(Jamaica) Beware! e-cigarettes are dangerous

[ezmoose]

Jamaica Gleaner News - Beware! e-cigarettes are dangerous - Health - Wednesday | August 25, 2010

 

[xg4bx]

Was this article written for children? What awful writing.

 

[jiveman]

Jamaica Gleaner News - Beware! e-cigarettes are dangerous - Health - Wednesday | August 25, 2010

lol i give up. bad press just keeps coming.
what a bunch of ....... no one has the slightest clue what they're talking about. i wish there were a legitimate "independent" study that could be done that didn't involve the FDA.

 

[Lil' Lou]

Oh great, it's one of sites where a moderator has to approve all comments.

 

[harmony gardens]

lol i give up. bad press just keeps coming.
what a bunch of ....... no one has the slightest clue what they're talking about. i wish there were a legitimate "independent" study that could be done that didn't involve the FDA.

Yeah,,, it's been like this since that stupid FDA "study" came out. I think people just like to be negative. Not to put too fine a point on it, but there ARE studies that show they are safer than smoking, but people ignore that, and focus on the negative. It's better to light one candle than to curse the darkness,,, but it takes a lot of matches when our little flame keeps getting blown out.

 

[kristin]

I commented. Hopefully it'll be approved.

Healthcare professionals need to stop equating quitting smoking with quitting nicotine. Science has shown time and again that it is the SMOKE which causes the vast majority of tobacco-related illnesses and deaths, NOT the nicotine. Nicotine is about as dangerous as caffeine, once you remove the smoke. That is the reason the FDA approves of nicotine products such as gums, inhalers and patches. If you've quit inhaling smoke, you've quit smoking - regardless of whether or not you still use nicotine in a smokeless form.

The Etter survey reported a 63% success rate for smokers making the switch. A 2010 CASAA survey of e-cigarettes reported even higher numbers, over 80%. If they've switched completely, then they've quit smoking, even if they continue to use the e-cigarette in place of the traditional cigarette. Pure and simple.

Doctors also need to stop citing the FDA testing unless they are willing to tell people that the FDA found only TRACE amounts of carcinogens (in parts-per-TRILLION) when the standard is supposed to be parts-per-MILLION. If you test ANY product at parts-per-trillion, you'll find traces of harmful substances. The amounts of carcinogens found in the FDA test were the same as can be found in the FDA-approved nicotine patch. If that level is acceptable for the patch, why is it suddenly of concern for e-cigarettes?

Additionally, the diethylene glycol they found was at approx. 1% and in the liquid, not the vapor, which is NOT toxic and they were only able to find it in one cartridge tested. No other testing has discovered any more contaminated cartridges. Granted, there should be no diethylene glycol, but the FDA allows for certain levels to be found in our toothpaste and other products. Again, if it's ok for these other products, why the concern of finding such low amounts in e-cigarettes?

So, why did the FDA only point out these overblown "dangers" and ignore all of the positives e-cigarettes offer? No tar, no smoke, no ash, no second hand smoke. They also didn't report finding the huge amounts of carcinogens and chemicals found in tobacco cigarettes, which show how much safer they really are. If they don't contain all of the toxins and chemicals, how can you deny they must be safer? It's all a way to scare people to keep them using "approved" pharmaceutical products and to keep the tax revenues from tobacco. There is no other logical explanation. That and the fact that public health groups cannot get cigarettes banned, so they will ban everything even related to nicotine that isn't sold by the pharmaceutical companies that supply their funding. Unfortunately, in their zeal to ban anything tobacco-related, they ensure that the the most harmful product - tobacco cigarettes - remain on the market without any safer alternatives available to smokers.

Think about it.

 

[bornagainst]

Hmph...the 2006 murder capital of the world, and E-CIGS are dangerous.

*sigh*

 

[GPAUL]

Well done Kristin.

 

[D103]

EXCELLENT RESPONSE Kristin!! I really hope that gets posted. Just a suggestion....use that very same response in as many appropriate venues as possible because it is very well stated as well as equally challenging.

 

[ezmoose]

My comment didn't make the cut. Maybe it was because I included some links; who knows? lol

 

[kristin]

Thanks.

In retrospect, I should probably have addressed the discrepencies in nicotine levels and labeling. But that starts to get pretty long.

The discprepancies and inconsitencies of nicotine levels in some products is a concern for quality control, especially for those who are using what they believe to be a non-nicotine cartridge. However, those inconsistancies do not pose any significant danger to e-cigarettes users, unless the nicotine amounts exceed more than double or triple the stated amount. It's important to remember that the liquid is vaporized - not ingested - and not used all at once, like a pill, patch or piece of gum. Nicotine users self-regulate their use by their own personal needs. If the nicotine amount is a little higher or a little lower than what is stated on the package, a user will simply adjust their intake to their comfort level. So, that is a matter of consumer protection by truth in advertising and packaging, but certainly not a public health danger.

Remember too, that the vast majority of e-cigarette users are former smokers. Tobacco cigarette packaging certainly doesn't advertise the amounts of nicotine per cigarette and the amount varies greatly from brand to brand. If anything, e-cigarettes give much more control and disclosure of nicotine amounts than traditional cigarettes.

 

[Vocalek]

Excellent points, Kristin.

 

[kristin]

Your awesome posts covered everything else already, Elaine!

 

[MoonRose]

Kristin, I've copied your postings to wordpad on my computer and with your permission, I would like to be able to use that when doing battle with our local anti-smoking/vaping fanatics. It might make some of them stop and think, even if only for a minute. But mostly I would like to be able to use it for those who are on the fence about e-cigs and their safety.

 

[kristin]

You have my permission!

Kristin, I've copied your postings to wordpad on my computer and with your permission, I would like to be able to use that when doing battle with our local anti-smoking/vaping fanatics. It might make some of them stop and think, even if only for a minute. But mostly I would like to be able to use it for those who are on the fence about e-cigs and their safety.

 

[rothenbj]

I commented-

"Doctor, I'm not going to reiterate what was already said, but it's time people stop repeating year old FDA dog and pony show sound bites. Did I mention debunked sound bites?

One thing I would like to mention about your remark, "There is no evidence that using the e-cigarette will help to break the addiction to tobacco. Instead, this might be a gateway to nicotine addiction."

The following may also be true and is probably more accurate "There is no evidence that using the e-cigarette is a gateway to nicotine addiction. Instead, this might be able help to break the addiction to smoking."

You see doctor, there is more statistically significant evidence to the latter than the former statement. Also, notice I removed the word tobacco and replaced it with the word "smoking", lest we forget that smoking is the real danger."

 

[Vocalek]

Nice, Jim!

 

[whiskey]

Kristin, I hope they do post your comments in the stupid paper...someone with half a brain would have headlined your story & not theirs for common sense alone...where do these idiots get this crap...It angers me that they can write this stuff without any facts to back it up...

 

[DaveP]

I resent the fact that the Doctor who wrote the article didn't cite the articles that led to her conclusion. She chose the FDA's skewed results as gospel. You can tell that from the text. Add to that her poor choice of verbiage and punctuation and the article loses more credibility.

I, for one, would like to see exhaustive testing on random samples just to make sure that DEG doesn't appear in the juices we buy. I'm not concerned about nic levels. You could discern a toxic batch just from the side effects of the first few puffs provided it was 60mg/ml or higher. I doubt that a supplier would waste precious nic concentrate intentionally or haphazardly. Toxic high nic levels could occur, but it would most likely be intentional and that would be the end of that supplier's business.