weed is more harmful than vaping, I'm personally just interested in cigarettes as that seems to be the replacement part, I'm not sure someone would quit drinking or smoking weed and replace with vaping Edit: I know you pointed me to a solid report in an earlier comment, any additional ones? There are huge numbers of reports on tobacco in general and it's easy to find 1 or 2 reports reflecting one opinion or another
- mattbessey 7y ago
  See https://www.nhs.uk/smokefree/help-and-advice/e-cigarettes https://www.nhs.uk/smokefree/help-and-advice/e-cigarettes which cites > Public Health England's 2015 independent evidence review found that, based on the available evidence, vaping is around 95% less harmful than smoking. The Royal College of Physicians came to a similar conclusion in its 2016 report 'Nicotine without smoke: tobacco harm reduction'.
- DanBC 7y ago
  > Agreed, there's a lot of FUD, but a lot of it is coming from sources that give me a lot of hesitation to doubt (lots of public health leaders, tobacco control groups, WHO people) None of these sources are saying that vaping is comparable to smoking in terms of harms caused. They're saying that some harm is caused, and that we don't know what harms are caused, and so the precautionary principle means we should make sure that non-smokers do not take up vaping, and that smokers should use other nicotine replacement methods.
  - pavelludiq 7y ago
    > we should make sure that non-smokers do not take up vaping How about we let adults do as they please instead. The most anybody should ever do about vaping is warn people that maybe it's not the safest thing in the world. Instead in the EU we have a ridiculous law that makes it illegal to sell nicotine liquid in container bigger than 10ml, which means that if I don't want to spend twice what I used on cigarettes, I have to buy non-nicotine 100ml bottles of liquid and then buy separate 10ml bottles of nicotine concentrate and mix them myself, doing the math myself to get the proportion I used to be able to just order and generating a small pile of empty small plastic bottles every month because people who can't sleep at night unless somebody does something about everything!!!OHGODSTHECHILBREN!!! keep coming up with stupid ideas like that. Please we should not be making sure of anything! We don't need to be sure that every body is absolutely safe all the time, put a warning label and let us do as we wish with our health.
    - julianlam 7y ago
      Letting adults do as they please is a common refrain, but when you're living in a country with subsidized healthcare, the government has an incentive (at the macro level) to not let you do stupid things that raise healthcare costs, which are then passed on to the population at large. In America, you break it, you buy it. Everywhere else, I have no problem with a bit of governmental oversight to make sure people don't hurry themselves to a quicker and more expensive death.
      - otakucode 7y ago
- jdietrich 7y ago
  The link below is a systematic evidence review published by Public Health England, covering 415 studies relating to e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products. Key quotes: One assessment of the published data on emissions from cigarettes and EC calculated the lifetime cancer risks. It concluded that the cancer potencies of EC were largely under 0.5% of the risk of smoking. Comparative risks of cardiovascular disease and lung disease have not been quantified but are likely to be also substantially below the risks of smoking. Among EC users, two studies of biomarker data for acrolein, a potent respiratory irritant, found levels consistent with non-smoking levels. Biomarkers of exposure assessed to date are consistent with significant reductions in harmful constituents and for a few biomarkers assessed in this chapter, similar levels to smokers abstaining from smoking or non-smokers were observed. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/684963/Evidence_review_of_e-cigarettes_and_heated_tobacco_products_2018.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
  - DanBC 7y ago
    Don't forget that most of the evidence they used comes from research funded by the tobacco industry, and when you exclude that data the research shows more harm.
    - magna7 7y ago
      It's all relative. I don't see the CDC telling people to stop stuffing donuts in their mouths, which is far more harmful for public health.
      - chungus_khan 7y ago
        I mean, they definitely are doing that: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/losing_weight/eating_habits.html https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/losing_weight/eating_habit... But that kind of content very definitely grabs fewer headlines.
Kiro 7y ago
You sound extremely biased.
matwood 7y ago
> Bear in mind that I'm comparing this to smoking weed or drinking alcohol - both extremely common pastimes throughout the world, and both clearly more harmful than vaping. What about the dosage though? The people I know who drink alcohol and have a beer or 2 on the weekend. The people I see who vape, do it constantly. Are there people who vape once or twice a week?

by Reelin 7y ago

atlasunshrugged 7y ago

Do you have any solid RCTs or meta analysis you could point me to about how much better they are than cigarettes? Agreed, there's a lot of FUD, but a lot of it is coming from sources that give me a lot of hesitation to doubt (lots of public health leaders, tobacco control groups, WHO people) I understand alcohol or weed is more harmful than vaping, I'm personally just interested in cigarettes as that seems to be the replacement part, I'm not sure someone would quit drinking or smoking weed and replace with vaping Edit: I know you pointed me to a solid report in an earlier comment, any additional ones? There are huge numbers of reports on tobacco in general and it's easy to find 1 or 2 reports reflecting one opinion or another

mattbessey 7y ago
See https://www.nhs.uk/smokefree/help-and-advice/e-cigarettes https://www.nhs.uk/smokefree/help-and-advice/e-cigarettes which cites > Public Health England's 2015 independent evidence review found that, based on the available evidence, vaping is around 95% less harmful than smoking. The Royal College of Physicians came to a similar conclusion in its 2016 report 'Nicotine without smoke: tobacco harm reduction'.
DanBC 7y ago
> Agreed, there's a lot of FUD, but a lot of it is coming from sources that give me a lot of hesitation to doubt (lots of public health leaders, tobacco control groups, WHO people) None of these sources are saying that vaping is comparable to smoking in terms of harms caused. They're saying that some harm is caused, and that we don't know what harms are caused, and so the precautionary principle means we should make sure that non-smokers do not take up vaping, and that smokers should use other nicotine replacement methods.
- pavelludiq 7y ago
  > we should make sure that non-smokers do not take up vaping How about we let adults do as they please instead. The most anybody should ever do about vaping is warn people that maybe it's not the safest thing in the world. Instead in the EU we have a ridiculous law that makes it illegal to sell nicotine liquid in container bigger than 10ml, which means that if I don't want to spend twice what I used on cigarettes, I have to buy non-nicotine 100ml bottles of liquid and then buy separate 10ml bottles of nicotine concentrate and mix them myself, doing the math myself to get the proportion I used to be able to just order and generating a small pile of empty small plastic bottles every month because people who can't sleep at night unless somebody does something about everything!!!OHGODSTHECHILBREN!!! keep coming up with stupid ideas like that. Please we should not be making sure of anything! We don't need to be sure that every body is absolutely safe all the time, put a warning label and let us do as we wish with our health.
  - julianlam 7y ago
    Letting adults do as they please is a common refrain, but when you're living in a country with subsidized healthcare, the government has an incentive (at the macro level) to not let you do stupid things that raise healthcare costs, which are then passed on to the population at large. In America, you break it, you buy it. Everywhere else, I have no problem with a bit of governmental oversight to make sure people don't hurry themselves to a quicker and more expensive death.
    - otakucode 7y ago
jdietrich 7y ago
The link below is a systematic evidence review published by Public Health England, covering 415 studies relating to e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products. Key quotes: One assessment of the published data on emissions from cigarettes and EC calculated the lifetime cancer risks. It concluded that the cancer potencies of EC were largely under 0.5% of the risk of smoking. Comparative risks of cardiovascular disease and lung disease have not been quantified but are likely to be also substantially below the risks of smoking. Among EC users, two studies of biomarker data for acrolein, a potent respiratory irritant, found levels consistent with non-smoking levels. Biomarkers of exposure assessed to date are consistent with significant reductions in harmful constituents and for a few biomarkers assessed in this chapter, similar levels to smokers abstaining from smoking or non-smokers were observed. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/684963/Evidence_review_of_e-cigarettes_and_heated_tobacco_products_2018.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
- DanBC 7y ago
  Don't forget that most of the evidence they used comes from research funded by the tobacco industry, and when you exclude that data the research shows more harm.
  - magna7 7y ago
    It's all relative. I don't see the CDC telling people to stop stuffing donuts in their mouths, which is far more harmful for public health.
    - chungus_khan 7y ago
      I mean, they definitely are doing that: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/losing_weight/eating_habits.html https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/losing_weight/eating_habit... But that kind of content very definitely grabs fewer headlines.

Kiro 7y ago

You sound extremely biased.

matwood 7y ago

> Bear in mind that I'm comparing this to smoking weed or drinking alcohol - both extremely common pastimes throughout the world, and both clearly more harmful than vaping. What about the dosage though? The people I know who drink alcohol and have a beer or 2 on the weekend. The people I see who vape, do it constantly. Are there people who vape once or twice a week?