How Long Would It Take For Ecigs To Give You Cancer?

[Our House]

Hi Guys,

I'm trying to put together a side-by-side comparison (analogs vs. ecigs) for people to use on their websites. One of the most important items on this chart will be:

Average number of years before getting cancer
Traditional Cigarette Smoking - [40]*
Electronic Cigarette Smoking - [1,300,000]*

Other examples include:

Risk of fire
Traditional Cigarette Smoking - [Yes]
Electronic Cigarette Smoking - [No]

Number of known carcinogens
Traditional Cigarette Smoking - [60]*
Electronic Cigarette Smoking - [1]*

Cost per pack
Traditional Cigarette Smoking - [$4-$10]*
Electronic Cigarette Smoking - [$1-$4]*

etc. etc.

*Obviously these numbers aren't accurate. However, I feel that getting some good stats here would totally put things into perspective and end a lot of the fear mongering.

Anyone here feel like helping with math, stats, and assumptions?

 

[happily]

do you have a known carcinogen in e=cigs or was that just for effect

 

[Ridewithme38]

What kind of batteries are in E-Cigarettes? The chances of them melting down/blowing up? Can atomizers cause fires? I don't think its as easy as yes or no!

 

[Our House]

do you have a known carcinogen in e=cigs or was that just for effect

Just for effect. The whole idea is to see if we can take something like the FDA report and use it to our benefit. IMO, how long it takes to get cancer is the absolute best way to accomplish this. Showing how insignificant the FDA's "findings" are is very important.

 

[happily]

Good Idea...........after you show how insignificant their findings are we really need to get people and the media asking"WHY, WHY OH WHY" would the FDA be doing this

 

[ProtoType]

If you take the ingredients found in a cigarette and place it side-by-side with the ingredients in the eliquid is enough for me. But for the public and the medica, maybe not.

So yes, definitely, the age to achieve cancer is the best component in spinning the FDA's finding against themselves. And once this nitrosamines are removed from eliquid altogether and companies move towards using synthesized nicotine then the issue becomes irrelevant.

The only other issue I can think of is what happens in the long term of introducing PG into the spongy tissues of the lungs.

 

[ProtoType]

I meant "media". Sorry for the typo.

 

[DaBrat]

Not sure we can say how long if would take you to get cancer for one thing or another. Some people are genetically predisposed. My Grandma smoked filterless Pall Malls til she was over 100 years old. You would have to think about the combinations of toxins.. etc ... etc....

That being said as a previous poster said... last list of toxins (that the smoker AND Bystanders are subjected to) would probabyl be the most convincing argument...

Hey has anyone ever thought about contacting that website 'The Truth?'.... lol they are probably part of the FDA

 

[DaBrat]

I went out and looked into their website. Seems the 'neither love nor hate smokers but want to put the truth out there'. So I put my 2 cents into their contact us form and sent away. Maybe they will encourage the FDA to tell the TRUTH.

 

[TropicalBob]

That is a crazy idea. There is not nearly enough information to even generalize about cancer, must less relate it to an individual. Dump this or the wrath of every health organization in the country will come down on you.

Comparing anything about a drug product (which FDA says e-cigs are) to a tobacco products will not be productive. It's a waste of time. We act on our beliefs and hopes, but have far too little science to go forth making claims and comparisons that are not supported by any peer-reviewed research.

We can tell our stories. We can tell what e-smoking has been to us. We can say how we've reacted.

But forget being John the E-Baptist for The Cause.

 

[DaBrat]

That is a crazy idea. There is not nearly enough information to even generalize about cancer, must less relate it to an individual. Dump this or the wrath of every health organization in the country will come down on you.

Comparing anything about a drug product (which FDA says e-cigs are) to a tobacco products will not be productive. It's a waste of time. We act on our beliefs and hopes, but have far too little science to go forth making claims and comparisons that are not supported by any peer-reviewed research.

We can tell our stories. We can tell what e-smoking has been to us. We can say how we've reacted.

But forget being John the E-Baptist for The Cause.

But I think Bob that this is the point. The FDA is trying to place the label 'Drug' on this device whereas the open market distribution of this product is where it will do the most good.

They need to quit claiming that it is a smoking cessation dcevice based on a few cranks that use that verbage. If anything they should outlaw the verbage not blatantly attack the product. Had the FDA come out and said that E-Cigs were as bad or worse than cigs, with the data to back it up, I would have happily paid heed. There just seems something really sneaky and underhanded about what they said, moreover what they DID NOT say.

A comparison to tobacco cigs was called for yet they chose to ignore that avenue. Why? Big Pharma? Big Tobacco? I know that they have been inundated with the harm reduction philosophy but did nothing to prove or disprove the device for this purpose. Instead, they rang a Fire Bell in the middle of church...DANGER..... STAY AWAY!!!

We both know with all the research into tobacco smoking, they have that data. According to their release the data in their statement was from months ago.. .why no comparison? Inquiring minds want to know.

IMHO the FDA did not give facts making the product more dangerous than analogs because they COULD NOT. Imagine if they had REALLY found that they were more dangerous than analogs. That fire bell would have been a siren and there would have been a 300 page dissertation on the toxic levels of whatever.

So I ask, if they ARE safer than analogs why the hurry to keep them out of the public hands. If this device is indeed safer, they should be giving em out on street corners like clean needles and condoms.

 

[TheIllustratedMan]

I have to agree with Bob here. This is just as irresponsible as the FDA's press release. I say drop it.

[EDIT] By the by, getting in touch with the Truth campaign is an excellent idea. Emailed.

 

[Our House]

Well, I'm sure about one thing...

If a dangerous substance is 10PPB in one "cigarette" worth of an ecig and the same dangerous substance is 6300PPB in an analog cigarette, then it's easy to say that this chemical is 630 times LESS dangerous in ecigs. This is simple math and it doesn't require a degree in rocket science.

As far as taking it further towards resulting in cancer...

I agree that it's difficult to do. But just because you or I or TropicalBob aren't sophisticated enough to work something like that out doesn't mean it's not possible. Maybe there's a Stephen Hawking esque chemist floating around here that can handle it. Maybe there's less to it than we actually think. The reason I started this thread was to reach out and see if any of those people were floating around, not to get shot down by nay-sayers who haven't even tried.

 

[TheIllustratedMan]

A comparison between the levels of TSNAs being ingested by the average user on a daily basis is fine. Saying that those levels will give you cancer in x amount of time is irresponsible. There are many factors that need to be taken into account when discussing formation of cancerous cells, and it's not an exact science. That avenue isn't going to work, but there are plenty of other avenues of discussion that will. It's just as important to not put out bad information and speculation as it is to put out good information.

 

[Our House]

It's just as important to not put out bad information and speculation as it is to put out good information.

I agree. This is why we use ballpark average figures. There must be a stat (I haven't looked) somewhere on how long it takes the average pack-a-day smoker to develop cancer. Granted, some are more prone to it and others never get it, and there are many other variables involved, but this is why we use averages. Giving extreme examples to the contrary wouldn't negate the average. It can still easily be good science.

EDIT: Something like this is a start for analogs (not sure how reliable the source is):

Smoking and Cancer Mortality - Swivel

If this can't be done, that's fine. I just thought it would be a great quick & easy thing to show to the general public in order to help put the FDA report into perspective.

 

[DisMan]

Average number of years before getting cancer
Traditional Cigarette Smoking - [40]*
Electronic Cigarette Smoking - [1,300,000]*

Technically, you can get cancer from any one drag of either device or breathing smoggy air. All it takes is one carcinogen to get through a cell wall and take control of that cell. Then it can multiply and mutate several cells within the body. When you think about all of this, it is rather amazing how much the body does defend against on a daily basis.

Risk of fire
Traditional Cigarette Smoking - [Yes]
Electronic Cigarette Smoking - [No]

This would be incorrect. Unattended battery chargers have already caused fires on a few occassions.

Number of known carcinogens
Traditional Cigarette Smoking - [60]*
Electronic Cigarette Smoking - [1]*

This is an unknown. It depends on the juice. Don't forget that lead poisoning testing and so on has not been conducted on the material makeup of the e-cig and the mesh. You have no idea what is truly in these things. Especially when they come from a country that is very well known for poisons inside common items.

Cost per pack
Traditional Cigarette Smoking - [$4-$10]*
Electronic Cigarette Smoking - [$1-$4]*

This would be the only one I would agree with. It is financially advantageous to smoke electronically.

I know your numbers are skewed and I respect that. However, I wouldn't even attempt to go down a side by side comparison with analogs on a health route. Until the juices are batch tested and regulated, you do know the risks associated with them.

In the end, Smoking Everywhere kills people, NJoy does not...that's what the latest test brings to question. Why is there a variation? How can we eliminate variations? How do we eliminate risk? Where's the rules on manufacturing and materials?

Remember, all this stuff is made in countries where there are very few, if any, legal obligations to the public.

 

[Our House]

Different approach (since the first one seems to be bombing ):

Is it possible to say ecigs are X times less harmful than analogs based on the following...

Ecigs contain 1/60th the carcinogens that analogs contain.
Ecigs' carcinogen is 1/630th the dosage of the same carcinogen in analog cigs.
Therefore...

Will anything along those lines ever produce a concrete conclusion?

 

[ashdaburned]

Making up claims is a BIG no no. That will do nothing but harm the e-cig image in the long run. If anything the FDA should be harsh. if they are too lenient then things slip past. They can blow things out of proportion all day long, and the general public won't even bat an eye. The moment we start doing it, then it gets scrutinized and ruins the image. this is already being done by many reseller's and it needs to stop really.

EDIT* Until FDA approved tests are run it is the same thing.

 

[Serenna]

If the FDA thinks they can tax ejuice it will be approved!

They don't care about our health, look at the things that are regulated by them and kills us, peanut butter for example...

The only problem besides tax is big tobacco companies have to make money.

 

[ProtoType]

Our House,


Are you trying to gather information for internet statistics or actually get a scientific publication on this along with the statistics to legitimization?