im making the transition from cigarettes to vaping. i was just wondering if there are any studies on the safety of e cigs?
how safe is vaping?
- Thread starter robertdeuce28
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Quite a few. Go to CASAA and you will find the results of several. Click on the banner at the bottom of my post to go to CASAA. Without a doubt, it is 99% safer than smoking (and my doctor agrees with that conclusion)
fyi: many of us prefer the term PV (personal vaporizer) over e-cigs. Trying to break the association as much as possible.
And welcome to ECF.
fyi: many of us prefer the term PV (personal vaporizer) over e-cigs. Trying to break the association as much as possible.
And welcome to ECF.
everytime i post, i question what the correct terminology for the devices are, now i know thanks. i love my personal vaporizer
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...apor-less-injurious-than-cigarette-smoke.html
Check put this post about the safety of e-cigs
Check put this post about the safety of e-cigs
Long term effects have not been proven yet, but short term research has shown little to no harmful effects. I'm feeling much better after 4 months of vaping than I did after 17 years of smoking. I'll take my chances with the vaping.
There have been quite a few studies. One done actually showed that ecigs are about not quite exactly the same but pretty close to using a nicatrol inhailer. Been awhile since I read that one so soon as I find it again I will post a link. CASAA.org has a lot of info as well.
i was wondering about this too, i used to have an undying belief they were 100% safe untill a customer at the gas station i work at told me her pulmonologist (lung doctor) said they are extremely unsafe and that pulmonologists all around are trying to get them banned
Study: E-Cig Vapor 'Less Injurious' Than Cigarette Smoke
Independent research continues to support electronic cigarettes as safe alternative
By MELISSA VONDER HAAR
Tobacco E-News | March 13, 2013
BUFFALO, N.Y.-- A newly released independent study of the chemical constituents of electronic cigarette vapor shows that e-cigarettes drastically reduce a user's exposure to various chemicals found in tobacco cigarettes. Titled "Levels of Selected Carcinogens and Toxicants in Vapour From Electronic Cigarettes" and published by Tobacco Control, the study concluded that e-cigarettes could be a promising harm-reduction tool.
"The results of this study support the proposition that the vapor from e-cigarettes is less injurious than the smoke from cigarettes," wrote the report's lead author, Maciej L. Goniewicz of the Buffalo, N.Y.-based Roswell Park Cancer Institute. 'Thus one would expect that if a person switched from conventional cigarettes to e-cigarettes the exposure to toxic chemicals and related adverse health effects would be reduced."
Goniewicz and his fellow scientists analyzed levels of selected carbonyl compounds, volatile organic compounds, tobacco-specific nitrosamines and metals found in the vapor of 12 different e-cigarette brands, comparing the results to the levels found in both tobacco cigarettes and in a medicinal nicotine inhaler.
The report found that "levels of selected toxic compounds found in the smoke from a conventional cigarette were 9-450-fold higher than levels in the vapor of an e-cigarette. … Exposure to acrolein, an oxidant and respiratory irritant thought to be a major contributor to cardiovascular disease from smoking, is 15 times lower on average in e-cigarette vapor compared with cigarette smoke. The amounts of toxic metals and aldehydes in e-cigarettes are trace amounts and are comparable with amounts contained in an examined therapeutic product."
There was still some risk associated with compounds found in e-cigarette vapor, particularly an exposure to carcinogenic formaldehyde. The study found similar amounts of formaldehyde in tobacco cigarettes, e-cigarettes and medicinal inhalers--although the amount of formaldehyde found in the 12 different brands of e-cigarettes ranged from 3.2 micrograms per 150 puffs (comparable to the levels from the nicotine inhaler) to 56.1 micrograms per 150 puffs.
In his "Tobacco Analyses" blog, Michael Siegel theorized that the formaldehyde could be the result of the heating of propylene glycol or the oxidation or hydrolysis of glycerin and advocated further research.
Even with the formaldehyde findings, the study--which was not funded by e-cigarette companies, but by the Ministry of Science & Higher Education of Poland and the National Institutes of Health (NIH)--provides strong evidence in support of e-cigarettes.
"Our findings are consistent with the idea that substituting tobacco cigarettes with e-cigarettes may substantially reduce exposure to selected tobacco-specific toxicants," the report said. "E-cigarettes as a harm-reduction strategy among smokers unwilling to quit, warrants further study."
Source: Tobacco E-News
Related Terms: Tobacco
Independent research continues to support electronic cigarettes as safe alternative
By MELISSA VONDER HAAR
Tobacco E-News | March 13, 2013
BUFFALO, N.Y.-- A newly released independent study of the chemical constituents of electronic cigarette vapor shows that e-cigarettes drastically reduce a user's exposure to various chemicals found in tobacco cigarettes. Titled "Levels of Selected Carcinogens and Toxicants in Vapour From Electronic Cigarettes" and published by Tobacco Control, the study concluded that e-cigarettes could be a promising harm-reduction tool.
"The results of this study support the proposition that the vapor from e-cigarettes is less injurious than the smoke from cigarettes," wrote the report's lead author, Maciej L. Goniewicz of the Buffalo, N.Y.-based Roswell Park Cancer Institute. 'Thus one would expect that if a person switched from conventional cigarettes to e-cigarettes the exposure to toxic chemicals and related adverse health effects would be reduced."
Goniewicz and his fellow scientists analyzed levels of selected carbonyl compounds, volatile organic compounds, tobacco-specific nitrosamines and metals found in the vapor of 12 different e-cigarette brands, comparing the results to the levels found in both tobacco cigarettes and in a medicinal nicotine inhaler.
The report found that "levels of selected toxic compounds found in the smoke from a conventional cigarette were 9-450-fold higher than levels in the vapor of an e-cigarette. … Exposure to acrolein, an oxidant and respiratory irritant thought to be a major contributor to cardiovascular disease from smoking, is 15 times lower on average in e-cigarette vapor compared with cigarette smoke. The amounts of toxic metals and aldehydes in e-cigarettes are trace amounts and are comparable with amounts contained in an examined therapeutic product."
There was still some risk associated with compounds found in e-cigarette vapor, particularly an exposure to carcinogenic formaldehyde. The study found similar amounts of formaldehyde in tobacco cigarettes, e-cigarettes and medicinal inhalers--although the amount of formaldehyde found in the 12 different brands of e-cigarettes ranged from 3.2 micrograms per 150 puffs (comparable to the levels from the nicotine inhaler) to 56.1 micrograms per 150 puffs.
In his "Tobacco Analyses" blog, Michael Siegel theorized that the formaldehyde could be the result of the heating of propylene glycol or the oxidation or hydrolysis of glycerin and advocated further research.
Even with the formaldehyde findings, the study--which was not funded by e-cigarette companies, but by the Ministry of Science & Higher Education of Poland and the National Institutes of Health (NIH)--provides strong evidence in support of e-cigarettes.
"Our findings are consistent with the idea that substituting tobacco cigarettes with e-cigarettes may substantially reduce exposure to selected tobacco-specific toxicants," the report said. "E-cigarettes as a harm-reduction strategy among smokers unwilling to quit, warrants further study."
Source: Tobacco E-News
Related Terms: Tobacco
Oh.....since a customer said it, I'd better go back to smoking right away! Kinda sounds like the pulmonologists are fearing a dropoff in new patients down the road and the "knee-jerk" reaction is to bash vaping and pray it gets banned.
Sorry Doc, you should have been a Dentist or a mortician. Hahaha!!!
a pulmonologists is probably going to tell you inhaling anything is unsafe and he is probably right,but that aside ive found anyone with a dislike of smokers will automatically find excuses why you shouldn't vape ether,or smokers who just dont want to quit and are afraid vaping might take away there excuse to not quit,in other words until some valid studys have been made that prove there is any harm in vaping i wouldn't worry to much about it.
also you have to figure the FDA and big tobacco really wanted to ban vaping several years back when it started to effect there profits on cigs, you can pretty much guarantee the tobacco company's tested and tried to find anything wrong with vaping that they could but couldn't so never released the results.
A better question should be how hazardous is vaping compared to smoking tobacco. See here is the problem with the illusion of safety. Nothing is actually safe. Life definitely is not safe. Every thing you do has some element of danger be it walking to the store or driving to work or even taking a prescription drug.
The research so far indicates that vaping is far less hazardous than smoking.
As the research so far indicates that in the short term vaping is on par with Pharmaceutical NRTs as far as carcinogens. Honestly that is probably as low as it can really get and still use tobacco as the nicotine source (which is the most economical source of nicotine). Honestly when it comes to my lungs I'm more concerned about inhaling everything other than my vape. I know whats in that, I don't know what is in car exhaust, fumes from burning fuel oil and so on.
Given the choice between unknown long term health effects (though short term effects measure in years is reported to be minimal) of vaping compared with COPD, Emphysema, and lung cancer I'll take my chances with vaping. I'm convinced that the problem with smoking isn't the nicotine--its the tar and other stuff in the smoke.
The research so far indicates that vaping is far less hazardous than smoking.
As the research so far indicates that in the short term vaping is on par with Pharmaceutical NRTs as far as carcinogens. Honestly that is probably as low as it can really get and still use tobacco as the nicotine source (which is the most economical source of nicotine). Honestly when it comes to my lungs I'm more concerned about inhaling everything other than my vape. I know whats in that, I don't know what is in car exhaust, fumes from burning fuel oil and so on.
Given the choice between unknown long term health effects (though short term effects measure in years is reported to be minimal) of vaping compared with COPD, Emphysema, and lung cancer I'll take my chances with vaping. I'm convinced that the problem with smoking isn't the nicotine--its the tar and other stuff in the smoke.
Please provide evidence because as far as I'm aware BT did Not fight against Njoy or CASAA or Smoke Everywhere/ Anywhere et al. when the FDA lost their first Ban attempt nor did they stand beside the FDA in support.
Please read a response from Kristin, a CASAA Board Director and Vaping Advocate, regarding Big Tobacco.
Quote:
"Don't forget to say "Sorry Big Pharma" too, because the biggest loser from the growth of e-cigarette market (and you switching to vaping) is Big Pharma, not the tobacco companies. (Remember, the nicotine you use comes from tobacco, too.)
The tobacco companies will benefit from having a far safer alternative to smoking to sell to their customers, so they will get into the market as has already begun. My prediction is that they will profit MOST by selling a high-quality product that keeps people coming back, rather than trying to quit or going back to cigarettes, because e-cigs will eventually have a much higher profit margin. They will work for a better product and work for transparency in product quality and safety in order to regain consumer trust.
The tobacco industry will fight high taxation on e-cigarettes, along side groups like CASAA, because low cost keeps the product appealing to their consumers. They won't want a repeat of what is happening with e-cigarettes. They are already fighting to get smoke-free tobacco to be allowed to remove misleading warning requirements that falsely suggest that smoke-free is as hazardous as smoking. This is the first step in getting recognition for low-risk tobacco products, which can be truthfully argued should not be subject to punitive "sin taxes" meant for hazardous products. Many tobacco companies have also been reducing marketing budgets for cigarettes and moving the funds to promoting smoke-free alternatives to counter the ever expanding smoking bans. So they will want their e-cigarette products to be a satisfying alternative to traditional cigarettes so they don't lose customers.
This will result in standard sales taxes on e-cigarettes, but it will also raise the standards for quality and production. Unfortunately, this will result in many smaller companies going out of business, because they will be unable to meet the standards - which will most likely be set in stone by the FDA. However, it could end up being as basic as food-handling standards. It's entirely possible OSHA will also get involved, as employees handling pure nicotine to make the solutions is extremely hazardous. So they will enact safety protocols to which many small companies may not be able to adhere.
Big Pharma, on the other hand, will lose the revolving door of customers who repeatedly use their NRT and other smoking cessation "treatments" that fail 93.6% of the time and result in keeping smokers smoking. Then they get sick and need Big Pharma's "smoking-related disease treatments," which are the real big moneymakers. If people feel that e-cigarettes relatively safe, they won't feel the need to quit and they also won't get smoking related diseases."
End Quote. ref:post #34
My apologies robertdeuce28 (the OP) for getting a little off topic, however, I believe some vapers are still suffering from misplaced 'smoker's guilt' and ANTZ 'propaganda'.
My pulmonologist pretty much said the exact opposite. He would prefer I breath air only but agreed that vaping is much safer than smoking.
Isn't e-Cig better than Smoking?
Not a Pulmonologist (didn't need one as yet), my Family Physician vapes. In fact he was the driving force behind my "finally & seriously looking" for an alternative.
The problem is in the 'awareness'... many smokers still have no clue as to what e-Cigs are, leave alone the vaping industry and the various choices/devices/N-strengths that it offers. Similarly, the masses are unaware as well. Which in turn, isn't doing any good to the progress of the vape industry. And that leads to all sorts of opinion, all unsubstantiated... b'coz no one is seriously studying it.
As someone earlier opined, everything has it's consequences. Nothing is free of risk/s. But, let's see the things is perspective. We all r here being ex-Smokers... it didn't take rocket-science to know that what we were doing was bad - for ourselves - as well as the folks around us... we wanted to quit... but found that difficult... very difficult... we were struggling... nic-patches/gums didn't work... but that we tried them - suggests that we were serious about quitting... then came along e-Cigs (reTerm it as PV if u like) -- and the rest is history... we r now smoke free.
Now, if that's not a good sign (for us, the erstwhile smokers) I don't know what is. Yes, vaping hasn't been studied/researched much. Yes, there r yet many things to find/understand. But, everybody who's sane admits that it's better, way better than smoking. There's no discord in that. Yes, we wouldn't want to put-in anything but "natural air" into our lungs... but that harm's done already... what we r trying to do now is having a healthier alternative.
Therefore, Yes, we don't want to vape either. But if we have to -- isn't Vapour better than Smoke?
Not a Pulmonologist (didn't need one as yet), my Family Physician vapes. In fact he was the driving force behind my "finally & seriously looking" for an alternative.
The problem is in the 'awareness'... many smokers still have no clue as to what e-Cigs are, leave alone the vaping industry and the various choices/devices/N-strengths that it offers. Similarly, the masses are unaware as well. Which in turn, isn't doing any good to the progress of the vape industry. And that leads to all sorts of opinion, all unsubstantiated... b'coz no one is seriously studying it.
As someone earlier opined, everything has it's consequences. Nothing is free of risk/s. But, let's see the things is perspective. We all r here being ex-Smokers... it didn't take rocket-science to know that what we were doing was bad - for ourselves - as well as the folks around us... we wanted to quit... but found that difficult... very difficult... we were struggling... nic-patches/gums didn't work... but that we tried them - suggests that we were serious about quitting... then came along e-Cigs (reTerm it as PV if u like) -- and the rest is history... we r now smoke free.
Now, if that's not a good sign (for us, the erstwhile smokers) I don't know what is. Yes, vaping hasn't been studied/researched much. Yes, there r yet many things to find/understand. But, everybody who's sane admits that it's better, way better than smoking. There's no discord in that. Yes, we wouldn't want to put-in anything but "natural air" into our lungs... but that harm's done already... what we r trying to do now is having a healthier alternative.
Therefore, Yes, we don't want to vape either. But if we have to -- isn't Vapour better than Smoke?
"If all those Smokers in Britain Stopped Smoking Cigarettes and started smoking* e-Cigarettes we would save Five Million Deaths"
Youtube
Prof. John Britton
Royal College of Physicians
*aka Vaping
Youtube
Prof. John Britton
Royal College of Physicians
*aka Vaping
- Status
Similar threads
