- Status
You use Google.
Or you do a search here on ECF.
There is a lot of research that shows nicotine, by itself, is mostly harmless, and not even very addicting.
And, one can vape with zero nicotine.
I know of 5 people in my life, women, who never smoked anything, never were exposed to any kind of bad environments, who all got lung cancer and died.
The world isnt so black and white.
Or you do a search here on ECF.
There is a lot of research that shows nicotine, by itself, is mostly harmless, and not even very addicting.
And, one can vape with zero nicotine.
I know of 5 people in my life, women, who never smoked anything, never were exposed to any kind of bad environments, who all got lung cancer and died.
The world isnt so black and white.
Everybody is born with cancer cells,it just takes something to activate them.
science hasn't figured out what activates them yet either
a medical professional told me.smoking does not make you ill,it assists the disease to make you ill
science hasn't figured out what activates them yet either
a medical professional told me.smoking does not make you ill,it assists the disease to make you ill
Nothing on Google that answers my specific question: is lung cancer caused by nicotine or not. As to doing research on ECF, I think I will pass.... Thanks anyway, I think I will take your advice and cut my Nic to zero if I can.
Don't know what you mean by that .... Here is a black and white example for you: Smoking is a major contributor to lung cancer - not withstanding the anecdotal examples you cite.
Per the CDC website if you trust it: CDC - The Emergency Response Safety and Health Database: Systemic Agent: NICOTINE - NIOSH tells me that nicotine as being a carcinogen is inconclusive as thus it is more than likely not the contributing factor.
"Inconclusive" does not mean nicotine is without harm. It just means the evidence is not 100% conclusive that it causes cancer. I personally do not need 100% proof to sway me - 55% is enough to get me thinking .... It is also known that nicotine and/or smoking contributes to Emphysema and/or COPD, a form of lung disease.
To answer your question, where can I find out? Maybe you should contact a pulminary expert.
Good advice. But from everything I read, the real curl pit in tobacco products is the Nic, not the other chemicals. It is by far the most pharmaceutically active agent in tobacco. Here is an article that just came out that speaks for itself:
http://news.yahoo.com/cigarettes-more-dangerous-ever-us-health-report-warns-065728299.html
http://news.yahoo.com/cigarettes-more-dangerous-ever-us-health-report-warns-065728299.html
After reading your post and replies I'm note sure what answer(s) you are looking for? You have to start citing your "It it also known..." sources. "Everybody says that nicotine..." doesn't count. And I'm sorry - but if someone gives you a link to CASAA.org which has a comprehensive list of links to and/or reports of what medical and scientific information we are aware of so far, and you say you can't be bothered... What was the question again?
I have come to realize many of the opinions/research on the ECF is colored by the love of vaping.
Since you ask for proof, I offer the same challenge. Prove the above statement.
Here is my original question: How do we know lung disease is NOT caused by the nicotine in tobacco products but by the tar and/or other chemicals? If the curl pit turns out to be the nicotine, what does that say about vaping? As to naming my sources, try the surgeon general's report as a start.
Indeed, I myself am living proof that COPD is caused by tobacco products. I suffer from the condition, and have been told by more than one medical expert that smoking is the cause. What they could not tell me however, is which ingredient in cigarettes is responsible for the condition, the Nic or other ingredients. Until we know the answer, we can not say for sure vaping is safe.
Please don't be one of those people who think up a controversial topic in order to attack the group/ ecf establishment.
Harm minimisation is all that vapers seek to achieve when they vape.
If your body can go without nicotine, great. But if you are one of those smokers who are after 19 couldn't quit, statically you are going to be a life long smoker.
And to go back to the point, science is always trying to get closer to finding the answer on what causes cancer, how can cancer be avoided and what better treatments can be created to killing cancer cells.
It's evident that you have a theory, and you are finding evidence to support that theory. Whether you are right or wrong won't be known for a long time and a question that really can't be answered on a forum for people who are using vaping for all of its positive attributes.
In the mean time, I am going to continue vaping to lower my risk of dementia and Parkinson's disease, while at the same time increasing my short term memory and concentration levels.
Proof being defined as absolute, incontrovertible.
There is no proof. As stated earlier even with the multitudes of scientists working on cancer they are still unsure how exactly one contracts it. There is very strong evidence, but there is no proof. They have even figured how to mitigate some of the damage, but there is no proof. For me, there is no doubt in my mind that vaping is better than smoking because my body tells me so in more than one way.
There is no proof. As stated earlier even with the multitudes of scientists working on cancer they are still unsure how exactly one contracts it. There is very strong evidence, but there is no proof. They have even figured how to mitigate some of the damage, but there is no proof. For me, there is no doubt in my mind that vaping is better than smoking because my body tells me so in more than one way.
Through all my reading on nicotine I have never read that it was the culprit in causing cancer, ever. Nicotine is found in foods we eat yet none of them contain tar that I know of.
Because scientists have isolated the Tobacco-specific nitrosamines and other chemicals in smoke that they are reasonably certain cause cancer and have not been able to induce cancer in cells using nicotine alone.
The closest they have to linking nicotine to cancer is one or two small studies that MAY have linked nicotine to aggravating existing cancer cells. Meaning (put very simplistically) that there could be some risk that if you already have cancer tumors, adding nicotine may increase the risk it could get worse. But that research has not even been completed.
Otherwise, they have not been able to tie nicotine to causing any kind of cancer. Which is why the FDA has deemed nicotine gums, patches and inhalers to be safe and why they don't tell us to avoid eggplants and tomatoes.
Additionally, at the population level, 30 years of studies of snus users (a type of smokeless tobacco with a lot of nicotine) show no increased risk of any disease, including cancer.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
