E-cigarettes 'Potentially As Harmful As Tobacco Cigarettes' (uconn.edu) 362
An anonymous reader shares a report: A study by chemists at the University of Connecticut offers new evidence that electronic cigarettes, or e-cigarettes, are potentially as harmful as tobacco cigarettes. Using a new low-cost, 3-D printed testing device, UConn researchers found that e-cigarettes loaded with a nicotine-based liquid are potentially as harmful as unfiltered cigarettes when it comes to causing DNA damage. The researchers also found that vapor from non-nicotine e-cigarettes caused as much DNA damage as filtered cigarettes, possibly due to the many chemical additives present in e-cigarette vapors. Cellular mutations caused by DNA damage can lead to cancer.
Suuuuuuure, brahs. (Score:2)
How many days until we found out they have ties to someone like Philip Morris?
Re: (Score:2)
PM has been switching to ecigs for a while now.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt there's some kind of conspiracy anyways because this shit is super conflicting. For example it suggests that they're worse than unfiltered cigarettes, and yet recent research has shown that the filter poses an increased cancer risk:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspo... [blogspot.com]
Re:Suuuuuuure, brahs. (Score:5, Insightful)
Most legitimate peer-reviewed journals have a conflict of interest disclosure requirement, so you just have to look at the paper to see.
The paper isn't available to no-subcribers, but here's the guideline listed by the journal in question:
A statement describing any financial conflicts of interest or lack thereof is published with each manuscript. During the submission process, the corresponding author must provide this statement on behalf of all authors of the manuscript. The statement should describe all potential sources of bias, including affiliations, funding sources, and financial or management relationships, that may constitute conflicts of interest (please see the ACS Ethical Guidelines). The statement will be published in the final article. If no conflict of interest is declared, the following statement will be published in the article: “The authors declare no competing financial interest.”
The bigger question is, what is the nature of the paper, and the journal it appears in?
The gold standard for evidence is a literature review paper published in a relevant journal that has a high impact factor for its field. Even high quality research reported in a relevant legitimate journal isn't something anyone should make any judgments based on. Science deals with evidence, and evidence in any non-trivial question tends to pile up on both sides at the outset.
ACS Sensors is a relatively new journal published by the American Chemical Society for research in chemical sensor technology. It's not even a health-related journal. This doesn't mean the research is bad, or the conclusions are bad. It just means that they're mainly relevant as to whether this technology could be used to research the health impact of e-cigarettes.
Re:Suuuuuuure, brahs. (Score:5, Informative)
Author Contributions
The manuscript was written through contributions of all authors. All authors have given approval to the final version of the manuscript.
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
Acknowledgment
The authors thank the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), NIH, Grant No. ES03154 for financial support. We thank Islam M. Mosa for SEM images.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
E-cigarettes may be as unhealthy as tobacco, in this one legitimate but quite specific dimension, unlike regular cigarettes, which are definitely as unhealthy as tobacco in every respect.
Re:Suuuuuuure, brahs. (Score:4, Interesting)
A lot of people still think smoking is cool, but somehow an e-cig is like sucking on a dildo.
Nobody still thinks smoking is cool. I never thought I'd see the day when smoking marijuana carries less of a social stigma than smoking tobacco.
Disclaimer: I smoke.
I don't believe that but... (Score:4, Interesting)
E-Cigarettes don't have any tar, which is truly nasty stuff, and that makes them better than tobacco. But I am willing to believe that they are bad for you. Nicotine is fairly nasty (and highly addictive) on its own.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't believe that but... (Score:5, Insightful)
The study was only looking at cancer risks so drawing conclusions that vaping is just as bad as smoking from this article is ill informed. As you allude to there are other respiratory illnesses, like COPD, where the tar from smoking is a major factor. If vaping has equivalent odds of causing cancer as smoking but reduces risk of other illnesses it seems rather obvious that we should encourage people to move from smoking to vaping in order to reduce the amount of respiratory illness. Getting them off smoking/vaping entirely would be the best but addictions are what they are.
Re:I don't believe that but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Cigarettes don't have tar made from petroleum like on a the road they have a TAR (total aerosol residue). Everyone likes to believe that e-cigarettes leave no residue behind but that's just silly and anyone that might propagate that myth is highly suspect.
Re: (Score:2)
Theory/Practice (Score:2)
In theory :
- regular cigarettes (and other classical tobacco product) work by *burning* dried leaves.
- e-cig work by electronically delivering the fluid (mostly ultra-sound vaporisation).
Thus cigarettes have much more potential to release combustion toxic products.
In short : e-cig are not burning, in theory they are better.
In practice :
- there's only that much additives that you can add to tobacco before you start having more tobacco than actual dried plants.
- e-cig fluid is more or less a free mix of whate
Re: (Score:2)
The choice of the nicotine concentration of e-cigs is entirely up to the vaper, unlike with smoking.
What about... (Score:5, Funny)
I have to wonder if the simpler non-nicotine versions are anywhere near as harmful. Food-grade vegetable glycerine and peppermint oil just don't scream, "I am chemical death" to me, but what do I know.
Re: (Score:2)
It's kind of tricky you are inhaling it so it's not being processed by your liver so anything you eat that might not normally be toxic because your liver takes care of it could be a problem. Kind of like a couple shots of whiskey isn't a problem but a couple shots of whiskey in an enema can kill you. It's also a vaporized liquid that goes into your lungs which eventually will turn back into liquid.
I am chemical death. (Score:2)
Food-grade vegetable glycerine and peppermint oil just don't scream, "I am chemical death" to me, but what do I know.
If you source your fluid from a local organic pop-and-mom shop that makes a product that is basically just pure glycerin, and peppermint oil and nothing else :
sure, you're going to get something which has the potential to be a lot less toxic than burning dried leaves treated with tons of additives.
But as soon as you speak about cheap industrial products, you know that the manufacturer will try to get away with any thing they can within tolerated / detectable concentrations.
(The same as with industrial food
It's not easy to quit (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: It's not easy to quit (Score:2)
Re:It's not easy to quit (Score:5, Insightful)
I work with a woman who smoked for 20 years. She told me quitting cold turkey was fine and people are babies about it.
Re:It's not easy to quit (Score:5, Interesting)
For some it is easy, for others it's harder than quitting an addiction like alcohol or opioids. (Source: I've worked in homeless shelters and talked to addicts about it).
For me, it was easy the first time to go cold turkey. I was 17 and I'd been smoking for three years. When I started smoking again 18 years later and then quit three years after that, it was really difficult. The nicotine had really taken hold for some reason the second time. I finally turned to Nicorette gum, and in that moment when I popped that little cube in my mouth and the craving just dissipated, I realized I'd been a drug addict.
Been smoke free for nearly 20 years, and it's definitely the best decision from a health standpoint I've ever made.
Re: (Score:2)
...and to not be beholden to a drug is a remarkably freeing feeling.
That's how I felt when I stopped using Windows.
Super misleading headline (Score:4, Interesting)
It's better to figure out how to get a natural high, and it's better to wake up in the morning with energy naturally instead of needing coffee, but if you're still smoking tobacco then stop today and switch to e-cigs. Your future self will thank you a million times.
Re:Super misleading headline (Score:5, Informative)
The headline says e-cigarettes are harmful; the actual article says they tested a new device by putting chemicals and DNA in, generating metabolites, and reacting them to the DNA to see if the metabolites damage DNA.
So they did a little chemical mixing without testing things like dilution in blood, protective environments of the cell, transport across cell membranes, and so forth.
Why does anyone even care at this point? (Score:2)
More info please (Score:2)
It's interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
They never seem to promote the stories that are in direct contradiction to this study. The Royal College of Physicians in the U.K. made a determination the e-cigarettes were at least 95% less harmful than cigarettes. No one cared. But every time this type of study, typically with terrible methodology no one pays attention to, is released, the media goes nuts. Saying something is safe isn't click bait worthy.
Is Philip Morris involved? (Score:2)
I wonder how Philip Morris feels about e-cigarettes. I would imagine tobacco cigarettes are a lot cheaper for them to make and easier to market because there's low "startup costs." I doubt they'd be funding studies like this because the whole point is to keep as many people addicted to nicotine as possible. It must be hard going from a world of the 50s where the majority of adult men smoked and 30some% of women did too, to a world where smokers are standing in a sad little corner 25 feet from building entra
DJ Smoke Machines? (Score:2)
Where does that fit? The "juice" is pretty much the same. I'd love to learn about this.
E-cigarettes are harmful, or certain E-liquids? (Score:3)
I highly doubt that E-cigarettes by themselves cause DNA damage/cell manipulation. It's the ingredients of whatever "E-liquid" that is inhaled that is the focus here.
So that leads me to believe that people should be focusing on the quality or ingredients of the E-liquid they are inhaling. Why blanket an entire medium as harmful when it's the consumable that is causing the harm?
It's the chemicals... (Score:3)
It's always the chemicals. Chemicals are bad. Chemicals cause cancer. Just call the chemicals by their common name and then they become natural. Are natural chemicals bad?
Due to the many chemical additives ? (Score:5, Informative)
Vaper here. For about 3 months now.
I make my own vaping fluid. It's composed of "pure" VG (VEGETABLE GLYCERIN) and "PG" (PROPYLENE GLYCOL), with added Nicotine and some flavours. PG, VG and nicotine come from reliable, trusted sources, and have no additives whatsoever. Aroma is more complex, but you can live without it if you do not trust its components, although most are at least accepted as food addictives, so should be safe.
To be honest, the way they put it really looks like they are funded by the Big Guys.
All I can say is for the last two months or so I feel much more healthy, no more morning coughs, I already reduced my nicotine intake for more than 50%. I tend to vape a lot, though, but as long as my sources do not lie about the base components (VG and PG) I should be way safer.
There are no such things as "addictives", unless they mean aroma. And again, those, if coming from a reliable, trusted source, should be safe.
Alvie
Re: Drug delivery device (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Drug delivery device (Score:5, Informative)
Nicotine is the most dangerous part of a traditional cigarette, per mg. However, much like with coffee and caffeine, nicotine is a very small portion of the traditional delivery method. At the volumes in a normal cigarette, the burnt paper smoke is enough of a lung cancer risk even if it was completely emptied of tobacco products and additives.
At different times, cigarettes have had different additives with different levels of inhaled toxicity, but the smoke always consists primarily of burnt plant materials, filling the smokers' lungs with carcinogenic ash and some small amount of very addictive, fairly toxic nicotine.
Re: Drug delivery device (Score:4, Insightful)
Sola dosis facit venenum.
Nicotine isn't necessarily harmful, it just depends on the amount, as with everything else. Certain amounts of it are actually beneficial for certain medicinal applications. Foods we often eat also carry nicotine, such as tomatoes, eggplant, and potatoes (all of which are nightshades, as is tobacco itself.) A whole eggplant carries about half a miligram of nicotine for example.
Re: (Score:3)
It damages cells and sometimes you get cancer when they repair. That's the mechanism.
If you're just looking at it from that perspective, then literally everything causes cancer. And I do mean EVERYTHING. For example, walking and breathing would cause cancer because they cause damage to muscles and bones, which then have to repair themselves, which means increased likelihood of error when the new cells emerge.
In fact, nicotine is not classified as a carcinogen at all:
http://www.treatobacco.net/en/... [treatobacco.net]
Re: (Score:2)
You left off grilled chicken and hamburger.
chemicals (Score:2)
I was always under the impression it was other chemicals in cigarettes that were even more harmful.
Yes, harm comes also from nearly everything else beside nicotine, too.
In theory : cigarettes (and other classical products) work by burning dried leaves, so they could potentially release more toxic combustion products, whereas e-cig work mostly electronically (ultra-sound vaporisation) and should create that many extra compounds.
In practice : cigarettes work by burning dried leaves and there only as much additives that you can add to the leaves before starting to have more chemicals than plants. e-cigs use
Re: Drug delivery device (Score:5, Informative)
Nicotine itself is not a useful insecticide, primarily because it's so poisonous to non-target species: Avians & Mammals.
As Nicotine is absorbed through the skin easily, it's also quite easy for somebody using nicotine as an insecticide to poison themselves, as well as anybody else in the area. 30-60 mg can kill a human adult, though the LD50 is generally 500-1000 mg.
The neonicotinoids (similar to Nicotine) are extremely useful insecticides - as deadly to insects, but relatively nontoxic to birds & mammals.
Re:Drug delivery device (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you not seen how well that's worked on alcohol and weed and other drugs?
The only question for a regulatory body would be to answer: "Do eCigarettes add unstated (or unknown) poisons into your body?"
A secondary question would be: "Are eCigarettes better than actual cigarettes?"
On the surface the answer is yes:
One is not burning paper and leaves. One is primarily ingesting nicotine.
Depends on intent (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all banning is not a solution.
That depends on your goals. If you primary goal is to put a lot of poor people and minorities behind bars for using drugs that seldom result in meaningful harm to others then banning is a terrific solution. Not so much for people with a sense of decency and any amount of practicality though.
Re: (Score:2)
Although I think that most people who are in favor of criminalizing drugs do so from the belief that that is the way to stop people from doing harm. Are people too fat raise taxes on soda; does a sick person shoot up a school then guns are the problem and to hell to people who think they have a right to defend themselves from predators (and the gov't); do you need money to do good - then raise taxes.
OK guess I was ranting.
Still. I
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The other problem I have is another version of the same tactics that the tobacco industry has used many decades ago: Convincing the unwary that 'e-cigs' and 'vaping' are healthier somehow, when that's clearly not th
Re: (Score:2)
and as such I'd like them to do their job.
I can think of no better way than by monitoring what adults are willfully inhaling and reporting the results. They (or maybe the FTC?) should absolutely come down hard on anyone making a health or other claim not backed up by rigorous study. But, Jesus, this is a vice and adults don't need a babysitter. If research comes in showing it to be a public health threat, then let's talk - but we don't need to ban things proactively, without any science at all.
when that's clearly not the case,
I don't think this is clear at all [cancerresearchuk.org]. It's still under st
Re: (Score:3)
I'm trying to be clear that we are talking about adults.
If an adult wants to huff stage smoke because a stranger told them to, by all means let them. Your involvement - and my involvement - should only happen when there is a demonstrated public health concern, not just because we disapprove of their life decisions.
Re:Drug delivery device (Score:5, Insightful)
The alternative to a nanny state is a lot more people injuring and killing themselves, and the rest of us having to pay for it in both monetary and non-monetary ways.
Sorry to sound snarky, but "citation needed". Seriously - I've been around long enough to see the "War On Drugs" play out, and billions of government dollars and millions of drug possessors in prison has done squat for addiction rates. Meanwhile, usage of the completely legal cigarettes has been drastically curtailed by simply restricting advertising, improving education. restrictions on second-hand smoke, and taxing them to the hairy edge of a black market.
Re: (Score:2)
You're a walking, talking oxymoron.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Drug delivery device (Score:5, Insightful)
'E-cigarrettes' are just a blatant drug delivery device (for nicotine, a highly addictive and poisonous substance), plain and simple, and that was blindingly obvious the first time I ever heard about them.
Tell that to the people I know who went from smoking 1-2 packs a day of cigarettes, to e-cigs/vaping, and now don't even smoke at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also has this study been peer reviewed or are we making claims on untested science... again.
Seriously How many times do we have to hear about these studies right after they publish before anyone in the filed has had a chance to critique it, and we wonder why the rubes don't trust science.
Re: (Score:2)
Its also clear that many switch because it's an easy way of removing dependence on the addictive drug which was kind of the GP's point.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Tell that to the people I know who went from smoking 1-2 packs a day of cigarettes, to e-cigs/vaping, and now don't even smoke at all.
I'd be fine with that statement if that's all this was about, but it's not: There are people who are going from being non-smokers to 'vaping' thinking it's somehow healthier than smoking, which is just plain not true. Also do you really think the tobacco companies are interested in anything other than perpetuating their own industry regardless of what it does to people's health? It's been shown over and over and over again that they just don't care how many peoples' health are affected or die, they rely on
Re:Drug delivery device (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with your statement is that the vaping industry is NOT the tobacco industry.
They arent the same companies.
Re:Drug delivery device (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, it's the tobacco companies pushing most of these regulations on e-cigarettes.
Re: (Score:3)
They arent the same companies.
That's so cute. Tobacco companies are actively investing billions into funding of e-cigs. They still maintain their public image because that's what good companies do, they hedge their bets. But if you think that big tobacco companies don't have twenty to thirty cents inside of each bottle of juice a person is buying, then they've done their job well.
This is 2016 mind you [newsweek.com] but you'll be amazed what they've been able to do in a little over a year's time. Just because they've not yet dominated the industr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isnt that just semantics? If you are harming yourself just am much vaping as you were smoking, whats the big victory here? Its like being proud you stopped smoking heroin because your mainlining it now. not really a win.
I believe the apt analogy here would be switching from heroin to methadone and eventually kicking your habit all together. From what people have told me, vaping is essentially the methadone of smoking.
Re: (Score:2)
Methadone is, more or less, obsolete. It's only purpose was to keep junkies 'not sick' while not getting them nearly as high. Junkies have found that adding a 'pam' (valium) to methadone restores the full tilt Heroin high.
Methadone withdrawls are reportedly actually worse than Heroin.
Re:Drug delivery device (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as they aren't worse for you than cigarettes they have the following advantages:
In short. Vaping is better for everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Less litter I will agree with however your other two points are relative. One of my sons vape and his car stinks like a nasty chemical fruit explosion and it's always on his clothes.
I think the problem is (Score:3)
Consistency (Score:3)
I was surprised the FDA didn't ban them outright.
At least, the FDA (and the various similar government agancies in other jurisdiction) are consistent.
Cigarettes, cigars, smoking pipes, and other tabacco products aren't banned.
e-Cigarette (basically the same as above, the only slight difference being that it relies on a complex electronic system to deliver its harmful chemical components instead of an open fire *) shouldn't be banned either.
The only *actually* surprising at first sight thing, is that Marijuana smoking is banned.
---
* - As the delivery isn't
Re: (Score:2)
Wait a second...I might just have to take up smoking. Same as caffeine you say?
All they ever did for me was make me puke.
E-cigs don't produce "smoke".... (Score:5, Informative)
which is a byproduct of combustion. They produce a vapor fog that LOOKS like smoke, but isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
It will help maintain your delusion that your addiction to nicotine is "harmless".
I don't think anybody is under the delusion that nicotine is harmless. Some of us have just decided that the harm doesn't outweigh the "benefits." I smoke 2 cigarettes on an average workday, half a cigarette at a time between 4-8 PM. I enjoy the act of smoking and the nicotine buzz it gives me. I quit for about 15 years and am confident that I could drop the habit again if that was something I wanted to do. I have a genetic health issue that is almost certain to remove me from this world long before the cig
Re: (Score:2)
You're moving the goalposts from "less-harmful than inhaling the fumes off a burning mass of toxic plant matter soaked in toxic chemicals" to "harmless".
Re: (Score:2)
Keep telling yourself that. It will help maintain your delusion that your addiction to nicotine is "harmless".
Just as there's no smoke in e-cigs, the choice of how much (if any) nicotine in e-cigs is entirely up to the person using them. Unlike with cigarettes.
My addiction to what? (Score:2)
I've never been a tobacco user, and don't "vape" either....
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Are people this stupid? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, the headline is misleading.
Nicotine in e-cigarettes found just as harmful as nicotine in regular cigarettes.
UConn researchers found that e-cigarettes loaded with a nicotine-based liquid are potentially as harmful as unfiltered cigarettes when it comes to causing DNA damage.
Oh, and it gets even better:
UConn’s scientists decided to look into whether the chemicals in e-cigarettes could cause damage to human DNA while testing a new electro-optical screening device they developed in their lab. The small 3-D printed device is believed to be the first of its kind capable of quickly detecting DNA damage, or genotoxicity, in environmental samples in the field, the researchers say.
First test of our new device to detect DNA damage!
The device is unique in that it converts chemicals into their metabolites during testing, which replicates what happens in the human body, Kadimisetty says.
Sorry, first test of our new device to simulate biological processes and see if they produce chemicals that can cause DNA.
E-cigarettes still don't contain smoke, 676 chemical additives (flame retardants, colorants, preservatives, pesticides, etc.), carbon monoxide, or the like. As well, the chemical additives are generally propylene glycol or vegetable glycerin, which are both generally safe (vegetable glycerin is absorbed as a metabolizable carbohydrate-like food, more of a ketone; propylene glycol is apparently actually less-harmful than that).
Re: (Score:2)
Forty-Two Chemicals Identified in Electronic Cigarettes
= exposure can be especially harmful to the health.
Chemicals in red are emitted in secondhand smoke.
2-butanone (MEK) 2-furaldehyde
Acetaldehyde Acetic acid Acetone Acrolein Aluminum Barium Benzene Boron Butanal Butyl hydroxyl toluene Cadmium Chromium Copper CrotonaldehydeDiethylene Glycol Formaldehyde Glyoxal Iron Isoprene Lead Limon
Re: (Score:3)
Acetaldehyde is the flavoring in banana, strawberry, and peach. Like, the actual chemical in fruit. It's a beer fault. The chemical is a ketone and is absorbed through the lungs and processed as energy; your body will produce it when low on glycogen, and your brain runs more efficiently on that than on glucose.
Acetic acid is vinegar. It's safe in low concentrations, dangerous in high concentrations. Inhale the fumes off 20% dilute acetic acid and your lungs will melt.
Cadmium, nickel, lead, and cop
Re: (Score:2)
Vaping gets its name from that fact that it vaporizes a liquid into a gas. In the same way that my mom's tea kettle vaporizes water into steam. There is no smoke. Nothing is burnt.
Disclosure: I don't vape e-cigarettes or smoke cigarettes.
Re: (Score:2)
The propylene-glycol and glycerine are the same as what are used in smoke machines for theatres and discos.
Technically, that is a kind of smoke. It is definitely not a mist of "harmless water vapour" that some people think.
Eating and inhaling are two different things. While the chemical responsible for "popcorn lung" is perfectly safe for eating, it is not safe for inhaling.
It does concern me that vapers often somehow have got the misconception that it would be OK to vape just about everywhere where smoking
Re: (Score:2)
That's what all the smokers looking to use e-cigs as a rebranding opportunity (to themselves and others) desperately want to believe. They think there's David-and-Goliath battle between the plucky e-cig industry and the nasty old tobacco industry that wants to shut them down because their "safer option" is a threat. In reality there are no good guys to root for in any fight between the vendors of death sticks and the vendors of death juice.
Now cigs and e-cigs are probably not exactly as deadly as each other
Re: (Score:2)
They think there's David-and-Goliath battle between the plucky e-cig industry and the nasty old tobacco industry that wants to shut them down because their "safer option" is a threat.
That battle is between e-cigarette makers and state taxing authorities. States make so much money from tobacco taxes that they'll have budget shortfalls if people stop buying tobacco.
Tobacco makes their money either way, they grow the tobacco that's used to extract the nicotine for e-liquid.
LK
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, that's what studies that aren't done in the U.S. are saying, and have been for the last year or more. Current consensus is ~95% harm reduction compared to traditional cigarettes, confirmed in studies from several different countries. Correlation does not cause causation blah, blah, blah; but it is quite interesting that the only studies saying these are super horrible bad come from the U.S., where there is the huge tobacco lobby....
You will note that the studies did NOT say they were completely harmle
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed.
Re: Stop it please (Score:3, Insightful)
They will not. They will pile higher and deeper. All you need to notice is that every fucking crazy study about blood vessel growth or potential DNA damage gets pushed to the top of national news, but all the studies demonstrating in vivo safety never make it outta journals. It is an organized push to sell a narrative.
Re: (Score:3)
Links to your study then please?
Re:Stop it please (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.gov.uk/government/... [www.gov.uk]
neo puritans, perhaps? (Score:2)
There are proof electronic cigarettes are at least 97% less harmfull then smoking, so please stop it publishing crap like this.
They do the exact same thing with artificial sweeteners. There's always some horribly flawed study going around claiming how they don't actually help you lose weight, cause insulin spikes or are just bad because they're all chemical-y. Never mind the fact we already know too much real sugar is horrible for your health, and artificial sweeteners have a proven record of safety in real-world use.
Thing is, the people pushing this kind of agenda feel an approach of "harm reduction" is inadequate, and that you
Re: (Score:2)
I try to limit artificial sweetener use, but even if there were a problem with these chemicals causing harm - they are usually several hundred times sweeter than sugar, so there will be such a minuscule amount in real-world food products that this probably won't matter. All that said, sucralose tends to give me a headache - especially when consumed without caffeine. It's weird that their own marketing web sites specifically call out that it is not a known vasodilator, because that's exactly what it sounds
Re: (Score:2)
You're going to have to provide some evidence for that claim (other than the stool sticking to that number you pulled from your nether regions).
Do your research. (Score:2)
Do yours.
Do you suggest that every vaper should acquire expensive chromatography / tandem mass-spectrometers, just to be able to check that the fluid their inhalating doesn't contain any extra additive? that the manufacturer didn't try to smuggle a few extra substances just below the tolerated/detectable concentration? that the manufacturing processus didn't leak any accidental substances in it?
e-cig fluid is an industrial product. There's a gigantic potential for abuse.
(see the problems with industrial food product
Re: (Score:2)
I know where you can get a free, obsolete, mass spec...Late 80s vintage.
Re:Nicotine is poisonous...period (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure you're only half right.
1) Nicotine is problematic, it interferes with the body's ability to fight cancer, but it doesn't look like it causes it
2) There is no "burnt" or whatever we want to call it, "burnt" appears to be a carcinogen in general (for example, diets heavy in blackened and charred food seem to lead to GI cancers)
3) Vaping seems to be better for the cardiovascular system than smoking.
But, I do suspect it is not harmless, and may even be quite bad. For one thing, inhaling solvents, even food safe ones, is likely not the healthiest thing, also, It wouldn't shock me to learn that breathing 400 degree air carries with it it's own health effects.
It still seems to be much healthier than smoking.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.toxipedia.org/displ... [toxipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I would imagine practically any processed food would make you violently ill then. That does make you a bit of an outlier.
Re: (Score:2)
http://ezinearticles.com/?Are-... [ezinearticles.com] You may want to do research before you tell other people how they should feel when around toxins, especially those heavily studied.
Re: (Score:2)
Practically all of them due to workplace safety concerns. In particular, the glycerin and PG in ecigs has been well tested since those are used in medical vaporizers and stage fog machines.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"I actually feel a sick feeling in my stomach "
"I would actually get horrible headaches"
This is obvious proof right? Who needs science when you have a sick feeling or other anecdotal evidence?
The reality is that nicotine is good for many people. Many people take choline for various health benefits including clear thinking, memory and general calmness. Nicotine is chemically very similar to choline and has similar beneficial effects.
In cigarets there are many other ingredients, and most likely also in e-cigs
Re: (Score:2)
That's why they should be using the 16550A.
Re: (Score:2)
Burn plastic and you can make phosgene in your house. I don't think that works with PLA, nylon though.
Re: (Score:2)
No matter how problematic the conditions of this study are, it's more ethical than a controlled in-vivo study of cigarette smoking (where science is telling people to smoke for science).