Dose vapping cause the same health issues as a smoker?
- Thread starter david quan
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
How can it. You are not clogging your lungs with tar, formaldehyde, carbon monoxide, butane vapors, Potassium nitrate, and about 7,000 other noxious chemicals.
If you want to blow clouds make your ejuice without nicotine.
There is a DIY forum here.
Does one know what not 100% safe actually means in the real world?
There is nothing in the world that is 100% safe. Not even so-called clean air
is 100% safe. That is because there has never been at anytime in Earth's
history 100% clean air. There is always something in the air that is going
to be harmful to someone somewhere. That is why people acutely allergic
to pollens carry around an epipen.
The trick is to get as close to 100% as you can. There comes a point where
the relative safety is so high compared to what is known to actually cause
harm that for all real world intents and purposes it's safe or GRAS if that makes
you feel better.
I believe vaping with an estimated health risk that compares to drinking
municipal tap water or better is one of those things we can say is safe.
Aside from allergic reactions I do not see any serious health issues resulting
from long term use. I am not saying zero issues. There probably will be some
unforeseen issues but, not anything like long term smoking has caused.
This quest for 100% safe is an illusion that plays right into the hands of
our enemy's. The agency in England who released their study claiming
that vaping was at minimum 95% safer than smoking gave their conservative
estimate. Many of the studies authors believed vaping to be 99% safer.
With an error factor of + or - 2 to 3% vaping would be 96% to 102%
safer than smoking. Lets say the error rate is on the high side. How does
one justify regulating something that's 102% safe?
Regards
Mike
All suggestion that vaping is "only harm reduction" or that not vaping is healthier than vaping is based purely on speculation that there must be something at least a little wrong with vaping. It is speculation since there is no evidence of any actual harm to vapers at all. Evidence in the form of actually harmed vapers. I've never seen an explanation of exactly what the 5% constituted in the British study suggesting smoking is 95% safer than cigarettes. There is apparently no evidence that that 5% wasn't just a number conjured up out of thin air to be slightly politically correct (or not totally politically incorrect).
It is equally possible that vaping is healthier than not vaping because vapers are regularly inhaling an antibacterial/antiviral. And while that is, of course, speculation, at least there is a known science behind the idea.
It is equally possible that vaping is healthier than not vaping because vapers are regularly inhaling an antibacterial/antiviral. And while that is, of course, speculation, at least there is a known science behind the idea.
It means they aren't completely harmless. Under optimal conditions they are almost harmless but still there is potential..
I'm just being honest here.
There's plenty of things that go wrong, dry hits = formaldehyde, it happens quite a bit more often than we'd like to admit, people trying to produce more vapor will run into it.
Red dye number 40 has been linked to several problems yet people still use LorAnn some of which contain it.
People mixing their own juice have used oil based flavorings which has the potential when heated to harm your lungs (personally think that is the cause of popcorn lung not DAP).
Although some ejuice labs have stepped up and started making clean rooms who knows about most of the ejuice out there, what conditions it's produced in, what additives or dust is ending up in their juice... What about big tobacco, nobody knows what they put in their stuff, are they adding all sorts of junk like they do to cigarettes?
Almost everything that could be wrong with them could be fixed by proper legislation, instead of lawmakers just outright banning them like cigarettes they should focus on making them safer....
Nothing you said there documented any actual harm to vapers.
And I think grossly improper DIY, like using oils, is way out of context. But I don't think you can find a case where someone was actually harmed. Surely not a trend or pattern.
People seem to have a problem differentiating theoretical concerns from actual harm. But that is all part of endlessly repeating the propaganda that "there must be something harmful here"
You are most definitely right there isn't any documented cases of harm, the only thing proven to be caused by vaping is dry mouth/throat which is cured by drinking water, some of the things listed are not just theoretical though, if something is known to cause harm and you come in contact with it, doesn't matter if it's from vaping or eating or rolling around in it, it will harm you.
Nice theoretical argument.
Let's talk about your dry hit/formaldehyde argument. What you are saying is that the most minute amount of inhaled formaldehyde will or can harm you. Is that correct? Are you considering that people inhale formaldehyde in minute amounts in their day to day lives, yet there is no real evidence of people being debilitated or having their lives shortened by it.
You are either mindlessly repeating stuff you read on the internet or you have carefully thought out the details and came to that conclusion. If the former, you are just mindlessly repeating propaganda...If the latter, some questions... how many dry hits might one possibly abuse themselves with per day? How many micro-grams of formaldehyde does that represent? What are the amounts that most people inhale in their day to day lives? How does that compare? What are the minimum amounts known to cause problems?
I suspect you can't answer any of those questions, and we can safely consider that a quite theoretical problem. I'm being kind by not calling it outright propaganda, which is what I think it is.
Although the formaldehyde can be avoided when devices are used properly, it is however a KNOWN human carcinogen, we do come in contact with it every day, hell burning meat or just about anything produces it, yes being a bad cook can be unhealthy. It is completely avoidable but is it completely avoided? are manufacturers testing for it at recommended wattage's? Someone may assume something is safe when it is not, how many times have I tried a factory coil that says its safe at X amount of watts when in fact I get semi dry hits...
I'm not assuming the worst I'm just interpolating the data found in peer reviewed studies
It all comes down to proper education and quality of goods. How many people actually sit down and learn everything possible about vaping before doing it like I have?
When the potential for harm is so low or the improved safety is so high it
becomes impossible to tell what caused the harm. A decline in harm of at least
95% according to health England is fantastic. Many of us believe its closer to 99%
safer. The increase in safety afforded to us by vaping is not just a quantitative
measurement. It also is qualitative.It's not a linear equation. Actual harm that
may be occurring if at all is so small as to have no cumulative effect and may
not even be detectable over ones lifetime. In other words it couldn't hurt a fly.
It might ruffle a wing perhaps but,it's not worth the time to fret about. Potential
harm does not mean caused harm. Potential harm also implies potential safety.
For one to always imply the worst potential problem without acknowledging
the best possible outcome as being just as possible is disingenuous. I have
heard a thousand what if this and, we don't know yets or it needs long term
testing.Hogwash. Modern toxicology and scientific analysis indicate there is
nothing as of yet causing harm to otherwise healthy individuals and are a
strong restraint from spending money on unneeded long term studies.
Long term studies are needed for things known to cause harm so they
can be tracked accurately. If one doesn't know what kind or if harm will
occur you cannot design a study to look for it. You do not know what it
is.
Regards
Mike
Look at it this way, would it be a good thing if we found solutions to current potential harms and remove those potential harms from the industry without sacrificing performance?
Of course you would agree, current status quo can be approved upon and I'm all for that.
"I'm not assuming the worst I'm just interpolating the data found in peer reviewed studies"
No, you are repeating propaganda. The studies you refer to managed to generate aldahydes (not necessarily formaldahyde) and declared it potentially dangerous, without providing any evidence that any vaper in the real world is exposed to abnormal or dangerous levels of formaldehyde. You can charitably call that a theoretical argument or call it what it is - pure propaganda. But those studies provided no real world evidence of harm.
Unless you can answer the questions I asked you previously about the real world amounts of formaldahyde you or any other vaper might actually inhale, you cannot interpolate that data as you claim. In fact you are just speculating to support the propaganda you believe.
This is the power of propaganda, when people are unable to separate factual evidence from "what if" theory.
Many people prefer to avoid vaping e juice with diketones in them, me being one of them , and thats their right .
I do it because there is lots of diketone free vendors that offer e juice that does not contain them and if you DIY, flavoring companies now offer many diketone free flavorings .
Is it a sure thing that diketones will cause respiratory issues over the long term , no , but it's a precautionary step that many people think makes sense.
Now if it was a choice between smoking and vaping juice with diketones i would vape juice with diketones but thats not a choice you have to make anymore since you can vape diketone free juice .
All personal preference , nobody's right or wrong here.
I do it because there is lots of diketone free vendors that offer e juice that does not contain them and if you DIY, flavoring companies now offer many diketone free flavorings .
Is it a sure thing that diketones will cause respiratory issues over the long term , no , but it's a precautionary step that many people think makes sense.
Now if it was a choice between smoking and vaping juice with diketones i would vape juice with diketones but thats not a choice you have to make anymore since you can vape diketone free juice .
All personal preference , nobody's right or wrong here.
It is not the manufacturer's responsibility to ensure that you will not, under any circumstances, principally with whatever eLiquid you use, at whatever VG percentage you like, ever result in a dry hit. It is your responsibility as the user to determine that you are getting dry hits and do something about it. It is thinking like this that leads to bad regulation.
Yes, and arguing over some things are not worth it.
Divide and conquer and all that....
Vape on.
If you can read around the resident bickerers there are some great answers for you here
You ask a valid question and the truth is the long term health affects of vaping are unknown but there are current studies showing it is much safer than smoking.
I'm not even saying it is produced in most circumstances I'm saying it has the potential to be produced....
You've completely twisted what I've posted...
Yes, and arguing over some things are not worth it.
Divide and conquer and all that....
Vape on.
LOL, i'm not going through that hell again , it goes nowhere.
- Status
Similar threads
