E-cigs are 95%-99% safer than smoking cigarettes.
I believe ecigs are safer than cigs.
Where did you get your percentages though?
Didn't the study do that? I am sure there are such particles in vapour, but the question is what levels are considered acceptable and not harmful and who determines such standards. To think heating anything with any type of heating element doesn't release chemicals or particles is silly. Boiling water releases chemicals...
Yes, what is acceptable levels.....well we don't know yet. But the dose makes the poison, yes.
The problem with many of these topics is that people either don't read the entire study---and that is because 1) the studies are often only in abstract format, which means that you're not even getting all the info, or 2) the study is being regurgitated by one side or the other, and leaves out ESSENTIAL information.
And example would be this topic, which was only up for a total of 5 hours before it was closed:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...on/564770-drug-resistant-bacteria-e-cigs.html
And yet, it is research that actually makes a case that vaping is harm reduction (not harm free).
(for vapers who can't handle any research at all that doesn't claim that vaping is 100% safe, then don't bother reading further. Because I don't read your posts .....you would just be the polar opposite of ANTZ, i.e. extremist view with no room for gray areas, so I have no problem if you don't read mine. )
I find it difficult to remain objectively informed about health and ecigs if topics and studies that point out some of vaping's risks (and we know there are risks, which is why vaping is called HARM REDUCTION not harm free) without being earnestly discussed and debated to a logical conclusion. (Scientifically, not emotionally).
For me, there were a number of useful things in a similar study presented at the 2014 American Thoracic Society International Conference.
Basically, the study by Laura E. Crotty Alexander, MD. (VA researcher and asst. professor of medicine in pulmonary and critical care at UCSD) found:
Exposure to ecigarette vapor increased the virulence of bacteria, helping MSRA escape being killed by antimicrobial peptides and macrophages.
(Real cigarettes did worse).
They grew MRSA in culture w/vapor concentrations similar to inhalers on the market.
They tested for biochemical changes in the culture known to promote pathogen virulence.
They introduced epithelial cesll and alveolar macrophage killing assays.
Crotty Alexander suggested the rapid change in pH induced by ecig vapor may be one contribution.
(Real cigarettes did worse).
Now, maybe it's just me, but it seems that if we are promoting vaping as a HARM REDUCTION METHOD, then this research is actually a positive for harm reduction.
Yet, because it's not 100% positive, and doesn't say there is zero risk to vaping, it will get dunned, doctors made fun of as usual, and ......and all links to the study "broken". (So I won't bother to post links to the study).
This just makes no sense to me.
Next, when they used a mouse model of pneumonia, MRSA had 4X greater survival in the lungs when exposed to tobacco smoke. But w/ e-vapor, MSRA there was only a 3-fold higher survival .
This again looks to me like true harm reduction: ie
vaping's effect on certain drug resistant pathogens is clearly less damaging than cigarettes.
I don't see any place the researcher said otherwise. Therefore, I see no reason to break the link ---- however, I did notice that in regurgitating the study on some internet sites, the ANTZ do
not mention that Dr. Laura Crotty found that real cigarettes did more damage........they just left that part out.
I certainly don't want to be guilty of the same thing though, arguing for "the other side".
I think it's great that more and more studies about vaping are being done, because I believe all knowledge is useful, even if it leads you to do further studies because you didn't agree with the prior ones.
That is what science is about, making inquiries. The more the better.
