- Status
Just a few things to note before everyone begins to blame vaping:
Sometimes, bronchiolitis obliterans happens after you've had a serious illness that affects your lungs, for example some forms of pneumonia or bronchitis. And some people who have rheumatoid arthritis can get popcorn lung as a side effect of that condition.
Also, this man was a long term smoker and had already permanently damaged his lungs.
There is a reason this man's doctors are not allowing their names to be attached to this blame on vaping and it's likely because there are too many possible factors to give cause with any amount of certainty.
And if those doctors cannot have certainty who know this man's case inside and out what on earth makes anyone else think they can have certainty?
Ridiculous.
Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. .. maybe or might does not a cause make.
Observability, testability, repeatability, and falsifiability are the hallmarks of the scientific method and we have no scientific proof here. What, we have 40-50 million vapers world wide, many who have been vaping for years and this is the very first case of popcorn lung as a result of vaping?
If another case pops up in another 40 or 50 million vapers then we might have repeatability... emphasis on might. Yet without knowing any other circumstances surrounding this case we have no certainty of even that possibility.
Now, weigh even that possibility against the certainty's we know with smoking - then tell me if it was worth the gamble or not.
Sometimes, bronchiolitis obliterans happens after you've had a serious illness that affects your lungs, for example some forms of pneumonia or bronchitis. And some people who have rheumatoid arthritis can get popcorn lung as a side effect of that condition.
Also, this man was a long term smoker and had already permanently damaged his lungs.
There is a reason this man's doctors are not allowing their names to be attached to this blame on vaping and it's likely because there are too many possible factors to give cause with any amount of certainty.
And if those doctors cannot have certainty who know this man's case inside and out what on earth makes anyone else think they can have certainty?
Ridiculous.
Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. .. maybe or might does not a cause make.
Observability, testability, repeatability, and falsifiability are the hallmarks of the scientific method and we have no scientific proof here. What, we have 40-50 million vapers world wide, many who have been vaping for years and this is the very first case of popcorn lung as a result of vaping?
If another case pops up in another 40 or 50 million vapers then we might have repeatability... emphasis on might. Yet without knowing any other circumstances surrounding this case we have no certainty of even that possibility.
Now, weigh even that possibility against the certainty's we know with smoking - then tell me if it was worth the gamble or not.
Last edited:
Let's look at the Full Statement where that 5% Statistic was mentioned.
"E-cigarettes and long-term harm - the possibility of some harm from long-term e-cigarette use cannot be dismissed due to inhalation of the ingredients other than nicotine, but is likely to be very small, and substantially smaller than that arising from tobacco smoking. With appropriate product standards to minimise exposure to the other ingredients, it should be possible to reduce risks of physical health still further. Although it is not possible to estimate the long-term health risks associated with e-cigarettes precisely, the available data suggest that they are unlikely to exceed 5% of those associated with smoked tobacco products, and may well be substantially lower than this figure."
Promote e-cigarettes widely as substitute for smoking says new RCP report
I don't think the RCP is giving Carte Blanche for any e-Liquid Ingredient to be Vaped under their "unlikely" / "may well be" naked 5% Statistic.
If a person wants to use e-Liquids that contain High Level of Diacetyl and or Acetyl Propionyl, that's cool. Just like if a Person wants to Vape at High Wire Temperature such as above 450F, that's cool also. It's all a personal choice.
All I'm say'n is I think this "not possible to estimate", "available data suggest", "unlikely to exceed" 5% RCP statistic can give some Vapers a False Sense of security that anything they inhale is Hunky Dory.
And I Don't believe that is what the RCP was trying to state.
Do you want to be perfectly healthy without any risk of harm? Don't vape and don't smoke - don't take anything into your lungs.
Do you want to quit smoking and nothing else you tried got you away from your addiction? Try vaping... it's less harmful than cigarettes, far less harmful.
Do you know what? I've never heard any one, no doctor or vaper say any different than what I just said either.
one out of every 5 deaths in the United States every single year is due to cigarette smoking/complications from cigarette smoking. One out of every 5 deaths.
And you people are up in arms over one possible (yet not proven) case of a long term lung disease which may (or may not) have ties to vaping out of 40 or 50 million vapers? Really?
If the same public horror occurred over side affects from prescription medication we wouldn't have antibiotics today - and countless lives would have been lost.
How many more lives do we loose to cigarette addiction before we decide some small risks are acceptable for the potential benefits?
Last edited:
Ahem, Opinionated, have you even read zoiD's post? "You people"? "Up in arms"?
Really?
I suspect she misinterpreted zoiD's position.Ahem, Opinionated, have you even read zoiD's post? "You people"? "Up in arms"?
Really?
Ahem, Opinionated, have you even read zoiD's post? "You people"? "Up in arms"?
Really?
Lol.. I could have misinterpreted his meaning. . My response was due specifically to what he said here;
"All I'm say'n is I think this "not possible to estimate", "available data suggest", "unlikely to exceed" 5% RCP statistic can give some Vapers a False Sense of security that anything they inhale is Hunky Dory."
Which is not what I've ever heard anyone say or even imply - aka that anything anyone inhales is hunky dory - rather, vapers say that it is safer, much safer, than smoking cigarettes.
Hence my response.
OK. ZoiD is good people. 
This issue is way overblown - no 'known' cases of BO in vaping until this guy, and there needs to be much more data on him than was given in the news pieces - as stated by many above - which doctors? Can you quote them? How long did "Tommy Lee" smoke? Why, when searching his name, do you get links to some substance we can't say here? How much popcorn does he eat?
And the RCP got attacked for the 5% figure which was, I seem to recall - only 5% when it was first released, but the "the available data suggest that they are unlikely to exceed 5% of those associated with smoked tobacco products, and may well be substantially lower than this figure." ...was either added later or wasn't the focus of many articles. Bill G has said or inferred less then .001%.
The original popcorn lung lawsuit itself has many unanswered questions and could be a ruse that trial lawyers pulled off. No smokers in the factory had the problem and this has been discussed ad nauseum AND ad infinitum.
The true answer to the question is up to the individual vapor buys into the 5% as a "possibility" - either buy eliquid from those manufacturers who can provide you with lab results that you can agree with OR do the testing yourself at your expense.
Why, when searching his name, do you get links to some substance we can't say here? How much popcorn does he eat?
I love those numbers. So somewhere between 5 and .001%? Is 5.14% a possibility? Even remotely? Here's another number--in case you're not satisfied with the 5%:
Study: Vaping Is '5,700 Times Less Dangerous Than Smoking' - Health Thoroughfare
Now that's an impressive number. Much bigger than 5, anyway!
Sure was.
My take--now and before and always--stay informed. The dose makes the poison. Vape defensively. If there''s a safer way to vape and it doesn't interfere with my vaping pleasure (be it by avoiding diketones, choosing lower temperatures, reducing the amounts of vapor that goes into my lungs daily, or decreasing percentages of flavoring in eliquid), why not do it? I've seen enough well designed and reproducible studies that show nasties forming in vapor at temperatures above ~420°F. I can easily stay at or below that threshold. What's the downside?
And talking about our old discussions--remember those endless speculations and worries about acrolein? The consensus reached then was that there's no way that acrolein can be produced under normal vaping conditions. Guess what? The experts were wrong.
Optimistic = joke I couldn't pass up
You're so bad!
Popcorn Lung is no news at all. It's already 3 years ago that Dr. K. Farsalinos wrote about this:
A new study verifies the lower risk-potential of e-cigarettes but identifies an avoidable risk
A new study verifies the lower risk-potential of e-cigarettes but identifies an avoidable risk
I think that you may have Misinterpreted my position on Diketones and or Acceptable Risk when it comes to Vaping.
Because I am a Big Believer in Choice. Informed Choice preferred over Uninformed Choice. But Choice none the less.
When it comes to Personal Health and Potential Risk, my universe Ends where the next person's Begins. And what happens in Their universe Doesn't effect what happens in Mine.
I just Don't like to see Blanket Statements or Naked Statistics used. Even though I understand the Motivation behind what the RCP has said. And the wording they used and what Impact it would have.
From marinna's above link, Dr. F said this...
"... However, many samples contained levels much higher than safety limits. Moreover, unlike tobacco cigarettes where these chemicals are produced during the combustion process, in e-cigarettes they are used as ingredients. Thus, this represents an avoidable risk, which should be removed."
My position is more aligned with this...
"... However, many samples contained levels much higher than safety limits. Moreover, unlike tobacco cigarettes where these chemicals are produced during the combustion process, in e-cigarettes they are used as ingredients. Thus, this represents an Avoidable Risk, which
I'm with you on believing in informed choice. Period.
As far as the RCP statement, I see in it no ambiguity nor any possible way to confuse their intended meaning.
If there is anyone anywhere who finds the statement by the RCP unclear we need to concern ourselves more with our educational system and less with forcing organizations to dumb down everything they say.
But - sometimes people might misinterpret me to be more callous or just plain mean as I believe I have already been incorrectly taken in this thread so I'll just shut up now.. lol
Last edited:
Mine's kettlecorn. MMM sweet and salty.
Hate to disappoint you, but it looks like this fight is over.
Common sense won.
- Status
Similar threads
