Slashdot Mirror
E-cigarettes 'Potentially As Harmful As Tobacco Cigarettes' (uconn.edu)
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.
How many days until we found out they have ties to someone like Philip Morris?
'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. I was surprised the FDA didn't ban them outright.
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.
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.
I had a sucky sig.
But it's the best thing you'll ever do for your health, and to not be beholden to a drug is a remarkably freeing feeling.
There are proof electronic cigarettes are at least 97% less harmfull then smoking, so please stop it publishing crap like this. I am a vaper and I do a lot of research in this subject. Do yours.
Yeah, a "chain-smoking" sort of addiction to anything is going to be bad for you, but with vapor you don't have all that tar in your lungs. Be careful of the ingredients in your e-juice so you don't get popcorn lung, and you're way better off compared to conventional cigarettes.
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.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
This doesn't prove they are worse buddy. There have been plenty of people trying to smear them since their inception.
So far we have every reason to believe they ar vastly less deadly than cigs.
which is a byproduct of combustion. They produce a vapor fog that LOOKS like smoke, but isn't.
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
Read some of the responses here. Yes, people are THAT stupid.
There is no smoke and the chemicals are propelyn-glycol and vegetable glycerin. You eat that and I don't call you stupid.
Regular cigarettes don't explode
E-cigarettes don't explode. Lithium Ion batteries do.
Every time some dumbass puts a bare 16550 battery in his pocket and shorts it out with pocket change, it's front page news. "OMG E-CIG EXPLODES!!!!11!"
How many people die in fires caused by tobacco cigarettes? How many wild fires start from cigarette butts thrown from car windows?
It's not even a comparison.
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.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
I would imagine practically any processed food would make you violently ill then. That does make you a bit of an outlier.
That's why they should be using the 16550A.
Stupid people are going to do stupid shit like this and they're going to keep looking for something equally stupid to replace it when you ban it or change it too much. Just let them do it. Let companies pick their pockets along the way and watch the dumb asses get their cancer and complain about how they didn't know the dangers or how the companies that make them shouldn't have been allowed to sell them that shit to begin with. We all know that no matter how many times you tell them about it they don't listen and if you take it away they'll go on a "Vision Quest" to find the next stupid, self destructive habit. Just let them do it and let them die.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
There is dozens of e-cigarette manufacturers and hundreds of products. As usual with e-cigarette research, they are simply lumped in together without any information on the number of devices or list of products tested. In of itself nicotine is no more dangerous then the worlds most used psychoactive drug, caffeine. I do agree on one point thou, there is a very real need for a detailed ingredient list on e-cigarette refills and a warning that the additives are untested and maybe harmefull.
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.
pretty sure if the air was actually 400 degrees at the time it entered your mouth, you'd get 2nd and 3rd degree burns long before it hit your lungs.
Fake news! This doesn't fit into my worldview so I declare it fake news!
Smoking tobacco in any form is from a bygone era.
I smoked for nearly 15 years and have been quit for 10. I am 40 now.
If you want to quit then just do it. It is up to you and only you so if you make your mind up you will quit.
Being addicted to smoke cigarettes is really 3-fold. 1 -The chemical addiction and 2 -The mental addiction and 3 -The physical addiction.
There are plenty of drugs to force you thru a period of time to get over the chemical addiction such as Chantix which blocks your receptors from absorbing nicotine. It only takes a week or 2 to free your body of the chemical addiction.
Next there is the mental addiction. If you want it it will happen, if you don't truly want it then you wont quit. Don't be weak in the mind and you will easily free yourself from this mental addiction. What I have observed is that the mental addiction will never really go away. But if you truly want to quit you very may find yourself, along with large percentage of ex-smokers, where the smell and thought of cigarette smoke actually makes you ill.
Last there is the physical addiction. i.e. the habit of smoking. That urge to grab a smoke and light it up when you get into the car. That urge to light up after a meal or a drink. These like any habit are easily and created for that matter easily broken. After all we humans are a creature of habit. Breaking the physical habit can take anywhere from a couple weeks to a month or so. Note, if you have ever parented a child, and you ever tried to change their nighttime routine or wake up routine, or any routine for that matter it generally take 4-6 days before the new routine is habit and the old routine is a distant memory. This is the same for adults as well it is just that in this case you are also dealing with the chemical and the mental while dealing with the physical habit.
So, grab a drink straw and chew on it, get a fidget spinner, do something to pre-occupy your thoughts and physical actions and you will be a former smoker in short time.
Ohh and if you made it this far lets think in these terms...
1 pack a day habit costs roughly $2000 a year. That is a sweet vacation - Beach House for a week, Disney Trip, Cruise, I'm sure you have your own ideas.
And if financial motivation is not your thing then there is...
Smoking is bad mmmmmmK!
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 entrances.
At least in the US, smoking in general (vaping or smoking, that is) isn't usually associated with the upper income brackets unless you're talking high-end cigars and such. As the blue collar labor force is reduced, I would think the number of active smokers would go way down. But, those who are smokers are usually pretty hardcore about it. My mother smokes and when she comes to visit, you can tell how agitated she gets when she can't have her smoke breaks. I used to commute on the train to work, and there was an express train that went almost an hour without stopping that I would take pretty frequently. First stop, the smokers were lining up at the door miles before, smokes and lighters in hand, just waiting for the doors to open. That's dedication. :-)
Where does that fit? The "juice" is pretty much the same. I'd love to learn about this.
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
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.
I'm sure it sheds some heat, but it's not like a 400 degree oven is particularly harmful to my hand.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
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 shouldn't have sweetened products at all. Or smoke. They probably don't like sex either. The world would be a much better place if people gave up on the idea of trying to "save" others from themselves.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
Quote a few actually. But certainly smoke from nicotine. Sensititivity to cigarette smokes are well document and recognized by the community.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Are-... You may want to do research before you tell other people how they should feel when around toxins, especially those heavily studied.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
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 done by burning but by electronic delivery (ultra-sound vaporisation, mostly, as far as I know), in theory that means it shaves off a few harmful substances compared to classical tobacco (at least there aren't toxic combustion products).
In practice, that means that e-cig fluid productors can go batshit crazy in their mixes (classical tobacco product are merely treated dried plants - i.e.: there's only so much that you can add before you start having more additivies than dried plants. e-cig fluids are mixes of whatever they can think of) and, in practice, there's way more harmful potential in e-cigs (specially if they can manage to get their toxic mixes below the tolerated maxima).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
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).
Support my political activism on Patreon.
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 a fluid that is more or less a free mix of everything they can manage to cram in it while staying under the tolerated maximma.
So e-cig have way much more potential to contain harmful shit.
(Basically the same difference that exist in industrial processed food)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
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 is banned.
No, your exhalation is not safe water vapour. And the exhalation also contains nicotine - just as much nicotine as the exhalation from a smoker.
The big difference for the second-hand smoker is that the thing is not lit all the time - all you get is smoke (!) that has passed through the vaper's lungs first.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
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 is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Burn plastic and you can make phosgene in your house. I don't think that works with PLA, nylon though.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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 whatever the manufacturer can manage to cram while staying within tolerated maxima.
Thus e-cig have way much more potential to contain toxic shit.
In short : e-cig use an artificial fluid. Be afraid. Very afraid.
(The same rule applies to any industrially processed food product).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
That doesn't make it harmless. You can still be poison someone with nicotine in certain doses (like any other drug) but nicotine was used in insecticides for awhile and tobacco farmers have had cases of nicotine poison. apparently the concentrations in the the raw vapor can require medical attention..
http://www.toxipedia.org/displ...
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
Your reaction to vapor is psychosomatic. You're like the dude on Better Call Saul who is allergic to electromagnetism.
I'd like to see the full testing scenario before judgement. Unfortunately most of these studies are performed by individuals that are not product users. Ecigs have an operating range, where once you exceed the operating temperature or wicking parameters produces unpleasant results. This study and the fancy 3d printed sensor might have just be showing the DNA harming effects of vaping a dry coil.
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).
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 Limonene m,p-Xyelen Magnesium Manganese Nickel Nicotine N-Nitrosonornicotine o-Methylbenzaldehyde p,m-Xylene Phenol
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Potassium
Propanal Propylene Glycol Sulfur Tin Toluene ValeraldehydeZinc Zirconium
http://www.gaspforair.org/gasp...
The following compounds that are on the Proposition 65 list have already been identified in mainstream or secondhand (sidestream) e-cigarette vapor:
Acetaldehyde (MS)
Cadmium (MS)
Formaldehyde (MS,SS)
Isoprene (SS)
Lead (MS)
Nickel (MS)
Nicotine (MS, SS)
N-Nitrosonornicotine (MS, SS)
Toluene (MS, SS)
As the two papers linked above note, there are other toxic chemicals in the vapor as well as ultrafine particles, that likely have cardiovascular effects. E-cigarettes do not deliver "pure nicotine" and "harmless water vapor."
http://www.tobacco.ucsf.edu/9-...
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
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 : if it's processed to the point that you cannot recognize actual fruits/vegetables/chunks of meat - be afraid, very afraid).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
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 (which is worse, I'm not sure) and they likely kill their users in different ways, but I don't think that's worth splitting hairs over.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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?
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 products to get a good idea).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
E-Cig Vapor contains: Nicotine (optional) Propylene glycol (not Ethylene glycol - which is toxic). Used in asthma inhalers and nebulizers. An experiment using animals determined "air containing these vapors in amounts up to the saturation point is completely harmless". The USA FDA has classified propylene glycol as "generally recognised as safe". Vegetable glycerol - low toxicity. Used in medications, cosmetic and food items. Tobacco smoke contains: Acetaldehyde: suspected carcinogen. Acetone: irritant: can cause kidney and liver damage. Acrolein: extremely toxic. Acrylonitrile: suspected human carcinogen. 1-aminonaphthalene: causes cancer. 2-aminonaphthalene: causes bladder cancer. Ammonia: raises blood pressure. Benzene: carcinogen. Benzo[a]pyrene: mutagenic and highly carcinogenic 1,3-Butadiene: suspected carcinogen. Butyraldehyde: damages the lining of nose and lungs. Cadmium: a heavy metal and highly toxic Carbon Monoxide: decreases heart and muscle function. Catechol: causes respiratory tract irritation and dermatitis. Chromium: heavy metal and carcinogen. Cresol: causes upper respiratory, nasal and throat irritation. Crotonaldehyde: thought to interfere with immune function. Formaldehyde: carcinogen Hydrogen Cyanide: lethal poison Hydroquinone: affects central nervous system effects. Isoprene: irritates skin,eyes and mucous membranes. Lead: causes brain damage Methyl Ethyl Ketone: depresses the central nervous system. Nickel: causes bronchial asthma and is a known carcinogen. Nicotine: increases in heart rate and blood pressure, addictive element Nitric Oxide: linked to Huntington’s, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease and asthma. NNN, NNK, and NAT: known or possible carcinogens Phenol: damages the the liver, kidneys; respiratory, cardiovascular and central nervous system. Polonium - radioactive* Propionaldehyde: skin, eye and respiratory system irritant Pyridine: causes eye and upper respiratory tract irritation Quinoline: causes genetic damage and is a possible carcinogen Resorcinol: skin and eye irritant Styrene: carcinogen Toluene: linked to permanent brain damage.
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.
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 copper are heavy metals. Typically not present in e-cigarette fluids. Low-grade fluids may have some impurities.
Benzine, butyl-anything, and aromatic hydrocarbons are roughly the same thing. Aromatic anything needs a ring hydrocarbon structure, and generally aromatic compounds contain a benzine ring. These are volatile and evaporate out of solution rapidly.
The market of e-cigarette fluid is pretty unregulated, and there's some nasty low-end crap. Decent stuff is generally an aromatic flavorant (fragrance oil), propylene glycol or vegetable glycerin, and nicotine. "Decent" encompasses anything that's not the lowest of low in this particular business; it wasn't always that way.
So it's between most of that stuff not being in most cigarette fluid and most of that stuff not being toxic.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
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.
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
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
"The idea that these things are less harmful than cigarettes is, to be polite, wishful thinking."
I think you mean "The idea that these things are less harmful than cigarettes is, to be polite, peer-reviewed science"
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 harmless, as anything inhaled can cause harm, just that there is a dramatic reduction in the harm that is done. This reduction sometimes even lowers harm to levels to at or below risks from NO3 compounds from fossil fuel burning in large cities.
To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
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
"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 (although it seems stupid to believe that every brand has the same chemicals). Some of these ingredients may be addictive and or harmful. Do not assume it is all about nicotine. Once nicotine is studied honestly by the FDA, we will have it available along with other supplement tablets like choline.
...omphaloskepsis often...
Citation needed.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
I've never been a tobacco user, and don't "vape" either....
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
If you don't follow this you probably wouldn't know this but allot of eliquid vendors are no longer using nicotine from tobacco.
...lead shot from a blunderbuss was discovered to be just as deadly as lead shot from a AK-47.
Surely this is preferable, as smokers and vapers will just alter their DNA to the point they are no longer human and then we can really discriminate against them, like denying them health care.
some karma... and kinda lukewarm about it.
Do your own research. You should not need to be spoon fed to do your own research, especially since you are in essence claiming to be educated about the topic.
To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
That is certainly news to me.
What is the source? As I understand it, lab synthesized nicotine is still much more expensive than tobacco sourced nicotine.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I take (minor, technical) exception to this being regarded as smoke. Ideally, no chemical reaction occurs. Droplets of liquid vapors are the result of boiling the material, and it should not be producing combustion products (carbon oxides, acrolein, etc.). Of course, it's possible that the thing might overheat and burn the material, but that's usually readily detectable by the user. Please don't consider this a plug or slant regarding the focus of the topic, just a matter of defining the word 'smoke'. I also can't stand when people describe it as harmless water vapor (it contains almost not water, usually just what the hygroscopic nature of the glycols allows); it degrades indoor air quality considerably. I used to work at a place where at least 10% of all people there (about 100 folks on a floor, and in some areas, more than half used them, including myself at the time) used them, and while less choking than a 'smoke-filled room', I definitely had a lot more respiratory issues there than any other office space i've worked in.
There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
I'd imagine the metals are coming from the cheap RDA's or mods, or whatever they're called. The wire, if it's cheap could have who-knows-what in it, and when it gets hot enough, just like the screws it's held in with....
I had a sucky sig.
Two major carcinogen groups ( tobacco specific nitrosamines and tar) should be absent in e-cigarettes. It is puzzling that they would be as harmful as regular cigarettes.
The employment to population ratio in the US is a bit over 59%. That means 41% of all Americans able to work, aren't.
This number was near 65% back in the 1990s. Ironically, back in the 1970s, when I was a kid, the number was lower - scraping 55% at that time. However, it was much less common for married women to work back then. The two income household was, socially at least, a 1980s innovation.
So here we are in an era where automated manufacturing and AI-controlled machines will delete millions of jobs. That number is never going to be 65% again. It will be well below 50% in 20 years, and I might be pessimistic.
My first thought on this matter was that humankind has always been quite evil to its surplus population. You need but look back to the last few times there was a significant population surplus where no immediate use for the labor force could be identified. Mao's China, the Ukraine in the 1920s/30s, the Crusades, think hard and you'll come up with some examples. Go back to antiquity and you'll find some really horrid ones.
I submit that we'd find a way to kill off the surplus somehow - gladiatorial combat, mass extermination, whatever. So letting them die by doing stupid shit is actually merciful compared to what is coming for the surplus population.
To think that the people who created/are creating all this computerized automation didn't even think about this. It'll not be believed in the future. But I believe it - so interested in proving that it could be done that they never thought whether it SHOULD be done.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
"are potentially" and the following white space is filled with value ... potentially
.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
You are inhaling SMOKE. "Flavored" smoke...duh
Q: Does nicotine cause cancer?
A: No, tar in cigarette smoke causes cancer. But, Nicotine is an addictive drug. It is not the nicotine in cigarette smoke that causes cancer. Nicotine may keep you smoking, but it is the other bad chemicals in cigarettes that make smoking so dangerous.
The question then becomes what about the other chemicals in e-cigarettes? Do they cause cancer? The verdict is still out, especially because there are hundreds or thousands of types of e-liquid, so it's hard to say which ingredients are more dangerous. This is a single study using a brand new method for detecting DNA damage.
The vast majority of people using e-cigarettes don't believe it's completely harmless, the hope was just that it is far LESS harmful than traditional cigarettes.
how do we deal with people selling a device that exists primarily to deliver a highly addictive drug? I'm old enough to see this for what it is, but I worry about my kids. I for one don't want my kids stuck with various chemical dependencies. This also raises a lot of unpleasant thoughts. Like should it be legal to engineer a harmless but highly addictive drug? I know, if it's highly addictive it's not harmless, right? But where do we draw the line?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Stress makes it harder to cope with any addiction, and the older you get the more stressed you are, because responsibilities come with age.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I kept coming back to cigarettes because of the lack of risk.
So now I can get my smell back AND die quickly.
Awesome !
Here's the better question you ask yourself as a non-smoker: why do I want to put anything into my lungs to begin with?
Here's the answer: To prevent asphyxiation.
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
Most smoker smoke round the hour. Since in msot work/public/station building they are banned (at least here in germany) they smoke outside. How do you propose that they smoke without being caught ? Alcohol smuggling worked because people went to a speakeasy and similar after work to drink. Cigarette smuggling would not work is it would force people to ONLY smoke outside work hour and only in hidden palce (at home for example). Many people would adapt and chain smoke at home, but the majority ? They would almost certainly try to stop , give up.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Good point. I would have assumed the wire is a conductor and would have an isolating coating (e.g. encased in borosilicate glass), but I guess I don't know how those things are constructed.
You could use bare wire, though: there's nothing to short to. You'd just have to replace the wire now and then; it'd be an extreme wear part.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
and nobody wants to pay for it. That takes taxes and people don't want to pay. Also there's the issue of how we use our drug policy to enforce racial segregation. It's no accident (or even secret) that enforcement is overwhelmingly on Blacks and Latinos. That's not me being a SJW, that's just cold hard facts.
IIRC Norway solved the problem by legalizing everything, having the drug administered by professionals in a clinical setting and then when the high was done immediately getting to work on helping the addict quit. It works, but you'd have to be willing to get people to pay for all that.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Fair point.
I still suspect glycerin is closer to mineral spirits than water is.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
I don't think it's harmless, and I even say in my post I doubt even nicotine free juice is harmless, but I also think it's better, and likely far better than tobacco
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
The source did not say what you just pretended it did.
Inhaled nicotine is very well know to damage lung tissue so your distraction about skin patches has nothing at all to do with that.