- Status
The answer is the people most worried about that know their tax supported funding will be reduced when everybody stops smoking and paying tobacco taxes. Follow the money.
Everything is contraindicated for somebody. I believe vaping is lower risk than smoking so I vape. I take some precautions that also are convenience. I do DIY and use the smallest possible amount of flavor. I capped power at 30 max watts and 400 degrees. I don't want daily ml's to increase, currently 7 per day.
My lungs would be a llittle clearer if I didn't vape. May be someday I won't vape. In the mean time I'm told by people who know me that I'm a noticeably different person since I stopped smoking, emotionally as well as physically.
Oops, almost forgot. A carton a week cost me $3,000 a year. A year supply of ingredients for DIY cost me $30. Time is money.
Everything is contraindicated for somebody. I believe vaping is lower risk than smoking so I vape. I take some precautions that also are convenience. I do DIY and use the smallest possible amount of flavor. I capped power at 30 max watts and 400 degrees. I don't want daily ml's to increase, currently 7 per day.
My lungs would be a llittle clearer if I didn't vape. May be someday I won't vape. In the mean time I'm told by people who know me that I'm a noticeably different person since I stopped smoking, emotionally as well as physically.
Oops, almost forgot. A carton a week cost me $3,000 a year. A year supply of ingredients for DIY cost me $30. Time is money.
I'm Not Sure that one can answer this type of Question?
Because how can One Answer account for All the Different Ways that People Use an e-Cigarette? And the Thousands and Thousands of Different e-Liquids that people are putting into their Hardware.
Is the Potential of Risk/Harm the same for a Person using 2ml/day of Unflavored in a Cig-a-like at 5 Watts verses a Person using 10ml/day of 30% Flavored e-Liquid vaped at 100 Watts?
It would be Nice if we could Draw a Neat Box around e-Cigarettes/e-Cigarette Use and say that this Answer Applies to All People, using All Hardware, with All e-Liquids, but I just Don't see that it is Possible.
We still don't know the long term effects unfortunately. But what we do know is that the first vapers are now vaping for 7 years and there's no problem and we also know that vaping is less harmful than cigarettes.
30% Flavored e-Liquid? Who use that? WTF? I have my e-Liquids with 2% of flavor... But still 30% flavor, 100 Watts, 10ml/day sounds better than 40 cigarettes per day IMO...
Just 7 years? In GB is vaping present from 2005 as I heard... I believe there are some vapers who vape longer than 7 years. On the other hand what are the health-effects from 7 years of smoking tobacco cigarettes? I'll say not significant.
You would be Surprised how much Flavoring and Sweeteners are in some Retail e-Liquids. Or how much some people are putting into their DIY Mixes.
Some have the Mindset that Using Less Flavorings present Less Potential for Risk and Long Term Harm. But it could be that 9 out of 10 Flavorings are GRAS for Inhalation at 10ml/day at 30% Flavoring Level. But 1 Chemical Flavoring is Not "Safe" at any exposure Level about 30 ppm per day.
There is just a Lot More that is Unknown verses what is Known at this stage.
The Point is there Isn't a One Size Fits All description for e-Cigarettes and e-Liquids. So it is Hard to Say that "e-Cigarettes" are this. Or "e-Cigarettes" are that.
And how we will know that? And how do you know that your flavors are GRAS for Inhalation? As I know only Menthol is GRAS for inhalation? How do you choose your flavors? Based on what?
And which chemical is GRAS for inhalation in cigarette smoke?
Peter Hajek said in one interview that all what vapers do is much safer than smoke from tobacco cigarette...
Last edited:
That's kinda the Big Question.
Speaking Only for Myself, and Based on what I have Read on Flavorings that contain Diketones, I moved away from them. I also moved to using Less and Less Flavorings in my DIY. And the use of HOF (Hint of Flavor) and Unflavored e-Liquids.
I subscribe to the concept that it is "The Dose makes the Poison".
Aside from that, I'm Not Sure what may be GRAS for Long Term Inhalation using Any e-Cigarette?
"The Dose makes the Poison" - so using less flavorings means less harm...obviously. That's how I decided to use only 2% of flavors in my e-Liquids.
"The Dose makes the Poison" - that's why cigarette is so much of a hazard. But still... Some people smoke for decades (40 years and more) and they are alive.
And chefs in the restaurants... They inhale vapours with flavors from cooking every day for 8 hours and they are fine, healthy, fit, etc.
Peter Hajek and ASH encourage long-term use of e-cigarettes because this can prevent relapse of smoking...
Sure, Many People smoke for a Decades and are still Alive. Heck, I'm one of those People. But Many of those who Smoked that long have Diminished Lung Capacity. And an Degradation of overall Health. I was one of those Also.
So the Benchmark of Mortality isn't always the best Measure of Harm.
---
Not sure how well a Comparison to a Chef who Indirectly inhales Flavorings at work and then for the remaining 16 hours Doesn't Applies? As compared to someone Directly Inhaling much Higher Concentrations of Flavoring for just about Every waking hour of the day.
---
The Long and the Short of all this (to me) is My Health has Improved since I quit Smoking and started using an e-Cigarette. I also Fell Better since I reduced my Flavoring Levels to Very Low Levels.
What are the Long Term Health Effects? I Don't Know? All I know is I have used an e-Cigarette for just under 6 Years. And I fell better then when I Smoked.
But then again, I Didn't feel all that much Different in the 1st 6 Years that I Smoked. And it wasn't till many years Later that I started to have Problems.
So I Guess Time will Tell.
Harm reduction.
Breathing air is safer than vaping, breathing vapor is safer than breathing burning death.
Breathing air is safer than vaping, breathing vapor is safer than breathing burning death.
I am curious if the same people are worried/curious about the long-term health effects from any new technology? If yes, then what is their answer for that. If not, then why the particular concern with vaping?
IOW, I'd respond to the inquiry with further inquiry to determine how genuine the worry/concern is. 30 years (heck 5000 years) from now, people will still be concerned about the long term effects of (whatever, i.e. vaping, or eating oranges, etc.).
Because they heard on the news that we don't have long-term studies on vaping. They compare smoking with vaping and smoking has terrible and lethal long-term health effects.
They are worried because people underestimated health-effects of smoking 50 years ago. But I usually say that now we know much more about chemistry of e-cigarette vapour that we know about chemistry of cigarette smoke.
"Long-term health effects" is a term which is often used against vaping...
Then I would challenge them on the "terrible and lethal long-term health effects" of smoking. Again, I'd be interested in how genuine their concern is while also learning how truly informed they are on the issue. It's quite plausible they are very informed. But also plausible their worry is trumped up based on anti-smoking propaganda. If I could show that to them, I would let them know the same deception/propaganda is being done with eCigs/vaping.
Correct on the last assertion. I reckon that will always be the case for those who have a superficial understanding of the terms in play. Thus, I'd want to learn more about how genuine their concern is, what is it they are actually worried about? I'd like to have that put into perspective of (literally) all other things on the planet that also have long-term health effects.
And if I sensed, for a second, that their concern was not all that genuine or was overly aggressive/judgmental or prone to shaming, I'd be pleased with strategy of putting them on the defense to try and work their way out of the intellectual maze for how anyone could respond to such inquiries.
I may even thoroughly enjoy such a discussion.
Are there not a "terrible and lethal long-term health effects" of smoking?
In Slovenia Government and PHD tells people that vaping is equal or even more dangerous than smoking... And this is our people truth. Period. We will have higher sin taxes on e-liquids than on tobacco cigarettes. We will have the highest sin taxes on e-liquids in EU. In Slovenia and in every other country in the world smoking still is the main cause of prematurely deaths, so the smoking is the biggest evil and smokers are outlaws. Propaganda? Well in Slovenia even the biggest evil now is vaping a.k.a electronic cigarette.
They are worried that vaping will cause even more prematurely deaths among smokers, so the vaping is the bigger evil now because we don't know long-term health effects and so is better that people smoke because we know long-term health effects and we know what we can expect. Something like that.
Everything in my country is judgmental or prone to shaming. You smoke, you will die because of that! You drink, you will die because of that! You don't exercise, you will became fat because of that and then you will die! You don't eat healthy, you will die because of that! And so on... And every of this judgments came from TV and people are citing it...
With abusive smoking (or really abusive anything)... perhaps...
a chance for that. Also a chance (abusive) smoking doesn't result in long term health effects that are significant, and so surely not terrible. It is quite clearly not a causal relationship, but evidence abounds that a correlation / association exists.
So guess work based on emotions. Thus not science. Not truth. Might take a week or it might take longer, but the lies will be very hard to maintain, just as they are with regards to smoking.
There is not a human behavior or activity that can be cited with any sense of reasonable confidence which does not lead to (human) death. Makes all the other stuff seem quite silly when that over arching point is not denied.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
