Another bs scare tactic or what?

[Big Me]

if you read the Guardian article you would have seen that the results were disputed by both Peter Hajek from Queen Mary University of London, and Jasmine Just from CRUK

 

[bombastinator]

if you read the Guardian article you would have seen that the results were disputed by both Peter Hajek from Queen Mary University of London, and Jasmine Just from CRUK

*doesnt read guardian articles on general principle*

 

[Big Me]

*doesnt read guardian articles on general principle*

Maybe you should have?

ETA: I'll admit, The Guardian article posted in the OP was a huge improvement on the usual "copy and paste" reporting they usually do when it comes research on vaping.

 

[bombastinator]

Maybe you should have?

ETA: I'll admit, The Guardian article posted in the OP was a huge improvement on the usual "copy and paste" reporting they usually do when it comes research on vaping.

Nope. I’m comfortable with my decision.

 

[CCVapes23]

Idk articles like this just make me wanna to back to smoking knowing that vaping causes cancer. Even though is risk is ten times lower with vaping. Idk. That’s probably what they want when they publish these articles too, is for people to switch back to smoking. But I just don’t know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[retired1]

As a reminder to all.

https://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/f...-junk-science-and-other-rubbish-posts.272086/

 

[ScottP]

Idk articles like this just make me wanna to back to smoking knowing that vaping causes cancer. Even though is risk is ten times lower with vaping. Idk. That’s probably what they want when they publish these articles too, is for people to switch back to smoking. But I just don’t know.

Going back to smoking because vaping is only 95% safer and not 100% safe is like not wearing a seat belt "because it is still possible to die while wearing one".

Nothing is 100% safe, not even getting out of bed in the morning, or taking a shower. Even toothpaste contains poison.

 

[BoogaWu]

Idk articles like this just make me wanna to back to smoking knowing that vaping causes cancer. Even though is risk is ten times lower with vaping. Idk. That’s probably what they want when they publish these articles too, is for people to switch back to smoking. But I just don’t know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

95 percent safer is 20 times safer, not 10.

 

[bombastinator]

Idk articles like this just make me wanna to back to smoking knowing that vaping causes cancer. Even though is risk is ten times lower with vaping. Idk. That’s probably what they want when they publish these articles too, is for people to switch back to smoking. But I just don’t know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That’s what they pay for. Fake news is great like that. Even if you know it’s crap it still sways your opinion.

 

[Big Me]

Idk articles like this just make me wanna to back to smoking knowing that vaping causes cancer. Even though is risk is ten times lower with vaping. Idk. That’s probably what they want when they publish these articles too, is for people to switch back to smoking. But I just don’t know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

READ
10 common questions about e-cigarettes answered

This is by Cancer Research UK. Do you truly believe that they would recommend vaping if it caused cancer?

 

[Ralph_K]

95 percent safer is 20 times safer, not 10.

95% safer would be 1.95 times as safe

 

[ScottP]

95% safer would be 1.95 times as safe

No, that would make vaping LESS safe than smoking by nearly double. Vaping is 95% safer than smoking, OR vaping is 5% of the danger of smoking, OR smoking is 2000% (aka 20 times) more dangerous than vaping.

Percentages can be finicky things.

 

[zoiDman]

Like I told my Neighbor when he couldn't figure out how to do his Daughter's Math Homework...

"Don't feel bad. 4 out 3 people have Problems doing Fractions."

 

[ScottP]

Like I told my Neighbor when he couldn't figure out how to do his Daughter's Math Homework...

"Don't feel bad. 4 out 3 people have Problems doing Fractions."

I must be the 5th person then, b/c I have no issues with fractions.

 

[Zakillah]

No, that would make vaping LESS safe than smoking by nearly double. Vaping is 95% safer than smoking, OR vaping is 5% of the danger of smoking, OR smoking is 2000% (aka 20 times) more dangerous than vaping.

Percentages can be finicky things.

Percentages in this case are meaningless. I know its just a short answer to a complex topic, but whenever I read it I immediatly think "What exactly does 95% safer even mean?"
Does it mean for 100 dead smokers you get 5 dead vapers? I seriously doubt that. What would they been dying from when there is no CO, no tar and no carzinogens present?
Also, its AT LEAST 95% safer. People always forget that.

 

[ScottP]

Percentages in this case are meaningless. I know its just a short answer to a complex topic, but whenever I read it I immediatly think "What exactly does 95% safer even mean?"
Does it mean for 100 dead smokers you get 5 dead vapers? I seriously doubt that. What would they been dying from when there is no CO, no tar and no carzinogens present?
Also, its AT LEAST 95% safer. People always forget that.

That is just it though, there CAN be carcinogens present in vapor if it is heated over 450F which many vapers do.

 

[CCVapes23]

That is just it though, there CAN be carcinogens present in vapor if it is heated over 450F which many vapers do.

Yeah but think about it, for sub Ohmers there’s really no temp control tank out there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ralph_K]

No, that would make vaping LESS safe than smoking by nearly double. Vaping is 95% safer than smoking, OR vaping is 5% of the danger of smoking, OR smoking is 2000% (aka 20 times) more dangerous than vaping.

Percentages can be finicky things.

95% safer would mean an additional 95% on top of the 100%. If you were looking at safeness as a pie where 5% tobacco and 95% vaping then that would be 20x. So if vaping is 95% what percentage is not vaping? Must be 0%... Wow not vaping is less safe than smoking!!

 

[zoiDman]

Does Anyone even know where this 95 Percentile even came from?

 

[Eskie]

Yeah but think about it, for sub Ohmers there’s really no temp control tank out there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I "subohm" just about all my build stuff, 0.5 ohm or less ( I never go much below 0.2 ohm) strictly in temp control only. All my build stuff are with SS, and yes, I get a full "DL" experience along with superb flavor. Subohm far from limits temp control use.

Does Anyone even know where this 95 Percentile even came from?

A committee from the Royal College of Physicians sat around and picked the number that seemed about right to them. No kidding. Something we all sorta gloss over when we throw it around.