Switching to e-cigarettes could save 6.6M American smokers • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by amyjess » Tue, Oct 03, 2017, 6:21 PM UTC

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.

If it helps, I used vaping to quit smoking.

I was a pack-a-day clove smoker for years, and eventually one day I switched to an e-cig. I switched hard to vaping and didn't touch a cigarette again. Soon, I geared down to 4mg nic, and then I just... stopped about two months in. One day I realized I hadn't touched my e-cig in a week, and that was it for me.

That was four years ago, and I've only touched nicotine once since then (I smoked a single clove for old time's sake about two years after I quit... and then I declined a second one).

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

#102

Post by schedule1 » Tue, Oct 03, 2017, 6:22 PM UTC

mastax wrote: post #89

wolfgang42 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the health risks of vaping with non-nicotine-containing fluid? I thought that it was just atomized vegetable glycerin with a bit of flavoring, but I've not done much research into the matter.

The current concern is metal nanoparticles coming off of the heating coils.

I wonder about this every time I replace a coil that is toasted. There are several types of coils now (Ni, kanthal, stainless) - it'd be nice to know more about the degradation of the metals and its effects for sure.

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

#103

Post by hwillis » Tue, Oct 03, 2017, 6:27 PM UTC

wolfgang42 wrote: post #62

excalibur wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both. Even vaping 0mg nicotine is bad for you, but not nearly as bad as smoking.

What are the health risks of vaping with non-nicotine-containing fluid? I thought that it was just atomized vegetable glycerin with a bit of flavoring, but I've not done much research into the matter.

It's quite hot air in your lungs, and isn't gonna do anything good. Not hot enough to scald you but the interface in alveoli is very sensitive to changes in consistency, thickness and makeup and it'll change how well you can absorb oxygen. Plus it's irritating which can cause inflammation, making it harder to breathe. Not something you'd notice normally but all of that will lower your lung capacity for quite a while.

At super low power it's pretty much totally safe and the impact on breathing is temporary[1]. At ~>18 watts formaldehyde starts to become a possible irritant, and there are also lots of other carbonyls. One of the really fun ones in the graph in [1] is acrolein- it's still at extremely low levels but that shit is not anything you want in your body. It's generated in small amounts any time anything fatty is burned, but absorbing it through your lungs daily is a totally different thing.

Vaping at low power ([1]: https://monq.com/vg/

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

#104

Post by amyjess » Tue, Oct 03, 2017, 6:28 PM UTC

gnaritas wrote: post #58

hfourm wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Lung cancer is known to be caused by carcinogens in smoke, vapor is not smoke, you cannot simply transfer the ills of smoking to vaping just because. Nicotine alone is not harmful, it's addictive, but not harmful, it's not what causes cancer from smoking. All apparent evidence is that vaping appears vastly healthier than smoking and there's no reason yet to believe vapor is harmful to the lungs; you breath water vapo…

> Nicotine alone is not harmful, it's addictive, but not harmful, it's not what causes cancer from smoking.

Nicotine is a vasoconstrictor. It substantially increases the risk of Deep Vein Thrombosis, especially when combined with another chemical that produces clotting enzymes, such as estrogen. Speaking of estrogen, nicotine also antagonizes the estrogen receptor, which is pretty bad if you're a woman. Ever notice how women who have been smoking for a long time look pretty bad? It's not your imagination, it's because nicotine shuts down their bodies' ability to use estrogen (and estrogen is what causes smooth skin, curves, etc.).

Also, go look up "Green Tobacco Sickness" [0]. Too much nicotine can have all kinds of adverse effects, and since it can be absorbed by the skin, people who handle wet tobacco plants get all kinds of health problems. Oh, and too much nicotine can stop your heart. I've seen people seriously suggest it as a suicide method.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Tobacco_Sickness

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

#105

Post by randyrand » Tue, Oct 03, 2017, 6:29 PM UTC

I wonder if this obsession with saving lives will end when we hit the maximum human capacity of Earth, sometime in the next 1000 years. Though perhaps we could be multi-solar-system by then.

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

#106

Post by KekDemaga » Tue, Oct 03, 2017, 6:33 PM UTC

EpicEng wrote: post #99

KekDemaga wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Some people make an attempt and fail, thus it must be impossible."

That doesn't follow. We know for an absolute fact that cold turkey doesn't work for most people. We also know that many people want to smoke even when knowing the dangers. A safer alternative is working better than anything before it ever has.

>We know for an absolute fact that cold turkey doesn't work for most people.

No, you know that most people who attempt to quit "cold turkey" decide that quitting smoking permanently isn't as important as relieving their current symptoms of nicotine withdrawal. Its a minor point but an important distinction.

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

#107

Post by bb88 » Tue, Oct 03, 2017, 6:37 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #79

bb88 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But perhaps not because of the nicotine.

http://www.medicinenet.com/smokeless_tobacco/article.htm

To me it's unclear whether or not nicotine itself is actually bad.

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

#108

Post by randyrand » Tue, Oct 03, 2017, 6:37 PM UTC

loeg wrote: post #70

The number is artificially inflated by multiplying by 10 years. It's 660,000 people a year, which is still a huge number.

I'd rather they represented the number a extra days alive. "Switching to vaping would bring XXXXXX more days of life to Americans".

If those 660,000 people were on average 95+ years old and would have died soon later anyway, then "saving" their life has a much lesser meaning. Of course this isn't the case, but the statistic is not very helpful as a measure.

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

#109

Post by vivekd » Tue, Oct 03, 2017, 6:41 PM UTC

Ecigs have helped me quit smoking and they are the only thing that worked for me. However, out of all the smokers I know, I only know one other person who managed to quit smoking and stay quit with ecigs. The vast majority of people I know who tried ecigs kept smoking and eventually gave them altogether in favor of cigarettes

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

#110

Post by hwillis » Tue, Oct 03, 2017, 6:43 PM UTC

schedule1 wrote: post #102

mastax wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current concern is metal nanoparticles coming off of the heating coils.

I wonder about this every time I replace a coil that is toasted. There are several types of coils now (Ni, kanthal, stainless) - it'd be nice to know more about the degradation of the metals and its effects for sure.

Kanthal is basically stainless steel with more chromium and a slight amount of aluminum. Which one is better depends heavily on the exact alloys and how they are assembled, unfortunately.

Kanthal requires a very specific heating profile after installation to develop its protective coating. Without that its basically just weird, fancy stainless steel. It becomes very brittle after the heat treat which causes gradual degradation especially during repeated, fast heating cycles. I would not use it.

I would also avoid low-alloy stainless like 400 series. That's the cheapest kind and at elevated temperature it oxidizes and corrodes. 300 series would be better, 500 would be best. Even within those two series though, some alloys will be much better than others.

Nickel... I don't know. It's very sensitive to composition and some can leach into liquid and others don't. It's more toxic than iron or chromium, but pretty resistant to temperature. Kind of a wash.