Propylene glycol inhaling?

[TropicalBob]

The jury is very much out on this. Tests currently underway in New Zealand might provide some answers for e-smokers (the vapor has yet to be analyzed). This referenced study seems to clear inhalation of propylene glycol. And that's great to know. But studies also say nicotine is not only unsafe, but acts to promote lung cancer (this is contra to many earlier assumptions). And that's what concerns me. Cigarette smoking initiates cellular changes that can explode into lung cancer over time. If I quit inhaling tobacco, but continue my nicotine dose via e-smoking, might I not be promoting continued cancer development in the lungs? I'd say most e-smokers are ex-cigarette smokers seeking a healthier alternative. The jury is still out on whether this is safe, not just safer than tobacco smoking. And if this is not safe, then no source of nicotine is. The implications boggle the mind -- and I too am surprised more anti-tobacco Nazis haven't seized on this to ban all non-medical nicotine sources. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0721201104.htm

[Nazareth]

Yeah- those sites I listed probably posted earlier 'facts' about nicotine that have since been refuted- but I wonder if nicotine delivered through atomization might not perhaps be a bit 'safer' as it isn't being burned, nor is it being acompanied by all the other cancer causing chemicals- it might be that it would take much longer for nicotine to actually cause cancer when delivered via atmozer? I don't know, I'm just thinking otu loud here. also- the nicotine we're gettign from E-smokin I think is a much lower dose? Is that right? So there again, we're gettign less than if we regular smoked, thus it would take longer to develop cancer? I'm not sure what hte mouse study revealed, and not sure the amounts used in the trial, but I think it would be fairly large amounts to 'accelorate' a 'real life' simulation. i'm not trying to defend the use of nicotine, i'm just not really up to speed on it, and am just guessing here.

[Nazareth]

What they are referring to are the TSN's (tobacco specific nitrosamines) which got a lot of press several years ago. These are supposedly derived from nicotine both in the processing of the tobacco and in the users body. The low/no nicotine tobaccos were designed with this in mind to create a less carcinogenic tobacco.

Ok- is it derived from burned tobacco only? Or is it referign to the ingestion assimulation of any form of nicotine derived from any form of 'consumption'/ingestion/delivery from tobacco?

Concentrated levels of nitrosamines are found in small cell lung cancer tumors. Nicotine is purported to have a stimulus effect on existing cancer cells. These findings cast doubt on the health benefits of a high nicotine/low tar tobacco.

"Stimulous effect on Existing Cancer cells"- but does it create cancer cells itself? Or did the study only concentrate on what effect nicotine has on preexisting cancer cells?

What gets me is that this seems to be the best evidence of the dangers of smoking and the anti's seem to be ignoring it.

Perhaps they know somethign that we don't- ie possibly that it's much safer than burinign tobacco? not saying it is, but maybe there's a reason they haven't jumped on htis yet? hopefully that's the cas- but yourright- I'm surprised too that htey haven't jumped all over htis- maybe there might be political reasons behind there hesitancy too, or maybe they fear pushing us tobacco adicts too far and are satisfied that they've been able to ban outright smoking of real ciggs and feel it is victory enough- dunno really

[RatInDaHat]

If i recall correctly, caffeine has a stimulus effect on pre-existing cancer cells as well. I could be totally wrong though.

[karenwest1961]

If i recall correctly, caffeine has a stimulus effect on pre-existing cancer cells as well. I could be totally wrong though.

And refined sugar.

[RatInDaHat]

that's where i read that... :P

[toekuttr]

Nazareth:

Ok- is it derived from burned tobacco only? Or is it referign to the ingestion assimulation of any form of nicotine derived from any form of 'consumption'/ingestion/delivery from tobacco?

Doesnt appear to be as some of the highest levels were found in chewing tobaccos.

Nazareth:

"Stimulous effect on Existing Cancer cells"- but does it create cancer cells itself? Or did the study only concentrate on what effect nicotine has on preexisting cancer cells?

Good question, and this is whats being debated and studied in depth. It looks like some forms of nicotine are more stubborn in leaving the body, and some of the dangerous forms like TSN's act just like nicotine in the receptors but stay for quite a while.

but maybe there's a reason they haven't jumped on htis yet? hopefully that's the cas-

Yep, thats an interesting question. Maybe they havent compiled enough "statistics" yet that they can misquote and manipulate for shock value. Dont forget though, nicotine has many beneficial aspects they dont want you to know about too.

[Nazareth]

While it is established that nicotine by itself is not carcinogenic, researchers have now shown that nicotine promotes cell proliferation and the progression of tumors already initiated by tobacco carcinogens.

(From Bob's link)

Ok- this answers the question (I think, as the study is 2 years old and new data may have coem our since then)- Nicotine by itself does not cause cancer, but aggravates cancer cells already present- but, the study does not mention if the nicotine is being delivered with all the other carcinogens present in burned tobacco or not- which might skew the results- the study doesn't mention how the nicotine was administered, although most likely, it wasn't by burned tobacco. It appears that nicotine stmulates the interraction between Rb and Raf-1 which increases the chance of aggravatign existing cancer cells. Note- updated response below- as Nico doesn't aggravate the cancer cells, or even 'promote' them, all it does is help to prevent cells from dying off like htey are supposed to by promoting the Akt pathway which I'll discuss more below- so nico isn't a promoter, or an aggravator, or a stimulator effect, just an enabler of a longer life for cells- over-riding their preprogrammed suicide circuits)

Of interest here is the statement that interfereing with the interractions between Rb and Raf-1 decreases the stimulation of prexisting cancer cells, so all we haveto do is invent some bubble gum that blocks completely the interraction between Rb and Raf-1 and we can keep smoking like fiends all we like

As they report in the January 2nd issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation, stimulation of lung epithelial cells with amounts of nicotine and NKK equivalent to those seen in smokers, resulted in the activation of a molecular pathway -- the so-called Akt pathway -- that promotes cell growth and survival. They also found that the Akt pathway was active in the lungs of mice treated with NKK and in lung cancer tissue from smokers.

This is significant because programmed cell death, or apoptosis, is one of the body's most effective defense mechanisms against cancer.

It appears to me that in a nutshell, the way nicotine stimulates cancer cells, (as a previous linked article mentioned) (a misnomer- which I'll breifly address in a minute) is by stimulating the Akt pathway- a process, or pathway more precisely that leads to a process, that keeps cells alive despite irregularities to hte cells such as cancer cells. Cells are preprogramed to 'commit suicide' at the first sign of irregularity, and nicotine apparently stimulates a a process that prevents this cell suicide.

The misnomer is that nicotine itself doesn't 'stimulate cancer cells' (accordign to htis 2003 study), but rather just a process that prevents cells from dying.

so here again, I think we can help oursleves by judgign the life of our cells, determining their cut-off point, and then eating somethign that triggers a mass lemming-like die-off of hte cells- j/k This all looks pretty dim from a safety of nicotine point of view. I guess we're all just goign to have to bite the bullet and really try to focus on cutting down (and hopefulyl eventually quitting nico) our nico consumption, or just face the fact that we don't care about what hapens and just coem ot terms with it. Was hoping nico was more safe than it appears to be after reading these articles, but apparently it'snot

[Nazareth]

If i recall correctly, caffeine has a stimulus effect on pre-existing cancer cells as well. I could be totally wrong though.

And refined sugar too

Dag-nabbit- I might as well start diggin my grave now then, because I smoke, and I drink large quantities of Pepsi per day too- no way I am willing ot quite both, or even one or the other. Life just aint life without a pepsi and a cigartte. This whole thread is gloomy Someone needs to invent a 'Cell Correction Injection" where once a year, we go in and get a shot, and we're back to square one again. i'll personally give whoever invents this $20

[RatInDaHat]

i'm a big Coke and a Smoke fan. Coke being Coca-Cola Classic