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

The E-Cigarette Industry, Waiting to Exhale

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 170 posts

Re: The E-Cigarette Industry, Waiting to Exhale

#161

Post by hackula1 »

chimeracoder wrote: post #116
hackula1 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but it is certainly a toxic substance, in the medical sense. Excuse me for not accepting the pseudo-science weasel word "toxic". Vitamin C is toxic at certain levels. If you do not bring in more specifics, then what you are saying is meaningless. Just saying "I choose to reserve judgement, but have a gut feeling that it will be shown to be more harmful than cigarettes" is about as far as strong a claim you can make…

> "I choose to reserve judgement, but have a gut feeling that it will be shown to be more harmful than cigarettes" Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything like that - certainly never that I felt that they would be shown to be more harmful than cigarettes. > Excuse me for not accepting the pseudo-science weasel word "toxic". I don't know why you think that a medical term is a "pseudo-science weasel w…

> Please don't put words in my mouth

Putting words in your mouth is typically claiming you said X. I am suggesting that you instead, SHOULD have said Y.

> I don't know why you think that a medical term is a "pseudo-science weasel word".

"Cloud" is a technical word in computing with a specific meaning. This does not stop tech marketers from using it to mean things it does not. "Toxic" and "toxins" are medical words that are abused to the point of being meaningless much like "cloud". You are calling something harmful (to your credit, you do not specify how harmful) without specifying a dosage. Water is toxic at certain levels. Words that give a strong impression one way or the other, but are broad and do not commit to specifics are weasel words.

> It's a lot less meaningless than the original statement "e-cigarettes are harmless", which is backed not by rigorous scientific research on e-cigarettes themselves, but rather (at best) on fairly questionable reasoning based on a misunderstanding of drug toxicology.

I agree that you are "more right" than the OP, however, "harmless" and "toxic" are both just as bad in the context where dosage is not specified. It would be misleading to say that asbestos is harmless, although pretty much accurate at small enough levels. It would also be technically accurate to say that most things are toxic at some sufficiently high level.

In a nutshell, this debate between you and the OP is useless without specifying the amount being consumed.

Re: The E-Cigarette Industry, Waiting to Exhale

#162

Post by cloverich »

Oxxide wrote: post #125
hristov wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. E-cigarettes are not harmless and I wish people would stop perpetuating that lie. It is not clear exactly how harmful they are, but they are not harmless. 2. Ecig marketers are trying to push this story line of e-cigs vs the tobacco industry. It is mostly bs as the major ecig company blu is owned by a major tobacco company and every other major tobacco company has an ecig line now. The ecig industry is the tobacco…

It's pretty clear you only have a surface understanding of the e-cig industry, the big tobacco owned e-cig lines are crappy disposables. You might start with one, but pretty soon you move on to a proper personal vaporizer with a decent battery life. It's not clear how exactly harmful they aren't, either. The truth is, no one knows. They certainly haven't done any harm to me thus far, and we aren't yet hearing reports…

> so I think it's safe to assume they're relatively harmless. (at least in the short term.)

Cigarrettes are basically harmless in the short term as well!

None the less, and contaminants from crappy manifacturers not-withstanding, I'd be surprised if e-cig's turn out to be harmful (in a meaningful way).

Re: The E-Cigarette Industry, Waiting to Exhale

#163

Post by cloverich »

hackula1 wrote: post #120
pvnick wrote: post #32

E-Cigarettes are going to save millions of lives in the coming years. They're harmless, and, if you get a brand that feels like the real thing, easy to transition to. I hope the tobacco industry takes a huge financial hit from the sale of these things because they literally prevent people from dying. That being said, when I switched to e-cigarettes, it was very easy to switch back to regular cigarettes. That "narrow…

I tried the patch before using e-cigs to quit. The patch stopped the cravings for me even better than the e-cigs, but gave me horrifying dreams every night, and I would wake up every morning thinking for the first few minutes that they had actually happened the day before. Even if e-cigs are somewhat harmful, I would choose them over cigarettes and over wacky lucid nightmares.

> horrifying dreams every night

lol please tell me you did not sleep with it, because you are certainly not supposed to!

Re: The E-Cigarette Industry, Waiting to Exhale

#164

Post by dhughes »

mistercow wrote: post #74
dhughes wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safer according to what study? People just assume they are safer.

No. There are numerous studies demonstrating that they are safer. Here's one: http://publichealth.drexel.edu/SiteData/docs/ms08/f903492642... . Here's another: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/03/05/tobac... Also, without direct evidence or rigorous analysis it would still be preposterous that a mixture of nicotine, fragrances, propylene glycol, and vegetable glycerine would be anywhere near as harmfu…

You would think common sense would say "only put air in your lungs".

Re: The E-Cigarette Industry, Waiting to Exhale

#165

Post by mistercow »

dhughes wrote: post #164
mistercow wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. There are numerous studies demonstrating that they are safer. Here's one: http://publichealth.drexel.edu/SiteData/docs/ms08/f903492642... . Here's another: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/03/05/tobac... Also, without direct evidence or rigorous analysis it would still be preposterous that a mixture of nicotine, fragrances, propylene glycol, and vegetable glycerine would be anywhere near as harmfu…

You would think common sense would say "only put air in your lungs".

No, the prior for "air is the only safe thing that can go in your lungs" is very low.

Re: The E-Cigarette Industry, Waiting to Exhale

#166

Post by scardine »

chimeracoder wrote: post #109
btilly wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nicotine, on the other hand, is harmful in its own right. It is less damaging to consume pure nicotine without the other harmful effects of smoking, but it is certainly a toxic substance, in the medical sense. Citation needed. Before responding, you might want to read http://www.gwern.net/Nicotine .

> Before responding, you might want to read http://www.gwern.net/Nicotine . I can assure that this is a topic on which I have done far more research in my lifetime than that blog post. I'm not trying to be snarky; I'm just emphasizing that I have a lot more knowledge on this topic than I can reasonably compress into a 124-word HN post (like my original comment). > Citation needed. The post that you yourself link is a…

Even pure water can be harmful. A few years ago a couple guys ended up in coma at a nearby Buddhist temple after a "cleanup weekend" where they were fasting and drinking lots of water (this water OD condition is called hyponatremia). Of course nicotine is more dangerous than water, yet I can't recall a death by overdose of it.

Re: The E-Cigarette Industry, Waiting to Exhale

#168

Post by GhotiFish »

chimeracoder wrote: post #113
GhotiFish wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, I must object to that line of thinking We can say with near certainty that they are less harmful, because we know what caused harm when smoking cigarettes, and those elements are not present. We also know what is being inhaled is either inert, or the point of smoking. Also, whether a substance has a measurable LD50 or not is irrelevant. Most medicens have easily measurable LD50's, Some Vitamins have LD50's…

> Most medicens have easily measurable LD50's Well, most medicines could be considered medically toxic. It's just a matter of dosing and whether their desired effect outweighs any risk (whether negligible or non-negligible) of adverse reactions[0]. LD50 is only one of many ways to express toxicity; water can be considered toxic under some circumstances as well. It all depends on the context in which we're discussing…

Then I think we are on the same page.

I can understand railing against the statement "e-cigarettes are harmless" because the active ingredients are definitely not.

That said, if you could replace every cigarette in the world right now with an e-cig. Would you not do it? I would. They have their own host of problems, but not so much as inhaling burnt plant matter has. Even with what we know now, we know it is the lesser of two evils.

I understand, you don't like people being imprecise, neither do I frankly. It's rather hard to stop though, one of those human nature thingies.

Re: The E-Cigarette Industry, Waiting to Exhale

#169

Post by gwern »

scardine wrote: post #166
chimeracoder wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Before responding, you might want to read http://www.gwern.net/Nicotine . I can assure that this is a topic on which I have done far more research in my lifetime than that blog post. I'm not trying to be snarky; I'm just emphasizing that I have a lot more knowledge on this topic than I can reasonably compress into a 124-word HN post (like my original comment). > Citation needed. The post that you yourself link is a…

Even pure water can be harmful. A few years ago a couple guys ended up in coma at a nearby Buddhist temple after a "cleanup weekend" where they were fasting and drinking lots of water (this water OD condition is called hyponatremia). Of course nicotine is more dangerous than water, yet I can't recall a death by overdose of it.

> Of course nicotine is more dangerous than water, yet I can't recall a death by overdose of it.

There actually are some cases if you go looking. Nicotine oil was famously used as a poisoner's tool for a while, prompting some of the early toxicology screens, but these days, most of the cases are accidental. I recall reading about an Israeli case, IIRC, where a child drank some of the e-cig liquid its father hadn't put up high enough.

Re: The E-Cigarette Industry, Waiting to Exhale

#170

Post by daughart »

shiftpgdn wrote: post #111
nucleardog wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're allergic to propylene glycol then you're allergic to pretty much everything. That same propylene glycol is used in cakes/cupcakes, frostings, many ice creams, beers (as a foaming agent), some coffees, candy, many salad dressings, flavoured coffees, dried fruits, some brands of milk, many beauty products (makeup, shampoo, soaps)... There are a lot more people with peanut allergies and we don't ban people fro…

Because you're not vaporizing peanuts and spraying it into the air where somebody with a peanut allergy has absolutely no choice but to inhale it?

People wear perfume. Some people are allergic to perfume. So what. At some point it's the person with the allergy's responsibility to manage their immune response through medical treatment.
Post reply on HN