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

121–130 of 153 posts

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

#121

Post by EpicEng »

KekDemaga wrote: post #115
EpicEng wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, in other words... it doesn't work. Yours is in fact a completely unimportant distinction unless you're using it to support ecigs because... ...guess what they get with ecigs? A far safer alternative which allows them to continue their nicotine habit and enjoy the pleasures of smoking. So you're in support of ecigs now?

People should be able to consume what they want, but what you argue is like saying a chemotherapy doesn't cure cancer because patients give up on it after it makes them feel ill.

If ~90% of patients did actually give up on it in reality then yes, I would say that because it wouldn't work for 90% of patients. The medical community would move away from it.

Of course, that's not the reality. every single one of your arguments are hypothetical metaphors that have no connection to the facts of the issue at hand. You have no practical solutions. You're only answer is for people to 'toughen up'. Quite the problem solver you are.

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

#122

Post by KekDemaga »

EpicEng wrote: post #121
KekDemaga wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People should be able to consume what they want, but what you argue is like saying a chemotherapy doesn't cure cancer because patients give up on it after it makes them feel ill.

If ~90% of patients did actually give up on it in reality then yes, I would say that because it wouldn't work for 90% of patients. The medical community would move away from it. Of course, that's not the reality. every single one of your arguments are hypothetical metaphors that have no connection to the facts of the issue at hand. You have no practical solutions. You're only answer is for people to 'toughen up'. Qui…

Is it ever appropriate for people to engage in self determination or should the lack of an easy solution always be an excuse for an individuals actions?

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

#123

Post by gnaritas »

hfourm wrote: post #120
gnaritas wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There is a lot of wrong in this comment. While I agree with most of your sentiment about vaping being a safer alternative, it is wrong to assume that the chemicals introduced via vaping are not carcinogenic because there is no smoke.

I don't assume that; I simply don't assume they are because they are in smoking. I'm saying the science isn't in yet, I'm not claiming it's safe.

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

#124

Post by gnaritas »

amyjess wrote: post #104
gnaritas wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

And too much water will kill you; too much of anything is bad, the question is in what amount. However, I was unaware of the estrogen thing, very interesting, you do see that in women.

As for it being a vasoconstrictor, so is caffeine and any number of other stimulants, that itself in not inherently bad, it's simply an effect.

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

#125

Post by DanBC »

bb88 wrote: post #107
DanBC wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I haven't said nicotine is carcinogenic.

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

#126

Post by bogomipz »

gnaritas wrote: post #82
bogomipz wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"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.

Might and may are one thing, the OP said definitely, and that's a bold claim as we don't yet know if it's definitely anything. Had he even said probably that'd be ok, but definitely, no, that's not supportable.

So your contention is that inhaling propylene glycol into your lungs might not be unhealthy?

"In its product safety assessment for propylene glycol, the Dow Chemical Company recommends individuals avoid inhaling the chemical"[1]

[1] https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/122-a244/

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

#127

Post by Obi_Juan_Kenobi »

hwillis wrote: post #95
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…

Counterargument: I have seen vaping be MUCH more popular among people who would not otherwise smoke, and relatively little impact among people who do smoke. That's anecdotal obviously, but I think its pretty clear that the less noxious and more convenient nature makes vaping way more popular among younger people, potentially starting lifelong addictions. There isn't a whole lot of reason to believe these products are…

I find it very disappointing that people resort to anecdote when data is available. Granted, it's a new area and there hasn't been enough time for proper longitudinal studies, but what data we do have generally supports EC's for smoking cessation, and also functioning as a replacement for young people that would likely otherwise start smoking cigarettes.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25301815 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25888354 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26597453

As for the safety of the vapor itself, it's a little tricky. Some studies faced a lot of criticism because the 'vaping' method did not reflect actual usage. In one protocol (unfortunately I can't recall the article) it was found they basically burned up the coil and reported combustion products as the vapor profile.

Similarly, this study appears to be reasonably executed, at least at first: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4961046/

A few takeaways from the article: no long-lived free radicals present, and short-lived radicals in the range of 100 to 1000 fold less than cigarettes. Their estimates for a typical 'vaper' would be about a 10-fold higher dose than typical air pollution exposure for a 24 hour period (200 puffs/day). This certainly represents a real potential hazard, but is also a clear improvement over cigarettes (especially because this isn't the major hazard in cigarette smoke).

However, the protocol uses 5 second 'puffs' on a 1.5 ohm coil with an absolutely pathetic 500ml/min flow rate. For reference, 500ml is the typical breath volume for a human at rest, with >10,000ml/min being typical breathing for a person at rest (https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-06...). In actual use, a puff is usually larger than the typical breath and taken in a span of 2-4 seconds. A flow rate of 20,000-40,000 ml/min is much more representative. It's no surprise that a coil with such a low flow rate would get far hotter than what is seen in actual use. Worth noting that high flow rates make for more comfortable and pleasant vaping, so are common in actual use.

Some good work has looked at variation in vaping protocol https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24832759 These findings show just how drastic the differences are when you start to use higher power levels in ECs.

The data clearly show that high-power vaping likely presents a significant risk, but to date I've yet to see data that is convincingly representative of anything like normal use.

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

#128

Post by Obi_Juan_Kenobi »

Aloha wrote: post #93
wutbrodo wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your claim above is much stronger than what the study suggests (though it does at least point in the same direction). > Most people don't realize that it's not really the smoke and lung cancer that leads to a majority of smoking deaths. It's the cardiovascular effects of nicotine leading to heart disease. As described downthread, they keep finding associations that indicate that nicotine/heart disease associations ma…

Agreed - most people attribute the effects of smoking to nicotine, when it should be attributed to inhaling the products of combustion.

There are also particular compounds in cured tobacco that are dangerous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco-specific_nitrosamines

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

#129

Post by Aloha »

Obi_Juan_Kenobi wrote: post #128
Aloha wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed - most people attribute the effects of smoking to nicotine, when it should be attributed to inhaling the products of combustion.

There are also particular compounds in cured tobacco that are dangerous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco-specific_nitrosamines

I'd have to dig around to find it - but Snuff and chewing tobacco manufacturers actually changed their manufacturing process to being their product nitrosamine levels within the standard europe uses for snus production.

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

#130

Post by nickjj »

EpicEng wrote: post #11
nickjj wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"I did it, it should work for everyone!" We have decades of data showing that isn't the case.

I was just dropping in with a success story (which is important for anyone trying to quit because it's 1 more data point to reference).

The reason most people fail to quit isn't because they are weak, or anything like that. It's simply because they don't want to really quit.

I know of 6 people (including myself) who quit cold turkey after many years. The only thing we had in common was we were serious about quitting. One other person I knew who quit used the patch, but she was separate from the 6.

Post reply on HN