Smoke from e-cigarettes 'may cause DNA damage'

igCorcaigh

"Smoke from e-cigarettes damages DNA and can increase the risk of cancer and heart disease, scientists have warned."

https://www.rte.ie/news/newslens/2018/0129/936911-e-cigarettes-damage/

Thoughts on this?

igCorcaigh

First of all, notice the use of the word 'can' in the headline vs 'may' in the article.

The effect has not also been fully quantified in humans. But could we soon see a change in attitudes to vaping and a clamp down from authorities?

Thecageyone

Where were RTE when the royal college of physicians brought their reports to the table? Stating matter of factly that vaping saves lives, is 97% safer than smoking and should be welcomed and promoted?

Nah, they don't want positivity, but they'll jump all over some controversial bulls**t that's been spewed by nay sayers for years, including 'scientists' pay-rolled by big Pharma, who really do not want you vaping. They'd rather you splashed your cash on gum, patches and god awful sprays - that many of us vapers actually tried, and failed with before finding success in vaping.

If you give mice enough caffeine it'll kill them .... maybe we should think about banning coffee?? That, is how stupid this is.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus

Thecageyone wrote: »

Where were RTE when the royal college of physicians brought their reports to the table? . . .

RTE covered that extensively. Your persecution mania is showing.

Dr Bill V1.5

igCorcaigh wrote:

"Smoke from e-cigarettes damages DNA and can increase the risk of cancer and heart disease, scientists have warned."

Like any vaper I'd welcome any research on the effects of it to health and well being whether it be positive or negative and after almost 5 years vaping I can only see positive results from my own perspective and this can be confirmed by my GP.
Media reports tend to sensationalise anything relating to health so until I see something definitive on the consequences of vaping to one's health then all of these type of headlines are treated with a pinch of salt.

igCorcaigh

My thoughts exactly Bill.

igCorcaigh

Still, I thought it was interesting that the potential problem was nicotine itself, rather than the solvent.

So the same would apply to nicotine replacement therapies. I guess the legal difference might be that NRT are not prescribed for long term use.

Cordell

Nicotine, flavors and dyes made from unspecified chemicals, VG and PG that were never intended to be vaporized by heating and inhaled. So yeah, there can be long term effects, unsurprisingly.
Are they better than the regular cigarettes and the upcoming tobacco vaporizers? Most definitely. 100% safe? Probably not. But they are safe enough for me

Thecageyone

Peregrinus wrote: »

RTE covered that extensively. Your persecution mania is showing.

My what now? That piss poor link you provided has nothing "extensive" about it, and that's RTE radio one, I wouldn't listen to that manure if you paid me.

This will be forgotten in a few days like every other nonsense article that whirls around every few months, people with much more sense know the actual facts and will continue to improve their health. Let smokers in denial, and anti-vaping-for-the-sake-of-something-to-moan-about brigade go do one. It'll be back to having their say on what women do with their bodies next week.

Glebee

Anyone see Kay Burley on Sky News a few minutes ago interviewing so lad about this ( dont know who he was but he was involved in the industry some way). She would ask him a question and then butt in and try to put words in his mouth...

Venom

Vaping with Vic posted this on his Facebook group

"Ok, I'll say this once... there is a video that has been sent to me countless times which was released by the halfwits over at UNILAD. The paper that UNILAD based it from stated this...
"While the NNAL level in E-cig smokers is 97%
lower than in tobacco smokers, nonetheless, it is significant
higher than in nonsmokers (50). This finding indicates that
nitrosation of nicotine occurs in the human body and that
ECS is potentially carcinogenic."
NNAL level is 97% lower than tobacco smokers, they are making the baseline claim from NON-smokers. Want to know what else has Nitrosamines that can potentially cause cancer to the same amount as that 3% is tied to Ecigs?
Bacon...in fact, not just bacon, ANY cured meat product has higher Nitrosamine levels than the conversion of nicotine in the lung.
You don't see UNILAD saying on their site... BACON CAUSES CANCER.
Why? Cause Unilad is ran by gormless lobotomised halfwit knuckledragging ****witted asshats who are only after the dollar value on their ads by getting the shock value out of them."


Seem's RTE doing a stellar job of fact checking once again :rolleyes: I do remember some uproar from last year about a bacon is bad for you, causes cancer story.

Graham 1324

I couldnt give a rats anymore im off the smokes 2 years now and I use a very low nicotine content juice(3mg) in my vape, I could never have quit without my electronic friend

Peregrinus

Dr Bill V1.5 wrote: »

Like any vaper I'd welcome any research on the effects of it to health and well being whether it be positive or negative and after almost 5 years vaping I can only see positive results from my own perspective and this can be confirmed by my GP.
Media reports tend to sensationalise anything relating to health so until I see something definitive on the consequences of vaping to one's health then all of these type of headlines are treated with a pinch of salt.

Without looking at the medical research at all, I think we could confidently make two predictions:

1. If the choice is between smoking and vaping, choose vaping. It will be vastly less harmful.

2. If the choice is between vaping and not using tobacco products, don't use tobacco products.

Beyond that, research is going to particularise the kinds of harm associated ith smoking and/or vaping, and put figures on the degree of risk associated with each. And media coverage of that research, at any rate at the micro level of reporting on an individual study, is always going to give a distorted picture, since individual studies tend not to contextualise.

macker33

Basically they are saying vaping will give you aids.

the_syco

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/1/23/16923070/nas-report-e-cigarettes-health-risks

A panel of experts analyzed the findings of 800 peer-reviewed studies and came out with a grab bag of conclusions about e-cigarettes’ health impact — finding that while e-cigarettes are safer than conventional cigarettes for individual smokers, their public health consequences are still unknown.

Before we dive into the key conclusions, it’s worth noting that the 600-page volume signals an important shift in the conversation about e-cigarettes here in the US.

While other countries — most notably England — have been moving ahead to regulate and promote e-cigarettes as a safer alternative to smoking, America has taken a pretty hard line against vaping, introducing tight controls on the products and little by way of glowing endorsements from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The tide now appears to be turning.

In the NAS report, the authors repeatedly state that e-cigarettes are far less harmful than conventional cigarettes. “There is conclusive evidence,” the report says, “that completely substituting e-cigarettes for combustible tobacco cigarettes reduces users’ exposure to numerous toxicants and carcinogens present in combustible tobacco cigarettes.”

So it seems that whilst we see it as bad, the Americans could see this as, well, better.

igCorcaigh

Graham 1324 wrote: »

I couldnt give a rats anymore im off the smokes 2 years now and I use a very low nicotine content juice(3mg) in my vape, I could never have quit without my electronic friend

Thanks. I'm actually still smoking rolling tobacco. I'm 44 and it's time to quit.

I have used the commercial vapes they sell on every high street, and I hated them.

But I did try a vape from a random someone recently and I liked it. It was this one, Smok Alien :
https://www.vapeclub.co.uk/vape-kits-with-replaceable-batteries/smok-alien-220w-tc-starter-kit.html

I'm thinking of purchasing this soon. It's time.

Thecageyone

Vaping with Vic is now officially my favourite vape reviewer, I wish I'd just put it like this:

"Ok, I'll say this once... there is a video that has been sent to me countless times which was released by the halfwits over at UNILAD. The paper that UNILAD based it from stated this...

"While the NNAL level in E-cig smokers is 97%
lower than in tobacco smokers, nonetheless, it is significant
higher than in nonsmokers (50). This finding indicates that
nitrosation of nicotine occurs in the human body and that
ECS is potentially carcinogenic."

NNAL level is 97% lower than tobacco smokers, they are making the baseline claim from NON-smokers. Want to know what else has Nitrosamines that can potentially cause cancer to the same amount as that 3% is tied to Ecigs?

Bacon...in fact, not just bacon, ANY cured meat product has higher Nitrosamine levels than the conversion of nicotine in the lung.

You don't see UNILAD saying on their site... BACON CAUSES CANCER.

Why? Cause Unilad is ran by gormless lobotomised halfwit knuckledragging ****witted asshats who are only after the dollar value on their ads by getting the shock value out of them."


Banf. F'ing. On. Sir.

kippy

Some strange comments here. Vaping doesn't improve your health. It's the not smoking cigarettes that improves your health.
There is no doubt in my mind that Vaping is bad for you. To suggest otherwise is naive.
It has its benefits if it breaks the addiction to cigarettes however it shouldn't be a long term habit.

Thecageyone

kippy wrote: »

Some strange comments here. Vaping doesn't improve your health. It's the not smoking cigarettes that improves your health.
There is no doubt in my mind that Vaping is bad for you. To suggest otherwise is naive.
It has its benefits if it breaks the addiction to cigarettes however it shouldn't be a long term habit.

In your mind, being the key there. Who says it shouldn't be a long term habit? What article this time?

Vaping saves lives. Fact!

Turning people off of vaping will see more people die from tobacco related illnesses, I cannot for the life of me comprehend why anyone is so adamant against vaping.

It is NOT for non smokers, or people who never smoked, it is for EX-smokers. That is the first thing nay sayers should understand. Would they prefer if we all went back to puffing plumes of black fog about the place? something that actually affects others? I do wonder

Peregrinus

Thecageyone wrote: »

. . . It is NOT for non smokers, or people who never smoked, it is for EX-smokers. That is the first thing nay sayers should understand. Would they prefer if we all went back to puffing plumes of black fog about the place? something that actually affects others? I do wonder

I don't think you can pretend that only ex-smokers will ever take up vaping. Obviously it's good for smokers to switch to vaping, but it's bad for non-smokers to take it up, and public health policy on the question has to balance both of these considerations.

Dr Bill V1.5

kippy wrote: »

Some strange comments here. Vaping doesn't improve your health. It's the not smoking cigarettes that improves your health.
There is no doubt in my mind that Vaping is bad for you. To suggest otherwise is naive.
It has its benefits if it breaks the addiction to cigarettes however it shouldn't be a long term habit.

Cannot recall ANYONE here ever suggesting that vaping improves your health,as vapers on a vaping forum we discuss ALL the issues in relation to vaping including the issues surrounding the health implications of what we do. We DO NOT know nor do we pretend to know what those implications are as science has not given a definitive answer yet. We do know however that vaping instead of smoking has improved our health and for those of us who took up vaping as a means to stop smoking then it has been a resounding success. Some have continued vaping as it has become a type of hobby where there are numerous variables attached to the whole world of vaping.
Naive?? I don't think so

jonski

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think you can pretend that only ex-smokers will ever take up vaping. Obviously it's good for smokers to switch to vaping, but it's bad for non-smokers to take it up, and public health policy on the question has to balance both of these considerations.

Hard to argue with that one .....But...how bad ? on a scale .

As bad as ... or worse than

Eating bacon ?
Walking down a street 3/4's filled with diesel cars ?
Eating burnt toast ?
other ?








PS: I'm not giving up bacon !

Peregrinus

jonski wrote: »

Hard to argue with that one .....But...how bad ? on a scale .

As bad as ... or worse than

Eating bacon ?
Walking down a street 3/4's filled with diesel cars ?
Eating burnt toast ?
other ?

Good question, and my position is (a) we don't know; (b) we need to; (c) that's what medical research will (eventually) establish and (d) don't expect media reports about individual studies to answer the question, and don't complain that they're "biased" if they don't.

Dr Bill V1.5

Peregrinus wrote:

Good question, and my position is (a) we don't know; (b) we need to; (c) that's what medical research will (eventually) establish and (d) don't expect media reports about individual studies to answer the question, and don't complain that they're "biased" if they don't.

The media would be the last place on earth that I'd expect answers to studies on anything tbh. Funny, I thought being "biased" was an integral part of media.

jonski

Peregrinus wrote: »

Good question, and my position is (a) we don't know; (b) we need to; (c) that's what medical research will (eventually) establish and (d) don't expect media reports about individual studies to answer the question, and don't complain that they're "biased" if they don't.

I know, and I'm not having a go at you or anyone else just incase anyone is thinking that.
Most vapers I know know that vaping isn't as good as breathing in a lungful of air below in Lahinch and although most of us are expecting some new research to come along to tell us something really bad that no one had thought of, for now we see it as an acceptable risk . The same kind of risks we take in day to day living .

I think maybe our beef should be with modern journalism and if that's how they are reporting vaping then we can presume they are reporting everything else the same way . The same can probably be said for research papers .

The Bishop Basher

Meat is a group 1 carcinogen.

So is Alcohol but we don't like to talk about either.

Good to see some reasoned responses on here as in my experience vapers tend to respond aggressively to any suggestion that their hobby might not be as safe as they originally thought it was.

I smoked 30 a day for 30 years and tried vaping as a method of giving up 3 times in the last decade or so. Each time i found the vaping was having a more detrimental effect on my lungs then smoking. My wife found exactly the same.

Clearly smoking is the more harmful of the 2 given the number of chemicals added to tobacco but our experience would suggest vaping as far from harmless.

We both just quit cold turkey in the end which was probably the toughest thing i've ever done but well worth it.

Thecageyone

jonski wrote: »

PS: I'm not giving up bacon !

Me either! There is no such thing as too much bacon!

Thecageyone

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think you can pretend that only ex-smokers will ever take up vaping. Obviously it's good for smokers to switch to vaping, but it's bad for non-smokers to take it up, and public health policy on the question has to balance both of these considerations.

That is what vaping is for, smokers who want to quit or ex-smokers still feeling the urge ... just as we cannot control minors drinking or doing drugs or eating wash-machine tablets, we cannot prevent them from vaping either.

All I know is my lungs were shot to bits from 20+ years of smoking, I honestly feel I was heading for a heart attack or lung failure, I was wheezing from the moment I awoke and it got worse through the day. I breathe better, no more wheezing or coughing up chunks, I smell a lot better, I'm not putting anyone at risk [whatever about direct vaping, passive vaping has been proven to be completely harmless] I don't vape when I'm walking/cycling where I used to smoke, I don't panic I can't find my vape first thing in the morning, the kitchen walls are no longer yellowing, same goes for my fingers and there's not one ashtray in this house. 97% is better than good enough for me, and I see it as a life saver for those it is actually aimed at.

I will say that I detest the 'trend' side of vaping, it's what continues to give it a bad rep - the 'swag', the merchandise, the bling side of it, using semi-naked women to advertise juices etc ... oh, and snap-backs - I hate those in general ... I think people see all this rubbish and think all vapers are like this. Not the case. Most of us just don't ever want to return to cigarettes. We chose life!

stuartmurphy87

Thecageyone wrote: »

That is what vaping is for, smokers who want to quit or ex-smokers still feeling the urge ... just as we cannot control minors drinking or doing drugs or eating wash-machine tablets, we cannot prevent them from vaping either.

All I know is my lungs were shot to bits from 20+ years of smoking, I honestly feel I was heading for a heart attack or lung failure, I was wheezing from the moment I awoke and it got worse through the day. I breathe better, no more wheezing or coughing up chunks, I smell a lot better, I'm not putting anyone at risk [whatever about direct vaping, passive vaping has been proven to be completely harmless] I don't vape when I'm walking/cycling where I used to smoke, I don't panic I can't find my vape first thing in the morning, the kitchen walls are no longer yellowing, same goes for my fingers and there's not one ashtray in this house. 97% is better than good enough for me, and I see it as a life saver for those it is actually aimed at.

I will say that I detest the 'trend' side of vaping, it's what continues to give it a bad rep - the 'swag', the merchandise, the bling side of it, using semi-naked women to advertise juices etc ... oh, and snap-backs - I hate those in general ... I think people see all this rubbish and think all vapers are like this. Not the case. Most of us just don't ever want to return to cigarettes. We chose life!

Well said

Peregrinus

I think the basis problem here is a natural suspicion of tobacco companies, and an instinctive feeling that the world needs new ways of consuming tobacco like it needs a hole in the lungs. So any novel mode of consuming tobacco is going to be viewed with huge suspicion.

As others have pointed out, that shouldn't prevent us recognising its merits as a harm-reduction mechanism for existing smokers. But, yeah, the marketing of vaping, the attempt to position it as stylish or aspirational - all these things feed straight into our fears. And public health policy is going to have to balance both of these things.

endacl

igCorcaigh wrote: »

"Smoke from e-cigarettes ... scientists have warned."

Thoughts on this?

Smoke?

Sounds like some pretty crappy scientists there, OP.

BeansBeans

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think you can pretend that only ex-smokers will ever take up vaping. Obviously it's good for smokers to switch to vaping, but it's bad for non-smokers to take it up, and public health policy on the question has to balance both of these considerations.

Its bad for water drinkers to take up coffee, care to start an anti coffee crusade?

Peregrinus

BeansBeans wrote: »

Its bad for water drinkers to take up coffee, care to start an anti coffee crusade?

No.

(An anti-Starbucks crusade, now . . .)

igCorcaigh

Choice, choice., choice. It's all about choice, but an informed one.

Just as an aside, I switched from premade filter cigarettes to rollie tobacco a few years ago. For financial reasons only.

The first couple of weeks, I felt like I was still craving something. Maybe they add chemicals to the cigarettes? But now, if I smoke a cigarette, it feels toxic and nasty.

I'm going to switch to vaping soon, but I know people (hi mum!) will say to me vaping is bad because of this article.

Anyway, my choice.

Dr Bill V1.5

igCorcaigh wrote:

I'm going to switch to vaping soon, but I know people (hi mum!) will say to me vaping is bad because of this article.

Good luck with the switch, plenty of help always available here if you need it.

Blade

Cancer Research UK: Headlines saying ‘vaping might cause cancer’ are wildly misleading

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2018/01/30/headlines-saying-vaping-might-cause-cancer-are-wildly-misleading/

Mick_1970

I'll just leave this here

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/phe-publishes-independent-expert-e-cigarettes-evidence-review

Seems the mainstream media are not reporting on this review, probably because it's good news for vapers.

Hopefully our own enlightened health service take note of this.

challengemaster

igCorcaigh wrote: »

First of all, notice the use of the word 'can' in the headline vs 'may' in the article.

If you actually want to see the unbiased reporting of what the scientists concluded, check out the research article not the media interpretation.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/01/25/1718185115

The effect has not also been fully quantified in humans. But could we soon see a change in attitudes to vaping and a clamp down from authorities?

Of course it hasn't been fully quantified in humans. That takes many life cycles of a species to determine and incase you didn't know, Humans live for quite a lot longer than mice. Expect results on it in about 150 years.