Hello,
I am just posting this here so people that actually know what they are talking about can comment:
Experts warn that e-cigarettes can damage the lungs
This was published just yesterday. I suspect it would be useful to focus on the comparison to the increase in airway resistance with normal cigarettes for starters...?
Ah yes... cue the usual AH SEE THEY ARE EVIL!!!111 article completely mis-reading the conclusions:
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/343649/E-cigarettes-can-damage-your-health-
And off we go again. So they take ONE aspect (airway resistance, which increases: " there was a statistically significant increase in airway resistance from a mean average of 182% to 206% - and thus label the entire device as evil... yeah. Never mind the other clear and obvious advantages, why bother, just label it bad!
I want figures on the increased airway resistance, and its duration (in the case of this study, the increase remained for 10 whole minutes!) for normal cigarettes first, then we can talk about this. What i find interesting is that these figures are seemingly missing from the Greek study. Hmm....
I found this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1018985/?page=4 although I am not statistically talented enough to make this into percentages. Do note that they talk about increases that last for up to two weeks!
One more link with a bit more effects of tobacco smoking on the airway:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7089387
A separate analysis of the data was made with 60 men divided into light smokers (<105 g. tobacco/week) and heavy smokers (>105 g. per week)., The mean airway resistance before smoking of the 40 subjects who smoked at least once was 1.05 cm H2O/l/sec for the light smokers and 1.04 for the heavy smokers. The respective changes after smoking were + 0.27 and +0.21 cm H20/l/sec.
Source: http://thorax.highwire.org/content/20/6/562.full.pdf page 566
So if I am reading this correctly:
In the Greek study, the airway resistance increased from 182% to 206% for non-smokers, and from 176% to 220% in smokers. Now please help me out here, but am I right to say that if 182 and 176 are the “default” states, that their resistance increased by:
Non smokers: 182/100 = 1.82 (1%) -> 206-182 = 24 points -> 24/1.82 = 13.18%
Smokers: 176/100 = 1.76 (1%) -> 220-176 = 44 -> 44/1.76 = 25%
In which case in both cases the airway resistance is SAME or MORE with normal cigarettes than with e-smokes…? Expert advise needed here
I have emailed the person that supposedly is responsible for the research, or at the very least is mentioned as a contact for it:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
Is there a possibility to obtain from you a copy of the recent research done on airway obstruction from e-cigarettes? So not just the published conclusions but the actual report/data?
Also, is there comparable data available that measures airway obstruction caused by smoking conventional cigarettes?
Many thanks and I am looking forward to your reply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am just posting this here so people that actually know what they are talking about can comment:
Experts warn that e-cigarettes can damage the lungs
This was published just yesterday. I suspect it would be useful to focus on the comparison to the increase in airway resistance with normal cigarettes for starters...?
Ah yes... cue the usual AH SEE THEY ARE EVIL!!!111 article completely mis-reading the conclusions:
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/343649/E-cigarettes-can-damage-your-health-
And off we go again. So they take ONE aspect (airway resistance, which increases: " there was a statistically significant increase in airway resistance from a mean average of 182% to 206% - and thus label the entire device as evil... yeah. Never mind the other clear and obvious advantages, why bother, just label it bad!
I want figures on the increased airway resistance, and its duration (in the case of this study, the increase remained for 10 whole minutes!) for normal cigarettes first, then we can talk about this. What i find interesting is that these figures are seemingly missing from the Greek study. Hmm....
I found this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1018985/?page=4 although I am not statistically talented enough to make this into percentages. Do note that they talk about increases that last for up to two weeks!
One more link with a bit more effects of tobacco smoking on the airway:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7089387
A separate analysis of the data was made with 60 men divided into light smokers (<105 g. tobacco/week) and heavy smokers (>105 g. per week)., The mean airway resistance before smoking of the 40 subjects who smoked at least once was 1.05 cm H2O/l/sec for the light smokers and 1.04 for the heavy smokers. The respective changes after smoking were + 0.27 and +0.21 cm H20/l/sec.
Source: http://thorax.highwire.org/content/20/6/562.full.pdf page 566
So if I am reading this correctly:
In the Greek study, the airway resistance increased from 182% to 206% for non-smokers, and from 176% to 220% in smokers. Now please help me out here, but am I right to say that if 182 and 176 are the “default” states, that their resistance increased by:
Non smokers: 182/100 = 1.82 (1%) -> 206-182 = 24 points -> 24/1.82 = 13.18%
Smokers: 176/100 = 1.76 (1%) -> 220-176 = 44 -> 44/1.76 = 25%
In which case in both cases the airway resistance is SAME or MORE with normal cigarettes than with e-smokes…? Expert advise needed here
I have emailed the person that supposedly is responsible for the research, or at the very least is mentioned as a contact for it:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
Is there a possibility to obtain from you a copy of the recent research done on airway obstruction from e-cigarettes? So not just the published conclusions but the actual report/data?
Also, is there comparable data available that measures airway obstruction caused by smoking conventional cigarettes?
Many thanks and I am looking forward to your reply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited:
