E-cigarettes around 95% less harmful than tobacco estimates landmark review

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
I tried vaping but it clogged me up and I kept burning the filaments and inhaling whatever it's made of. Scratchy throat never went away until I quit.

My aunt a smoker for 30+ years tried it first day had a panic attack we thought she was a goner almost called ambulance.

Do these studies account for the inevitable filament decay lining your throat as it disintegrates or do they use fresh ones before it starts getting bad? Do people wait until the burnt taste to switch them out or have a proactive system to it?

All I know is in about a decade of smoking on and off never was addicted wanting to keep puffing all freaking day until got the eciggs. Had a bit of insomnia during that time period as well.

Depending on what type is used you may have to change the heating coil. I know with my pen I started out having to change the heating coil two times a week. If the heating coil goes bad then it produces a very harsh taste. I normally time mine personally now. With how I vape now? Once a week. If I vape more? Then I know to change it.

originally posted by: smirkley
Nicotine is still a highly addictive drug and about as addictive as heroine.

So says a US Surgeon General, not me inventing that statement. And I dont disagree.

It is too bad the vast majority of new vape users are underage children.

It's too bad you didn't read the article, or the OP and instead regurgitated completely false facts about underage people being the majority of users.

a reply to: ThichHeaded

Agreed. We also can't really count how many kids would have started smoking if they hadn't started vaping. People like to leave those numbers out when reading the riot act about vaping and thinking of the children. I find it difficult to believe that children who would have never dreamed of picking up a cigarette would not think twice about vaping. So until they can give me an accurate number on those kids... Their stats mean jack squat to me. I want the number of children who never smoked cigarettes, who would have never smoked cigarettes, that decided vaping was what they wanted to do before they go off all half cocked.

As long as big tobacco is losing money, we can be guaranteed that the fight to regulate vaping on every level possible will continue.

There are some mighty big names in big tobacco.... And when big tobacco loses, they lose. They have very valid reasons to promote lies, false findings, shady studies, etc.

I swapped from a 2 pack a day habit to vaping 3 years ago. The insurance company and major hospitals consider vaping , non tobacco , non-smoker (at least for now till the government gets into "regulating" them) . It truly is a safer , healthier choice.
However , now all you hear is that 1 horror story that happened 10 years ago and how teens will have them. They are starting after regulating (the governments code word for taxing) them in a big way. That will only drive people back to cigs.......SAD.....

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: Domo1

Sure, until 10 years from now and they find out that the vapors cause cancer too.

From the nicotine, or the propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin that has been used for decades already in both smoke machines and as additives to food stuffs.

Surely you can see the facts:

Smokers are addicted to a substance that is a known carcinogen, and inhale burnt plant materials and god knows what else combination of chemicals added to addict and add flavour.

Vaping provides the nicotine without having to burn anything. You exhale water vapour and the remaining nicotine not absorbed. The flavours are also not burnt. In this way it is the same as using a Hookah with flavoured Shisha.

So, is it really justifiable to knock vaping on the head when it has helped countless people stop burning plant materials to inhale a burnt plethora of chemicals to get a nicotine hit?

Considering the alternative is people keep burning plant material known to cause cancer?

this is why its illogical to keep banging on against e-cigs. Logic just screams it's a safer alternative, we have had decades of data involving the substances the nicotine is suspended in.... it's not brand new.

originally posted by: the owlbear
Robot cigarettes are still cigarettes.
Everything in moderation, peeps.

What? Nicotine is nicotine yes.

you just basically said "Boats and cars are the same people." sure they both move you, but no they're not the same.

a reply to: sn0rch

Sorry I gotta break your reasoning apart a bit, cause logic doesn't seem to be on your side too well.

So the smoke machines. Yep, people are around them when they're doubles in movies or at raves. Cool, so there's a concentration that they hit for a short period of time. Understood. That's not all day every day, thou. What do you reckon the concentration would be at your average rave or as a stunt double or actor or what have you compared to sucking it directly into your lungs? Apples and oranges.

Next one is the food thing. Yea so, there's a difference between digestion and inhalation, right? Again, apples and oranges.

I'm not about to try and say that the average person isn't greatly helped by switching from cigarettes to e-ciggs, but the comparisons you're mentioning are not too well thought out.

originally posted by: Domo1
This just in, water is wet!

That's exactly what I said to myself when I read your thread title.

It's like, "duh". Smoke is terrible for your lungs so... remove the smoke from smoking and it's obviously a step in the right direction. Tobacco companies really don't like these sorts of studies.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: sn0rch

Sorry I gotta break your reasoning apart a bit, cause logic doesn't seem to be on your side too well.

So the smoke machines. Yep, people are around them when they're doubles in movies or at raves. Cool, so there's a concentration that they hit for a short period of time. Understood. That's not all day every day, thou. What do you reckon the concentration would be at your average rave or as a stunt double or actor or what have you compared to sucking it directly into your lungs? Apples and oranges.

The amount I vape in a single toke, is far less than I would get standing in the pit of a gig. That would be for hours also, whereas my vaping is spaced out. Not every breath is a toke.

I have no irritation of my lungs whatsoever. Unlike when I smoked cigarettes, constantly hacking up phlegm..

While I have no stats, personally, my point is in that globally, since it has been used, it has not been an issue, and it is not unknown for some people to go to gigs weekly, if not more, and be around the smoke machine vapour.

Next one is the food thing. Yea so, there's a difference between digestion and inhalation, right? Again, apples and oranges.

You are aware that it has been used in Asthma inhalers since the 50's and as a dispersant in fragrances...

it has been used for a long time, intravenously, cosmetically, industrially..

I'm not about to try and say that the average person isn't greatly helped by switching from cigarettes to e-ciggs, but the comparisons you're mentioning are not too well thought out.

No, they are thought out. Fear mongering is something you need to look beyond.

originally posted by: sn0rch

The amount I vape in a single toke, is far less than I would get standing in the pit of a gig. That would be for hours also, whereas my vaping is spaced out. Not every breath is a toke.

There's no way you're thinking straight here. You just compared a single toke to standing in a pit for hours. Do you take tokes less than however many hours you're in the pit? You need to reword that, cause it sounds ridiculous.

I have no irritation of my lungs whatsoever. Unlike when I smoked cigarettes, constantly hacking up phlegm..

Well then good for you. I found serious irritation, but as has been pointed out, this could be some sort of allergy.

While I have no stats, personally, my point is in that globally, since it has been used, it has not been an issue, and it is not unknown for some people to go to gigs weekly, if not more, and be around the smoke machine vapour.

I'm pretty sure this claim you're just pulling out your arse, just cause. It's too absolute. Surely there must be people who have reported issues.

You are aware that it has been used in Asthma inhalers since the 50's and as a dispersant in fragrances...

That's good, I'm sure the potential harm is outweighed by the good it helps for people with asthma . Fragrances, really guy?

No, they are thought out. Fear mongering is something you need to look beyond.

I beg to differ. Bringing some balance to your thoughts is not fear mongering, but bringing up that term seems to show you fear losing the argument.

There's a reason it said "95%" reduction and not 100%, but the way you worded your post leaned too far off into no-harm-whatsoever-land. It's just not being honest.

I am hitting quote and it's not quoting the text.. so I will cut/n/paste... :/

In reply to pl3bscheese

There's no way you're thinking straight here. You just compared a single toke to standing in a pit for hours. Do you take tokes less than however many hours you're in the pit? You need to reword that, cause it sounds ridiculous.

What the hell are you talking about? You said people inhaling the vapour is not comparable to being at a gig, because you're constantly inhaling with a e-cig, to counter my claim that it is used in music venues without issue.

Obviously the amount I inhale in a toke is no where near as much as a gig... so you just shot your own argument out of the water. You get more PG vapour at a concert..

as for the allergy/irritation, there are different juices out there, some are dangerous. I was advised by the guy I get my juice from to be careful. problem for me is it is illegal here anyway, thanks to people saying "Think of the children!!" once again denying responsible adults the right to choose based on the inability of policy to curtail what young people do. They'll do it anyway, they're smoking as it is. Penalise everyone and not actually prevent anything.. this is why I oppose illogical arguments against this.

you may simply have had a nasty juice, or it may have been the wick.. if you are serious enough about it, it becomes more than just inhaling something... it's more like brewing home beer - you take an interest in everything about it, and you learn what is ok and not. if you just buy that fake ciggy looking thing from the walmart, then you're not really going to have the option to bag the entire subculture it has become.

I'm pretty sure this claim you're just pulling out your arse, just cause. It's too absolute. Surely there must be people who have reported issues.

Sure thing. I like to make up absolute bull# to win arguments so when you investigate it yourself, I look like an idiot... Nice one.

That's good, I'm sure the potential harm is outweighed by the good it helps for people with asthma . Fragrances, really guy?

So it has been used as a way to inhale asthma medicines, and you're still unsatisfied. Sounds like you just dont like being proven wrong.

I love how you're moving the goal posts. It has been used in MANY areas of medicine, cosmetics, industrial... yet your claim that it has not been inhaled therefore not the same as ingested, still stands?? It has been inhaled for medicnal reasons. You point has just been shot out of the water.

lmao...

I'm simply countering the absolute scare mongering opinions put forward here, because someone who knows no better will read the falsehoods and then run with it, and I'm tired of having to shoot down people who come along "Ecigs cause birth defects!!!!11" or "Bath salts, my god kids are injecting bath salst!!!!" creating absolute hysteria where none needs to be.

it does seem apparent that despite my having countered your points, with evidence, you still prefer to think it's untested, new, potentially dangerous.. Can't help that then I guess.

As long as you avoid the world, I'm sure you'll live to see your death bed... like most of us, really.

a reply to: sn0rch

Look, I'm done with you. You're not thinking well, and obviously not concerned with the health risks, but for people who care, the info was very, very easy to get at.

A number of studies have been published on the potential health effects presented by exposure to glycol based theatrical fogs and artificial mists. Two studies, a Health Hazard Evaluation completed in 1994 by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,[3] and another one in 2000 by the Department of Community and Preventative Medicine at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine and ENVIRON;[4] both prepared for Actors Equity and the League of American Theaters and Producers, focused on the effects on actors and performers in Broadway musicals. The conclusion of both studies was that there was irritation of mucous membranes such as the eyes and the respiratory tract associated with extended peak exposure to theatrical fog. Exposure guidelines were outlined in the 2000 study that, it was determined, should prevent actors from suffering adverse impact to their health or vocal abilities. Another study [5] focused on the use of theatrical fog in the commercial aviation industry for emergency training of staff in simulated fire conditions. This study also found eye and respiratory tract irritation. In May 2005, a study published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine,[6] conducted by the School of Environment and Health at the University of British Columbia, looked at adverse respiratory effects in crew members on a wide variety of entertainment venues ranging from live theaters, concerts, television and film productions to a video arcade. This study determined that cumulative exposure to mineral oil and glycol-based fogs were associated with acute and chronic adverse effects on respiratory health. This study found that short-term exposure to glycol fog was associated with coughing, dry throat, headaches, dizziness, drowsiness, and tiredness. This study also found long-term exposure to smoke and fog was associated with both short-term and long-term respiratory problems such as chest tightness and wheezing. Personnel working closest to the fog machines had reduced lung function results.

Link

Such a shame you couldn't be honest about this.

a reply to: Domo1

I've heard that vegetable glycerine is VERY BAD for the teeth. If they could find a safer alternative to that, then they would have a 200% superior product. Whoever can invent something like that will be wealthy, if glycerine proves to be as harmful to the teeth as I read that it was, and as long as they advertise it properly.

Sorry, my post was very limited and targeted.

Nicotine is in fact highly addictive. The added chemicals in cigarettes in particular are purposed exclusively to prep the lungs blood streams and nural receptors for advanced enhancement of getting the nicotine to the brain and plugged in receptors that normally attach to dopamines.

Secondly, at least in my area, it is noted that the significant users are not adults, but under aged users.

But the carcinogens are bad, and doctors given the choice, recommend vaping over stogies. Clearly the reasons are obvious as stated above.

I am not making these up. As far as the nicotine transfer device and enhancement chemicals, aka cigarettes, these statements are borne from a scientist that worked for a major manufacturer of such products that I had opportunity to discuss this with.

I am not fear mongering the vapes, could care less. But fact are facts and can be used to balance rational thought on the subject.

a reply to: InFriNiTee

I'd rather get a few cavities than keep smoking. Not sure if those claims are accurate, seeing as toothpaste typically has VG in it. Might be though, I don't really know.

I'm not saying vaping is good for you, but that it is a great way to stop smoking, and common sense alone would lead me to believe it is much safer than a regular cigarette (refuse to call them analogs, annoys me).

You can get e-liquid that has no VG in it if you so desire.

a reply to: smirkley

Prove your statements.. I want legit proof.. I provided mine.. and if you want proof that nic isnt addictive all you have to do is google it..

originally posted by: Kangaruex4Ewe
a reply to: ThichHeaded
As long as big tobacco is losing money, we can be guaranteed that the fight to regulate vaping on every level possible will continue.

It isnt just BT.. The state is losing a crap ton of money on a check they cant cash.. That bill in my 1st post here is telling..

Watch these videos..




The last one here is how they are going to kill vaping..

a reply to: ThichHeaded

You are kidding, right??!!

I just googled nicotine single word.

I did not find one reference to nicotine not being addictive.

Try the Mayo Clinic website. I think they are kinda reputable.

Other than that that is all the "proof" I am going to offer. Anything else is just patronizing argument for arguments sake. Not gonna do that.

a reply to: smirkley

Watch the 2nd video I added above.

a reply to: smirkley

Nicotine is definitely addictive, otherwise I wouldn't have had a hard time quitting. I think perhaps he was referring to the statement about underage people being the majority of new vapors, which I too think is false. I see that you said in your area, which very well may be true, albeit surprising.

originally posted by: smirkley
Nicotine is still a highly addictive drug and about as addictive as heroine.

So says a US Surgeon General, not me inventing that statement. And I dont disagree.

It is too bad the vast majority of new vape users are underage children.

This is one of the silliest, and downright most fabricated post I've EVER come across on ATS.

First of all, nicotine is not as addictive as heroin. I don't care WHO says it, you, Obama, or the US Surgeon General. As someone who has experience with both, I can assure you, nicotine doesn't even come close....not even in the same ballpark. Withdrawal from nicotine doesn't make your body feel like you are covered in in thorns and burning in a fire nonstop for 7 days. Sorry, it just doesn't.


Secondly, where on EARTH (or should I say WHY) did you come up with the lie that children are the majority of new vapers??? Are you aware that there isn't a vape shop in the country that sells to children under 18? As a member of various vape forums, in real life and on-line, I meet roughly 30-50 new vapers each week. Out of the THOUSANDS that I've met, none are children, and out of all of the vape meets across our country, NO children are allowed attendence, yet many report numbers in the hundreds to thousands.

I don't deny that some children vape, but 9 out 10 of those kids were already smoking, and are using e-cigs to quit. It is actually very rare for a kid to pick up an e-cig and start vaping out of the blue, if they didn't smoke. Out of those rare cases, it is usually NICOTINE FREE E-LIQUID they are vaping. Not that I advocate ANY form of vaping for a non-smoker....but certainly if it is nicotine-free, thats a whole different ballgame.


Normally I would have just laughed at your ignorant post....maybe posted it to facebook or something to share the laugh with others. However, quitting cigarettes is a serious matter, and vaping has allowed several MILLION adults to quit cigarettes already......so spreading disinfo like you are doing deserves a serious and swift response .