E-cigarettes and vaping ‘may cause lung cancer like normal cigarettes’

[DaveP]

So to summarize, it's apparently easy to control the offending particle production by tailoring your voltage to the lowest range that which creates a pleasing vapor and sufficient atomization of nicotine. There may be increasing production of unwanted chemicals as the temperature of the coil rises. Acrolein is but one of a large number of by products of vaping that is all but absent until we crank the voltage. As we drive the coil hotter, we generate things we really don't need. Keep it cool!

 

[dragonpuff]

So to summarize, it's apparently easy to control the offending particle production by tailoring your voltage to that which creates a pleasing vapor and sufficient atomization of nicotine. There may be increasing production of unwanted chemicals as the temperature of the coil rises. Acrolein is but one of a large number of by products of vaping that is all but absent until we crank the voltage. As we drive the coil hotter, we generate things we really don't need. Keep it cool!

Exactly! And if it burns too hot it will taste disgusting, and you can take that as your cue that there might be something dangerous in there

So basically the Roswell study combined with our user experience proves that we will naturally avoid excess carbonyl production sounds good to me!

 

[iamthevoice]

I guess a different headline that would have been "e-cigarettes may not cause cancer like regular cigarettes"...

 

[Kent C]

More perspective - this re: cigarette carcinogens and lung cancer.

Tobacco Smoke Carcinogens and Lung Cancer

"The complexity of tobacco smoke leads to some confusion about the mechanisms by which it causes lung cancer. Among the multiple components of tobacco smoke, 20 carcinogens convincingly cause lung tumors in laboratory animals or humans and are, therefore, likely to be involved in lung cancer induction. Of these, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and the tobacco-specific nitrosamine 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone are likely to play major roles".

And those 'major roles' with cigarettes, only come to life in tobacco combustion.

"While nicotine itself is not considered to be carcinogenic, each cigarette contains a mixture of carcinogens, including a small dose of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK) among other lung carcinogens, tumor promoters, and co-carcinogens."

So there is a pecking order in which materials can potentially do the most harm and also 'tumor promoters' (not necessarily carcinogenic themselves) and 'co-carcinogens' - wiki: "A Co-carcinogen is a chemical that promotes the effects of a carcinogen in the production of cancer. Usually, the term is used to refer to chemicals that are not carcinogenic on their own."

Formaldehyde is generally considered a 'co-carcinogen'. Much lower on the totem pole than the PAHs and NNKs above. And since it is not carcinogenic on its own, and only 'promotes the effects of an actual carcinogen', this is where a misunderstanding of the 'players' and 'rules' of the process, can cause a scare. And most journalists don't likely get it either.

For example, IF there are no carcinogens - unlike with tobacco combustion - for formaldehyde to 'promote the effects', then formaldehyde isn't 'fulfilling' it's role as a 'co-carcinogenic' and no carcinogenic effects result from its presence.

 

[AndriaD]

Also, I noticed that in the OP, Robino edited it apparently to break a link to a "misinformation" article, yet the link is there, not broken...

???


Andria

 

[Kent C]

Also, I noticed that in the OP, Robino edited it apparently to break a link to a "misinformation" article, yet the link is there, not broken...

???


Andria

It appears not broken - click on it.... ;- )

 

[dragonpuff]

For example, IF there are no carcinogens - unlike with tobacco combustion - for formaldehyde to 'promote the effects', then formaldehyde isn't 'fulfilling' it's role as a 'co-carcinogenic' and no carcinogenic effects result from its presence.

Exactly! It is always about the combined or cumulative effect. Carcinogens in general rarely work in isolation - in addition to being combined with other chemicals, as in formaldehyde, they also have to be delivered in sufficient doses over a long period of time, AND, unless the carcinogen is present in obscenely high amounts or is a particularly dangerous one, a genetic risk factor is also required, and often the person is otherwise in poor health prior to onset.

That is why you only see 1/8 of cigarette smokers getting lung cancer, rather than all of them. Cancer is not as simple as we want to believe (if it were we would have figured it out by now!).

 

[Uma]

Anybody ever walk through the new mobile homes when they were first brought in and set up? Now *that* is an overdose of formaldehyde. So high was the dose it literally seared the eyes and lungs to the point the sellers had to put up warning signs plus let it air out for a week or more before allowing gawkers in. Many of those gawkers were also heavy smokers, yet they are still alive and well enough to talk about those awful fumes.

Fantastic links and discussions Kent, Dr.Ma, everyone, this is great!

Oh, Bill Godshall got his 2cents in 10 minutes before the comments section closed. WTG Bill!

 

[DaveP]

please be aware that propylene glychol is not in all anti-freeze. only in pet safe anti-freeze. it does not protect to as low or high a temperature as the poisonous stuff does. it may however be mandated in some states,i don't know.
regards
mike

I understand that a bittering agent has been added to antifreeze lately that decreases the likelihood that animals would lick it more than once.

 

[sonicdsl]

Also, I noticed that in the OP, Robino edited it apparently to break a link to a "misinformation" article, yet the link is there, not broken...

???


Andria

It appears not broken - click on it.... ;- )

Code was still there to make it "clickable", but yeah, the link itself was broken. I improved upon it to make it more easily legible for copy/paste though.

 

[Gato del Jugo]

I still hear people say they heard there was antifreeze in my ecig. It's PG and it replaced diethylene glycol in antifreeze because DEG was killing animals who licked it up off the pavement because it was sweet. So, technically it is in antifreeze and thousands of things you ingest and rub on your skin, too. The bad stuff isn't in antifreeze anymore.

The PG that's in antifreeze and ecigs is also used as an anti-foaming agent in your can of Coke. (and in your toothpaste and cosmetics, pie fillings, ....) PG is used all over where a safe thickening agent is needed.

Most antifreeze also contains water..
Ergo, these people are drinking antifreeze!

 

[DaveP]

Most antifreeze also contains water..
Ergo, these people are drinking antifreeze!

Technically, if you add alcohol to water, you lower the freezing point, so a Scotch and Water would be drinking antifreeze.

 

[rolygate]

Laugesen stated all those years ago that, "It is impossible for e-cigarettes to cause lung cancer". That statement still holds good today because no one has disproved it, and indeed no new information has even put its veracity in question.

However there are certain vaping modes that appear to elevate risk for inhalation of non-benign compounds in significant quantity, although we don't yet know what the implications are, and probably won't for many years to come. It takes decades of abuse before the effects of smoking are visible, so we can probably expect the same for vaping. Lung cancer doesn't seem a likely outcome but it is probably naive to think that all vaping is harmless.

 

[Kent C]

Pretty sure one could make the cases that there is more evidence that using nicotine without tobacco combustion is more beneficial than it is harmful.

Beneficial effects of nicotine. [Br J Addict. 1991] - PubMed - NCBI

Abstract

Nicotine in tobacco brings illness and death to millions of people. Yet nicotine in its pure form has the potential to be a valuable pharmaceutical agent. Nicotine fairly specifically binds to the cholinergic nicotinic gating site on cationic ion channels in receptors throughout the body. This action stimulates the release of a variety of neurotransmitters including especially catecholamines and serotonin. When chronically taken, nicotine may result in: (1) positive reinforcement, (2) negative reinforcement, (3) reduction of body weight, (4) enhancement of performance, and protection against; (5) Parkinson's disease (6) Tourette's disease (7) Alzheimers disease, (8) ulcerative colitis and (9) sleep apnea. The reliability of these effects varies greatly but justifies the search for more therapeutic applications for this interesting compound.

Growing List of Positive Effects of Nicotine Seen in Neurode... : Neurology Today

A new randomized, placebo-controlled study found “significant nicotine-associated improvements in attention, memory, and psychomotor speed,” with excellent safety and tolerability in patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment.

The potential for nicotine has been borne out in other recent trials. At the University of Vermont College of Medicine, a small, randomized 12-week trial is now underway testing whether nicotine can reduce impulsivity in people with Parkinson disease.
“Nicotine has been associated with a reduction in impulsivity in ADHD,” said the study's principal investigator, James Boyd, MD, assistant professor of neurology. “It could hypothetically normalize decision-making.”

Cigarette smoking and radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis

"Possibly high levels of nicotine exposure could have anti‐inflammatory effects, with beneficial consequences on RA disease progression. However, global health risks associated with smoking are much greater than those potential benefits. In particular, the cardiovascular hazards of smoking certainly outweigh the potential anti-inflammatory benefits of nicotine."

When I showed this Swiss study to my doctor (before ecigs were well known), he said (paraphrasing) 'If there was a way to isolate the inhalation of nicotine without using cigarettes that would be great.' I showed him my ecig and demonstrated it. Told him how it worked, what the ingredients were. He said, I don't have a problem with that.

 

[DC2]

Laugesen stated all those years ago that, "It is impossible for e-cigarettes to cause lung cancer". That statement still holds good today because no one has disproved it, and indeed no new information has even put its veracity in question.

However there are certain vaping modes that appear to elevate risk for inhalation of non-benign compounds in significant quantity, although we don't yet know what the implications are, and probably won't for many years to come. It takes decades of abuse before the effects of smoking are visible, so we can probably expect the same for vaping. Lung cancer doesn't seem a likely outcome but it is probably naive to think that all vaping is harmless.

What has Laugesen been up to lately? Haven't heard anything from him in awhile.

 

[DC2]

Pretty sure one could make the cases that there is more evidence that using nicotine without tobacco combustion is more beneficial than it is harmful.

That is a belief that I strongly subscribe to, and the reason why I continue to use nicotine when I am not even slightly addicted to it at this point.
And I've been making that very same argument for years now, although it hasn't really caught on yet.

 

[DC2]

Yet nicotine in its pure form has the potential to be a valuable pharmaceutical agent.

This is also a central argument that I have been making for years.

The end game is that Big Pharma wants to own and control nicotine.
And they have big plans for providing nicotine as a drug.

But they have a few "loose ends" they need to clean up before they can do so.
And WE are the "loose ends" that need cleaning up.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

This is also a central argument that I have been making for years.

The end game is that Big Pharma wants to own and control nicotine.
And they have big plans for providing nicotine as a drug.

But they have a few "loose ends" they need to clean up before they can do so.
And WE are the "loose ends" that need cleaning up.

Totally agree with this, they tried to get it declared a drug in the 2009 fiasco and were shot down by the district court. BP and their minions have spent the last 5 years planning a way to kill it in the wild in a safe form so they can bring it out as the latest miracle drug at ridiculous prices.

They cannot do this as long as e-cigarettes exist and we can self medicate with out paying them.

IMO the FDA does not care about our health, they only worry about their paymasters bottom line. See Chantix.

 

[DC2]

I'm glad someone gets it.

 

[AndriaD]

Laugesen stated all those years ago that, "It is impossible for e-cigarettes to cause lung cancer". That statement still holds good today because no one has disproved it, and indeed no new information has even put its veracity in question.

However there are certain vaping modes that appear to elevate risk for inhalation of non-benign compounds in significant quantity, although we don't yet know what the implications are, and probably won't for many years to come. It takes decades of abuse before the effects of smoking are visible, so we can probably expect the same for vaping. Lung cancer doesn't seem a likely outcome but it is probably naive to think that all vaping is harmless.

I learned, very much to my own discomfort, that vaping is far from harmless, and it's not the nicotine that has the potential for causing harm -- it's the PG/VG. Those two chemicals, separately or in some combination, seem essential for vaping, since they're the chemicals that actually produce vapor -- but the fact is that they produce it from the water in the vaper's body, which is why everyone is always yelling about dehydration. Few mention one of the consequences of dehydration, electrolyte imbalance, which is a far worse problem; once the electrolytes are out of whack, you could drink enough water to float a battleship and it wouldn't do a bit of good, in fact it could do even worse harm, by flushing even more electrolytes from the body. Maybe this isn't a huge problem for most vapers, as most people don't have a pre-existing bad case of dehydration when they start vaping, but the fact that this potential exists for some vapers gives the lie to vaping being "harmless" -- harm reduction is meaningless if you end up having a heart attack because your electrolytes are so messed up from dehydration.

Andria