How Long Would It Take For Ecigs To Give You Cancer?

[Our House]

Hi Guys,

I'm trying to put together a side-by-side comparison (analogs vs. ecigs) for people to use on their websites. One of the most important items on this chart will be:

Average number of years before getting cancer
Traditional Cigarette Smoking - [40]*
Electronic Cigarette Smoking - [1,300,000]*

Other examples include:

Risk of fire
Traditional Cigarette Smoking - [Yes]
Electronic Cigarette Smoking - [No]

Number of known carcinogens
Traditional Cigarette Smoking - [60]*
Electronic Cigarette Smoking - [1]*

Cost per pack
Traditional Cigarette Smoking - [$4-$10]*
Electronic Cigarette Smoking - [$1-$4]*

etc. etc.

*Obviously these numbers aren't accurate. However, I feel that getting some good stats here would totally put things into perspective and end a lot of the fear mongering.

Anyone here feel like helping with math, stats, and assumptions?

[happily]

do you have a known carcinogen in e=cigs or was that just for effect

[Ridewithme38]

What kind of batteries are in E-Cigarettes? The chances of them melting down/blowing up? Can atomizers cause fires? I don't think its as easy as yes or no!

[Our House]

do you have a known carcinogen in e=cigs or was that just for effect

Just for effect. The whole idea is to see if we can take something like the FDA report and use it to our benefit. IMO, how long it takes to get cancer is the absolute best way to accomplish this. Showing how insignificant the FDA's "findings" are is very important.

[happily]

Good Idea...........after you show how insignificant their findings are we really need to get people and the media asking"WHY, WHY OH WHY" would the FDA be doing this

[ProtoType]

If you take the ingredients found in a cigarette and place it side-by-side with the ingredients in the eliquid is enough for me. But for the public and the medica, maybe not.

So yes, definitely, the age to achieve cancer is the best component in spinning the FDA's finding against themselves. And once this nitrosamines are removed from eliquid altogether and companies move towards using synthesized nicotine then the issue becomes irrelevant.

The only other issue I can think of is what happens in the long term of introducing PG into the spongy tissues of the lungs.

[ProtoType]

I meant "media". Sorry for the typo.

[DaBrat]

Not sure we can say how long if would take you to get cancer for one thing or another. Some people are genetically predisposed. My Grandma smoked filterless Pall Malls til she was over 100 years old. You would have to think about the combinations of toxins.. etc ... etc....

That being said as a previous poster said... last list of toxins (that the smoker AND Bystanders are subjected to) would probabyl be the most convincing argument...

Hey has anyone ever thought about contacting that website 'The Truth?'.... lol they are probably part of the FDA

[DaBrat]

I went out and looked into their website. Seems the 'neither love nor hate smokers but want to put the truth out there'. So I put my 2 cents into their contact us form and sent away. Maybe they will encourage the FDA to tell the TRUTH.

[TropicalBob]

That is a crazy idea. There is not nearly enough information to even generalize about cancer, must less relate it to an individual. Dump this or the wrath of every health organization in the country will come down on you.

Comparing anything about a drug product (which FDA says e-cigs are) to a tobacco products will not be productive. It's a waste of time. We act on our beliefs and hopes, but have far too little science to go forth making claims and comparisons that are not supported by any peer-reviewed research.

We can tell our stories. We can tell what e-smoking has been to us. We can say how we've reacted.

But forget being John the E-Baptist for The Cause.