nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Thought's on E-cigarettes?

DavidSullivan

I'm all for E-cigs and personally, I think the government & pharmacies are getting upset on how well they are actually selling and aiding smokers wanting to quit.

I seen an article back in January from the Mirror.co.uk and the Headline read : ''E-cigarette health scare erupts as officials highlight "serious" cancer risk of vaping''.

Following that I read on NEJM's Twitter : ''Chemical analysis of e-cigs' vapor show high levels of formaldehyde. Authors project higher cancer risk than smoking''.

I uunderstand that there hasn't been much research on E-Cigs BUT they have be better than Cigarette's.

Do you use an E-cig? Did it work for you?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

jobbridge4life

Calina wrote: »

Even better not to shoot up in the first place, don't you agree?

Yes, however that is an utterly irrelevant point as people are going to in any case. So we either choose and promote the safer alternative or...

mikom

Calina wrote: »

Even better not to shoot up in the first place, don't you agree?

And thanked by yer wan, AudreyHepburn.....

Good luck to ye wit yer blinkers.
It must be warm and cuddly under the duvet.

Ok, like I would explain it to a 5 year old.

Parachuting.
A secondhand parachute with a hole or a new parachute?

Penny Tration

Calina wrote: »

Even better not to shoot up in the first place, don't you agree?

Obviously, but what about those already addicted? Continue with dirty needles, or switch to clean ones?

Turtwig

Not enough research to say anything about their safety. One would ASSUME they're safer than cigarettes. The most worrying thing about them is how ideological some of the proponents and opponents are. We don't know enough about them yet. Unfortunately, that hasn't stopped people from dismissing offhand anything that apparently disagrees with them. It's a worrying trend because it only serves to confuse those in the middle. It should also be pointed out that tobacco lobbies fueled such confusion to keep people smoking as long as possible. Ultimately, that misinformation cost many people their lives. My fear is that should e-cigs turn out to be unsafe history will repeat itself. I really really hope they are safe.

Calina

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Yes, however that is an utterly irrelevant point as people are going to in any case. So we either choose and promote the safer alternative or...

Most smokers I know hated the habit and wanted to give up. If you normalise a replacement habit like this, why bother giving up? It's a bad and expensive habit either way. Normalisation of a habit means people don't address the habit.

mikom wrote: »

And thanked by yer wan, AudreyHepburn.....

Good luck to ye wit yer blinkers.
It must be warm and cuddly under the duvet.

Ok, like I would explain it to a 5 year old.

Parachuting.
A secondhand parachute with a hole or a new parachute?

I'd argue there's a difference between parachuting and smoking and you probably haven't worked it out.

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

Obviously, but what about those already addicted? Continue with dirty needles, or switch to clean ones?

I've no objection to people who are already addicted looking for ways out. But as at least one person has pointed out, there are some people who don't see it as a method of stopping being addicted, but a replacement delivery mechanism which they'd like to see normalised and socially acceptable. Read the thread.

In other words, I don't care if they want to use e-cigarettes or not, but I don't want to see it as a normalised addiction and I certainly don't want to see it becoming socially acceptable.

mikom

Calina wrote: »

Most smokers I know hated the habit and wanted to give up. If you normalise a replacement habit like this, why bother giving up? It's a bad and expensive habit either way. Normalisation of a habit means people don't address the habit.

For many it is a step in quitting.
All or nothing does not suit some folk.

fortwilliam wrote: »

I smoked 20+ Marlboro per day for 25 years,
Two years ago a pal of mine showed me this E-Cig he was using, I had a blast of it (we were in an airport) I thought it wasn't bad.
A week later I went to one of the shops and spent €100 on a proper E-Cig system (Wicked Brand I think)
I used it for about 2 months until one night I was going out so started to fill my 1st and backup tank with fluid, make sure my batteries were fully charged..... I just stopped and thought to myself, this is stupid... I went out and left them at home.

That night was difficult, very difficult, the cravings decreased as time went on although sometimes you get a really strong craving out of nowhere, but it only ever lasts 30 seconds.

That was two years ago and I haven't touched one since.
I don't stink of stale fags, My breath is clean.
I don't cough up a lung in the morning.
It saves me a fortune.

Sometimes if I am talking to a heavy smoker, I shudder to think that I smelled like that.

E-Cigs are the reason for the single most important health change in my life.

Viva E-Cigs!

Jester252

Saw a guy get kicked out of a cafe after he was asked to stop smoking. He sat there and blew vapour into the owners face and went on a five minute rant about vaping.

Still trying to decide if vaping make people twats or twats have just latched on to vaping.

jobbridge4life

Jester252 wrote: »

Saw a guy get kicked out of a cafe after he was asked to stop smoking. He sat there and blew vapour into the owners face and went on a five minute rant about vaping.

Still trying to decide if vaping make people twats or twats have just latched on to vaping.

You know what definitely makes one a twat? Sweeping generalizations.

mikom

Jester252 wrote: »

Saw a guy get kicked out of a cafe after he was asked to stop smoking. He sat there and blew vapour into the owners face and went on a five minute rant about vaping.

Still trying to decide if vaping make people twats or twats have just latched on to vaping.

or coffee.........

Calibos

I think some people are missing the point of the nicotine, needles, caffeine analogies.

Nicotine as a drug is very similar to caffeine in addiction potential, effect on the body and brain, harm on the body etc.

The difference is the delivery system. The main method of delivery for nicotine was cigarettes which was harmful to the user and those around them. The main delivery method for caffeine is a warm cup of coffee. To deliver caffeine in a way as unhealthy is nicotine was in cigarettes, you'd have to inject your coffee intraveneously with a dirty infected needle and spray some of the contents at passersby while you were at it too. Conversely, to deliver nicotine in a way as healthy as a cup of coffee is to VAPE it.

Vaping is just a new safer way for nicotine users to safely get their fix like the caffeine users have always been able to get their fix in a safe and socially acceptable way.

If you look down on nicotine users you have to look down on caffeine users....but you don't???? Why??? Because we 'used' to be dirty smokers??

diomed

DavidSullivan wrote: »

Thought's on E-cigarettes?

For the deluded.

IK09

I use an e-cigarette daily.
I have been using one for about a month.
I still smoke the occasional cigarette.
I dont know why I smoke the occasional cigarette because I do not enjoy it.
E-cigarettes have made me realise that I do not need to depend on regular cigarettes.

I understand that unregulated e liquid is not the smartest thing to use, however the only alternative is regular cigarettes(for me).
I wish e liquid was regulated.
I understand that while e-cigs are probably not healthy, smoking regular cigarettes is less healthy.

R P McMurphy

Akrasia wrote: »

Studies have shown that practically nobody uses e cigarettes who aren't already smokers.

E cigarettes aren't cool (no matter what the 'vapers' want you to believe.

The Tobacco industry are trying their hardest to make it cool and to market it to children, and this is one reason why we need regulations, but at the end of the day, it's like methadone for smokers. Less harmful but nobody really wants to be on it.

E-pipes look pretty good. Would nearly be tempted to take up smoking one

Calibos

diomed wrote: »

For the deluded.

Please try and get it into your head, we are under no illusions that we are addicts, that as we still ingest nicotine we are still addicts but that we've just found a much cheaper and safer way if ingesting it just like the caffeine addicts have always had.

What's so hard to understand?

diomed

Calibos wrote: »

Please try and get it into your head, we are under no illusions that we are addicts, that as we still ingest nicotine we are still addicts but that we've just found a much cheaper and safer way if ingesting it just like the caffeine addicts have always had.

What's so hard to understand?

A preliminary analysis of e-cigarette cartridges by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2009 identified that some contain tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), known cancer-causing agents.[29] The tobacco specific impurities suspected of being harmful to humans were anabasine, myosmine, and β-nicotyrine. They were detected in a majority of the samples.

dont bother

I think they are the best thing invented by man in the last 20 years. i'd take these devices over a mobile phone, a computer, internet even. these things save lives, they save people from being close to poverty or empoverished from spending hundreds of euro a week on their cancer sticks (cigarettes), among many many other benefits.

put simply, they are safe. they can't really be said to be "unsafe", as they do not harm anyone (but MAYBE the person using the device - MAYBE, but if so, at a very low level compared to inhaling stuff like they have in burning tobacco).

or, put even more simply, if you think it's "wrong" or "dangerous" to be around someone who is vaping, then you are thick. and you have only received this info from sources such as "the Daily Mail" or the "mirror" who are being paid by tobacco companies to report on their dodgy findings, or making up stories about people who are "injured" by exploding batteries etc etc... it's all as nonsense as ANY of their other "stories" so why do people just choose to believe in it when it suits their agenda.

AAAGH there's too many people in this country with too much to think about/give out about. get a grip!

dont bother

diomed wrote: »

A preliminary analysis of e-cigarette cartridges by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2009 identified that some contain tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), known cancer-causing agents.[29] The tobacco specific impurities suspected of being harmful to humans were anabasine, myosmine, and β-nicotyrine. They were detected in a majority of the samples.

can you not see why the FDA wouldn't want people using them?

these studies are rigged.

dont believe them. ANYONE who vapes will tell you that they are in fact, Healthier than when they smoked real cigarettes.

thus, E-cigarettes are healthier.

DONT BELIEVE THE HYPE

Turtwig

Why would the FDA not want people using them?

mikom

diomed wrote: »

A preliminary analysis of e-cigarette cartridges by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2009 identified that some contain tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), known cancer-causing agents.[29] The tobacco specific impurities suspected of being harmful to humans were anabasine, myosmine, and β-nicotyrine. They were detected in a majority of the samples.

These are in cigarettes as well.
What is your point?

Turtwig wrote: »

Why would the FDA not want people using them?

The FDA dances to the tax tune like so many other government bodies.
Cigarettes are easier tax.

dont bother

Turtwig wrote: »

Why would the FDA not want people using them?

Food and DRUG administration authority!?

they want people to spend on their "approved" "safe" NRT's (Nicotine Replacement Therapies)...

also, they are a government body, and much like how OUR government rake it in on taxes from Cigarettes, they sure dont want to give up their little bread-winner either...

plus, just LOOK at the wording of your post quoted from that "report"...

preliminary...SOME.... SUSPECTED....

aka: a load of absolute sh!te.

Magnate

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

Better than cigarettes, so I'll stick with it.

Nobody claims vaping is 100% safe. I doubt it is, because the only thing you should inhale into your lungs is air.

But it's better than smoking, so I'm happy to do it. I know what goes into my liquids and I know how it'll affect my body.

We don't know that it's better than smoking though.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1413069

Inhaled formaldehyde has a reported slope factor of 0.021 kg of body weight per milligram of formaldehyde per day for cancer (http://oehha.ca.gov/risk/pdf/TCDBcas061809.pdf). Among persons with a body weight of 70 kg, the incremental lifetime cancer risk associated with long-term cigarette smoking at 1 pack per day may then be estimated at 9×10−4. If we assume that inhaling formaldehyde-releasing agents carries the same risk per unit of formaldehyde as the risk associated with inhaling gaseous formaldehyde, then long-term vaping is associated with an incremental lifetime cancer risk of 4.2×10−3. This risk is 5 times as high (as compared with the risk based on the calculation of Miyake and Shibamoto shown in Figure 1), or even 15 times as high (as compared with the risk based on the calculation of Counts et al. shown in Figure 1) as the risk associated with long-term smoking. In addition, formaldehyde-releasing agents may deposit more efficiently in the respiratory tract than gaseous formaldehyde, and so they could carry a higher slope factor for cancer.

scamalert

Well this topic will show up more often since trend is picking up fast and government tobacco companies are loosing millions as is-from a year ago or so in US alone millions have switched over to ecigs. No the research part is biggest Bull**** there is,since to do it someone has to fund it,and while we seen some scaremongering articles most were 100% payed off by some tobacco companies,since if no one knows all tobacco companies have agreement between them,when it comes to advertising and protecting their product. as for e cigs no one bothered yet to do full research and probably wont in near future as filling that gap would cost a lot,and its easier just to throw random crap,by self proclaimed scientists-what if a word came out it was completely harmless-it would be billions on stake for tobacco and government income tax. ive myself been vaping 2y now,have to agree on only term that liquids are in many cases unregulated-people buy cheap 1-2e stuff from china with sh*t knows what way its made how clean the environment is and monitored each batch.Myself it costs a good lot since i get quality liquid thats usually close to 20e per 30ml,but at least i know its made in secure environment and best ingredients are used,even thou there's 3 really. Only negative side i see is coils or wicks that are being used-the stuff that vaporizes liquid,since they do tend to wear of quite quickly on most times and if disassembling one one could see amount of gunk that collects there-so if any harm would be coming its not liquids per se,but the burnt stuff to the coil that is unkwon factor,since it burnt liquid being mixed with clean constantly thus results would be unknown. But given alternative what we already know that one cig alone contain 200 chemicals that cause cancer its pretty obvious which one is the safer option. As for alternative for quitting i dont find that ecigs are way to go,best way is just to stop-since its not coke or whatever takes 1-2 weeks to be off,just need will power,which many dont poses.I myself like to vape and its habit like drinking coffee except with electric cig i find 100 times less harmful. as for saving $ from switching its not much different as smoking-you save long term x amount,but if you get into batteries mods,quality liquids-different juices devices its a bit like a hobby. Thats why until there isnt device that can perform almost 100% identical to cigarette and last long tobacco companies or whoever is behind will try to keep their foot whatever way they can to make e-cigs look bad compared to their 1000nd chemical mix.

mikom

Magnate wrote: »

We don't know that it's better than smoking though.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1413069

Let's have a look........

Hidden Formaldehyde in E-Cigarette Aerosols

Yep, in cigarettes also.

What is your point again?

Magnate

mikom wrote: »

Let's have a look........

Yep, in cigarettes also.

Did you even read the study, I doubt it.

This risk is 5 times as high (as compared with the risk based on the calculation of Miyake and Shibamoto shown in Figure 1), or even 15 times as high (as compared with the risk based on the calculation of Counts et al. shown in Figure 1) as the risk associated with long-term smoking. In addition, formaldehyde-releasing agents may deposit more efficiently in the respiratory tract than gaseous formaldehyde, and so they could carry a higher slope factor for cancer.

This is coming from the New England Journal of Medicine, hardly the Daily Mail.
It's easy to buy into the "Tobacco companies are bribing the media" conspiracy, which may be true, but the science is there.

dont bother

mikom wrote: »

Let's have a look........

Yep, in cigarettes also.

What is your point again?

The formaldehyde argument is VOID though - because it only really occurs when the coil is burnt at a level which is not a function unless you mod your e-cig...

the big BOLD study above is nonsense. it's based on methods of research which are questionable at best, but yet they got the results they were paid to get by the tobacco companies who were paying to get those false results.

im sticking with them, and so is everyone i know who switched.

let them hate. who cares.

dont bother

Magnate wrote: »

Did you even read the study, I doubt it.

This risk is 5 times as high (as compared with the risk based on the calculation of Miyake and Shibamoto shown in Figure 1), or even 15 times as high (as compared with the risk based on the calculation of Counts et al. shown in Figure 1) as the risk associated with long-term smoking. In addition, formaldehyde-releasing agents may deposit more efficiently in the respiratory tract than gaseous formaldehyde, and so they could carry a higher slope factor for cancer.

This is coming from the New England Journal of Medicine, hardly the Daily Mail.
It's easy to buy into the "Tobacco companies are bribing the media" conspiracy, which may be true, but the science is there.

NO - the tobacco companies are bribing the media, but mainly they are PAYING for the research to produce THEIR desired results... like the one you have quoted above. they are PAYING for these studies, and then paying the media to print the "results".

Magnate

dont bother wrote: »

The formaldehyde argument is VOID though - because it only really occurs when the coil is burnt at a level which is not a function unless you mod your e-cig...

the big BOLD study above is nonsense. it's based on methods of research which are questionable at best, but yet they got the results they were paid to get by the tobacco companies who were paying to get those false results.

im sticking with them, and so is everyone i know who switched.

let them hate. who cares.

Okay firstly, how are the methods of research questionable?

Where's the evidence of tobacco companies specifically bribing the New England Journal of Medicine? You can't just claim that without backing it up - especially about the NEJM.

At the very least, the voltage should be regulated and modded batteries banned.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a safer alternative to cigarettes, but I think we should all just look at the science first before jumping to conclusions.

dont bother

Magnate wrote: »

Okay firstly, how are the methods of research questionable?

I think we should all just look at the science first before jumping to conclusions.

eh because most of them are funded by tobacco companies who dont want to lose business to people vaping instead.

and you think we shouldnt "jump to conclusions"??
so you basically think people should continue to smoke and risk cancer instead of taking a new method which is PROVEN to be safer...

Penny Tration

Magnate wrote: »

Did you even read the study, I doubt it.

This risk is 5 times as high (as compared with the risk based on the calculation of Miyake and Shibamoto shown ini Figure 1), or even 15 times as high (as compared with the risk based on the calculation of Counts et al. shown in Figure 1) as the risk associated with long-term smoking. In addition, formaldehyde-releasing agents may deposit more efficiently in the respiratory tract than gaseous formaldehyde, and so they could carry a higher slope factor for cancer.

This is coming from the New England Journal of Medicine, hardly the Daily Mail.
It's easy to buy into the "Tobacco companies are bribing the media" conspiracy, which may be true, but the science is there.

Since you quoted my post while also quoting that study -

That experiment was done with a battery at a stupidly high voltage, one the vast majority of people do NOT vape at, with a tank that had very little liquid in it, thus burning the coil. Burning is not what should be done. Liquid nicotine should be heated, not coils burned.

As for me, my tank never goes below half full, and although I have a mod, it's kept at 3v, lower than the most basic of batteries. I've also reduced from a 24mg liquid to a 6mg liquid in a matter of weeks.

Magnate

dont bother wrote: »

eh because most of them are funded by tobacco companies who dont want to lose business to people vaping instead.

The NEJM is not funded by tobacco companies.

dont bother wrote: »

and you think we shouldnt "jump to conclusions"??
so you basically think people should continue to smoke and risk cancer instead of taking a new method which is PROVEN to be safer...

Absolutely not, I just think that more independent studies should be done on e-cigarettes first to determine whether or not they are in fact safer, and what risk they do pose as a carcinogen. Secondly, I think that they should be regulated to ensure their continued safety.

It's very easy to paint the "Big Bad Tobacco Companies" in a negative light and just assume e-cigarettes are perfectly safe without further testing them. Anyway I won't argue any more as I don't think it's possible to have a fair and intelligible discussion with someone who blatantly ignores the the rules of rational debate.