Once again - no one claimed that e-cigarette use was "perfectly safe." And no one was "piling on" anything other than counters to using individual, unrelated and unproven theories about nicotine studies promoted in the media as "proof" nicotine "may" cause cancer. The media likes to make headlines like "Minn. researchers find 'smoking gun' link between nicotine and cancer," which are completely misleading. But people read the headlines and not between the lines.
"They discovered that the smokers with lung cancer had much higher levels of a nicotine byproduct called NNAL.
Those with the highest levels of the compound, and another byproduct called cotinine, had a nearly nine-fold increased risk of developing lung cancer compared to smokers with the lowest levels of the compounds."
Really? That is the smoking gun? But wouldn't it also stand to reason that someone who smokes more and with higher frequency would have higher levels of those chemicals and also be exposed to more of the carcinogens in the actual SMOKE?
Yes, you can name dozens of nicotine studies which show "possible" links to cancer. But NONE of them back up each other, and none of them have shown nicotine as the cause of ANY cancers in humans.
No one is arguing that e-cigarettes are 100% safe, but if you are going to try to use the ANTZ-style scare tactics of using unproven, unbacked (meaning no other studies have been done by other researchers with similar finds and the research has not been extended to humans) research papers on animals and extremely small population studies as a "cause of concern" that nicotine e-cigarette use could eventually cause cancer in humans, you will have people who have also done the research into those studies and have a different opinion of what those studies actually mean to vapers. It has nothing to do with "cheer leading" and everything to do with disagreeing that those studies - standing on their own or even used together - should be use in any way to promote the fear that nicotine e-cigarette use has ANY significant risk of causing cancer just because of the nicotine itself. It was the opinion of some of us that you were simply putting too much weight into tentative studies which tell us little, if anything, about actual nicotine use and humans.
E-cigarettes are turning the accepted rhetoric about nicotine addiction on its head. If we were all just "nicotine addicts" then why is it so easy for so many vapers to use non-nicotine liquid? Why do so many vapers use 36mg or higher nicotine liquid and still find "something still missing?" Why do people who use snus and other smoke-free tobacco products - known to be higher in nicotine content and containing the "something missing" from e-cigarette liquid - still want to vape? Because the medical community was wrong to so quickly latch onto nicotine as the "magic bullet" for why we all smoke. It is a factor - the main factor for many - but it's much more complicated that being "nicotine addicts."
"They discovered that the smokers with lung cancer had much higher levels of a nicotine byproduct called NNAL.
Those with the highest levels of the compound, and another byproduct called cotinine, had a nearly nine-fold increased risk of developing lung cancer compared to smokers with the lowest levels of the compounds."
Really? That is the smoking gun? But wouldn't it also stand to reason that someone who smokes more and with higher frequency would have higher levels of those chemicals and also be exposed to more of the carcinogens in the actual SMOKE?
Yes, you can name dozens of nicotine studies which show "possible" links to cancer. But NONE of them back up each other, and none of them have shown nicotine as the cause of ANY cancers in humans.
No one is arguing that e-cigarettes are 100% safe, but if you are going to try to use the ANTZ-style scare tactics of using unproven, unbacked (meaning no other studies have been done by other researchers with similar finds and the research has not been extended to humans) research papers on animals and extremely small population studies as a "cause of concern" that nicotine e-cigarette use could eventually cause cancer in humans, you will have people who have also done the research into those studies and have a different opinion of what those studies actually mean to vapers. It has nothing to do with "cheer leading" and everything to do with disagreeing that those studies - standing on their own or even used together - should be use in any way to promote the fear that nicotine e-cigarette use has ANY significant risk of causing cancer just because of the nicotine itself. It was the opinion of some of us that you were simply putting too much weight into tentative studies which tell us little, if anything, about actual nicotine use and humans.
E-cigarettes are turning the accepted rhetoric about nicotine addiction on its head. If we were all just "nicotine addicts" then why is it so easy for so many vapers to use non-nicotine liquid? Why do so many vapers use 36mg or higher nicotine liquid and still find "something still missing?" Why do people who use snus and other smoke-free tobacco products - known to be higher in nicotine content and containing the "something missing" from e-cigarette liquid - still want to vape? Because the medical community was wrong to so quickly latch onto nicotine as the "magic bullet" for why we all smoke. It is a factor - the main factor for many - but it's much more complicated that being "nicotine addicts."
Last edited:
I expect to stay at 10 - 12 for the foreseeable future.
