If you had to put a percentage on how much less harmful vaping is than smoking?

[patkin]

Based on my health improvement... lower blood sugar, from high to normal blood pressure, higher oxygen saturation levels with resulting muscles strength, clear lungs and greater lung capacity, stronger sense of smell and taste, no more white crud on my tongue, no more allergy symptoms... on and on... I would agree with the 90% most think. When you go from riding a cart to shop to walking 1/2 to a mile a day... something's pretty drastically less harmful.

 

[HK-47]

I guess his point is just that it's not as harmless as I want to think it is? He doesn't want to start vaping.

Query: So am I assuming correctly that your friend, who is smoking unnamed substances, is criticizing or questioning the safety of your choice to vape versus smoking traditional cigarettes? He is aware that by inhaling smoke of any kind he's at nearly the same risk as you (were) because he's inhaling actual burning hot material rife with carbon monoxide and other toxicity? Many of the carcinogenic effects that can be tied in to smoking are a result of breathing in smoke itself and secondarily what the smoke came from.

Sounds a bit hypocritical of your friend, if you ask me. That is one respect where vaping is SIGNIFICANTLY less risky than smoking, as there is no actual burning involved in vaping even though there can be some heat.

 

[Snickerfritz]

Query: So am I assuming correctly that your friend, who is smoking unnamed substances, is criticizing or questioning the safety of your choice to vape versus smoking traditional cigarettes? He is aware that by inhaling smoke of any kind he's at nearly the same risk as you (were) because he's inhaling actual burning hot material rife with carbon monoxide and other toxicity? Many of the carcinogenic effects that can be tied in to smoking are a result of breathing in smoke itself and secondarily what the smoke came from.

Sounds a bit hypocritical of your friend, if you ask me. That is one respect where vaping is SIGNIFICANTLY less risky than smoking, as there is no actual burning involved in vaping even though there can be some heat.

Well, the thing is, I had quit smoking (tobacco) for 10+ years, some friends of mine picked up a few of these things (PVs), I puffed on a few times and decided I had to have one for myself. The thing just is, I love "smoking", and since I've restricted myself from cigarettes, I'm basically just miserable and irritable if there are no other unnamed substances around to smoke. My friend is fully aware that inhaling smoke of any kind can be harmful.

 

[bazmonkey]

A Swedish study (this is from the wiki page on PG, reference 37) found a "strong" connection between concentrations of airborne PG in households and children developing asthma and allergic reactions.

hmm.. im really not sure what study you are referring to, but it seems to contradict this:

"The report of the 3 years' study of the clinical application of the disinfection of air by glycol vapors in a children's convalescent home showed a marked reduction in the number of acute respiratory infections occurring in the wards treated with both propylene and triethylene glycols. Whereas in the control wards 132 infections occurred during the course of the three winters, there were only 13 such instances in the glycol wards during the same period."

I'm referring to what I said I was. Wiki page for PG, reference 37:

"(Choi, Schmidbauer m.fl. ("010): Common Household Chemicals and the Allergy Risks in Pre-School Age Children. PLoS ONE 5(10): e13423, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013423.)"

The study you referenced was studying the use of PG for it's virucide/bactericide properties, not the irritation on the lungs it can cause. It showed that there were less infections in a convalescent home (a nursing home, a room full of sick children). It said nothing about lung irritation from the PG, only that people were less likely to get an *infection* when it's pumped into the air of a long-term hospital.

 

[DC2]

Just about any Tobacco Harm Reduction expert will tell you that vaping is probably around 99% safer than smoking.
Does that mean anything? Who knows. But that is what they will tell you if asked.

One thing I can tell you is that no one here has a better answer.

 

[Ryedan]

Just about any Tobacco Harm Reduction expert will tell you that vaping is probably around 99% safer than smoking.
Does that mean anything? Who knows. But that is what they will tell you if asked.

One thing I can tell you is that no one here has a better answer.

Exactly what I was thinking DC2, but you said it better than I would have

 

[HK-47]

Clinical research into the use of electronic cigarettes

I just found this organization a little bit ago, but it appears to be a regulatory body in the UK regarding e-cigs. They offer an ISE Seal (Industry Standard of Excellence) to vendors who are compliant with laws regarding orders, shipping, safety, weights and measures, etc.

In this clinical data I browsed over a few of these studies. Here is some proof of what you're looking for with numbers and some studies to back it up.

 

[klynnn]

All I can go on is how much better I feel which is at least 90%.

 

[DC2]

It sounds like your friend has some misconceptions about nicotine.

 

[generic mutant]

Just about any Tobacco Harm Reduction expert will tell you that vaping is probably around 99% safer than smoking.
Does that mean anything? Who knows. But that is what they will tell you if asked.

One thing I can tell you is that no one here has a better answer.

The "probably" is key.

Scientifically, long term, we don't know. There is no data.

 

[John Alexander]

I checked with my lungs and they said 100%.

 

[Snickerfritz]

It sounds like your friend has some misconceptions about nicotine.

You have some specific knowledge about nicotine? Inhaling pure nicotine like this is completely harmless to the throat, lungs, etc.? This is the point I want to know.

 

[generic mutant]

I repeat: There is no data. Vaporizers haven't been used by enough people for long enough for there to be data. Anyone that tells you otherwise is lying.

 

[eratikmind]

Whatever the percentage is, I know that I feel better, I do not wake up in the morning hacking a lung out, so to speak, and I do not carry that awful ash tray odor around with me. Since I have been vaping, I do not have to deal with the morning sinus issues, which I had before.


- Andy . . . Challenge in lieu of being challenged.

 

[Snickerfritz]

Would you say it's a legitimate concern? Are there reasons for there to be concern? Isn't there data on the isolated effects of nicotine? People have been smoking forever.

 

[generic mutant]

There is data on nicotine. Look here;

Medical Research
Health, Safety and E-Smoking

You'll be consuming it at a different dose, into different tissues, with different other chemicals, so data on smoke-free nicotine is helpful, but doesn't tell you the whole story.

From what I'm reading, nicotine is increasingly looking less harmful - perhaps even as innocuous as caffeine. It's the other chemicals in smoke, and vapour, that are potentially worrying.

There are other things, like theatrical fog machines, that give us a bit more of a picture of long term effects. But people don't suck on those all day, and they probably use different methods of wicking and atomising, so it still isn't the same.

 

[YKruss]

There is much more data through Bill Godshall references in his reply to FDA:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/399621-fda-comment-deadline-tonight-smokeless-tobacco-warnings.html#post9124624

 

[YKruss]

Couple more:

Latest Studies Confirm E-Cigarette Vapor Safety

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Neurology Today: Growing List of Positive Effects of Nicotine Seen in Neurodegenerative Disorders -- American Academy of Neurology

Researchers Investigate (Horrors!) Nicotine's Potential Benefits - New York Times

Electronic Cigarettes Not Linked To Heart Damage

 

[generic mutant]

I think at this stage it's a reasonable inference that vaping is safer than cigarettes.

And that part of the reason that many in the medical field are reluctant to come out in favour of vaping is political and social, not medical.

E.g.
1) Fear that vaping normalises smoking again, and will lead to new nicotine addicts.
2) The belief that people should just quit outright, and that vaping gives people a perceived 'get out of jail free card'.
3) Corruption of the science. There's a lot of money in selling cigarettes. And a lot in palliative care for cancer / emphysema sufferers too.

But if anyone tells you it's definitely safe, run away from them, quickly, without looking backwards. We just do not know yet.

(I'd add that this applies to passive vaping too. This is less clear cut, admittedly, because the data from fog-machines provides a model. It seems it isn't "Safe", it's just massively safer than smoke)

 

[Abe_Katz]

Generic Mutant, no behavior is 100% safe. Each behavior has consequences and risks associated with doing it. This is why safety is only understandable in comparison.

For example drinking tea is relatively safe. However, if the most popular method of getting caffeine was smoking tea leaves we would still see the same problems that we see with smoking tobacco. I think the primary harm caused by smoking is inhaling the smoke and not the tobacco itself. Long term studies of smokeless tobacco use have born this out as well.

Do we know that long term use of PVs is "safe" (and by that the risks associated with such are minimal in comparison to smoking--its only real comparison)? No. Mostly because these devices haven't been around for decades or centuries. That said the short term data in the last four or five years seems to indicate that vaping is on par with snus and nasal snuff in its harms to the user and to bystanders. That is to say the harms are minimal.