New study by Dr. Farsalinos finds vaping is 3 orders of magnitude safer than tobacco

[DC2]

And, BTW, Dr. Antz Laborcamp himself exhales CO2, traces of CO and various germs. According to his own theory, he should not be allowed in indoor public spaces or government buildings.

I'd much rather spend my time in a space that vapers are exhaling into than any other space.
At least we are doing our part to kill germs, bacteria, fungus, and other nasties.

But that's so beyond the bounds of "common" sense that it will never enter into any "rational" discussion.

 

[Robino1]

I was very pleased with this report. I am a NET vaper and it was worrisome to me that I may be inadvertently reintroducing bad things into my body. I am happy with magnitudes less than cigarettes

It was also pleasing to know that I am not getting more nicotine than what is stated that my vendor adds. So all in all, this is very good read for me.

 

[rothenbj]

Even under the "no safe level" (otherwise fallacious) assumption it will be easy to debunk such ridiculous claims by pointing out the quantity and number of carcinogens in vapor is comparable to those present in outdoor air, lower than those in tap water, and far far below those in common food items such as dairy, meat, and fish.

In addition, " Characteristically, nitrosamines were 146-1447 times lower in e-liquids compared to tobacco products (in 1 mL liquid compared to 1 gram of tobacco), while nitrate was 1360 times lower. "

Now the comparison is being made with e liquid that supposedly equals a pack of cigarettes (yes, I know, probably more like 10) to 1 gram of tobacco which is roughly what is in a cigarette. Conservatively, it appears you could multiply the above numbers by 5.

 

[rothenbj]

I'd much rather spend my time in a space that vapers are exhaling into than any other space.
At least we are doing our part to kill germs, bacteria, fungus, and other nasties.

But that's so beyond the bounds of "common" sense that it will never enter into any "rational" discussion.

You know, I thought about that a lot when I got my worst cold in the last six years earlier in the winter. When I was smoking, I had at least two that I'd be coughing from for months. Then I started vaping a lot and, if I got a cold, it would last a couple days.

Now six years down the road, I use snus regularly and only vape maybe a ml every couple days. Have I lost some of the protection vaping gave me? I know it's anecdotal, but it has me wondering.

 

[Moonbogg]

I was thinking about this a little. Are people taking into account the quantity of vapor they consume and factoring that into these safety comparisons? When I used to smoke I didn't consume hardly a fraction of the vapor I consume today. So, if vapor has 200x less of a certain bad substance, but you consume 20x more of it, then that reduces the safety factor significantly.
Being able to vape indoors and the good taste of vapor encourages me to consume huge amounts of vapor. Combine this with the mindset that vaping is pretty low risk and I am encouraged to vape even more, and I do. Take into account the higher amount of bad stuff in a NET e-juice, and the safety factor falls off even more. Vapor has no tar and has much less of the toxins of course, but I think quantity is not being considered here at all.
Vaping products are moving toward higher vapor volume production with all this sub ohm crap being targeted toward noobs and I think this huge volume style of vaping is not being accounted for with regard to safety comparisons and general risk.

 

[Kent C]

I was thinking about this a little. Are people taking into account the quantity of vapor they consume and factoring that into these safety comparisons? When I used to smoke I didn't consume hardly a fraction of the vapor I consume today. So, if vapor has 200x less of a certain bad substance, but you consume 20x more of it, then that reduces the safety factor significantly.
Being able to vape indoors and the good taste of vapor encourages me to consume huge amounts of vapor. Combine this with the mindset that vaping is pretty low risk and I am encouraged to vape even more, and I do. Take into account the higher amount of bad stuff in a NET e-juice, and the safety factor falls off even more. Vapor has no tar and has much less of the toxins of course, but I think quantity is not being considered here at all.
Vaping products are moving toward higher vapor volume production with all this sub ohm crap being targeted toward noobs and I think this huge volume style of vaping is not being accounted for with regard to safety comparisons and general risk.

See what rothenbj pointed out:

"Now the comparison is being made with e liquid that supposedly equals a pack of cigarettes (yes, I know, probably more like 10) to 1 gram of tobacco which is roughly what is in a cigarette."

The actual comparison was the eliquid of one pack of cigs to one cigarette, and the upper limits of the magnitudes were near 1500 times lower where NET's were about a third of that. rothenbj mistakenly says you can multiply that by 5 (conservatively - ie 10 cigs) but that would be by 10 and for the actual comparison used in the study - a pack of cigs to one cig, you could multiply that by 20.

 

[Moonbogg]

See what rothenbj pointed out:

"Now the comparison is being made with e liquid that supposedly equals a pack of cigarettes (yes, I know, probably more like 10) to 1 gram of tobacco which is roughly what is in a cigarette."

The actual comparison was the eliquid of one pack of cigs to one cigarette, and the upper limits of the magnitudes were near 1500 times lower where NET's were about a third of that. rothenbj mistakenly says you can multiply that by 5 (conservatively - ie 10 cigs) but that would be by 10 and for the actual comparison used in the study - a pack of cigs to one cig, you could multiply that by 20.

That's the most confusing thing I've ever read. No offense. Its not your responsibility to explain it to me though. I appreciate the info. Its my responsibility to go get a PHD in chemistry so I can understand it myself.

 

[Kent C]

That's the most confusing thing I've ever read. No offense. Its not your responsibility to explain it to me though. I appreciate the info. Its my responsibility to go get a PHD in chemistry so I can understand it myself.

Take your own comment here:

" So, if vapor has 200x less of a certain bad substance, but you consume 20x more of it, then that reduces the safety factor significantly."

You assume that since you're vaping more than you smoked that you would consume 20 times more that you smoked. BUT the comparison made in the study was from the amount of eliquid in the equivalent of one pack (20 cigs) of cigarettes compared to only one cigarette. So, if you consume as you say - 20x more of it - then the equivalent bad substance would be, for you, exactly what the study says.

(that's with the assumption that one ml of eliquid is about a pack of cigarettes - and for me, that's about right - I smoked 3 packs a day and I consume around 3ml of eliquid a day. understand ymmv much depending on what nic level one vapes.)

 

[Moonbogg]

Take your own comment here:

" So, if vapor has 200x less of a certain bad substance, but you consume 20x more of it, then that reduces the safety factor significantly."

You assume that since you're vaping more than you smoked that you would consume 20 times more that you smoked. BUT the comparison made in the study was from the amount of eliquid in the equivalent of one pack (20 cigs) of cigarettes compared to only one cigarette. So, if you consume as you say - 20x more of it - then the equivalent bad substance would be, for you, exactly what the study says.

(that's with the assumption that one ml of eliquid is about a pack of cigarettes - and for me, that's about right - I smoked 3 packs a day and I consume around 3ml of eliquid a day. understand ymmv much depending on what nic level one vapes.)

LOL ok that helped my soft little brain grasp it a little better. Thanks.

 

[Kent C]

LOL ok that helped my soft little brain grasp it a little better. Thanks.

Well good!