I was sent this link and it might be an article worthy of translation.
Cigarette électronique.
Dr. Farsalinos has done some good work!
Cigarette électronique.
Dr. Farsalinos has done some good work!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Anyone fluent in French?
- Thread starter Vicky
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- revolution
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A big thank you to Jeanette!!
My Chicago French Tutor - Home
original text
http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/Sante/Vapoter-n-est-pas-nocif-pour-le-coeur-526427
TRANSLATION:
THE ELECTRONIC CIGARETTE
«vaping IS NOT HARMFUL TO YOUR HEART»
Konstantinos Farsalinos, cardiologist at the Onassis Center for Cardiac Surgery (Athens), is actively engaged in research on the safety and risks of the electronic cigarette. Having just presented his first study of its effects on the heart, for him the electronic cigarette is revolutionary in reducing heart diseases linked to tobacco.
-You have just returned from the Congress of the European Cardiology Society in Amsterdam, where you presented the very first study on the effects of the electronic cigarette on the heart. What are your conclusions.?
-For the first time we have completed a study to evaluate the immediate effects of the electronic cigarette on the capacity of coronary arteries to deliver blood and oxygen to the heart muscle. We compared them to those of the tobacco cigarette, which we know to be harmful to the heart based on previous studies. We observed that after two cigarettes, blood flow diminished significantly (16%) and that resistance to blood flow increased (19%), which is not recommended. With the electronic cigarette, no undesirable effects were observed and values remained stable. We also measured the level of carbon monoxide in the blood (carboxyhemoglobin), and noted that smokers had a rate 3 to 4 times higher than «.vapers.», even before smoking. Those rates increased an additional 15 to 20% after smoking a tobacco cigarette. No increase in carbon monoxide was observed in vapers.
-.»60 million consumers.» created a buzz last week by revealing that the electronic cigarette was possibly carcenogenic. Given the exceptional success of this product, should we be afraid.?
-The potential effects of the electronic cigarette need to be compared to those of tobacco addiction. Let's remember that the electronic cigarette is an alternative to tobacco addiction and that conventional non-smoking methods are not effective in the long-term (less than 20% for the most effective medications). Every study has shown that certain toxins are present, but with a much weaker magnitude than in cigarette smoke. Additionally, nitrosamine substance levels are comparable to those found in nicotine substitutes. What is the better choice for these smokers, 80% of which cannot quit smoking with the approved methods that are available.? Should we tell them to continue smoking, or should we offer them a much less toxic alternative.?
The answer is obvious...
«.THE ELECTRONIC CIGARETTE IS CONSIDERABLY LESS TOXIC THAN TOBACCO.»
-Nevertheless, is it potentially carcenogenic.?
-No studies have yet evaluated a carcenogenic risk. We would either have to look at growing cells (which might give us some idea, but no decisive proof of the risk of cancer), or study cases of cancer among electronic cigarette users. No study on cells has yet to be completed, and it will be ten years before we have results. Consequently, we can only postulate about the presence of potentially carcenogenic substances and calculate the risk. The important thing is the detected dose of chemical substances. For example, formaldehyde, considered to be carcenogenic, is also produced by the metabolism of all human beings (including non-smokers), and it is exhaled.! But no one considers an individual's breathing to be carcenogenic since the quantites of formaldehyde are insignificant.! And I repeat, the data on toxic exposure levels of the electronic cigarette show them to be significantly less. The risk is considerably less than that of tobacco addiction. It has not been proven that there is no effect, but it will take many years to prove it.
-TODAY THE ELECTRONIC CIGARETTE IS CONTROLLED AS A CONSUMER PRODUCT.
How can its usage be better restricted?
-We should control the electronic cigarette whose usage, let me remind you, is only intended for smokers. Therefore, we need to restrict it to young people and non-smokers. I have to say that most electronic cigarette manufacturers are cooperating, since no investigation has concluded that this product attracts non-smokers. We have completed the most important study in the world with nearly 200,000 participants.: only 0,4% of the users were non-smokers. Therefore, smokers should have easier access to the electronic cigarette than to tobacco. The strictest restrictions would produce the opposite effect of our research. It would be paradoxial to put the strictest restrictions on the least dangerous product.!
-Before a medication is put on the market, its effectiveness and safety are checked on the basis of scientific findings. In your opinion, should the electronic cigarette become a medication for stopping drug abuse.?
-Medical intervention with this product would negatively impact public health. The remarkable developments, over the past few years, of better and more effective product design would stop if it were to become a medication. Here we're talking about a whole technology (electronic batteries), which is rapidly evolving and which is impossible to be regulate medically. The huge diversity of aromas, which plays a major rôle in the success of the electronic cigarette, would not be possible either. You must understand that the electronic cigarette is effective because it provides pleasure to the user, without exposure to tobacco smoke toxins. By definition, medications are not intended to provide pleasure. To control the electronic cigarette as a medication would reduce it to a nicotine inhaler, thereby diminishing its use as an alternative to tobacco abuse.
«.It is Justifiable for Consumers to Defend Their Right to Vape.»
-This is a product whose sales have exploded in spite of the total absence of marketing. Today, independent user organizations are being created to defend the rights of vapers. What do you think about that.?
-Insofar as current scientific data indicates that the electronic cigarette is, by far, less harmful than tobacco, it is at the same time justifiable and essential that consumers defend their right to use a less dangerous product. It is a way to protect their health from the harmful effects of tobacco abuse. Ideally, it would be good to have an effective medication that would help everyone to quit smoking easily. As that is not the case, we need to rely on the electronic cigarette to reduce the risks associated with tobacco.
-Some of your colleagues are talking about a revolution in terms of public health. Do you think that we will see an end to tobacco abuse some day.?
-The electronic cigarette is the only product that satisfies both the pharmacological (nicotine) and behavioral (sensual) aspects of tobacco dependency. Nothing else simulates the act of smoking as well, while delivering such weak doses of toxins to the consumer. Therefore, it is undoubtedly revolutionary in reducing the risk of illnesses due to tobacco. Only the future will tell us if it will eradicate tobacco abuse.
-Some of your research activities have been funded by electronic cigarette companies. Do you have a financial interest in them.?
-As a matter of fact, some of them financed the research that we completed. In my opinion it is not as much of a problem as a responsibility that conducting experiments and analyzing the results should remain in the hands of the researchers. At the present time, not a single one of these companies would have the knowledge to take control of our studies. Neither myself nor anyone else at the Onassis Center for Cardiac Surgery has financial ties to any of the electronic cigarette companies. The internet site that presents my studies in their totality is directed by consumers who have no ties to the electronic cigarette industry and who do not benefit from any financial or advertising support. We retain our independence and control our research insofar as the completion and distribution of our results (positive or negative), while at the same time seeking out other financing in order to broaden our knowledge on the subject. We still have a lot to learn. Let's not forget that we're still learning about tobacco addiction, even though it has been studied for several decades.! It would not be reasonable to think that we have gone all the way around the problem in such little time.
My Chicago French Tutor - Home
original text
http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/Sante/Vapoter-n-est-pas-nocif-pour-le-coeur-526427
TRANSLATION:
THE ELECTRONIC CIGARETTE
«vaping IS NOT HARMFUL TO YOUR HEART»
Konstantinos Farsalinos, cardiologist at the Onassis Center for Cardiac Surgery (Athens), is actively engaged in research on the safety and risks of the electronic cigarette. Having just presented his first study of its effects on the heart, for him the electronic cigarette is revolutionary in reducing heart diseases linked to tobacco.
-You have just returned from the Congress of the European Cardiology Society in Amsterdam, where you presented the very first study on the effects of the electronic cigarette on the heart. What are your conclusions.?
-For the first time we have completed a study to evaluate the immediate effects of the electronic cigarette on the capacity of coronary arteries to deliver blood and oxygen to the heart muscle. We compared them to those of the tobacco cigarette, which we know to be harmful to the heart based on previous studies. We observed that after two cigarettes, blood flow diminished significantly (16%) and that resistance to blood flow increased (19%), which is not recommended. With the electronic cigarette, no undesirable effects were observed and values remained stable. We also measured the level of carbon monoxide in the blood (carboxyhemoglobin), and noted that smokers had a rate 3 to 4 times higher than «.vapers.», even before smoking. Those rates increased an additional 15 to 20% after smoking a tobacco cigarette. No increase in carbon monoxide was observed in vapers.
-.»60 million consumers.» created a buzz last week by revealing that the electronic cigarette was possibly carcenogenic. Given the exceptional success of this product, should we be afraid.?
-The potential effects of the electronic cigarette need to be compared to those of tobacco addiction. Let's remember that the electronic cigarette is an alternative to tobacco addiction and that conventional non-smoking methods are not effective in the long-term (less than 20% for the most effective medications). Every study has shown that certain toxins are present, but with a much weaker magnitude than in cigarette smoke. Additionally, nitrosamine substance levels are comparable to those found in nicotine substitutes. What is the better choice for these smokers, 80% of which cannot quit smoking with the approved methods that are available.? Should we tell them to continue smoking, or should we offer them a much less toxic alternative.?
The answer is obvious...
«.THE ELECTRONIC CIGARETTE IS CONSIDERABLY LESS TOXIC THAN TOBACCO.»
-Nevertheless, is it potentially carcenogenic.?
-No studies have yet evaluated a carcenogenic risk. We would either have to look at growing cells (which might give us some idea, but no decisive proof of the risk of cancer), or study cases of cancer among electronic cigarette users. No study on cells has yet to be completed, and it will be ten years before we have results. Consequently, we can only postulate about the presence of potentially carcenogenic substances and calculate the risk. The important thing is the detected dose of chemical substances. For example, formaldehyde, considered to be carcenogenic, is also produced by the metabolism of all human beings (including non-smokers), and it is exhaled.! But no one considers an individual's breathing to be carcenogenic since the quantites of formaldehyde are insignificant.! And I repeat, the data on toxic exposure levels of the electronic cigarette show them to be significantly less. The risk is considerably less than that of tobacco addiction. It has not been proven that there is no effect, but it will take many years to prove it.
-TODAY THE ELECTRONIC CIGARETTE IS CONTROLLED AS A CONSUMER PRODUCT.
How can its usage be better restricted?
-We should control the electronic cigarette whose usage, let me remind you, is only intended for smokers. Therefore, we need to restrict it to young people and non-smokers. I have to say that most electronic cigarette manufacturers are cooperating, since no investigation has concluded that this product attracts non-smokers. We have completed the most important study in the world with nearly 200,000 participants.: only 0,4% of the users were non-smokers. Therefore, smokers should have easier access to the electronic cigarette than to tobacco. The strictest restrictions would produce the opposite effect of our research. It would be paradoxial to put the strictest restrictions on the least dangerous product.!
-Before a medication is put on the market, its effectiveness and safety are checked on the basis of scientific findings. In your opinion, should the electronic cigarette become a medication for stopping drug abuse.?
-Medical intervention with this product would negatively impact public health. The remarkable developments, over the past few years, of better and more effective product design would stop if it were to become a medication. Here we're talking about a whole technology (electronic batteries), which is rapidly evolving and which is impossible to be regulate medically. The huge diversity of aromas, which plays a major rôle in the success of the electronic cigarette, would not be possible either. You must understand that the electronic cigarette is effective because it provides pleasure to the user, without exposure to tobacco smoke toxins. By definition, medications are not intended to provide pleasure. To control the electronic cigarette as a medication would reduce it to a nicotine inhaler, thereby diminishing its use as an alternative to tobacco abuse.
«.It is Justifiable for Consumers to Defend Their Right to Vape.»
-This is a product whose sales have exploded in spite of the total absence of marketing. Today, independent user organizations are being created to defend the rights of vapers. What do you think about that.?
-Insofar as current scientific data indicates that the electronic cigarette is, by far, less harmful than tobacco, it is at the same time justifiable and essential that consumers defend their right to use a less dangerous product. It is a way to protect their health from the harmful effects of tobacco abuse. Ideally, it would be good to have an effective medication that would help everyone to quit smoking easily. As that is not the case, we need to rely on the electronic cigarette to reduce the risks associated with tobacco.
-Some of your colleagues are talking about a revolution in terms of public health. Do you think that we will see an end to tobacco abuse some day.?
-The electronic cigarette is the only product that satisfies both the pharmacological (nicotine) and behavioral (sensual) aspects of tobacco dependency. Nothing else simulates the act of smoking as well, while delivering such weak doses of toxins to the consumer. Therefore, it is undoubtedly revolutionary in reducing the risk of illnesses due to tobacco. Only the future will tell us if it will eradicate tobacco abuse.
-Some of your research activities have been funded by electronic cigarette companies. Do you have a financial interest in them.?
-As a matter of fact, some of them financed the research that we completed. In my opinion it is not as much of a problem as a responsibility that conducting experiments and analyzing the results should remain in the hands of the researchers. At the present time, not a single one of these companies would have the knowledge to take control of our studies. Neither myself nor anyone else at the Onassis Center for Cardiac Surgery has financial ties to any of the electronic cigarette companies. The internet site that presents my studies in their totality is directed by consumers who have no ties to the electronic cigarette industry and who do not benefit from any financial or advertising support. We retain our independence and control our research insofar as the completion and distribution of our results (positive or negative), while at the same time seeking out other financing in order to broaden our knowledge on the subject. We still have a lot to learn. Let's not forget that we're still learning about tobacco addiction, even though it has been studied for several decades.! It would not be reasonable to think that we have gone all the way around the problem in such little time.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 657
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 490
Users who are viewing this thread
Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)