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-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.
While nicotine is a dangerous chemical poison (and useful insecticide) I was always under the impression it was other chemicals in cigarettes that were even more harmful.
Website Just Down For Me? Find out
First of all banning is not a solution.
Have you not seen how well that's worked on alcohol and weed and other drugs?
The only question for a regulatory body would be to answer: "Do eCigarettes add unstated (or unknown) poisons into your body?"
A secondary question would be: "Are eCigarettes better than actual cigarettes?"
On the surface the answer is yes:
One is not burning paper and leaves. One is primarily ingesting nicotine.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
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."
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
They will not. They will pile higher and deeper. All you need to notice is that every fucking crazy study about blood vessel growth or potential DNA damage gets pushed to the top of national news, but all the studies demonstrating in vivo safety never make it outta journals. It is an organized push to sell a narrative.
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
Links to your study then please?
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
'E-cigarrettes' are just a blatant drug delivery device (for nicotine, a highly addictive and poisonous substance), plain and simple, and that was blindingly obvious the first time I ever heard about them.
Tell that to the people I know who went from smoking 1-2 packs a day of cigarettes, to e-cigs/vaping, and now don't even smoke at all.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Nicotine is the most dangerous part of a traditional cigarette, per mg. However, much like with coffee and caffeine, nicotine is a very small portion of the traditional delivery method. At the volumes in a normal cigarette, the burnt paper smoke is enough of a lung cancer risk even if it was completely emptied of tobacco products and additives.
At different times, cigarettes have had different additives with different levels of inhaled toxicity, but the smoke always consists primarily of burnt plant materials, filling the smokers' lungs with carcinogenic ash and some small amount of very addictive, fairly toxic nicotine.
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.
Should we also tell them the point of this study: That smoking may not have been any worse for them than sucking on an e-cig? It's clear many e-cig users switched because they thought it was healthier. If that's not the case, they should know that.
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.
Tell that to the people I know who went from smoking 1-2 packs a day of cigarettes, to e-cigs/vaping, and now don't even smoke at all.
I'd be fine with that statement if that's all this was about, but it's not: There are people who are going from being non-smokers to 'vaping' thinking it's somehow healthier than smoking, which is just plain not true. Also do you really think the tobacco companies are interested in anything other than perpetuating their own industry regardless of what it does to people's health? It's been shown over and over and over again that they just don't care how many peoples' health are affected or die, they rely on the addictive qualities of nicotine to ensure repeat business (up until their customers die, that is), and have clandestinely tried to get kids started smoking at an early age so they have 'lifelong customers'. In every way shape or form you could imagine the tobacco industry resembles any other drug-dealing operation you could imagine. They don't need any help in the form of the FDA turning a blind eye to vaping.
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.
As long as they aren't worse for you than cigarettes they have the following advantages:
In short. Vaping is better for everyone else.
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.
The problem with your statement is that the vaping industry is NOT the tobacco industry.
They arent the same companies.
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.
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?
Sola dosis facit venenum.
Nicotine isn't necessarily harmful, it just depends on the amount, as with everything else. Certain amounts of it are actually beneficial for certain medicinal applications. Foods we often eat also carry nicotine, such as tomatoes, eggplant, and potatoes (all of which are nightshades, as is tobacco itself.) A whole eggplant carries about half a miligram of nicotine for example.
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.
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
I'm trying to be clear that we are talking about adults.
If an adult wants to huff stage smoke because a stranger told them to, by all means let them. Your involvement - and my involvement - should only happen when there is a demonstrated public health concern, not just because we disapprove of their life decisions.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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...
I'll take nasty chemical fruit explosion any day over ash tray.
In fact, it's the tobacco companies pushing most of these regulations on e-cigarettes.
Nicotine itself is not a useful insecticide, primarily because it's so poisonous to non-target species: Avians & Mammals.
As Nicotine is absorbed through the skin easily, it's also quite easy for somebody using nicotine as an insecticide to poison themselves, as well as anybody else in the area. 30-60 mg can kill a human adult, though the LD50 is generally 500-1000 mg.
The neonicotinoids (similar to Nicotine) are extremely useful insecticides - as deadly to insects, but relatively nontoxic to birds & mammals.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
They arent the same companies.
That's so cute. Tobacco companies are actively investing billions into funding of e-cigs. They still maintain their public image because that's what good companies do, they hedge their bets. But if you think that big tobacco companies don't have twenty to thirty cents inside of each bottle of juice a person is buying, then they've done their job well.
This is 2016 mind you but you'll be amazed what they've been able to do in a little over a year's time. Just because they've not yet dominated the industry, doesn't mean they don't have the money to do so. I thought we all learned that lesson when MP3, iTunes, Pandora, whoever was suppose to revolutionize the music industry? Umpteen years later, RIAA still big as ever.
The alternative to a nanny state is a lot more people injuring and killing themselves, and the rest of us having to pay for it in both monetary and non-monetary ways.
Sorry to sound snarky, but "citation needed". Seriously - I've been around long enough to see the "War On Drugs" play out, and billions of government dollars and millions of drug possessors in prison has done squat for addiction rates. Meanwhile, usage of the completely legal cigarettes has been drastically curtailed by simply restricting advertising, improving education. restrictions on second-hand smoke, and taxing them to the hairy edge of a black market.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
https://www.gov.uk/government/...
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/
It damages cells and sometimes you get cancer when they repair. That's the mechanism.
If you're just looking at it from that perspective, then literally everything causes cancer. And I do mean EVERYTHING. For example, walking and breathing would cause cancer because they cause damage to muscles and bones, which then have to repair themselves, which means increased likelihood of error when the new cells emerge.
In fact, nicotine is not classified as a carcinogen at all:
http://www.treatobacco.net/en/...