Vaping has NO Respiratory Impact on Never-Smokers!
- Thread starter Rossum
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- respiratory vaping
- Status
Would have Liked to have seen a Larger Sample Size used. And a Larger Range of subject ages as the Author mentioned as a Limitation(s) in the "Discussion" section.
But these Initial Results are Promising.
And hopefully more Follow-On work is done in this area.
But these Initial Results are Promising.
And hopefully more Follow-On work is done in this area.
I think there will be No Question that Vaping will be/is a Healthier Alternative to Smoking on the Population Level.
I just wonder what type of Outliers there may be?
And what a Distribution Curve might look like plotting Risk to type of e-Liquid/Temperatures Used might look like?
That's a general issue with these long-term studies. You can't get clear results from ex-smokers and you can't ask non-smokers to start vaping for a study.
For this one, they worked with B&M shops to ask their regular customers a few questions. By that, they managed to select 16 persons that have not smoked more than 100 cigarettes in their life and have been vaping for at least 3 months.
Also, apparently no measurable harm done by diacetyl in the liquids, according to the study.
Yeah... Never Smokers who Vape is a Very Small Sub-Set of all Vapers. And, of course, Ex-Smokers can have Health Baggage from smoking.
BTW - How much Diacetyl was present in the e-Liquids as part of this work?
That's not stated anywhere. I assume they started looking for signs of bronchiolitis obliterans when the diacetyl discussion came up, but did not start analyzing the liquids.
Breaking News: New study shows no risk from e-cigarette contaminants
"The study, by Prof. Igor Burstyn, Drexel University School of Public Health, is available at the Drexel website, here (pdf). Burstyn reviewed all of the available chemistry on e-cigarette vapor and liquid and found that the levels reported — even in those studies that were hyped as showing there is a danger — are well below the level that is of concern.
And that assessment applies to the vaper himself. The exposure to bystanders is orders of magnitude less and of no concern at all."
Saying e-cigarettes are “95% less harmful” is a very bad idea (part 143 of 10,000)
"This specific point estimate (synonymous with “5% as bad for you as smoking”) has rapidly evolved into “fact” (in the political sense of that term). It is repeated in a large fraction of popular press reports and widely used in arguments, snipes, and broadsides from vaping advocates. It seems to have emerged from nowhere when the Public Health England report asserted the figure. That traced to what was actually a huge misinterpretation of what was only a made-up number, from one junk-science journal article. When called on this, the PHE authors denied that was the source of the number, though they did not offer an alternative basis for the number and they did cite that paper originally, so the protest was not exactly convincing. I have documented all of that on this page in detail."
"Notice that the 95% claim was made up and touted by pro-ecig tobacco controllers. For them it is the perfect sweet spot, which makes it seems like less of an accident: It is low enough to clearly justify their efforts to promote vaping as a “cure” for smoking. But it is plenty high enough to justify trying to prevent vaping..."
https://ecigarettereviewed.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ecig-air-comparison-report.pdf
A Comparison of Electronic Cigarettes Emissions With Those of Human Breath, Outdoor Air, and Tobacco Smoke
"This shows that occurrence in e-cigarette vapor may be primarily a direct result of natural
production by the human body. Due to variances in methods used to measure the air in each reference,
comparisons can only be considered preliminary until a more uniform study is conducted. However,
while passive vaping can be expected from electronic cigarette use, it may be no more injurious to
human health than inhaling outdoor air or human breath emissions that occur naturally in public spaces."
What Chemicals are in Your E-Cigarettes? The Shocking Truth
"Diacetyl has been known to cause bronchitis obliterans (popcorn lung) in microwave popcorn factory workers; hence the name. Out of the thousands of factory workers who were tested, only a tiny fraction of 1% (eight people to be precise) were alleged to have come down with bronchitis obliterans.
In other words, even if you breathe massive amounts of airborne diacetyl (thousands of times more than any vapor product could expose you to), all day every day for a decade or more, it's still overwhelmingly unlikely you're going to get “popcorn lung.”
The study never mentioned that tobacco has more than 100 times the diacetyl then the absolute worst e-cig (750 times the average one). Tobacco isn't considered a risk factor for popcorn lung."
"The study, by Prof. Igor Burstyn, Drexel University School of Public Health, is available at the Drexel website, here (pdf). Burstyn reviewed all of the available chemistry on e-cigarette vapor and liquid and found that the levels reported — even in those studies that were hyped as showing there is a danger — are well below the level that is of concern.
And that assessment applies to the vaper himself. The exposure to bystanders is orders of magnitude less and of no concern at all."
Saying e-cigarettes are “95% less harmful” is a very bad idea (part 143 of 10,000)
"This specific point estimate (synonymous with “5% as bad for you as smoking”) has rapidly evolved into “fact” (in the political sense of that term). It is repeated in a large fraction of popular press reports and widely used in arguments, snipes, and broadsides from vaping advocates. It seems to have emerged from nowhere when the Public Health England report asserted the figure. That traced to what was actually a huge misinterpretation of what was only a made-up number, from one junk-science journal article. When called on this, the PHE authors denied that was the source of the number, though they did not offer an alternative basis for the number and they did cite that paper originally, so the protest was not exactly convincing. I have documented all of that on this page in detail."
"Notice that the 95% claim was made up and touted by pro-ecig tobacco controllers. For them it is the perfect sweet spot, which makes it seems like less of an accident: It is low enough to clearly justify their efforts to promote vaping as a “cure” for smoking. But it is plenty high enough to justify trying to prevent vaping..."
https://ecigarettereviewed.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ecig-air-comparison-report.pdf
A Comparison of Electronic Cigarettes Emissions With Those of Human Breath, Outdoor Air, and Tobacco Smoke
"This shows that occurrence in e-cigarette vapor may be primarily a direct result of natural
production by the human body. Due to variances in methods used to measure the air in each reference,
comparisons can only be considered preliminary until a more uniform study is conducted. However,
while passive vaping can be expected from electronic cigarette use, it may be no more injurious to
human health than inhaling outdoor air or human breath emissions that occur naturally in public spaces."
What Chemicals are in Your E-Cigarettes? The Shocking Truth
"Diacetyl has been known to cause bronchitis obliterans (popcorn lung) in microwave popcorn factory workers; hence the name. Out of the thousands of factory workers who were tested, only a tiny fraction of 1% (eight people to be precise) were alleged to have come down with bronchitis obliterans.
In other words, even if you breathe massive amounts of airborne diacetyl (thousands of times more than any vapor product could expose you to), all day every day for a decade or more, it's still overwhelmingly unlikely you're going to get “popcorn lung.”
The study never mentioned that tobacco has more than 100 times the diacetyl then the absolute worst e-cig (750 times the average one). Tobacco isn't considered a risk factor for popcorn lung."
I’ve not been vaping frequently over the past year and haven’t stayed up to date with recent studies, but I just recently have noticed a resurgence of the “new studies are showing vaping is no better than smoking” comments on social media, and I’ve even heard some more nicotine-enlightened acquaintances saying this.
I’m so glad the lovely forum members here are staying up to date with these recent reports and still carefully analyzing them to suss out the facts from the fear-mongering. There is always the possibility that one day we will discover some legitimate potential health problem that can arise from vaping, but I was skeptical of the recent comments, knowing how unconvincing and downright wrong the earlier “studies” turned out to be. (And, skepticism aside, I’m relieved to see that this is still the case.)
I will keep an open mind and accept the possibility that things could change but as people continue to vape with no apparent ill-effects from the delivery system, and as the body of research continues to grow, I think we’re justified in becoming more skeptical of such reports. They’ve had years to make their case. The burden of proof is shifting to the anti-vaping crowd and fear mongers — it’s no longer on vapers and the harm-reduction advocates to demonstrate safety. The burden is on the anti-vaping crowd to demonstrate actual harm.
Thus far, they’ve been unable to do this. Pending further evidence, it’s pretty clear now that the reason they can’t demonstrate this purported intrinsic harm of vaping is because, as far as we can tell with the best available evidence, there isn’t any.
I’m so glad the lovely forum members here are staying up to date with these recent reports and still carefully analyzing them to suss out the facts from the fear-mongering. There is always the possibility that one day we will discover some legitimate potential health problem that can arise from vaping, but I was skeptical of the recent comments, knowing how unconvincing and downright wrong the earlier “studies” turned out to be. (And, skepticism aside, I’m relieved to see that this is still the case.)
I will keep an open mind and accept the possibility that things could change but as people continue to vape with no apparent ill-effects from the delivery system, and as the body of research continues to grow, I think we’re justified in becoming more skeptical of such reports. They’ve had years to make their case. The burden of proof is shifting to the anti-vaping crowd and fear mongers — it’s no longer on vapers and the harm-reduction advocates to demonstrate safety. The burden is on the anti-vaping crowd to demonstrate actual harm.
Thus far, they’ve been unable to do this. Pending further evidence, it’s pretty clear now that the reason they can’t demonstrate this purported intrinsic harm of vaping is because, as far as we can tell with the best available evidence, there isn’t any.
This true in the strictest sense. The anti vaping media is still a factor to take into account. IMO the burden is still on vaper's to turn the tide regarding harm reduction and the benefits of vaping.
I agree that the burden is still on vapers to put the good word out but it is NICE to see such studies emerging honestly. I think it is starting to show in the attitudes of some folks, but there are always going to be the nut jo-- ahem, fervent devotes of the air remaining "clear" and food remaining "organic" and if vapor were so deadly, I find it hard to believe that I have successfully driven through fog, and lived to tell the tale.
I also find it funny that many such crunchy granola types reside in CA when for example given the air quality when we hastily (well tried to be hasty) driving through LA. You should vape 24-7 if you live in LA, much healthier....
Anna
I also find it funny that many such crunchy granola types reside in CA when for example given the air quality when we hastily (well tried to be hasty) driving through LA. You should vape 24-7 if you live in LA, much healthier....
Anna
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
