Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers

in.reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 153 posts

Re: Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers

#71

Post by bogomipz »

gnaritas wrote: post #18
dsschnau wrote: post #5

vaping definitely isn't healthy but it doesn't take much time vaping to determine that it's less bad for you than smoking. i still want to quit nicotine entirely one day but until that day comes, my vape pen and i are good friends. 9 months ago i tried one out, and that same day was the very last day i ever smoked a cigarette.

> vaping definitely isn't healthy That's a bold statement, how exactly is vaping definitely not healthy?

"Also there is evidence that e-cigs deliver some toxic stuff of their own such as formaldehyde (a known carcinogen), nitrosamines (linked to cancer) and lead (a neurotoxin). Though the toxicant levels of e-cigs may be “9–450 times lower than in cigarette smoke,” as this study suggests, levels of formaldehyde andmetalshave been found to be comparable to or higher than those found in conventional cigarettes.*Silicate particles, which are a cause of lung disease, have also been found in e-cigarette vapors."

source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/e-cigs-and-second...

I'm not sure why you consider the OP's statement to be bold as I don't think there are many instances where ingesting chemicals into the lungs is considered healthy.

Re: Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers

#72

Post by adrianN »

Ascetik wrote: post #19

I use nasal snuff, the least damaging and least intrusive form of tobacco use. I vaped pretty hardcore for 3 or 4 years, it definitely has an effect on your lungs, especially if you're into dual-coil sub-ohm builds and all that jazz. Nasal snuff has been a God-send and is much more enjoyable, at least to me. I still smoke a nice briar pipe with a few different pipe tobacco blends on occasion, but nasal snuff has defi…

Have you tried Snus? The Wikipedia page makes it sound relatively safe for a tobacco product https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snus

Re: Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers

#73

Post by j0rd »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #33
revelation wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sometimes feel like I'm in loony land with all the e-cigarette FUD. It doesn't take a genius to realize that the cancer causing potential of smoking lies primarily in inhaling smoke containing a large number of carcinogenic combustion products. Vaporizers completely eliminate that; it's why "medical marijuana" is a thing, they couldn't prescribe it when the side-effect is cancer.

At this point I'm convinced that this e-cig FUD is a combination of intentional misinformation and general population not being able to think clearly about degrees of things. One would think that "a significantly less harmful thing is better than a harmful thing" is a tautology, but apparently it's not obvious to everyone.

It would be better if I quit, but wasn't planning on doing that, so I switched to vaping and haven't smoked since.

Best? No. Better? Probably.

One of the funny things with vaping is after two weeks smoking a cigarette becomes disgusting.

I'd say it's also a lot easier to quit vaping than smoking cigarettes. So that as well is a move in the correct direction.

Re: Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers

#74

Post by gnaritas »

bogomipz wrote: post #71
gnaritas wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> vaping definitely isn't healthy That's a bold statement, how exactly is vaping definitely not healthy?

"Also there is evidence that e-cigs deliver some toxic stuff of their own such as formaldehyde (a known carcinogen), nitrosamines (linked to cancer) and lead (a neurotoxin). Though the toxicant levels of e-cigs may be “9–450 times lower than in cigarette smoke,” as this study suggests, levels of formaldehyde andmetalshave been found to be comparable to or higher than those found in conventional cigarettes.*Silicate p…

There's a whole lot of may and might in all that; but you have to see it from the perspective of a smoker, not a non-smoker. It's clearly vastly safer than smoking. Any smoker who switched can tell you how they're starting to be able to breath well again, the smokers cough is going away, the lungs feel better and not full of shit. Yes, eciggs may still be more dangerous than nothing, but smokers aren't approaching it from doing nothing.

Eciggs make quitting smoking vastly easier, and eciggs are easier to quit than cigarettes. I routinely go half a day without hitting my ecigg, that never happened with smokes.

Re: Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers

#75

Post by magic_beans »

nickjj wrote: post #6
magic_beans wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the very least, nicotine-free e-cigarettes allow people addicted to cigarettes to maintain the habit of smoking -- going outside, taking the mental break associated with cigarettes -- but without the damage of actual smoke or nicotine.

You can do this without smoking anything too. I smoked a pack a day for over 10 years and quit cold turkey without any patches or vaping. The mental break thing is definitely real. I highly recommend just going outside. Maybe do a couple of laps around the block.

Not everyone is like you.

Re: Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers

#76

Post by wu_tang_chris »

Ascetik wrote: post #19

I use nasal snuff, the least damaging and least intrusive form of tobacco use. I vaped pretty hardcore for 3 or 4 years, it definitely has an effect on your lungs, especially if you're into dual-coil sub-ohm builds and all that jazz. Nasal snuff has been a God-send and is much more enjoyable, at least to me. I still smoke a nice briar pipe with a few different pipe tobacco blends on occasion, but nasal snuff has defi…

What is a brand of nasal snuff you'd recommend?

Re: Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers

#77

Post by j0rd »

tlb wrote: post #64
alexanderstears wrote: post #36

Our society's tendency to moralize or rationalize issues has made it tough to talk about harm reduction. Moralizers focus on the corrosive elements of addiction and rationalizers say that e-cigs are still harmful but they miss the point that many people who smoke e-cigs are better off than they would be if they used cigs to get their nicotine. E-cigs offer a better path to cessation through better control of the nico…

I didn't think the regulations were heavy-handed. Such devices should be tested and certified to make sure they aren't, for example, leaching heavy metals into the liquid and vaporizing it. Devices sold with cadmium-plated heating coils or lead solder joints could easily poison millions of people, so I think it's reasonable to require safety testing.

I personally think ecigs are an interesting experiment in free markets.

A bunch of like minded people who had a habbit which was the leading cause of preventable death coming together to figure out a way to kill themselves less.

Have there been things in the industry which were poisonous and could kill you over the course of it's history. Yes. Lots. Have those been slowly fased out as concerned consumers voice opinions, yes. Ni200 wire is a good example. Battery mooch is another.

The lack of regulation has certainly led to it being more dangerous for uninformed consumers, but it has also lead to lots of independent entrepreneurs innovating fast in the space.

Personally I see it as a great example of free markets vs. regulation. I also think it's only been able to exist because it's in a market which of its own is hazardous to health.

Also this entire industry as I understand it came from China.

Re: Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers

#78

Post by bogomipz »

gnaritas wrote: post #74
bogomipz wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Also there is evidence that e-cigs deliver some toxic stuff of their own such as formaldehyde (a known carcinogen), nitrosamines (linked to cancer) and lead (a neurotoxin). Though the toxicant levels of e-cigs may be “9–450 times lower than in cigarette smoke,” as this study suggests, levels of formaldehyde andmetalshave been found to be comparable to or higher than those found in conventional cigarettes.*Silicate p…

There's a whole lot of may and might in all that; but you have to see it from the perspective of a smoker, not a non-smoker. It's clearly vastly safer than smoking. Any smoker who switched can tell you how they're starting to be able to breath well again, the smokers cough is going away, the lungs feel better and not full of shit. Yes, eciggs may still be more dangerous than nothing, but smokers aren't approaching it…

>"There's a whole lot of may and might in all that; but you have to see it from the perspective of a smoker, not a non-smoker."

I was responding the the OP's statement that saying e-cigarrets were unhealthy was a bold claim.

There are always things that might be considered less harmful but that does not mean they are considered healthy.

Re: Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers

#79

Post by DanBC »

bb88 wrote: post #42
melq wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is vaping unhealthy because nicotine is inherently unhealthy or are there other harms associated with vaping itself? Need to quit smoking cigarettes myself.

With cigarettes, it's the burning that creates the issue, as the excessive amounts of heat create the carcinogens and the smoke.

Chewing tobacco is still carcinogenic.

Re: Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers

#80

Post by refurb »

hfourm wrote: post #25
gnaritas wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> vaping definitely isn't healthy That's a bold statement, how exactly is vaping definitely not healthy?

Because you are inhaling foreign chemicals into your lung in higher then normal dosages. How is that a bold statement? People run around vaping like there are zero consequences, but I wouldn't be surprised if research eventually emerges saying certain lower quality fillers/vape mixtures will result in mechanical damage and cancer of the lungs and esophagus. Something similar was apparent with flavoring agents being u…

Because you are inhaling foreign chemicals into your lung in higher then normal dosages.

We do that all the time. Ever worked in a newly constructed building? Wondering what that smell is? Plasticizers, monomers, adhesive solvents, etc.

Same with a new car. Or cooking over the stove, bbq'ing. Or walking down a busy street with cars on it.

Just because you are inhaling "foreign chemicals" doesn't mean there are significant risk associated with it.

Post reply on HN