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

[Kitabz]

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?

No, it doesn't work like that (as DisMan has already said).

The risk of cancer is a combination of environmental, genetics and random chance. Even for analog smoking the link with [lung] cancer was proven by epidemiology, i.e., statistical analysis comparing non-smokers to smokers and adjusting for other factors.

The only way to "prove" anything with e-cigs would be to compare two groups of people (vape/non-vape) over a long period of time and compare the ratios of diseases between the two groups.

 

[Our House]

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.

Nobody's making up numbers. The whole purpose is to take the "findings" of the FDA (SAME numbers from their report) and use it against them. I started this thread to try and get more specific numbers, not to put forward numbers of my own. (you're taking the example stats in my posts too literally)

We all already know that the FDA's report actually showed ecigs to be safer than we originally thought. How they got to report them as "dangerous" and "toxic cancer causing devices" is beyond me. They're using the same logic that DisMan used in this thread ("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.") and trying to spin it against ecigs. That report could have shown Oxygen to be toxic the way it was structured.

All I'm trying to do is narrow down the facts instead of letting then run rampant with vague "possibilities" about what could or might be. If that's not something welcomed here, I can leave the thread alone and move on.

 

[TropicalBob]

Strongly suggest you act on your own conclusion unless you are a scientist of some acclaim.

Note that Health New Zealand's Dr. Murray Laugesen concluded after more than a year's study of e-smoking that e-smoking is safer than smoking tobacco cigarettes and possibility safe in and of itself. That's as good as it can get at this time. Look up his report and quote it.

 

[Zedayn]

The one figure that really hit home with me was when i first read that is PVs are at a ballpark 100 times safer than analogs, that the smoking death toll in the US could drop from some 475,000 a year to 4,750. Maybe not using those figures exactly, but if you're putting together a side-by-side, that might be one to consider coming up with better numbers for.

 

[vjnnc]

I'm just amazed that the FDA, American Heart and Lung association(s) etc do not push HARD for e-smoking over cigarettes. It just floors me to see how hard they're coming down on these e-cigarettes with the KNOWN health hazard to real smokes; I would be lobbying to ban the real thing!

 

[happily]

I'm just amazed that the FDA, American Heart and Lung association(s) etc do not push HARD for e-smoking over cigarettes. It just floors me to see how hard they're coming down on these e-cigarettes with the KNOWN health hazard to real smokes; I would be lobbying to ban the real thing!

who do you think funds ALA, and ACS .............and the FDA now receives 800 million per year to regulate cigarettes

 

[Moobyghost]

Our country is more concerned with making money that taking care of its people. The sooner people understand this the better. This is why we have to fight for our rights.

 

[ashdaburned]

Nobody's making up numbers. The whole purpose is to take the "findings" of the FDA (SAME numbers from their report) and use it against them. I started this thread to try and get more specific numbers, not to put forward numbers of my own. (you're taking the example stats in my posts too literally)

...

All I'm trying to do is narrow down the facts instead of letting then run rampant with vague "possibilities" about what could or might be. If that's not something welcomed here, I can leave the thread alone and move on.

The problem i have with the posted example stats, is that you put actual numbers on them without scientific proof. And as far as not making up numbers, you actually put in the post that they are not accurate. There will be some who read that and think that they are real. No one here i think means that it shouldn't be done. It NEEDS to be done i think. But with solid numbers that can be backed up with scientific evidence. Which right now only the cost, and carcinogens bit are close to accurate, and can be used. However what we thought with the carcinogens the FDA is trying to say differently. A IMHO i think what that report shows best is that the eliquid needs to be regulated, and that rules need to be set.

 

[Kitabz]

I'm just amazed that the FDA, American Heart and Lung association(s) etc do not push HARD for e-smoking over cigarettes. It just floors me to see how hard they're coming down on these e-cigarettes with the KNOWN health hazard to real smokes; I would be lobbying to ban the real thing!

Sadly, for these people, they seek perfection and have unrealistic expectations of what can be achieved. From their point of view the world would be a better place without cigarettes/tobacco or any other nicotine product (and they may or may not be correct). However we live in a very human and imperfect world so their plans are never going to succeed (just look at narcotics or alcohol prohibition for similar examples).

They are apparently not interested in an imperfect solution (e-cigs) that is likely a vast improvement over the current situation so we end up without any progress at all.

[Of course this is not to say that e-cigs should not be tested and quality controlled; that goes without saying]

[EDIT - there may also be the "lawsuit factor" to all of this - what if a charity started advocating e-cigs over analogs and then it transpires that there is some unintended side effect five years down the line? No charity is going to advocate anything without scientific proof to back up their stance.]

 

[Luv2Vapor]

Don't you think by now most people take FDA findings or non findings with a grain of salt? I mean just a few examples over the years. Decaf coffee is better than caf coffee/ then caf coffee is better than decaf. Peanut butter is good for you/then peanut butter is not good for you. Sugar subsitute is better than sugar/ then sugar subsitute is harmful. Add to that how many Big Pharma drugs went through passage only to be recalled after deaths. Not to mention our kids chewing on toys with lead in them. Then tobacco's long fight even after it was established that it was harmful but still could be sold with a warning and no advertising. Most of these products that were considered harmful when tested on rats are still on the store shelves. We know tobacco is bad for us yet we can buy it because we're adults who read the warnings, the same with sugar subsitutes and decaf coffee, and many sugar free or fat free foods. Or hormones in our meat. I think many of the lead toys have been recalled but can anyone be sure all of them have been identified? I think it's a good idea to test the metals in e cigs and the ingredients in all the brands liquids and cartridges and to regulate them. However, why can't they do this and continue to sell the devices and liquids with warning labels as they await all tests, just as cigarettes, food and prescription medicine are done, as adults we read the warnings and decide from there.

 

[DaBrat]

Don't you think by now most people take FDA findings or non findings with a grain of salt? I mean just a few examples over the years. Decaf coffee is better than caf coffee/ then caf coffee is better than decaf. Peanut butter is good for you/then peanut butter is not good for you. Sugar subsitute is better than sugar/ then sugar subsitute is harmful. Add to that how many Big Pharma drugs went through passage only to be recalled after deaths. Not to mention our kids chewing on toys with lead in them. Then tobacco's long fight even after it was established that it was harmful but still could be sold with a warning and no advertising. Most of these products that were considered harmful when tested on rats are still on the store shelves. We know tobacco is bad for us yet we can buy it because we're adults who read the warnings, the same with sugar subsitutes and decaf coffee, and many sugar free or fat free foods. Or hormones in our meat. I think many of the lead toys have been recalled but can anyone be sure all of them have been identified? I think it's a good idea to test the metals in e cigs and the ingredients in all the brands liquids and cartridges and to regulate them. However, why can't they do this and continue to sell the devices and liquids with warning labels as they await all tests, just as cigarettes, food and prescription medicine are done, as adults we read the warnings and decide from there.

Unfortunately Luv2, I think we are a nation of sheep. There have been several posts about people being warned since this new smoke came out. Personally and shamefully, I had faith that the FDA would actually do its job and protect the health of the people. I beg them to be sure we are getting what we are told. I beg that they insure there is no lead in my PV vaping into my lungs. The irresponsible response that this device is more dangerous than analogs without any supporting data threw a monkey wrench in my faith in this organization.

Had the FDA come out and said so in other ways than a blaring headline I would have followed the rest of the sheep back to my pen. However, the headline; ECigs more dangerous that regular with their data backing up the fact that these devices have no more TSNAs than their approved NRTs makes me wonder why they wanna kill me. They have the data... An organization intrusted with the health of a nation should not pick what they say, that is for politicians and Big Tobacco.

Where is the data that tell me that to continue to smoke analogs would be better for my health since I have tried every quitting method (well except those suppositories in another post) and failed?

 

[Kitabz]

Where is the data that tell me that to continue to smoke analogs would be better for my health since I have tried every quitting method (well except those suppositories in another post) and failed?

The FDA have not (and will not) compare e-cigs to analog cigarettes.
It would be like comparing filter coffee to Red Bull.

They have evaluated e-cigs and compared their content to that of the Nicorette Inhaler and have determined that, at the very least, the quality control of e-cig cartidges/liquid is poor.

 

[DaBrat]

The FDA have not (and will not) compare e-cigs to analog cigarettes.
It would be like comparing filter coffee to Red Bull.

They have evaluated e-cigs and compared their content to that of the Nicorette Inhaler and have determined that, at the very least, the quality control of e-cig cartidges/liquid is poor.

IMHO and thats all it is... The FDA compared the Ecig to a smoking cessation device since all the bruhahawas whether or not they were NRTs. That being said, the FDA is WELL aware that this is also being promoted as a healthier (not saying healthy) alternative to traditional smoking.... that is where the comparison comes in.

Edit: as far as the ONE sample they tested with DG, they even misidentified the purpose of that contaminent. They could not make a blanket statement for all ecigs based on that, again, MHO. That is there job... to be sure what comes over is suitable for human comsumption.

 

[Kitabz]

IMHO and thats all it is... The FDA compared the Ecig to a smoking cessation device since all the bruhahawas whether or not they were NRTs. That being said, the FDA is WELL aware that this is also being promoted as a healthier (not saying healthy) alternative to traditional smoking.... that is where the comparison comes in.

Unfortunately for e-cigs they don't really fall into any of the existing categories: they're neither a tobacco product nor an NRT (although they could be marketed as the latter arguably). I doubt that nicotine gum would ever have been allowed to market had it been marketed as a safer vehicle for consuming nicotine. It is only allowed in the marketplace because it is sold [but not necessarily used] as a short term aid.

 

[Bones]

From what I have read on the subject - only about 4% of tobacco smokers ever get Lung Cancer - To hear the anti-smokers tell it you would assume the figure to be 100% - They speak as though it is an absoute outcome - even though the facts say otherwise -

 

[ladyraj]

Roughly speaking there are about 600 types of cancer out there of which multiple variables would have to be analyzed for the percentage of probable risk that each variable would carry. The problem with any of these studies involving inhalation and the effects on lungs is how does one control for air pollution, exhaust fumes, campfires, fireplaces, roasted and blackened marshmellows, and any other environmental exposure. Once researchers solve for these confounders we may be getting somewhere with true analysis and real risk ratios...until then...they're blowing smoke.

 

[Luv2Vapor]

I don't know last I heard grilling food was carcinogenic but yet I still see grills for sale. So my point is I believe the FDA and the SEC are politically (lobbyists) motivated. By the way the Federal Reserve is about as federal as Fed Ex. We have so many things available to us that are sold that are established as harmful, so why ban one? What is the consistant criteria? I would like to make sure there is no lead in the PV's and the liquids should be made as safe as possible. I agree with all that. But until all tests are in can't the FDA just make the companies market their products with the warnings "still under testing buy and consume at your own risk". No advertising. Then insist on the tests. Improve the products. Isn't that how most things are handled. Even prescription drugs, have you ever read the side effects sheet many times it's worse than the original problem the person is taking medicine for. That's why I say I take FDA's information with a grain of salt. I'm skeptical.

 

[DaBrat]

It seems that the FDA is counting on the fact that most people will read the headline and run screaming from the room. Most people will not even stop to think about the 4000+ chemicals in analogs or the multiple carcinogens. IMHO this does a huge disservice to the general population.

To state that kids will try this device burns me up. IF outlawed, those same kids will just smoke analogs. I see it daily picking my teen up from school so I don't want to hear about protecting the next generation. They are dying too!

Wasn't the pont of adding the tax to make them less affordable for kids? E-Cigs are MORE affordable? Gimme a break. I haven't smoked in over a month but for some reason I smell Tobacco.

 

[MaxUT]

..."WHY, WHY OH WHY" would the FDA be doing this

Because the government makes money -- lots of it -- from taxing tobacco. They make less if people switch to vaping untaxed juice.

Because certain types of people want to place more and more limits on our pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

 

[happily]

Because the government makes money -- lots of it -- from taxing tobacco. They make less if people switch to vaping untaxed juice.

Because certain types of people want to place more and more limits on our pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

yeah that was pretty much the point I was getting at..We need the media to ask themselves why? (you and I already know)