5 ms·

Safer according to what study? People just assume they are safer.

• tomjen3 13y ago
  I must admit I have tolerance for that bullshit. The cigs don't contain any of the dangerous chemical in a cigarette - you don't need a study to prove they are safe, you just need a decent understanding of chemistry. But a million anti-smoking advocates don't give a shit.
  • bashinator 13y ago
    If nicotine isn't harmful in itself, why does chewing tobacco cause cancers of the mouth?
    • radio4fan 13y ago
      Because there are more than 70 carcinogenic compounds in tobacco.
    • jlgreco 13y ago
      Are nicotine skin patches causing an epidemic of skin cancer where they are placed? Not all side effects are caused by the active ingredient.
  • Iftheshoefits 13y ago
    The set of chemicals in cigarettes that are dangerous is a subset of all chemicals known to be dangerous. One can conclude something quite important from that fact without any understanding of anything other than basic reasoning skills.
• fbellag 13y ago
  Yes, I know I do assume they are safer. If the ecig industry were regulated, then we could make sure the liquid has no or minimal side effects. In my country it is worse because ecigs are forbidden (given that uncertainity), so we have a black market for ecigs, making the quality of the liquids even more quetionable. I know tobacco is really bad, and I have doubts about ecig. So, I give the benefit of the doubt, as it is little probability it is worse.
  • mistercow 13y ago
    Honestly, I have doubts that there's much bad going to come of unregulated liquid. They're very simple solutions with few ingredients, and there isn't that much room to screw it up. If you bought ingredients from China, you might end up with VG and PG that weren't actually VG or PG, so there's one avenue. But the same thing happened with toothpaste years back, and toothpaste is regulated. I'd actually be more concerned about the hardware than the liquid. It would be easy to cut costs by using unsafe materials for heating elements, solder, or the wicks. But even with all of that risk, you're going to have a hell of a time beating the harm of cigarettes.
    • deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
• mistercow 13y ago
  No. There are numerous studies demonstrating that they are safer. Here's one: http://publichealth.drexel.edu/SiteData/docs/ms08/f90349264250e603/ms08.pdf http://publichealth.drexel.edu/SiteData/docs/ms08/f903492642... . Here's another: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/03/05/tobaccocontrol-2012-050859.abstract http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/03/05/tobac... Also, without direct evidence or rigorous analysis it would still be preposterous that a mixture of nicotine, fragrances, propylene glycol, and vegetable glycerine would be anywhere near as harmful to the lungs as cigarette smoke. There is a difference between "just assuming" and applying common sense.
  • dhughes 13y ago
    You would think common sense would say "only put air in your lungs".
    • mistercow 13y ago
      No, the prior for "air is the only safe thing that can go in your lungs" is very low.