Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Medicine Science

E-Cigarettes With Nicotine Increase Your Risk of Heart Disease, Says Study (theverge.com) 170

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Even after puffing on just one electronic cigarette with nicotine, healthy non-smokers were found to have a biological marker known to increase the risk of heart disease in tobacco users, according to a new study. The research, published in Journal of the American Heart Association, shows that nicotine is not harmless, as many people believe. It can affect a smoker's health in more than one way, and not just by triggering addiction. Another study, conducted by Middlekauff that was published earlier this year, showed that people who use e-cigs almost every day have biological markers known to increase the risk of heart disease in tobacco users. These included an increase in adrenaline levels in the heart, which can predispose smokers to bad heart rhythms, heart attacks, and sudden death, as well as increased oxidative stress, an imbalance in the body's ability to defend itself against the damaging action of free radicals. Oxidative stress can lead to changes in blood fats and lead to arteriosclerosis.

That study, however, didn't show what exactly was causing those changes. E-cigarettes can have different flavoring and solvents, as well as nicotine. So to identify the culprit, Middlekauff brought 33 healthy non-smokers and non-vapers into the lab. On three different days, one month apart, the participants were asked to puff on three different kinds of e-cigarettes for 30 minutes: one with nicotine, one without nicotine, and a sham e-cig that was empty. The researchers did blood tests and measured the subjects' heart rhythms, and found that the participants had high levels of adrenaline in their hearts after they smoked the e-cig with nicotine, but not after they puffed on the e-cigarette without nicotine or the empty e-cig.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

E-Cigarettes With Nicotine Increase Your Risk of Heart Disease, Says Study

Comments Filter:
  • Wow. Just WOW! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Frosty Piss ( 770223 ) * on Wednesday September 20, 2017 @11:32PM (#55236249)

    E-Cigarettes With Nicotine Increase Your Risk of Heart Disease

    I'm shocked! SHOCKED I TELL YOU!

    But I'll bet there's a hell of a lot less tar!

    • by Luthair ( 847766 )
      Its just water vapor man, there is nothing in it!
      • by Pseudonym ( 62607 ) on Thursday September 21, 2017 @12:15AM (#55236367)

        Vape only homeopathic nicotine.

      • Its just water vapor man, there is nothing in it!

        There's much more than water vapour in the e-cigarettes' output: glycerine, propylene glycol. Bon appetit.

        • Its just water vapor man, there is nothing in it!

          There's much more than water vapour in the e-cigarettes' output: glycerine, propylene glycol. Bon appetit.

          It really is the DHMO you have to watch out for. That stuff'll fuck you up, especially if too much gets in your lungs at once!

        • by zifn4b ( 1040588 )

          Its just water vapor man, there is nothing in it!

          There's much more than water vapour in the e-cigarettes' output: glycerine, propylene glycol. Bon appetit.

          Aspartame, mono-sodium glutamate, smog, carbon monoxide, cholesterol, sugar. In modern society, you can't avoid ingesting crap. It's really a question of pick your poison. Your body is going to break down and go back into the ground regardless anyway. No one lives forever. But I suppose if it keeps your mind off of it, keep playing the chicken little game.

        • I'is made of a secret mixture that contains one or more of the following: kerosene, propylene glycol, artificial sweeteners, sulphuric acid, rum, acetone, battery acid, red dye#2, scumm, axle grease and/or pepperoni.

    • Re:Wow. Just WOW! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tatarize ( 682683 ) on Thursday September 21, 2017 @02:30AM (#55236735) Homepage

      The important bit is that when compared they should be compared with cigarettes not with nicotine-less ecigs or dummy e-cigs. And you will find that cigarettes kill 400k people a year. Whereas e-cigs will kill a couple people with heart attacks and stimulant linked deaths and maybe a doofus screwing up and overdosing through utter stupidity, but you will *never* get to 400k deaths in a year.

      Add to this the fact that this research will be used to attack e-cigs and this research will end up causing many thousands of deaths that otherwise would have been prevented. Any valid determination should find e-cigs are on par with vaccines and clean water. They are gutting traditional tobacco products to the life saving result of what is going to be millions of people in short order.

      • Re:Wow. Just WOW! (Score:5, Informative)

        by coastwalker ( 307620 ) <acoastwalker@NoSPaM.hotmail.com> on Thursday September 21, 2017 @03:48AM (#55236931) Homepage

        Are the odds 100% that this "study" was funded by tobacco money? Do 40k Americans die in road traffic accidents every year but we never discuss them because there are no angles for profitable corporations? Does vaping save the lives of up to 400k people a year? Actually I think there is a good case for locking up the people doing the study for manslaughter.

        • Possibly, but not for the reasons you think.

          Tobacco companies don't want to harm ecigarettes because they cut into their profit. They produce ecigarettes and want to ladle on expensive regulations so only they can afford to produce them, and take the profits themselves.

          Don't you NPR very much?

          • They produce shitty ecigarettes

            FTFY.

          • E-cigs very very much do cut into the profits of tobacco companies. Their attempt to take over that market is self-preservation. But, compare the costs of a pack a day habit of cigarettes to a comparable habit of vaping the same amount of nicotine and the cost difference is massive. The vape juice and even a top-of-the-line vape cost a fraction of the price. It's less spent than even just the profit margin on the cigarettes directly.

        • I am at times when looking at the data fully understanding why Ignaz Semmelweis became so irate and started writing angry letters to his fellow doctors basically calling them murderers. In his case they weren't washing their hands before surgery. But, he was categorically right. And seriously, goddamned murderers! I generally view people who whine about vaping, bringing up terrible studies like popcorn lung or whatnot as basically being murderers. They are saying things that will get people killed, and thou

      • I'm just glad they helped me quit entirely by breaking up many of the regular smoking habit patterns. Not as bad as combustion, if done right, but still not good.
      • you will find that cigarettes kill 400k people a year

        I don't know why, though. I mean, someone once gave me a cigarette and it was really fragile, I was able to utterly destroy it simply by stepping on it.

      • The important bit is that when compared they should be compared with cigarettes not with nicotine-less ecigs or dummy e-cigs.

        EXACTLY!

        How much ya wanna bet that this research was stealth (or not stealth) funded by someone with Tobacco interests at stake...

    • by zifn4b ( 1040588 )

      E-Cigarettes With Nicotine Increase Your Risk of Heart Disease

      I'm shocked! SHOCKED I TELL YOU!

      But I'll bet there's a hell of a lot less tar!

      And Formaldehyde too

    • THIS JUST IN: Inhaling a known POISON (nicotine) is BAD FOR YOU! Film at Eleven!

      ..yeah, nothing to see here, is there?

      • THIS JUST IN: Inhaling a known POISON (nicotine) is BAD FOR YOU! Film at Eleven!

        ..yeah, nothing to see here, is there?

        Warfarin (Rat Poison) is also, obviously, a poison.

        It is also a medicine given to help reduce the tendency to form blood clots, which also, obviously, kill.

        So, what's your point, again?

        • Just checked: There are NO valid medical uses for nicotine. Now, you were saying?
          Nicotine is a POISON. There is NO REASON why anyone should be voluntarily taking it into their bodies.
          Are you a smoker, defending your nicotine addiction? I think it likely, and if so then I can't take your arguments seriously anyway. So how about you stop poisoning yourself, then we'll talk mkay?
          • Just checked: There are NO valid medical uses for nicotine. Now, you were saying?

            Nicotine is a POISON. There is NO REASON why anyone should be voluntarily taking it into their bodies.

            Are you a smoker, defending your nicotine addiction? I think it likely, and if so then I can't take your arguments seriously anyway. So how about you stop poisoning yourself, then we'll talk mkay?

            Sorry, I have only smoked a total of 4 cigarettes in my life. I kinda liked the last one, and so said to myself "This is your decision point". And never smoked again.

            But my comments were not really in defense of any one substance; just pointing out that there are lots of "poisons" that have "legitimate" uses as well.

            In fact, you must not have "checked" very well. This was the third Google entry on the first results page:

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]

  • Newsflash (Score:5, Insightful)

    by viperidaenz ( 2515578 ) on Wednesday September 20, 2017 @11:50PM (#55236287)

    Consuming a stimulant causes stimulant effects.

  • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Thursday September 21, 2017 @12:00AM (#55236311) Homepage Journal

    is an indicator of a state or situation. For example c-reactive protein (one of the substances mentioned in the paper) is a marker of inflammation. It's actual function is to signal the immune system to clear out dead cells (both our own and bacterial).

    Ischemic heart disease is an inflammatory disease; therefore if you are developing ischemic heart disease, you will find high levels of inflammatory markers like C-reactive protein.

    However it seems to me it's a bit of a logical leap to do something which transiently increases inflammatory markers and then assume that means the subject's chances of getting a specific inflammatory disease are increased. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the paper.

    • However it seems to me it's a bit of a logical leap to do something which transiently increases inflammatory markers and then assume that means the subject's chances of getting a specific inflammatory disease are increased. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the paper.

      You know what else causes transitory inflammatory response?

      Niacin (Nicotinic Acid). A/K/A VITAMIN B3.

      https://articles.mercola.com/s... [mercola.com]

      You know what else causes transitory inflammatory response?

      Nitric Oxide. A/K/A "Molecule of the Year" in 1992, and responsible for a Nobel Prize in 1998, for its discovery as an essential ingredient in dozens of life-processes in the body.

      http://circ.ahajournals.org/co... [ahajournals.org]

      You know what else causes transitory inflammatory response?

      Orgams.

      'Nuff said!

  • Markers eh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sjames ( 1099 ) on Thursday September 21, 2017 @12:23AM (#55236403) Homepage Journal

    One of the markers was increased adrenaline. As in the stuff that helps athletes perform their best. So no ecigs, no exercise, got it.

    But as for the rest, some people who would otherwise keep smoking will use ecigs instead. Some who would start smoking will use ecigs instead. That's bad how?

    As for helping you quit, ecigs helped me quit. After a number of years vaping, I found that I just wasn't interested in the nicotine anymore. No drama, no nail biting, no eating the entire refrigerator, nothing. Just no more interest in nicotine.

    That's the part that really hacks them off, I sinned by smoking and they want to see some serious suffering as penance.

    • Re:Markers eh? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by BlueStrat ( 756137 ) on Thursday September 21, 2017 @02:26AM (#55236723)

      That's the part that really hacks them off, I sinned by smoking and they want to see some serious suffering as penance.

      A former smoker thanks to vaping here as well.

      Not only that, but it hurts the bottom-lines of Big Tobacco and the healthcare industry, and thus the amount of money politicians receive from BT's & HCI's PACs and lobbyists, as well as reducing State and Federal tobacco-tax receipts.

      Culturally it also reduces the number of people that it's socially-acceptable to discriminate against, harass, shame, threaten, intimidate, segregate, and generally persecute.

      "The Spice^W^W^W^W^WTobacco must flow!"

      These are simply the tobacco and healthcare "Guild Navigators'" representatives telling the politicians that they'll live out their days in a pain-amplifier if the flow is threatened, and those politician's attempts to send in the cultural Harkonnens and Imperial Sardaukar.

      Strat

      • Re:Markers eh? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Shemmie ( 909181 ) on Thursday September 21, 2017 @09:32AM (#55237925)

        Another former smoker. 20 a day.

        I now vape with nicotine.

        I believe vaping to be worse than "nothing at all". We're ingesting chemicals in ways that aren't exactly natural. But I also believe it's orders of magnitude "better" than smoking. I hope there's more research done into nicotine, as I believe it's also been linked with neurological benefits; there's clearly a great deal we still don't know about the drug. I expect some of it to be good, and some of it to be bad, simply because nicotine has been used for a relatively long time now - and while we've established issues with the way people consume the drug (producing tar), the drug itself seems to have been harder to nail down.

        Personally, as a complete layman, I do believe there's a link between inflammation and nicotine. There is some kind of link between my psoriasis (inflammation), nicotine, obesity and cardiovascular disease. Some of it we know; some of it we're still piecing together. Psoriasis has been linked with inflammatory heart disease https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/news... [nih.gov] , obesity is obviously linked with heart disease - there's talk about smoking (or nicotine, the research seems to be a WIP here) impacting psoriasis https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]

        As for the cause and effect; who knows? That's why this research is important, imho. But as others have warned - it needs cool heads. There 'are' sections determined to treat nicotine as a holy war. I can understand that; I've lost two family members to smoking related illnesses, with a third at the chronic stage of her illness.

        But if vaping helps smokers, and improves their health (relative to smoking) - great. It expect it has its own complications - but I remain confident, at this point, that there are less complications than from smoking.

        • We're ingesting chemicals in ways that aren't exactly natural.

          Actually, you're either ingesting a non-toxic natural glycerin vapor or an even-less-toxic synthetic polyethylglycol, plus a natural toxic alkaloid. It wouldn't be much more toxic if you ate it; for that matter, if the plant is wet, don't touch it.

          Nicotine will fuck you up. Also, try ingesting a ton of ephedra--you'll get chest pains and die, thanks to a toxic alkaloid called Ephedrine, which is methamphetamine with an extra oxygen atom at the beta bind site (it's got a hydroxide there instead of a hyd

          • We're ingesting chemicals in ways that aren't exactly natural.

            Actually, you're either ingesting a non-toxic natural glycerin vapor or an even-less-toxic synthetic polyethylglycol, plus a natural toxic alkaloid. It wouldn't be much more toxic if you ate it; for that matter, if the plant is wet, don't touch it.

            Nicotine will fuck you up. Also, try ingesting a ton of ephedra--you'll get chest pains and die, thanks to a toxic alkaloid called Ephedrine, which is methamphetamine with an extra oxygen atom at the beta bind site (it's got a hydroxide there instead of a hydrogen). I guess that would be n-methyl-alpha-methyl-beta-hydroxy-phenyl-ethyl-amine.

            So, backing up to the top of your comment, you are saying that the scary-sounding "glycerin vapor", and even more scary-sounding polyethylglycol, which sounds like Anti-Freeze, are actually entirely innocuous when converted to vapor and inhaled. Repeatedly?

            Seriously, that's the real thing I worry about with vaping tobacco "juice". And obviously you have some knowledge of the chemistry involved; so I'd like you to weigh-in on my question, thanks!

            • So, backing up to the top of your comment, you are saying that the scary-sounding "glycerin vapor", and even more scary-sounding polyethylglycol, which sounds like Anti-Freeze, are actually entirely innocuous when converted to vapor and inhaled. Repeatedly?

              Compared to tobacco smoke, I'd say yes.

              I'd also venture it's healthier than breathing the air on a sidewalk in Manhattan.

              Would you prefer people died of smoking-related diseases and inflict second hand smoke on others, rather than risking as-yet-not totally-understood risks from vaping?

              Nothing is perfect, everything comes with trade-offs and compromises. Choose your poison.

              Strat

              • So, backing up to the top of your comment, you are saying that the scary-sounding "glycerin vapor", and even more scary-sounding polyethylglycol, which sounds like Anti-Freeze, are actually entirely innocuous when converted to vapor and inhaled. Repeatedly?

                Compared to tobacco smoke, I'd say yes.

                I'd also venture it's healthier than breathing the air on a sidewalk in Manhattan.

                Would you prefer people died of smoking-related diseases and inflict second hand smoke on others, rather than risking as-yet-not totally-understood risks from vaping?

                Nothing is perfect, everything comes with trade-offs and compromises. Choose your poison.

                Strat

                I was actually directing my question to bluefoxlucid, who seemed to have the chemistry-knowledge to answer it.

                I was not intending it as a challenge as to whether vaping is safer than cigarette smoking; of COURSE it iS!

                But, I have wondered about the other stuff in the vape solution, other than the nicotine; how safe it was, period, rather than how safe it is relative to tobacco smoke.

            • Glycerin and Propylene Glycol (my mistake), and yes. Glycerin is basically carbohydrate and won't damage your lungs any more than water (there's water vapor in the air; if you fill your lungs with water, you'll damage them). PG is toxic if you chug large amounts of it, I think? It's pretty tame.

              Remember people can pop 2mg of Amphetamine and be awake; they can take 2g of Amphetamine and be dead. They can take 2mcg Amphetamine and have no biological response. Similarly, Tylenol metabolizes via three d

              • Glycerin and Propylene Glycol (my mistake), and yes. Glycerin is basically carbohydrate and won't damage your lungs any more than water (there's water vapor in the air; if you fill your lungs with water, you'll damage them). PG is toxic if you chug large amounts of it, I think? It's pretty tame.

                Remember people can pop 2mg of Amphetamine and be awake; they can take 2g of Amphetamine and be dead. They can take 2mcg Amphetamine and have no biological response. Similarly, Tylenol metabolizes via three different enzymes, one of which produces an extremely toxic compound--which doesn't do anything harmful until you exceed your liver's capacity to clear it out, at which point you suddenly experience liver failure.

                You don't take much PG in from vaporizers.

                Thanks muchly for the clarification!

            • by sjames ( 1099 )

              Actually, it's polypropylene glycol. It's also used in fog machines and sometimes atomized to help control germs. They're looking in to using it in hospitals in the U.K. so I would imagine it's pretty harmless. It's also a carrier in some inhalers.

              • Actually, it's polypropylene glycol. It's also used in fog machines and sometimes atomized to help control germs. They're looking in to using it in hospitals in the U.K. so I would imagine it's pretty harmless. It's also a carrier in some inhalers.

                It's probably too big of a molecule to get in through inhalation.

                Good to know, thanks!

    • It's an e-cig attack study. E-cigarettes cause increases in fatalities and negative health consequences (compared to not smoking). That's what they want you to think about: e-cigarettes hurt you.

      You should switch from smoking to e-cigarette death pumps that will increase your rate of heart disease.

      See it?

      They didn't compare to cigarettes.

  • "duh" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Thursday September 21, 2017 @12:43AM (#55236467)

    >" Middlekauff brought 33 healthy non-smokers and non-vapers into the lab. On three different days, one month apart, the participants [...] and found that the participants had high levels of adrenaline in their hearts after they smoked the e-cig with nicotine"

    Seriously? This is supposed to be impressive, useful science or something? So people who don't use nicotine consumed it and had typical, known, short-term heart rate changes after using that stimulant? And since none had any tolerance, the reaction was probably strong, right?

    Now repeat that experiment with people who don't use caffeine and have them consume that stimulant instead and measure heart rates and heart adrenaline levels. Wow, what a coincidence!

    • I think that summarizes it. A low budget sample points at trivial effects and these are equated with the effects of smoking, which is ridiculous. Smoking has very serious health effects. There is no strong indication that the nicotine bit in smoking is significantly involved in these health effects. Even if there are health effects you have to look at the 'size' of the effects. If they're an order of magnitude lower then they should be treated differently and not used as an argument to say that vaping and s

    • Yes, it's useful science. It identifies nicotine as the cause and shows that the flavorings and solvents did not cause it. Is nicotine the obvious choice for the culprit? Sure. That doesn't mean we should say we're done and ignore the possibility that the other ingredients are a factor as well.
    • by Megol ( 3135005 )

      Science isn't about being impressive - just about doing science. And this seems to be a limited study that shows some things that perhaps seem obvious.

      But showing that those "obvious" things are real is also doing science! Because believing things without backup is being anti-scientific.

      This study does more than you imply in your post, maybe you should understand what it is about before complaining about it? But there are of course things that complain about - especially that the sample size being so small.

  • by Titanek ( 4829413 ) on Thursday September 21, 2017 @02:56AM (#55236807)
    Why the broadside to vaping? Surely this study extends to nicotine gum, nicotine patches, and nicotine sprays as well.
    • Possibly to create the association between vaping and death, so that you don't go changing from cigarettes to vaporizers.

      • by Megol ( 3135005 )

        And possibly because a study for a certain way to use nicotine can't really tell about other ways to do that.

        • That doesn't tell us why this was headlined this way. We also already know how toxic nicotine is; it's not less-toxic in this use.

  • by rossz ( 67331 ) <ogre@@@geekbiker...net> on Thursday September 21, 2017 @03:03AM (#55236825) Homepage Journal

    Compare ecigs to tobacco when looking at the health issue since the overwhelming majority of ecig users are former smokers.

    The anti-smoking people are becoming irrelevant, which worries them. So they chose ecigs as their new target. There is a push to ban ecigs in all places that tobacco smoking is banned. That would include my own apartment where smoking is banned on the entire property. If this stupid law gets passed, I'll have to walk outside and off the property to the street to vape. I might as well light up a real cigarette if I'm going through that much trouble.

    "It's the smell!" It's odorless, you moron, unless I get a flavored kind, then it will smell like vanilla or berries. That shit you cooked for dinner last night for dinner was far more offensive.

    • I think you might just have identified whose money is behind the anti-vape push...

    • by itsdapead ( 734413 ) on Thursday September 21, 2017 @09:30AM (#55237915)

      Compare ecigs to tobacco when looking at the health issue since the overwhelming majority of ecig users are former smokers.

      At the moment.

      The trouble is, two different questions are getting conflated here: (1) Are e-cigs safe? and (2) Are e-cigs safer than tobacco? The latter is pretty much a no brainer - and e-cigs are clearly great for people trying to quit smoking.

      However, claims for safety in absolute terms seem to rely a lot on an "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" mentality. If e-cigs are touted as "harmless fun" rather than "a good way to quit" then, increasingly, non-smokers and, ex-smokers who have successfully quit are going to take it up, and existing vapers are going to vape more freely than they used to smoke. In 20 years time we'll find what continually inhaling glycol and assorted flavourings does to lungs, let alone what ever-increasing doses of nicotine does to you if lung cancer doesn't get you first.

      That shit you cooked for dinner last night for dinner was far more offensive.

      Yes, well, the increasing number of people who turn up to work with tupperware containers full of stinky food that they proceed to microwave in the office kitchen (previously reserved for cups of tea and the occasional celebratory cake) until the whole corridor is filled with the miasma from 57 varieties of re-heated leftovers are on my shit list too :-)

      BTW - what do you think happens to all that glycol, glycerine and flavouring (which you might not use but plenty of other vapers do) after you breathe it out in a confined space (esp. in a bar with 30 other people doing the same)? The fact that the "smoke" disappears rapidly just means that the droplets have got too small to see. When you're banned from smoking in your own, freehold, detached, single-occupancy house, then maybe I'll side with you - in the meantime, if you want to vaporize chemicals, fuck off outside where others don't have to breathe the results. If you're addicted to nicotine you'll rationalise any sort of antisocial behaviour to satisfy your craving, which is why we need laws.

      • I'm a cyclist and want cars banned because they produce carbon dioxide, carcinogens, and rapid acceleration of my body when they hit me.

        I'm sorry - why should I have to put up with you driving? It's offensive and serves me not. The world is all about me, and if I don't want to breath your tailpipe fumes, I shouldn't have to.

        Tell me why you should get your way, but I shouldn't get mine.

        • I'm a cyclist and want cars banned because they produce carbon dioxide, carcinogens, and rapid acceleration of my body when they hit me.

          Good idea. Looking forward to the day when I can call up a self-driving electric Johnny Cab and get around without needing to grow eyes in the back of my head to spot death-wish cyclists and smartphone zombies throwing themselves under my wheels. However, governments are already intervening on that subject: running down cyclists without a really, really good excuse is already illegal where I live, and several countries have already announced the date for when they plan to ban sales of non-electric cars, so

      • by rossz ( 67331 )

        You are in more danger from the exhaust from your own car than from second hand vaping.

  • wowowowowow waaait a minute: are you telling me they tried to avert false positive adrenaline spikes with a placebo, "empty" e-cig? And how exactly is anyone going to feel any sort of high, even if only psychological, if no combustion, vapor or evaporation exists and no different density, temperature and humidity mixture is felt on the airways?

    Now, I'll be honest, I'm taking it out of the summary on this post, and I know the article will probably paint it much more professionally, but I doubt they can justi

  • This is why smokers are thinner. No tar, and all the adrenaline of cigarette. I call it a plus.
  • > Even after puffing on just one electronic cigarette with nicotine, healthy non-smokers were found to have a biological marker known to increase the risk of heart disease in tobacco users

    Yeah, but is it more or less than one cigarette?

  • So, I also wonder if any focus has been given to the health impacts of breathing in polyethylene glycol, ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, glycerin, etc. By volume, you're using far more of those than you are the nicotine. Likewise, the flavors can have any number of different ingredients that are ok for ingestion, but not necessarily for inhaling.
  • When are you people going to finally get the clue? Your habit is KILLING YOU, no matter how many end-runs around it you try. Just give it up already, and let's concentrate on putting tobacco and vape companies out of business once and for all.
    • Why would it be desirable to put vape companies out of business when they produce a product that can be used without any nicotine at all, and is therefore according to this study, not a risk factor for heart disease? I mean, I guess you might also have as your goal to put all alcohol, car, and soda companies out of business... but vape companies are way on the low end of harms here.
      • Come on, vaping is just another drug delivery device, always has been since the beginning, regardless of it being nicotine or something else.
  • The American Heart Association and other reputable outfits would do studies on marijuana's impacts.

    I really have zero interest in relying upon Julio from the down the street's opinion on marijuana's impacts.

  • I'm not a smoker, but it seems to be there's been an illogical campaign against e-cigarettes, even in the "public service announcement" arena. I don't doubt that nicotine has negative health affects, but nicotine + water vapor has to be better than nicotine + 1000's of tar based substances, yet you would think they're more unhealthy than cigarettes from the anti-e-cig campaign. And where was this nicotine research when nicotine patches got FDA approval?

    • I'm not a smoker, but it seems to be there's been an illogical campaign against e-cigarettes, even in the "public service announcement" arena. I don't doubt that nicotine has negative health affects, but nicotine + water vapor has to be better than nicotine + 1000's of tar based substances, yet you would think they're more unhealthy than cigarettes from the anti-e-cig campaign. And where was this nicotine research when nicotine patches got FDA approval?

      It's not water vapor, and it's dangerous to assume that's all it is.

How long does it take a DEC field service engineer to change a lightbulb? It depends on how many bad ones he brought with him.

Working...