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.
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.
Wow. Just WOW! (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Wow. Just WOW! (Score:5, Funny)
Vape only homeopathic nicotine.
Re: (Score:2)
Not good enough. I only use free-range tobacco.
Re: (Score:3)
I can just about make out what you did there.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
All posts downstream of the whoosh comment are invalid fruit of a poisoned tree 4th Amendment violation.
Re: (Score:2)
All posts downstream of the whoosh comment are invalid fruit of a poisoned tree 4th Amendment violation.
LOL!
Re: (Score:2)
Damnit, I had DHMO in my coffee this morning! Why didn't you warn us earlier!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whoosh!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck yeah! YOLO bro, YOLO!
Are you trying to suggest I'm a millenial? That's rich. :) Here's the thing: do you remember a time before you were born? Have you ever seen an afterlife? If you believe either of these are true, can you demonstrate it? At best, we can say that we know of this only existence and that the concept of there being anything before it or after it lacks sufficient evidence to prove those claims. Therefore, you have two choices 1) Either you say "I don't know of such a thing" or 2) it is likely due to the lac
Re: (Score:2)
Read Pascal's Wager...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Read Pascal's Wager... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Already know it but did you know every Theist is gambling in precisely the same way as a non-thiest? For example, a Christian apologist is not losing much sleep that they might go to hell if they don't believe in Allah and vice versa. So... whether you are a theist or non-theist you are making Pascal's wager in precisely the same manner. The proposition is the same for both. Cheers!
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
They produce shitty ecigarettes
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Ignaz Semmelweis. (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
They only attack in large herds.
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:3)
What is your justification for prescription only? Nicotine has been used over the counter for centuries with few if any acute deaths or injuries. e-cigs are showing that same pattern. Prescription only is supposed to be for things that cannot be used safely without a doctor's supervision.
It has been hyped as being as benign as coffee.
Some people advocate drinking your own urine too, what's your point? Urine as a controlled substance?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What is your justification for prescription only?
I am not advocating for prescription only. I am saying that Tatarize (OP) made unreasonable demand that e-cigarettes should be only compared with ordinary cigarettes. The only scenario where such demand would make sense is where e-cigs are prescription only. Or at very least if the only costumers of e-cigs would be those who want to quit smoking. Since this is very unlikely, comparing them to not smoking anything at all is useful information. If the argument is “Someone at Daily Mail will twist this
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
isn't the main purpose of vapes to provide a less-unhealthy way to deliver nicotine to addicts
I don't know what vape inventors / manufacturers had in mind when developing this product. But advertisement is not “drop smoking addiction with vaping”, it targets non-smokers as well. I personally don't smoke and have considered vaping. I would prefer to know how it would impact my health outcomes. In this context the study is useful.
Re:Wow. Just WOW! (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, anybody who isn't completely in the dark knows that nicotine is bad for one's overall health (it is a naturally occurring pesticide, after all). We don't really need studies to know that.
In practice, e-cigs are a cigarette replacement, hence the name. Comparing them to cigarettes is thus the most important benchmark for serious inquiry about their health effects.
Re: (Score:2)
Nicotine in large doses is toxic, yes. Cigarette smoke is harmful, yes. But nicotine in controlled dosages delivered via non-toxic routes, such as gums, pills,
Re: (Score:3)
nicotine occurs naturally in tomatoes and peppers and other members of the Solanaceae flowering plant family
Public service announcement: don't eat random plants from Solanaceae family, some of them are deadly. As for the tomatoes, potatoes and such, do not eat the green bits.
Re: (Score:2)
in fact, nicotine occurs naturally in tomatoes...
Who can forget the terrible tomacco riots of s5e11, "E-I-E-I-D'oh"?
Re: Wow. Just WOW! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Comparing nicotine vapor to cigarettes is 100% relevant
Yes. It is indeed. And many studies have done that. Why cant we also compare it with not smoking anything at all?
Re:Wow. Just WOW! (Score:4, Informative)
No. While a lot of people do switch to e-cigs then down their nicotine to zero. I'm pretty sure that the health benefits accrue when one switches to e-cigs. The tobacco products kill because of the tars in them that cause cancer and most of the other health effects. Those are eliminated and you are left with a powerful stimulant.
The requisite comparison to smoking is because people are very typically swapping smoking for vaping. And to determine the ill-effects you need to take that into effect. There's likely some people who might take up vaping directly, who might not have taken up smoking. And the stimulants might be able to unilaterally lead to their deaths, especially if they have an underlying heart or lung defect. And those deaths would be entirely the result of vaping. The problem though is you need to take into account the lives saved by the exceptionally common happening of people giving up smoking in order to vape, and even without attenuating any nicotine, get much much healthier in very short order and can run marathons.
There might be additional health benefits to attenuating the nicotine to zero and quitting vaping too, but they pale in comparison to swapping smoking for vaping. The deadly cancer causing tars are not habit forming, in themselves, and can be completely mitigated this way. While I'm not at all convinced it's as benign as coffee, if people took up drinking coffee because it entirely replaced alcoholism and opioid addiction, I couldn't see any moral stance other than welcoming it as a savior. And if we suppose it might be worse for you than coffee, that's okay because alcoholism and opioid addiction combined don't kill as many people as smoking does.
There's not enough research to say how benign it is, but we can say it's more benign than smoking. And that makes vaping a certifiable lifesaver; which is why it must be compared to traditional smoking.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not the government's job to make sure I don't hurt myself.
I'm fine with behavior-based insurance rates.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Your comparison is apt. What does this study show? Increased adrenaline possibly leading to abnormal heart rhythms? symptoms remarkably similar to caffeine, (and probably any other chemical stimulant.) Benign as coffee is about all this research has shown. We already new nicotine was a stimulant.
Re: (Score:2)
should be compared with cigarettes not with nicotine-less ecigs
You might have a point if e-cigs were prescription only medical device used to treat smoking addiction. It has been hyped as being as benign as coffee.
Where?
You are embarrassingly wrong. (Score:3)
You are just wrong. It is categorically the fact that countries with single payer health care systems have done exactly that study suggested and found that they would get massive health benefits and health care cost reductions, and found absolutely that E-cigarettes are "95% less toxic". You then attribute this not existing, regardless of that fact that it totally does exist, to lobbying etc, which is moot because, you're wrong.
https://www.nhs.uk/news/heart-... [www.nhs.uk]
NHS is the national health service in the UK.
Re: Wow. Just WOW! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't seem like a stretch that cutting out the majority of carcinogens in the smoke leads to less cancer. And that eliminating the tar cuts the risk for obstructive lung diseases. If it doesn't, then our whole understanding of the health risks of tobacco are deeply flawed. That could be true, but as far as I'm concerned, the burden of proof is on the people who are claiming ecigs are *not* significantly less harmful than whole tobacco.
I absolutely agree - as I think I already stated in my original post. And as I spend some effort on saying, medical researchers are now studying whether e-cigarettes are actually as harmless as we expect them to be. The gp seemed to suggest that it was fundamentally wrong to even research this question, and I tried to put forward the arguments for why we must research these things rather than take it on faith. We haven't studied it in depth, so we don't know yet - what is so wrong about wanting to know the
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
THIS JUST IN: Inhaling a known POISON (nicotine) is BAD FOR YOU! Film at Eleven!
..yeah, nothing to see here, is there?
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Consuming a stimulant causes stimulant effects.
Re: (Score:2)
Caffeine is also a toxin produced by plants to kill insects.
A biological marker (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You should read better articles. For example, you seem to be imagining some "industry" made up of humongous multi-nationals. In fact, until rj reynolds jumped in the game years late most e-cigs were made and sold by small to medium sized businesses (and very early in the game, in people's living rooms one at a time). They did so primarily on the not at all unlikely assumption that not inhaling particulates, carbon monoxide, and tar was probably better.
Most of the youth are using non-nicotine liquids. Probab
Re: (Score:2)
More power to you per the cannabis, but I just have a very hard time imagining any smoke of any kind being "harmless" going into a set of lungs.
"duh" (Score:5, Insightful)
>" 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!
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Don't forget that if you put nicotine in your soda it becomes toxic and can kill you even from the amount in a pack or two of cigs."
I wasn't comparing toxicity, but if you were to consume 20-40 energy drinks at once (the equivalent of your example), you would probably also die from caffeine overdose (of course, you might also have issues with overload of liquid and also sugars, but I was ignoring that for the moment).
So just nicotine research then (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly to create the association between vaping and death, so that you don't go changing from cigarettes to vaporizers.
Re: (Score:2)
And possibly because a study for a certain way to use nicotine can't really tell about other ways to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Anti ecig people are stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you might just have identified whose money is behind the anti-vape push...
Re: (Score:2)
The only ones really benefiting (for actual reasons, non-controlfreak-ish ones) from a vape-ban is the tobacco industry.
Re:Anti ecig people are stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
You are in more danger from the exhaust from your own car than from second hand vaping.
"and a sham e-cig that was empty." (Score:2)
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
Adrenaline is good (Score:2)
Well that's useless (Score:2)
> 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?
PEG, PPG, and others? (Score:2)
Memo to smokers/vapers: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But caffeine doens't cause cancer, and there is no such thing as 'second hand caffeine', blowing around for other people to inhale.
Your 'people you know' who don't use any drugs in their drug delivery device are outliers -- and probably lying to you, too.
I know quite well how science works -- and I also know that smokers get cancer and other life-ending diseases, and DIE, and most of th
Re: (Score:2)
Wanking off about the evils of vaping
Oh get real, it's a drug delivery device, always has been, and you can't defend it to anyone and expect to be taken seriously, and trying to compare it to other things is bullshit so you can knock that off too.
I just wish (Score:2)
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.
Nicotine patches too then - FDA approval? (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think dildo sales are breaking records in blue states?
*Citation needed*
Re: (Score:2)
Here it is:
Agreed. Russians are subsidizing dildo manufacturers to sell dildos at far below manufacturing cost for the sole purpose of flooding the American markets with many dildos. Metrosexuals are occupied putting on make-up and stuffing themselves full of dildos. The rest of the population listens to KGB-installed DONALD TRUMP telling lies about how great America is.
Don't know why I had to cite the GP again for you but here goes :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I vote for Trump? Trump is nobody. _Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften_
He does not have any ideology whatsoever in his orange stupid head.
You are on the other hand, a presumptious brainless moron.