" Is Nicotine Addiction Safe In The Long Term And You" : The Debate

[Mediaguy]

Does anyone have that link to the study where they fed rats nicotine for something like two years, and studied them during and after, when they weaned them off. I remember the conclusions were that no physiological consequences were observed and that apparently smoker-vaper-doses of nicotine are actually harmless... ?

 

[Stubby]

------
This is where I got that line about Nicotine helping spread cancer once you already have the cells in your body. I cannot seem to find a lot of information on it but I know that all nicotine comes from tobacco and as such they must contain TSNAs (tobacco specific nitrosamine). I get that this is created only in the curing process but I also understand economics to know that they are going to acquire tobacco in the cheapest way possible to do their extractions and that is going to be by the traditional means.

Others mentioned that there isn't a lot of study on nicotine outside of tobacco. The best place to look for this information is in nicotine replacement therapies such as gum or patches. The whole thing that started this for me was I did a "quit smoking calendar" you know to see what has changed for the better since I quit. I noticed a particular entry that said if you are on the patch or gum that you are still at the same risk for pancreatic cancer and thus the debate began for me.

There is TSNA in e-liquid, but in very low levels. What the studies on snus have shown us is that low TSNA levels are simple not a cancer risk. There has been no connection to snus and any form of cancer, including pancreatic cancer.

http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2011/02/new-study-smokeless-tobacco-is-not.html

I would expect the same long term results for vaping.

 

[ShogaNinja]

The misstatement made is that it is not tobacco that causes the problem, it's smoking. Those are two very different things and it is best not to confuse them.

As for the OP, in absolute terms perhaps nicotine is not the best thing to do if you are looking to lead some type of life of purity, but the harm caused by nicotine is extremely low compared to smoking. We actually do know the long term effect of nicotine from the long term studies on smokeless tobacco. If my memory serves me right, the long term use of smokeless tobacco from the US and Sweden will on average take about 15 days off a persons life. Compare that to the how-ever-many years smoking takes off. To try and say that nicotine use is even remotely related to the risk of smoking is to deny the decades of research already done.

From being involved with ninjas other post about the dangers of nicotine I believe you are somewhat misguided as to what tobacco harm reduction is about and its history. Tobacco harm reduction did not start with e-cigs. It's not a new idea. E-cigs are just the new kid on the block. The questions about the safety of nicotine have been well thought through and studied for several decades. The many studies out of Sweden on snus, which date back to the 60's, has shown us that nicotine in a relatively pure form has a very low long term health risk. It is not harmless, but it is very low.

But even low risks over time can lead up to big risks in the end. For example, bacon isn't a big risk for you if you eat it once, but if you eat it every day it will kill you in the end. When I was doing to research to get into vaping I actually read an article that equated the heart damage done by smoking is the same as eating like 9 pieces of bacon per cigarette. So as I was smoking a pack a day I was thinking wow, that's 180 pieces of bacon lol. Also let me point out that even a statistic of 1% over millions of people makes a very significant number. Although 1% may not look like much of a statistic on a small scale, in a large scale environment it can, in the end, lead to the loss of many lives.

Do you have any links that you can share with us? The idea here is to learn together. I realize that basically the only information we have to work with is from NRT (Nicotine Replacement Therapy) i.e. patches, gum, inhalers. Everywhere I look on this subject I find that it is not recommended as a healthy thing to remain on in the long term and it is designed to be reduced over time until one is free of addiction. Besides, none of the current NRTs prescribed by doctors has a heat component to it. None of the tests done on this subject have added the heat factor either. Not only are we talking about possible carcinogenic factor, we are talking about how it may help spread existing cancer, and the damage that it can do to your cardiovascular system, and/or brain.

The reason I started this thread is so that we can learn more about the whole situation and to combat this rampant belief that one should vape for life because they believe it's 100% safe.

Addressing the other posters here I do realize vaping is 1000x better than smoking. That is not what this discussion is about. The issue here is that, from what I personally have read, and heard from the mouths of doctors, a vaper is not as healthy as a non-vaper and we would like to get down to why that is - with science.

 

[ShogaNinja]

There is TSNA in e-liquid, but in very low levels. What the studies on snus have shown us is that low TSNA levels are simple not a cancer risk. There has been no connection to snus and any form of cancer, including pancreatic cancer.

http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2011/02/new-study-smokeless-tobacco-is-not.html

I would expect the same long term results for vaping.

I prefer not to make such assumptions.

I did some google work on this and I found just as many articles saying that it doubles your chance of pancreatic cancer, vs. as many that said it did not. Wikipedia simply calls it "inconclusive". There are also oral cancer, diabetes, and heart disease concerns that are merit discussion.

Clearly Snus, which at one point I considered before I learned about e-cigs, is vastly inferior to vaping. During the research that I did during that time I also found that the American Snus that has been pushed by tobacco companies (they'll practically give it to you for free at this point for a while to hook you) has less nicotine than the Swedish variety (who were concerned with ending the smoking epidemic, not making money off of you for life) and is designed to create a secondary habit among smokers. It is not an effective quitting device unless it is Swedish. If you know anyone who does American Snus, please inform them about this, and then hand them an e-cig.

 

[Stubby]

I have heard no one say that vaping is 100% safe, or that using any tobacco nicotine products is 100% safe. You are simple missing the point of what harm reduction is about.

You keep coming back to NRT's as a source of information, but the real information on long term use of nicotine comes from smokeless tobacco. Look at tobacco harm reduction organization, CASAA, and the blogs of Brad Rodu and Carl Phillips. That should keep you busy for a while as they point out the many studies that show that nicotine on its own has a very low risk factor.

Tobaccoharmreduction.org

CASAA - The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association

http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/

http://ep-ology.blogspot.com/

It would be great if we could all learn together, but at this point I have doubts if you are actually capable of doing so.

 

[CES]

I realize that basically the only information we have to work with is from NRT (Nicotine Replacement Therapy) i.e. patches, gum, inhalers.

That's not quite accurate. there are many studies on the effects of nicotine on people, animals and isolated cells. I agree that the research on patches, gum and inhalers can give us information about medium-term use, ~ 6 months. The dangers of medium use are less than that of many of commonly prescribed drugs, including and especially chantix.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the pharmaceutical companies that sell the FDA approved nicotine replacement devices are also doing the studies to increase the approved length of use beyond 6 months. My interpretation of that is that they're beginning to realize that the abysmal statistics for maintaining abstinence from smoking using those products require longer term maintenance use of nicotine than they initially realized.

Yet, I'm also concerned that you are relying on wikipedia rather than going to the references that are included at the bottom of every verified wikipedia entry. wiki is a place to start, but reading the actual studies- or at least reading the abstracts- can give you a much better sense of what the studies really say. There are contradictions, and to understand where those contradictions arise, and to evaluate the evidence on its own merits is the only way to draw conclusions.

Basically each of us has to do a cost-benefit analysis based on what we've read and how we evaluate the available evidence. It's obvious that your conclusions are different than mine. The preponderance of the evidence that I've read ( see my earlier post for examples) leads me to the conclusion that for me, the potential benefits of nicotine use outweigh the potential costs.

My nicotine tolerance has decreased, and the concentrations i currently use are 1/3 of what i needed when i started. I'm ok with that. But, it's been dictated by my physiology, not by an external requirement that i quit using nicotine. Perhaps I'm "addicted" but this "addiction" is legal, harms no one, and contributes to my ability to function as a reasonable human being. The greater harm would occur if i thought that nicotine was too dangerous to use....because then either i would be smoking again (which has much greater risks), or i would not be a particularly functional or reasonable human being. Thus, as long as I continue to need nicotine to function then i will continue to use it. On my current trajectory, I'll be vaping 0mgs/ml nicotine in another year or two.

 

[Stubby]

I prefer not to make such assumptions.

I did some google work on this and I found just as many articles saying that it doubles your chance of pancreatic cancer, vs. as many that said it did not. Wikipedia simply calls it "inconclusive". There are also oral cancer, diabetes, and heart disease concerns that are merit discussion.

Clearly Snus, which at one point I considered before I learned about e-cigs, is vastly inferior to vaping. During the research that I did during that time I also found that the American Snus that has been pushed by tobacco companies (they'll practically give it to you for free at this point for a while to hook you) has less nicotine than the Swedish variety (who were concerned with ending the smoking epidemic, not making money off of you for life) and is designed to create a secondary habit among smokers. It is not an effective quitting device unless it is Swedish. If you know anyone who does American Snus, please inform them about this, and then hand them an e-cig.

At this point about all I can say is you are simple off the wall with your ignorance on the subject of tobacco harm reduction. To make this statement shows just how far off the cliff you are willing to jump.

Clearly Snus, which at one point I considered before I learned about e-cigs, is vastly inferior to vaping.

I would like you to show some actual studies that back up the above statement. I don't mean opinions by the ANTZ, but actually studies. Even the american snus, which you are right does not have the hit that swedish snus has, is not vastly inferior then vaping. In fact I would not consider it inferior to vaping at all. It has been RJR that has been urging people to go smokeless. At least as much as the law allows them to say.

I kind of feel as if I am taking to a wall, or something that closely resembles one, so it's probably best if I stop as I may end up talking to myself.

 

[ShogaNinja]

To lighten the conversation some I going to add some comic relief. I am pretty sure this guy is doing it wrong:

EATING A CAN OF TOBACCO DIP IN UNDER 20 SEC. - YouTube

Skip to time index 5:55 for the fast version.
lolol. And if you like this guy's stunts check out his channel for additional lols. He knows no bounds. Good times.

 

[JENerationX]

First of all I would like to thank everyone for their nice posts. I would also like to say sorry to classwife for missing the right category. There are so many to choose from!

I pulled this straight from nicotine article on Wikipedia:

Historically, nicotine has not been regarded as a carcinogen and the IARC has not evaluated nicotine in its standalone form and assigned it to an official carcinogen group. While no epidemiological evidence supports that nicotine alone acts as a carcinogen in the formation of human cancer, research over the last decade has identified nicotine's carcinogenic potential in animal models and cell culture.[65][66] Nicotine has been noted to directly cause cancer through a number of different mechanisms such as the activation of MAP Kinases.[67] Indirectly, nicotine increases cholinergic signalling (and adrenergic signalling in the case of colon cancer[68]), thereby impeding apoptosis (programmed cell death), promoting tumor growth, and activating growth factors and cellular mitogenic factors such as 5-LOX, and EGF. Nicotine also promotes cancer growth by stimulating angiogenesis and neovascularization.[69][70] In one study, nicotine administered to mice with tumors caused increases in tumor size (twofold increase), metastasis (nine-fold increase), and tumor recurrence (threefold increase).[71]

Though the teratogenic properties of nicotine may or may not yet have been adequately researched, women who use nicotine gum and patches during the early stages of pregnancy face an increased risk of having babies with birth defects, according to a study of around 77,000 pregnant women in Denmark. The study found that women who use nicotine-replacement therapy in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy have a 60% greater risk of having babies with birth defects, compared to women who are non-smokers.[citation needed]

Effective April 1, 1990, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) of the California Environmental Protection Agency added nicotine to the list of chemicals known to the state to cause developmental toxicity, for the purposes of Proposition 65.

------
This is where I got that line about Nicotine helping spread cancer once you already have the cells in your body. I cannot seem to find a lot of information on it but I know that all nicotine comes from tobacco and as such they must contain TSNAs (tobacco specific nitrosamine). I get that this is created only in the curing process but I also understand economics to know that they are going to acquire tobacco in the cheapest way possible to do their extractions and that is going to be by the traditional means.

Just a few points. The 2nd sentence on the wiki is the most important. Although animal tests are the best way we have sometimes to solidify our theories..... any conclusions made on the effect of something on animals, can be completely wrong in humans. Take chocolate. Non-toxic to humans, but it can kill your dog. They have found carcinogenic potential in animals. That sounds just a little inconclusive to me at this point. More research should be done.

The problem I have with the studies on NRT for pregnant women (or any NRT study for that matter), is that smokers turn to NRT. We're already damaged. If I get pregnant (let's hope not at this point in my life), and have a child with a birth defect, or I were to get lung cancer, have a stroke... etc. etc. etc.... is there any way to know whether it's caused my the use of my PV or from the damage I've done in the past 20 years of smoking??

If they did a study over 20 years of people that used NRTs but had never smoked, and found the increased rates of cancer, etc.... THEN I would have to say vaping is a significant risk. Nobody's going to submit to that study of course, so the best we have is ex smokers where we can't track the onset of the damage, and animals that may or may not react the same way we do.

I may or may not ever quit vaping, but for now, I accept whatever risk there may be. I'm sure we all agree it's far safer than smoking, may or may not be completely harmless. We're all just making the best choices we're capable of for ourselves with the information we currently have.

 

[Stubby]

I may or may not ever quit vaping, but for now, I accept whatever risk there may be. I'm sure we all agree it's far safer than smoking, may or may not be completely harmless. We're all just making the best choices we're capable of for ourselves with the information we currently have.

I agree.

The missing part in this discussion is that if there are long term problems with vaping it is not nicotine that would be the issue. That has been shown to be of very low risk.

The problem would come from the long term inhalation of PG/VG and certain flavorings. Vaping 0 nicotine would not help as far as the most likely candidates for long term issues.

 

[ShogaNinja]

Another thing concerns me about Nicotine that is almost never mentioned. I learned about this in a newspaper article over 10 years ago. Since I don't have that article on hand at this time instead of trying to find it I pulled this from Wikipedia:

In the United States, tobacco is often fertilized with the mineral apatite, which partially starves the plant of nitrogen, to produce a more desired flavor. Apatite, however, contains radium, lead 210, and polonium 210—which are known radioactive carcinogens.

It makes you wonder if any of this is ending up in our ejuice.

 

[JENerationX]

Food for thought. My concern is everything we're eating and drinking on a daily basis. We don't know what's being used on most produce and what the long term effects are. I'm not concerned at all about my vaping because I know it's a lot safer than what I was inhaling.

 

[ShogaNinja]

Food for thought. My concern is everything we're eating and drinking on a daily basis. We don't know what's being used on most produce and what the long term effects are. I'm not concerned at all about my vaping because I know it's a lot safer than what I was inhaling.

Oh for sure, but I'd have to go to another forum to get into food toxicity. I could write you a book on that. But that's a discussion for another time.

Don't you feel so much better even at 3 and a half months? I am running like a champ! Running before when I smoked was akin to a medieval torture lol. I could barely run for a straight block (all 4 sides). Now I can run for at least a quarter mile without even getting my heartrate up. I look at smokers now like they are complete loser idiots and to think I was one of them just 5 months ago. The only thing is that I feel like maybe PG is messing with my sinuses, but when I switched to a higher VG content it sucked for me. It wouldn't wick for crap. I might try some thinning techniques and see if I can get a 100% VG mix just to test my theory but that will also have to be for another time. I digress though. Back to the plot!

 

[Malduk]

In the United States, tobacco is often fertilized with the mineral apatite, which partially starves the plant of nitrogen, to produce a more desired flavor. Apatite, however, contains radium, lead 210, and polonium 210—which are known radioactive carcinogens.

It makes you wonder if any of this is ending up in our ejuice.

If you're worried about that, send a mail to some of the american liquid nicotine manufacturers.

 

[zoiDman]

One question...

Is this thread about the Health Risks of Vaping JUST Nicotine? Or is it about Vaping Flavored e-Liquids that Contain Nicotine.

It is sometimes easy to analyze just One Component of a System. To draw Inferences and to make Conclusions in Isolation. But very few Systems are so Simplistic. Just like some have mentioned, Analogs do not contain just Nicotine, neither do Most e-Liquids.

If this thread is about Nicotine in e-Liquids, should consideration be given to some of the Other Compounds which are present in Most e-Liquids? Ie: Flavorings, Colorants and Sweeteners.

 

[Renrav]

Yet, I'm also concerned that you are relying on wikipedia rather than going to the references that are included at the bottom of every verified wikipedia entry. wiki is a place to start, but reading the actual studies- or at least reading the abstracts- can give you a much better sense of what the studies really say. There are contradictions, and to understand where those contradictions arise, and to evaluate the evidence on its own merits is the only way to draw conclusions.

This is exactly what I first thought as I read your "facts." I use Wikipedia all the time, and have nothing against pulling up a Wikipedia page to quickly get a general idea about some subject. However Wikipedia is written by individuals and constantly edited. I could theoretically go edit the nicotine page to say that it cures cancer, stops the aging process, and gives you a tan. I think Wikipedia a great resource, but I don't think it's fair to quote Wikipedia pages as fact when you yourself asked for comments based on fact.

That being said, I'm afraid I (hypocritically) have no facts to cite that back up my beliefs about the dangers/benefits of nicotine. From what I understand to be true though, here is my logic:

1. Smoking tobacco is known in the long term to cause cancer, lung disease, COPD, etc...
2. Vaping is too new for any long term evidence.
3. Studies about nicotine use(separate from tobacco) are inconclusive, but cannot definitively prove that nicotine causes cancer, lung disease, COPD, etc...

Therefore I will continue vaping, secure in the belief that it is not more harmful than smoking, and is most likely less harmful.

 

[ShogaNinja]

I agree.

The missing part in this discussion is that if there are long term problems with vaping it is not nicotine that would be the issue. That has been shown to be of very low risk.

The problem would come from the long term inhalation of PG/VG and certain flavorings. Vaping 0 nicotine would not help as far as the most likely candidates for long term issues.

Ah but this thread is about nicotine alone. I apologize that I didn't make it about long term vaping, which is retrospect I perhaps should have, but such as it is I am forced to remain on topic as much as possible.

I don't agree with everything you say because you state things in fact instead of the hypothetical. I also do not appreciate what I consider to be personal attacks. I do, however, agree with this statement. There have been many many tests that prove that these chemicals are GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) but one has to wonder if they are done with these chemicals AFTER being vaporized. One can imagine that the smoke machines that pump out PG "fog" are much higher voltage than our simple PV's but VG is another question entirely. Plus there is acrolein produced by heated PG to consider.

I don't want to argue with you. I thought very long and hard for a few days now. Those tests that you consider to be truth are VERY shady and made by a guy who is very driven by his own point of view instead of a scientific one. There are two things that turn me off. The fact that it's called TobaccoTruth, and the fact that he takes each study as if it's proven 100%. Calling the site "TobaccoTruth" says two things to me: one that he is concerned with tobacco (he especially focuses on smokeless tobacco; chew), not nicotine, and two that whenever someone says "I'm THIS!" they are often not. Plus his credentials are less than impressive. He's not a household name, or the next messiah. You can take offense to this if you want, but at least I am attacking the post and not the poster (which is a rule of the forum btw, you might want to look into that before you call people "ignorant" etc.).

At the end of the day NONE of this stuff is truly and 100% proven so there is no need for any of us to speak as if that is the case. If it was they'd make a NOVA program about it or something lol. This is a debate. As I said in my original post, there is no need for ad-hominem. If you need to look that up then so be it. I, for one, would consider such base attacks as a great disservice to the community because it will only result in them closing this thread and me opening another. The idea is to educate. Prove what you can, tell us what you believe, and leave emotion at the door please. Logic is reason without emotion so I'll go ahead and forgive you.

 

[ShogaNinja]

If you're worried about that, send a mail to some of the american liquid nicotine manufacturers.

Such a thing would do no good. As I mentioned before they are going to produce their product as cheaply as possible and that entails using the supply that is most abundant, be it radioactive or not.

 

[CES]

The question of acrolein is actually whether or not the temperatures of an atomizer are sufficient to cause VG to decompose into acrolein, not PG. here is a link to one thread that addresses those risks. http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...nt/31335-acrolein-vg-simple-test-results.html there are several similar discussions and the temperatures needed to cause the decomposition are well known.

It is also important to note that acrolein is also a component of cigarette smoke.

the blog "tobacco truth" is written by Dr. Brad Rodu, a Professor of Medicine at the University of Louisville,who holds an endowed chair in tobacco harm reduction research, and is a member of the James Graham Brown Cancer Center. I personally find those credentials to be very strong.

and finally Shoga, you chided Stubby for "stating things as fact", yet in your next post, you state your own position as fact. "Such a thing would do no good. As I mentioned before they are going to produce their product as cheaply as possible and that entails using the supply that is most abundant, be it radioactive or not."

I've been happy to participate in discussion because there is so much misinformation about nicotine out there, and it's important that people who are interested get good information, and have the option to evaluate all of the available evidence. However, we all prefer to discard evidence that doesn't meet with our own preconceptions, as seems to be the case here.

 

[DaveP]

I view vaping as harm reduction, period. Nicotine may not be the best thing we could be consuming, but it's far better than smoking. I'm still at 24mg liquids, but plan to titrate downwards to 18mg and lower over time. Then, the concern would be over the long term effect of inhaling PG or VG and candy flavors. My take is that as long as I avoid diacetyl, oils in juice, and certain flavors like cinnamons that dissolve plastic, I will be better off.

Do I worry about my nicotine intake? Not really. Although it's best to spare your body from anything that's not inherently "good" for it, we encounter many antagonistic chemicals in our daily life. Life is full of inhalants, chemical vapors, food additives, and medical concoctions that alleviate symptoms but are full of scary warnings about what could happen to various groups of people who are sensitive.

I do know that vaping instead of smoking has increase my lung capacity and I can breathe deeply these days without the wheeze or rattle I once had while smoking. The smoker's cough left shortly after I quit the cancer sticks.