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

Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

pubs.rsna.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 233 posts

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#111

Post by seanmcdirmid »

program_whiz wrote: post #11

Many people seem to believe that vaping is harmless, this is good to make the point clearly that vaping, while not as harmful as smoking cigarettes, isn't a "cost free" activity. I personally didn't realize that it could have these effects either.

> Many people seem to believe that vaping is harmless

I don’t really buy that premise, at least for some significant definition of many (some definitely, but many?).

On the other hand, what is a cost free activity anyways? A can of Coke (sugar) is pretty bad for you, I’m glad I’ve given that up. My wife thinks the sugar free stuff I’ve switched to is still bad for me, ugh. I guess only water would be considered cost free in that context.

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#112

Post by seanmcdirmid »

Duhck wrote: post #45
InvaderFizz wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My main concern with the way things are going is that it looks an awful lot like attacks on vaping are for the purpose of driving smokers back to cigarettes. I know of no one that things vaping is harmless. It is certainly much, much less harmful than cigarettes and is infinitely preferable to cigarettes. I quit smoking, with the help of vaping. I was a pack-a-day Newport smoker that started on a ludicrously high 36m…

What's the supporting evidence for your concern that "attacks on vaping are for the purpose of driving smokers back to cigarettes" Philip Morris (now known as Altria) put $13bn into Juul to do the exact opposite. The margins on vaping are higher, the current perception of vaping is that it's better than smoking, and it's way easier to get kids addicted to vaping than cigarettes. I see too much evidence to the contrar…

Taxes.

Vaping is really hard to tax unlike cigarettes. State and local governments are addicted to cigarette tax revenue, but that has been evaporating quickly, so outlawing vaping and not cigarettes is really profitable to them, even if causing more harm overall.

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#113

Post by seanmcdirmid »

DanBC wrote: post #95
JamesBarney wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This depends on the relative harm of smoking versus vaping. Uk government estimates risks at 95% less than smoking which means we're still winning health wise by quite a bit.

Not if non-smokers are being recruited into vaping or smoking.

Hasn’t that always been the case though? Peer pressure is going to be directed somewhere, maybe cigarettes, maybe marijuana, maybe heroin, ... are kids really expected to be better these days than when we were kids?

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#114

Post by uberduper »

tryitnow wrote: post #84
filoleg wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"attacks on vaping are for the purpose of driving smokers back to cigarettes" I don't think it is intentionally on purpose, but it sure does seem this way sometimes. A specific example that comes to mind: city of San Francisco banning sale of e-cigs completely, while keeping regular cigarettes just as legal as before [0]. 0. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/06/25/7357140...

Good point. I don't see any of the politicians addressing why the didn't also ban cigarettes. My guess is that banning cigarettes would go too far. It's unrealistic to expect cigarette smokers to quit over night and start using patches and lozenges. It's a little more realistic to expect that people who vape to do so.

> It's a little more realistic to expect that people who vape to do so.

Why?

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#115

Post by carapace »

mcguire wrote: post #107
atomi wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can test this yourself. Test your blood pressure prior to vaping and then after. If you choose to ignore all else you could argue the rise in BP is transient and not concerning. I personally would not bet my life on it.

Jogging in place will also transiently raise your blood pressure.

Yeah, but it's supposed to. Inhaling something and then your BP goes up means you should not inhale that thing, eh?

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#116

Post by ceejayoz »

EpicEng wrote: post #109
ceejayoz wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"So back in reality" GRAS does not mean what you think it means. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5664775/ > Despite scientific uncertainty regarding the safety of inhaling aerosol and flavorant substances from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) relative to inhaling smoke from traditional cigarettes, some consumers and vape shop employees suggest that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) “gener…

>"So back in reality" GRAS does not mean what you think it means. I know exactly what GRAS means. Why do you assume otherwise? I never claimed that vaping is safe; you'd have to be an idiot to make that argument. That doesn't mean you ban it. I could have sworn it was on the list... but either way, it doesn't change the fact that nicotine is, by itself, not significantly harmful. What argument are you trying to make…

You claimed nicotine and caffeine are "in the same drug class", then clarified you meant GRAS, but that makes the statement false, as nicotine isn't GRAS.

I "assume otherwise" because trying to bring GRAS into the discussion about vaping at all indicates a lack of understanding of what GRAS applies to.

Contrary to your assertions, nicotine isn't "not significantly harmful": https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ben/vdp/2005/00000002...

> Why should nicotine and/or e-cigs be more tightly controlled than coffee, cigarettes, beef, alcohol, etc?

As linked up-thread, e-cigs appear to have slowed or halted the progress of smoking cessation efforts, and are seeing substantial uptick in teens. They're a major public health danger.

Coffee does not appear to be harmful, as we previously discussed in this comments thread. Cigarettes should be further restricted alongside e-cigs. Beef isn't addictive. Alcohol abuse is a serious problem, but societal acceptance makes it a difficult to tackle one on a practical level. Whataboutism isn't a great approach to medical issues, either.

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#117

Post by roddds »

mcguire wrote: post #110
Duhck wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the supporting evidence for your concern that "attacks on vaping are for the purpose of driving smokers back to cigarettes" Philip Morris (now known as Altria) put $13bn into Juul to do the exact opposite. The margins on vaping are higher, the current perception of vaping is that it's better than smoking, and it's way easier to get kids addicted to vaping than cigarettes. I see too much evidence to the contrar…

" We dont know just how bad vaping really is, it's hard to say its better than smoking, and its impossible to say its not bad for you at all. " This is absolutely true. Inhaling propylene glycol and glycerine daily for thirty years might cause you to grow three heads or have babies with 27 fingers. But the results of every reputable report I've seen until now has indicated that vaping is much, much better than smokin…

We already have people that inhale propylene glycol and/or glycerine for 30 years: people that work in factories and hospitals.

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#118

Post by robbiep »

aphextim wrote: post #66

I would be curious to compare this to smoking an actual cigarette to see if there is any difference. Inhaling any vapor/smoke that isn't meant for your lungs is going to cause damage and it would be neat to see a comparison between the two. Anecdotal story time: My grandfather who is currently 81, has been smoking since he was 12. He grew up in a very small town, and had 6 people in his graduating class other than hi…

If your 02 is 68%, or even 75%, you’re likely about to be put in a coffin. Patients with severe COPD/emphysema might have arterial oxygen levels in the mid to high 80s without supplemental oxygen

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#119

Post by bobwaycott »

ceejayoz wrote: post #21
dennisnedry wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why making them available via a prescription would solve anything. I do not smoke or vape, but I have a friend who stopped smoking because vaping was accessible without going to a doctor. He just tried it because he wanted to see if it would work, and it did. He no longer vapes or smokes.

The stated concern is e-cigs becoming unavailable to smokers looking to quit. Making it available via a prescription permits that use, while limiting access for recreational uptake by kids.

No, it means every smoker has to go to a doctor just to try to use vaping to quit! Fuck that. That’s insane. No adult should have to go to a doctor for permission to use an e-cig. It’s not medicine.

Let the state go after the businesses promoting and selling e-cigs to kids—and levy astronomical fines against them. Sponsor PSAs that scare kids away from doing it. Educate everyone on the potential risks. If these “kids” are 18, they’re adults, so let them do as they please.

Cigarettes don’t require a prescription to get hooked on them. Adults should be free to recreationally use e-cigs just as much as cigarettes, weed, alcohol, and plenty of other substances. It’s their body. Increase taxes on them to try and discourage it and pay for PSAs against vaping. Whatever. But let’s dispense with the think-of-the-children crap, and let adults be adults.

Re: Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarette Aerosol Inhalation on Vascular Function

#120

Post by mikelyons »

gwbas1c wrote: post #86
Medicalidiot wrote: post #39

The number one controllable risk factor for stroke and heart attack is smoking. By far. Not diet, not exercise, smoking. A significant part of that is because nicotine will constrict blood vessels leading to hypertension[1], this leads to destruction of the surface of an artery, leading to atherosclerosis formation. One day the atherosclerotic plaque ruptures and then you see me. We once thought that atherosclerosis…

> The number one controllable risk factor for stroke and heart attack is smoking Can you clarify? Do you mean smoking cigarettes? Or do you mean consuming nicotine? What about vaping? How about smoking marijuana?

There's an information imbalance so definitive claims can't be made about cannabis smoking in the way that they can be made about Tobacco smoking.
Post reply on HN