What is the 5% bad in vaping if it's 95% safer than smoking?
- Thread starter Adomizer
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
The 5% is due to the fact that inhaling anything other than clean air is potentially damaging. Even smog has associated dangers.
But we are inhaling, intentionally, several chemicals when vaping, so while safer by far than burning tobacco it's still not good clean air.
There are certainly things you can do when vaping to minimize any associated risk. Vape at cooler temperatures, use lower flavoring percentages, vape slightly higher nicotine to allow for lower daily consumption of ejuice, avoid dry hits, keep your coil clean and rewick consistently and so forth. All those things can definitely minimize risk.
But like you said, we used to inhale burning tobacco, almost anything is better for you... lol
But we are inhaling, intentionally, several chemicals when vaping, so while safer by far than burning tobacco it's still not good clean air.
There are certainly things you can do when vaping to minimize any associated risk. Vape at cooler temperatures, use lower flavoring percentages, vape slightly higher nicotine to allow for lower daily consumption of ejuice, avoid dry hits, keep your coil clean and rewick consistently and so forth. All those things can definitely minimize risk.
But like you said, we used to inhale burning tobacco, almost anything is better for you... lol
Last edited:
A great way of looking at it. I think I'm not the only one with OCD here. Smoking is ritualistic and doing all those things are important witb vaping. Instead of packing a pack of cigs, opening the pack, smelling the cig, let it hang in your mouth, lighting it, and then smoking it. You are doing the same concept but with vaping.
I point this out every once in a while.. The original citation for the 5% figure was from the Royal College of Physicians report on ecigarettes; you know the same organization that blew the whistle on smoking way back when?
It has been misquoted from the beginning.
What they actually said was that vaping was unlikely to be as much as 5% as harmful as smoking, so less than 5% risk in their estimation.
Now, I am sure we can all think of ways to make vaping more dangerous than that, and there is always the chance that something untoward will pop up, but, overall, I have not seen anything to challenge that original estimation. Yet.
It has been misquoted from the beginning.
What they actually said was that vaping was unlikely to be as much as 5% as harmful as smoking, so less than 5% risk in their estimation.
Now, I am sure we can all think of ways to make vaping more dangerous than that, and there is always the chance that something untoward will pop up, but, overall, I have not seen anything to challenge that original estimation. Yet.
My lungs showed a slight haze on routine X-rays when I smoked and the techs used to tell me that it was from smoking. 12 years out from my last cigarette my lungs have been clear for many years on a CAT scan. That's definitely good news in my book.
I quit vaping flavors years ago for the most part. I'm satisfied with plain old DIY PG/VG/NIC in my vape. On rare occasions I'll add a few drops of flavor to a tank, but most of my vape is plain old PG, VG, and NIC.
I quit vaping flavors years ago for the most part. I'm satisfied with plain old DIY PG/VG/NIC in my vape. On rare occasions I'll add a few drops of flavor to a tank, but most of my vape is plain old PG, VG, and NIC.
Last edited:
If you want to Know about the "5%", then you should Start by Understanding what the "95%" is. And where all All came from.
Here is where the 5% came from...
https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/file/3563/download
Specifically, pages 83 ~ 84, "5.3.3.6 Relevance to potential long-term harms"
That is where the 5% was First Mentioned. But where the Concept of a 95% came from used to Calculate the 5% came from here...
https://www.karger.com/article/fulltext/360220
So then you might Ask yourself, If I Base a "Naked Statistic" on a Multitude of Criteria's using a Weighted Averages, what happens If I Increase or Decrease the Weighting associated with a given Criteria?
Or, should a Criteria like "The extent in which the use of a product creates decline in social cohesion and decline in the reputation of a community." be used to calculate a Percentile Value that the Average person is going to believe relates to a Health Risk assessment? And if so, what type of Weighted average would you assign to it?
And, shouldn't these Criteria's and (Maybe More Importantly) their Weighted Averages have been Clearly Stated when the 5% was Originally presented?
Don't get me Wrong. I'm a Firm Believer that e-Cigarettes pose far Less Risk on the Population Level as compared to Smoking. I just think Etching a Naked Statistic about Harm, or Lack Thereof, into people Minds can be a be a Very Slippery Slope.
Last edited:
Not true at all. Some of us vape 0mg and are addicted solely to the act of smoking and therefore to the act of vaping.
I'm trying to vape no flavor PG, VG, and nicotine too. I'm not a fan of flavors. You are literally vaping somebody's idea of a flavor profile.
Many years ago I was able to quit smoking very soon after starting to vape. I still haven't smoked a cigarette since I decided to let the vape take away the cigs in 2010. I never looked back. I've told my story about how I used to see hazy areas on routine X-rays and CT scans done during routine doctor visits. Those went away in the first couple of years I vaped.
That leaves PG and VG, and of course flavors that could cause medical issues, but there's always a risk, even if it's just walking downtown daily and sucking up auto and bus fumes. Clean air is the best, but we are all exposed to many less than optimal chemicals every day in the air we breathe.
95% safer is a misrepresentation of the data in the linked report.
Are there any statisticians on the board? I'm an engineer and no stranger to math, but what does "95% safer" really mean? People throw around percentages like that without knowing what it really means in terms of numbers.
On Page 185 of the report, it says that "Although unknown, the hazard to health arising from long-term vapour inhalation is unlikely to exceed 5% of the harm from tobacco smoke." Lets assume that this 5% is the actual number.
So would that mean that in a sample of 100, 5 would be from vaping and 95 would be from cigarettes? I say it would not. 5/95 = 0.0526 or 5.26% Not 5%
I think that you would need a sample of 105, with 5 from vaping and 100 from cigarettes.
5/100 = 0.05 = 5% exactly. That would achieve the statement that the harm from vaping is 5% of the harm from cigarettes.
Or if you insist on having a sample of 100, then the math would be as follows:
x= the number of harm cases due to cigarettes.
then 0.05x + x =100
or 1.05x =100
and x = 95.2
so in this sample of 100, there would be 95.2 cases of harm from cigarettes and 4.8 cases of harm from vaping.
Even then, how can you conclude that vaping is 95% safer? I would say that 95.2/4.8 = 19.8. Mathematically, you could say that the harm from cigarettes is 19.8 times the harm from vaping. Or using the reciprocal, you could say that the harm from vaping is 5% of the harm from cigarettes which agrees with the original data in the report, and confirms the calculation above.
Now, "95% safer" could mean that if you have 100 total cases and take away 95 (smoking) you get 5 cases for vaping. But again, 5/95 is 5.26% and does not fit with the data in the report.
So in conclusion, "95% safer" is a misinterpretation of the data.
Are there any statisticians on the board? I'm an engineer and no stranger to math, but what does "95% safer" really mean? People throw around percentages like that without knowing what it really means in terms of numbers.
On Page 185 of the report, it says that "Although unknown, the hazard to health arising from long-term vapour inhalation is unlikely to exceed 5% of the harm from tobacco smoke." Lets assume that this 5% is the actual number.
So would that mean that in a sample of 100, 5 would be from vaping and 95 would be from cigarettes? I say it would not. 5/95 = 0.0526 or 5.26% Not 5%
I think that you would need a sample of 105, with 5 from vaping and 100 from cigarettes.
5/100 = 0.05 = 5% exactly. That would achieve the statement that the harm from vaping is 5% of the harm from cigarettes.
Or if you insist on having a sample of 100, then the math would be as follows:
x= the number of harm cases due to cigarettes.
then 0.05x + x =100
or 1.05x =100
and x = 95.2
so in this sample of 100, there would be 95.2 cases of harm from cigarettes and 4.8 cases of harm from vaping.
Even then, how can you conclude that vaping is 95% safer? I would say that 95.2/4.8 = 19.8. Mathematically, you could say that the harm from cigarettes is 19.8 times the harm from vaping. Or using the reciprocal, you could say that the harm from vaping is 5% of the harm from cigarettes which agrees with the original data in the report, and confirms the calculation above.
Now, "95% safer" could mean that if you have 100 total cases and take away 95 (smoking) you get 5 cases for vaping. But again, 5/95 is 5.26% and does not fit with the data in the report.
So in conclusion, "95% safer" is a misinterpretation of the data.
Same thing that "kills 99.9% of germs" means
I often joking that the amount of nicotine I vape at, I could get from eating vegetables...
ok yes I'm exaggerating but still 1.5mg of nic isn't that much...I don't vape due to an addiction as you put it....I vape due to different anxieties and such, plus not to mention that studies have shown that low doses of nicotine can help prevent Alzheimer's, something that runs in my family.
which is why I smoked, due to anxieties and other issues...not really due to addiction, smoking was more socially acceptable than drinking or "self medicating"
I chose to vape because, yes it is a healthy options than smoking but also because there's no second hand smoke...what little harm that I am doing to myself by vaping, is just that....to my self...not to those around me. As well as less waste, no cig butts everywhere and ash...
and then well yeah there's the whole I'm not putting all of the other crap that's in a cig in my body as vaping is only pg and/or vg (which is also used in almost everything from toothpaste, to inhalers and other medications, to skin products, to food, etc) and then may or may not contain nicotine and flavorings (the same flavorings that are used in food and drinks) that's it...whereas the list of crap in cigs is 10 miles long
but vaping for me, the main point is, I am only harming myself and not innocent bystanders
ok yes I'm exaggerating but still 1.5mg of nic isn't that much...I don't vape due to an addiction as you put it....I vape due to different anxieties and such, plus not to mention that studies have shown that low doses of nicotine can help prevent Alzheimer's, something that runs in my family.
which is why I smoked, due to anxieties and other issues...not really due to addiction, smoking was more socially acceptable than drinking or "self medicating"
I chose to vape because, yes it is a healthy options than smoking but also because there's no second hand smoke...what little harm that I am doing to myself by vaping, is just that....to my self...not to those around me. As well as less waste, no cig butts everywhere and ash...
and then well yeah there's the whole I'm not putting all of the other crap that's in a cig in my body as vaping is only pg and/or vg (which is also used in almost everything from toothpaste, to inhalers and other medications, to skin products, to food, etc) and then may or may not contain nicotine and flavorings (the same flavorings that are used in food and drinks) that's it...whereas the list of crap in cigs is 10 miles long
but vaping for me, the main point is, I am only harming myself and not innocent bystanders
I Think it has something to do with Not being Able to see Trees or a Forest.
But I'm Not Sure of which?
Was it Mark Twain who said, "Lies, damned lies and statistics"? Although I was a contemporary of his, I really don't recall.
Look at it in terms of "risk" rather than "harm"...
About 95 out of 100 cigarette smokers are likely to suffer some negative health effect from smoking.
About 5 out of 100 vapers may suffer some negative health effect from vaping.
Less risky.
The 5% figure was an rough estimate, as is clear from the wording, not a result derived of rigorous science or statistics. Vapers latched on to it because it provides a concise talking point and a simple way to justifying what we've already decided to do and to affirm our own experiences.
When a group of physicians study a particular phenomenon they generally leave a small percentage to account for the unknown. You'd think that in ten or more years time (that vaping has been widespread) the downside of vaping would be obvious. What is obvious is that people aren't dying or contracting disease from vaping.
In the Royal College of Physicians study, they just left a 5% chance open in case there was something that they missed or weren't able to perceive due to the short period of study. Who knows what happens in 30 to 40 years of vaping?
We know what happens to a considerable percentage in the same number of years smoking cigarettes, although some smokers have no serious side effects other than a cough or shortness of breath with exercise.
In the Royal College of Physicians study, they just left a 5% chance open in case there was something that they missed or weren't able to perceive due to the short period of study. Who knows what happens in 30 to 40 years of vaping?
We know what happens to a considerable percentage in the same number of years smoking cigarettes, although some smokers have no serious side effects other than a cough or shortness of breath with exercise.
Last edited:
10 or so years isn't actually enough time to to conclude that but it doesn't matter anyway. Science requires money and is, thus, a business and businesses serve their customers. The buyers for science are large corporations & government. The buyers of government are large corporations. Controlling interest in both is held by finance.
Love the gif,it's from a tv series called The Baker And The Beauty...shame that it was cancelled just after one season
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
