E-cigarette vapour contains free radicals, study warns

[thujone]

Electronic cigarettes are often thought to be safer than cigarettes because they don’t produce smoke or contain the tar and chemical of tobacco. But a new study is once again raising questions about the safety of vaping e-cigarettes.

Researchers at Penn State College of Medicine says they have found that electronic cigarettes produce free radicals, which are molecules that cause cell damage and can lead to cancer.

In cigarette smoke, free radicals are the molecules that cause the most oxidative damage. They are a leading culprit in smoking-related cancer, cardiovascular disease, skin aging, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD.

The researchers found that e-cigarettes produce levels of free radicals that are about 1,000 to 100 times lower than in regular cigarettes. But the levels are still in the range of what might be seen in the air of a heavily air-polluted area.

...

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/e-ciga...angerous-free-radicals-study-warns-1.2686874#

 

[PriestTheyCalledHim]

I'm not surprised. E-cigs/nicotine vapes are not safe, even though they're marketed as being safer than cigarettes/cigars.

 

[belligerent drunk]

I personally haven't done the relevant practical research, but I'd like to give an opinion. First of all, e-cigs don't produce many of the toxic substances that normal cigarettes do (the carcinogens like nitrosamines and so on), plus their "free radical count" is 100-1000 times lower. To me, that sounds like it's good enough. If you take into account how harmful cigs really are, as in they don't really kill people all that well, only with heavy long-term use, then divide that by at least 1000... you get a pretty low hazard. Also taking into account the fact that lungs are mostly damaged by the products of incomplete combustion, reactive species (of which radicals are a part); but mostly it is just smoke (incomplete combustion) that is harmful.

Now, free radicals are very reactive fuckers. You wouldn't really expect them to get far into the organism before reacting with something and likely losing the radical. We have antioxidants, radical scavengers all over our cells just for the purpose. Our cells produce all kinds of radicals themselves all the time (superoxide, peroxide etc); so we have natural mechanisms against that kind of damage. Oxidative stress is a very serious concern and if we're talking of a 1000-fold difference, the difference would be apparent. If normal cigarettes don't kill people instantly or even cause significant damage from short-term use, there is absolutely no reason to believe that 1000 times less ROS would be of any concern.

Also, carcinogens like nitrosamines and polyaromatics and others (the products of tobacco smoke, unlikely in e-cigs) tend to be responsible for the long-term effects of smoking, e.g cancer, because they're stable enough to diffuse into the body, but still tend to mess with key parts of cell metabolism, its DNA and its actions.

All in all, I don't condone smoking at all and I don't smoke myself, but I recommend people to be just a little bit more critical in their thinking. Also, the source they use deals with "heterocyclic amines in CIGARETTE smoke". I didn't bother to read through the whole paper, but this whole article seems sketchy to me. Nobody says that e-cigs are harmless, but they indeed are more harmless than cigarettes, and from this article it seems like by a lot, up to 1000 times less harmful.

 

[apatheist]

Free radicals are a lot less scary than polonium-210.

 

[_DankOpiAmp_]

^this is truth. Just another propaganda scam to support government taxes and the tobacco industry.

 

[axl blaze]

^this is truth. Just another propaganda scam to support government taxes and the tobacco industry.

this, pretty much

 

[drug_mentor]

The study is not saying vapour is as bad as cigarettes, in fact they openly acknowledge E-cig vapour has up to 1,000 times less free radicals than cigarette smoke. How could this possibly be construed as scam propaganda to support the tobacco industry?

I don't think it is realistic to believe that you can inhale the vapours which are produced from heating up psychoactive chemicals in the long-term without this having some kind of detrimental effect on your health. To conduct studies on the extent to which E-cig vapour may carry health risks is not propaganda, it is common sense.

Do any of you have a problem with the methodology of the study or do you just not like the findings and therefore decide it is bullshit? These results have been published in a well respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal. I see no good reason to class this research, or the news article reporting on the research, as propaganda.

Seriously, you see a lot of atrocious scientific reporting in the press and this is not an example of that. The article does a pretty good job of accurately reporting the findings of the study, acknowledging that the risk of vapour appears much smaller than the risk associated with smoking, and they do not overstate the implications of the study or otherwise engage in fear-mongering. I don't think the criticisms in this thread are warranted at all.

 

[belligerent drunk]

Are we talking about the same study? This as linked at the end of the article says nothing about free radicals and deals with assessing the effect of certain compounds in CIGARETTE smoke. I can't even find the link to a relevant study in this article.

And what breaking news is it going to be next? That air contains oxygen which produces reactive oxygen species (free radicals) in cellular metabolism? Seriously, read it again. They say that e-cig smoke doesn't contain significant amounts of toxic compounds and its free radical content is 100-1000 times lower than that of cigarette smoke. Considering the fact that normal cigarettes negatively affect the health to a significant extent only following long-term use, the only logical conclusion you can make from reading that is that e-cigs are pretty darn harmless.

Nobody argues that they are absolutely harmless, I think people who choose to use drugs or smoke e-cigs acknowledge that using their DOC can and does affect their health in a negative way. But you always have to think about the extent and significance of the effect.

 

[drug_mentor]

Are we talking about the same study? This as linked at the end of the article says nothing about free radicals and deals with assessing the effect of certain compounds in CIGARETTE smoke. I can't even find the link to a relevant study in this article.

The article doesn't link to the study. Most peer-reviewed journal articles are not free, they did not provide a link to the abstract, but from what I can tell most news articles which report on scientific findings fail to do so. Since the article names the journal the study was published in I am taking them at face value.

And what breaking news is it going to be next? That air contains oxygen which produces reactive oxygen species (free radicals) in cellular metabolism? Seriously, read it again. They say that e-cig smoke doesn't contain significant amounts of toxic compounds and its free radical content is 100-1000 times lower than that of cigarette smoke. Considering the fact that normal cigarettes negatively affect the health to a significant extent only following long-term use, the only logical conclusion you can make from reading that is that e-cigs are pretty darn harmless.

Nobody argues that they are absolutely harmless, I think people who choose to use drugs or smoke e-cigs acknowledge that using their DOC can and does affect their health in a negative way. But you always have to think about the extent and significance of the effect.

I don't understand what your issue is. The news article tentatively reports the results of the study and does not resort to fear-mongering of any kind. What exactly are you suspicious of? I disagree that the only logical conclusion one can draw from these results are that e-cigarettes are "pretty darn harmless". I would say the only logical conclusion one can draw is that on certain risk factors e-cigarettes are significantly less likely to cause harm than cigarettes.

Perhaps to those with a better knowledge of what free radicals are and how they interact with the human body these results would provide a greater indication that e-cigarettes are relatively harmless. However, it does not follow from the vapours relatively low free radical content that there are no other substances present in the vapour which could carry serious health risks. Please note that I am not saying these are present, or that it is likely they are present, just that you cannot infer that they aren't present based on the reported findings of this particular study.

I take your defensive reaction to this article to mean that you are in favour of vaping. What is confusing to me is that this article presents findings in a way which suggests vaping is much safer than smoking, at least in certain respects. Assuming it is accurate, surely this is exactly the kind of data you would like to see being reported on the subject?

More than anything I have trouble understanding how anyone could view this as propaganda for the benefit of tobacco companies, but I realise you were not the one to make this claim.

 

[belligerent drunk]

First of all, reading my reply again I can see that it could sound offensive, so I apologize for that. I didn't mean to sound attacking.

The article doesn't link to the study. Most peer-reviewed journal articles are not free, it is unclear to me why they did not provide a link to the abstract, but since they name the journal it was published in I am taking them at face value. It wouldn't make much sense to name drop the journal if the relevant study was not completed.

No, that is not how it works. I can't just say something, then say that the study my words are backed by is published in an X journal, link the journal, but not the study and be expected to be taken at face value. Many people have access to peer-reviewed journals through their institutions and would like to actually read the original study if they feel some doubt about the article. Basically, if they don't link the original study in their article, their words are pretty much without value. In our world of free speech, anyone can say anything, that's why I believe that news articles should follow the same principle as Wikipedia. Everything that is said (about scientific stuff anyway) has to be backed by a published study reference.

I don't understand what your issue is. The news article tentatively reports the results of the study and does not resort to fear-mongering of any kind. What exactly are you suspicious of? I disagree that the only logical conclusion one can draw from these results are that e-cigarettes are "pretty darn harmless". I would say the only logical conclusion one can draw is that on certain risk factors e-cigarettes are significantly less likely to cause harm than cigarettes.

Perhaps to those with a better knowledge of what free radicals are and how they interact with the human body these results would provide a greater indication that e-cigarettes are relatively harmless. However, it does not follow from the vapours relatively low free radical content that there are no other substances present in the vapour which could carry serious health risks. Please note that I am not saying these are present, or that it is likely they are present, just that you cannot infer that they aren't present based on the reported findings of this particular study.

I take your defensive reaction to this article to mean that you are in favour of vaping. What is confusing to me is that this article presents findings in a way which suggests vaping is much safer than smoking, at least in certain respects. Assuming it is accurate, surely this is exactly the kind of data you would like to see being reported on the subject?

More than anything I have trouble understanding how anyone could view this as propaganda, but I realise you were not the one to make such a claim.

My main issue is, people don't bother to dive too deep into information they're presented and limit themselves with the first few lines they read in making up their mind about something, and very seldom think critically about something. The intonation of the title and the whole article could be understood in many ways, one of the more probable ones is that e-cigs are definitely harmful. Where in reality that may not be the case. Here's why.

If we take a substance or whatever people take, assume it is harmful to a significant extent due to a property X of the substance/whatever. Then increase that harmful property 1000-fold, would you even expect the person taking the new substance to even live? That was my main point. Cigarettes don't instantly kill and their short-term use is not really all that damaging, at least not irreversibly. So if we decrease the harmful effects of such 1000 times... Do you see where I'm coming from? Also, yes it is not the only logical conclusion, I'm sorry. I probably write more bullshit than I attempt to criticize. I'm always open to corrections though.

I'm indifferent on vapes. I don't smoke anything, so it's not really something that touches home. I just get really irritated by limping logic and in this case, the definitely apparent logical assumption that the findings indicate that e-cigs are actually A LOT less harmful than cigs, that is not really presented in obvious words.

Well, I agree with you that shouting "propaganda!" in this case is not really well-reasoned. Just because the article presents potentially faulty conclusions doesn't automatically imply they're doing so because of whatever ill interests. They don't really say that e-cigs are barely better than normal cigs as you would expect in case of pro-tobacco industry propaganda. I actually don't even think that it could be with certainty assumed that drug prohibition is partially driven by BigPharma as many people tend to think; I have posted on the subject somewhere in DiTM a more lengthy reply. My tinfoil hat is usually stashed away pretty far, and it collects quite a lot of dust. But what do I know.

 

[drug_mentor]

First of all, reading my reply again I can see that it could sound offensive, so I apologize for that. I didn't mean to sound attacking.

All good mate.

No, that is not how it works. I can't just say something, then say that the study my words are backed by is published in an X journal, link the journal, but not the study and be expected to be taken at face value. Many people have access to peer-reviewed journals through their institutions and would like to actually read the original study if they feel some doubt about the article. Basically, if they don't link the original study in their article, their words are pretty much without value.

I don't disagree with you in principle but in practice this would mean the overwhelming majority of news articles which report on scientific findings would have to be ignored. I seldom see an article reporting on the latest findings of anything which provides a link to the actual study. From my perspective it seems a little bit disingenuous to pick on this particular article for this flaw instead of picking on how scientific findings are reported more generally.

The intonation of the title and the whole article could be understood in many ways, one of the more probable ones is that e-cigs are definitely harmful. Where in reality that may not be the case. Here's why.

The title of the article says "potentially dangerous", and free radicals are potentially dangerous. This is nothing more than reporting facts. If someone were to interpret these findings as saying that "e-cigs are definitely harmful", they aren't just ignoring the article, they are ignoring the bloody title! In such a scenario I would suggest the fault lays with the reader, not the author.

Cigarettes don't instantly kill and their short-term use is not really all that damaging, at least not irreversibly. So if we decrease the harmful effects of such 1000 times... Do you see where I'm coming from?

I see where you are coming from, but these sort of inferences which you are making are not scientific. To my mind, it would be really irresponsible for a news outlet to print that sort of unsubstantiated reasoning.

I just get really irritated by limping logic and in this case, the definitely apparent logical assumption that the findings indicate that e-cigs are actually A LOT less harmful than cigs, that is not really presented in obvious words.

All I can really say to this is that I disagree quite strongly.

From the article:

The researchers found that e-cigarettes produce levels of free radicals that are about 1,000 to 100 times lower than in regular cigarettes.

"While e-cigarette vapour does not contain many of the toxic substances that are known to be present in cigarette smoke, it's still important for us to figure out and to minimize the potential dangers that are associated with e-cigarettes

To be honest I don't see how it could be made much clearer that these findings suggest that e-cigarette vapour is much safer than cigarette smoke.

 

[belligerent drunk]

That is a fair reply and I concur in most of the aspects. Although.

I see where you are coming from, but these sort of inferences which you are making are not scientific. To my mind, it would be really irresponsible for a news outlet to print that sort of unsubstantiated reasoning.

It is true that my speculations are all they are, speculations, but at this point the matter becomes subjective. I personally don't do such research, so I can only speculate using semi-scientific logic. Basically, anything is harmful. To the extent that breathing in air produces ROS and inherently damages cells in all sorts of ways; or hell, even being on Earth exposes you to all kinds of mutations and DNA damage thanks to background radiation. So just saying that something is harmful is not enough. The significance of the effect is what has to be examined. As I said in my previous replies, our cells have natural defense mechanisms against oxidative damage as that is just something that is unavoidable in using oxygen as an oxidizer; so it is not like they're defenseless to oxygen radicals. So, from that follows that the amount of ROS is the determining factor; with too much ROS (like tobacco smoke) leading to all kinds of shit like DNA damage and cancer. Decreasing the amount of ROS in the latter by 100-1000 begs the question: do the ROS become insignificant? Because oxidative stress is a serious issue, especially if severe, and if present in high enough concentrations ROS can do a lot of trouble that will be apparent quite soon after exposure. Cigarettes actually produce such outcomes quite rarely unless heavily abused, so it would not be illogical to question the significance of ROS that is 1000 times less than in tobacco smoke. How does the ROS content of e-cigs compare to ROS production of aerobic metabolism?

The researchers found that e-cigarettes produce levels of free radicals that are about 1,000 to 100 times lower than in regular cigarettes. But the levels are still in the range of what might be seen in the air of a heavily air-polluted area.

I mean just this should trigger the "wait a second" alarm. If smoking an e-cig is about as harmful as being in polluted urban air, then... it's not all that harmful considering that you're not puffing on that for many hours each day.

But again, I don't pretend to know the truth and only empirical data can settle the argument. My main problem though is that people don't analyze the information like we just did. I expect an average layman to conclude that "damn, e-cigs are harmful after all" from reading this article, which is not incorrect of course, but that conclusion cannot be made from this data, not for sure anyway. Not many people will take the article as a finding that needs further research, people want closure as soon as possible; final results now.

Anyway, I would like to say that I very often tend to chase shadows and make elephants out of flies with such subjects. This is just my opinion and shouldn't be taken very seriously. I have enjoyed the discussion though.

E: I wasn't using the fact that the article doesn't source its information as one of my arguments per se. I was just pointing out how it makes the article look sketchy. I still assumed the data presented to be true. And you're right, articles can't just be dismissed based on this fact, but it is still unacceptable. As I very often have/like to point out, the fact that something is in a certain way in our world doesn't mean it's right and doesn't have to be corrected. News articles are mostly poorly written and (as you say, I actually haven't checked myself) poorly sourced and that is a major problem of the media, of course apart from it being biased and putting profit (which requires bias and subjectivity in most cases) above bringing genuine objective information to the reader.

 

[drug_mentor]

It is true that my speculations are all they are, speculations, but at this point the matter becomes subjective. I personally don't do such research, so I can only speculate using semi-scientific logic. Basically, anything is harmful. To the extent that breathing in air produces ROS and inherently damages cells in all sorts of ways; or hell, even being on Earth exposes you to all kinds of mutations and DNA damage thanks to background radiation. So just saying that something is harmful is not enough. The significance of the effect is what has to be examined. As I said in my previous replies, our cells have natural defense mechanisms against oxidative damage as that is just something that is unavoidable in using oxygen as an oxidizer; so it is not like they're defenseless to oxygen radicals. So, from that follows that the amount of ROS is the determining factor; with too much ROS (like tobacco smoke) leading to all kinds of shit like DNA damage and cancer. Decreasing the amount of ROS in the latter by 100-1000 begs the question: do the ROS become insignificant? Because oxidative stress is a serious issue, especially if severe, and if present in high enough concentrations ROS can do a lot of trouble that will be apparent quite soon after exposure. Cigarettes actually produce such outcomes quite rarely unless heavily abused, so it would not be illogical to question the significance of ROS that is 1000 times less than in tobacco smoke. How does the ROS content of e-cigs compare to ROS production of aerobic metabolism?

This type of logic is highly problematic. Perhaps free radicals are significantly more damaging if taken in conjunction with another substance which is present in e-cig vapour and not present in cigarette smoke. Perhaps free radicals do damage at a relatively low thresh hold and any higher concentration does not increase damage significantly, and perhaps e-cig vapour contains this harmful thresh hold. I am not saying these scenarios are necessarily likely, the latter one may well currently be known to be false. The point is simply that I could think of countless scenarios where one hundredth of the concentration of a harmful substance does not necessarily correspond to one hundredth of the risk, there could be many reasons the risk remains substantial.

It doesn't make any kind of sense to just go ahead and assume that none of these (or similar) variables are present. These are empirical questions and it is extremely misguided to assume you can just guess the answers to them. It is potentially dangerous to downplay the potential harms of something by using the kind of invalid logic which you are employing here.

I mean just this should trigger the "wait a second" alarm. If smoking an e-cig is about as harmful as being in polluted urban air, then... it's not all that harmful considering that you're not puffing on that for many hours each day.

I am a little confused by this comment. Your initial grievance was that the article did not make it clear enough that the evidence suggests the potential harm caused by the presence of free radicals and formaldehyde in e-cig vapour is small. Yet here you seem to be acknowledging that the article does make it clear that the evidence suggests potential for harm from e-cig vapour is small.

But again, I don't pretend to know the truth and only empirical data can settle the argument. My main problem though is that people don't analyze the information like we just did. I expect an average layman to conclude that "damn, e-cigs are harmful after all" from reading this article, which is not incorrect of course, but that conclusion cannot be made from this data, not for sure anyway. Not many people will take the article as a finding that needs further research, people want closure as soon as possible; final results now.

With respect I don't think you should be classing yourself as external from the people who don't analyse information properly, at least not in this case. It is unfortunate that a great deal of people are not particularly scientifically literate, but my point is that this particular article has reported the findings in a very clear, and what seems like a very balanced (I would have to see the actual study to know for sure) manner. In scenarios like this, surely the fault of any misunderstanding should be placed on the uneducated reader. There is no point castigating an author who wrote a clear and accurate article for the fact that some of his readers misunderstood it.

For what its worth my intention is not to try and make you look foolish. This is a harm reduction forum, and I think it is important to address errors in peoples reasoning when they are interpreting scientific studies which give some indication as to the level of harm which might be associated with consuming a particular substance in a particular way.

 

[belligerent drunk]

This type of logic is highly problematic. Perhaps free radicals are significantly more damaging if taken in conjunction with another substance which is present in e-cig vapour and not present in cigarette smoke. Perhaps free radicals do damage at a relatively low thresh hold, and any higher concentration does not increase damage significantly, and perhaps e-cig vapour contains this harmful thresh hold. I am not saying these explanations are likely, the latter one may well currently be known to be false, the point is simply that I could think of countless scenarios where one hundredth of the concentration of a harmful substance does not necessarily correspond to one hundredth of the risk, there could be many reasons the risk remains substantial.

It doesn't make any kind of sense to just go ahead and assume that none of these (or similar) variables are at play. These are empirical questions and it is extremely misguided to assume you can guess the answers to them. It is potentially dangerous to downplay the potential harms of something by using the kind of invalid logic which you are employing here.

I don't want to sound like I'm using the appeal to authority fallacy, but do you know what you're talking about here? As far as I know the damage mechanisms of free radicals and other ROS are pretty clear and are not all that complicated. So predictions of potential damage from the concentrations/amounts of the latter can be made with some degree of certainty (but of course need to be validated by experiment). I'm not just spewing unbased bullshit in this one, I believe. Here are some aspects that need to be considered when thinking about this issue:

1) We do have quite a long history of people smoking tobacco with varying frequency and heaviness of abuse. It's not really something new. What, really simplistic, conclusions can you draw from this history? That smoking is damaging to the whole body. But significant deterioration is seen mainly only following long-term, and often heavy, use.

2) Both cigs and e-cigs share a common factor - tobacco; they're not completely unrelated. As such, the assumption that they share many of their traits is, again, not completely unrealistic and unbased. So when predicting something based on history of the other we're not completely going into unknown territory, but can assume some things with a good degree of certainty. The main hazards of tobacco smoke are all kinds of reactive compounds resulting from incomplete combustion of plant matter (polyaromatics, heterocycles, nitrosamines etc) and free radicals (I use free radicals and reactive oxygen species, ROS, interchangeably here). So, effectively, this article states that e-cig vapor doesn't contain many of the former. Of course without *cough cough* reading the original study it is hard to say what exactly they mean here; but let's take it word for word. And the ROS content is 100-1000 fold lower. As such, it is not completely illogical to assume a significantly decreased risk, even going as low as making you wonder whether it's significant at all considering the relative safety of cigarettes.

So, coupled with the fact that I said that of course the speculations are only true if they're approved by rigorous experiments, I really don't see what you don't like about this. I'm not denying the potential danger, I'm just questioning the thought that "e-cigs produce ROS, THUS they're harmful" when in reality ROS are produced all the time and really the amount matters, not whether they're produced or not. I'm not downplaying the potential danger, not at all. Just trying to put it into perspective. With the "zero tolerance" logic you may as well advice people against going outside, because they may breathe in polluted air or the like. Let's not go into being ridiculous. The whole "but what if" argument is not pertinent here when the possibility is quite small. What if I get hit by a car tomorrow?

I am a little confused by this comment. Your initial grievance was that the article did not make it clear enough that the evidence suggests the potential harm caused by the presence of free radicals and formaldehyde in e-cig vapour is small. Yet here you seem to be acknowledging that the article does make it clear that the evidence suggests potential for harm from e-cig vapour is small.

If you read that part of the article again you will see the word "but" and "still" there.

But the levels are still in the range of what might be seen in the air of a heavily air-polluted area.

That wording implies that the vapors are dangerous. When you compare on a realistic level though, millions of people live in polluted cities. And they may suffer health consequences. But they breathe that air in almost all the time, every day. E-cig smokers aren't sucking on the pipe 24/7. Just that should already trigger the thought that maybe they're over-exaggerating the problem. Indeed, if you look into the data then the article does suggest that e-cigs are not all that harmful, but the primary wording suggests otherwise at times.

As far as my personal experience goes with laymen, saying that "e-cigs produce ROS content akin to that of heavily polluted air" will in their mind equal to "e-cigs are bad, because they produce so much ROS". But at this point, honestly, I'm splitting hairs. There is no need for this.

With respect I don't think you should be classing yourself as external from the people who don't analyse information properly, at least not in this case. It is unfortunate that a great deal of people are not particularly scientifically literate, but my point is that this particular article has reported the findings in a very clear, and what seems like a very balanced (I would have to see the actual study to know for sure) manner. In scenarios like this, surely the fault of any misunderstanding should be placed on the uneducated reader. There is no point castigating an author who wrote a clear and accurate article for the fact that some of his readers are stupid.

It's not really the author's fault, although they could have written the article better; it is, like you said, the responsibility of the reader to interpret the information properly. As far as news articles go, it is not poorly written, after all.

Mind telling me why I didn't analyze the information properly? I used my theoretical and practical knowledge in chemistry and theoretical knowledge in biochemistry to analyze the effects of ROS in this aspect; coupled with, as far as I see, sound logic. I acknowledge that my conclusions are speculative and need empirical proof; I'm basically requiring a follow-up from the study (which we never got to read) before making any definite conclusions and oppose the writing of an article on unfinished work, which may be interpreted incorrectly.

 

[belligerent drunk]

This is an edit to the previous post, but I'll post it as a separate comment.

I may be biased. I work in organic synthesis and as such I deal with potentially harmful substances all the time, and you can't avoid being affected by them completely even if you take all the precautions. As such, I don't view minor harm as significant, albeit somewhat illogically. When you think about this topic, practically everything is damaging and harmful, so in the end only the relative harmfulness matters; the significance. So, I don't believe in stressing too much or creating unneeded fear over something trivial, such as breathing in polluted air; drinking water with maybe a little bit too much fluoride or chlorine; being subjected to excess high-energy radiation when sunbathing; the list goes on. Only when the negative effects surpass a certain threshold, of many times the base negativity, does the aspect become problematic in my opinion.

E: oh, 420 posts

 

[belligerent drunk]

Fair comment. I've had quite a few drinks myself now (as my name suggests), so I'm in no position to make any further arguments. I don't agree with many, almost all, of your points, but at this point as I said earlier it boils down to subjectivity. The research is inconclusive and only suggestive at best, so we're basically arguing whose speculative logic is better; in reality we're both wrong until proven right by experiment.

By the way, I don't agree that my logic and conclusions were not reasonable, especially given the reference to known behavior of ROS and cellular metabolism; they are not absolutely correct, but I won't agree that they are unreasonable. In this post you presented many "but what if" arguments again, most of which are of low probability.

This is a total strawman argument. For starters, the article never once said that "e-cigs produce ROS, THUS they're harmful", it said e-cigs produce some amount of ROS which are harmful in higher concentrations, thus they might be harmful.

I am not applying zero-tolerance logic at all. I am not for one second suggesting that we should assume factors are at play which make e-cigs dangerous, I am saying that we should not go the other way and assume they are not at play, as you did several times when you tried to use these statistics to rationalise how safe e-cigs must be.

It is not a strawman. I may have worded it poorly, but my main point was to oppose making conclusions based on this article. I tried to show how the data could be interpreted as to show that the ROS content is insignificant. I completely agree that "we should not go the other way and assume things are not at play"; but we should also not assume that they are without proving it first.

I think I made it fairly clear I don't know much about the effect of free radicals. My point was simply that you cannot just infer that whatever fraction of free radicals present in comparison to tobacco equates to the same fraction of risk compared to tobacco smoking. There could be one or more substances present in vapour which are not present in smoke that enhance the damage done by free radicals. Perhaps this is not realistic, I do not have the background knowledge to know, when you said you were using "semi-scientific logic" I took that to mean you didn't either.

I used "semi-scientific" to show that I don't have first-hand experience with this kind of research; I deal with organic chemistry, my knowledge about ROS is only from reading something here and there, so it is not the same as something coming from an expert in the field. With respect, saying "I don't really understand how X and Y works" and then trying to base arguments on the (lacking) understanding does not give you credibility. Only because the logic you use is, most likely and mostly, inconsistent with the probable ways such matter behaves.

The larger point that I made in another post is even if one could conclude that the reduced presence of free radicals entailed a reduced risk of harm associated with free radicals, that would not mean we could conclude that there were not other potentially harmful substances in nicotine vapour. This was in response to you saying that "the only logical conclusion you can make from reading that is that e-cigs are pretty darn harmless" (post #8 ), and other comments.

The "but" (and "still" as I edited in my comment) do imply that, am I really wrong in that? Read the sentence without both "but" and "still" and tell me it is the same. If both words were absent, it would be what you describe. But still it is another "but what if" argument, which is not incorrect in itself, but in this case slightly too improbable to base an opinion on. "Just in case" is not logical; it is HR, but that's all it is in my opinion, especially lacking the needed empirical backing. Also, I have already admitted that I was wrong in saying that is it the ONLY logical conclusion, but it is one of the most probable ones anyway as I thoroughly explained in my previous comments.

The but does not imply danger, it implies that it is a consideration which may weigh against some people deciding to use them. Pollution is generally not considered good for your lungs, to point out that e-cigs have similar levels of free radicals as air pollution is simply a way to put the level of contamination present in to lay mans terms. It doesn't take a genius to figure out there is a difference between breathing polluted air all day and taking a few tokes off of an e-cig which are similar in their free radical content.

Agreed, but you assume most people have the same reasoning skills as you. I assume otherwise. Who is right?

The main reason you didn't analyse the information properly is you made assumptions and drew conclusions which were not reasonable. I wouldn't say your logic was sound either, but I don't really want to get into it.

It is late, I have had a few drinks by now, my interest is waning. My intention was simply to point out the limits what could be concluded from the findings which have been presented, and to illustrate some assumptions on your part which weren't warranted.

Like I said my intention is not to try and belittle you or make you look stupid. I wouldn't even care but this is a harm reduction forum and I think it is important to emphasise the conclusions which can and cannot be drawn from studies like this.

I respect your opinion and don't take it as an attempt to belittle me. Constructive criticism is what drives people forward. Although, I could say the same about your arguments, and I partially disproved them indirectly in some of my previous posts. As I stated in the beginning of this comment, we're arguing about whose speculative logic is better.

Before you pick my arguments and use the "it is not certain thus it's wrong" argument, I will state once again plain and clear. I do not say that I know the truth, I'm taking probabilities and relative significancies into account and giving an opinion that "perhaps" it is wiser to consider the other way.

I should also say that I'm very bad at getting my point across using language, so it is not surprising to me that what I write is not sound. I think I will refrain from commenting on this subject further unless something new comes up, because currently we're not going forward but just cherry picking eachother's arguments.

Let's agree to disagree and shake hands. Have a nice evening, I'm off as well. To the bar.

 

[drug_mentor]

Fair comment. I've had quite a few drinks myself now (as my name suggests), so I'm in no position to make any further arguments. I don't agree with many, almost all, of your points, but at this point as I said earlier it boils down to subjectivity. The research is inconclusive and only suggestive at best, so we're basically arguing whose speculative logic is better; in reality we're both wrong until proven right by experiment.

It isn't accurate to claim that we are arguing about whose speculative logic is better. I have consistently said that we should not be speculating about the implications of these results in either direction beyond the very narrow scientific conclusions which can be drawn from them, largely in response to your attempts to draw speculative conclusions about the relative overall safety of e-cigarettes.

By the way, I don't agree that my logic and conclusions were not reasonable, especially given the reference to known behavior of ROS and cellular metabolism; they are not absolutely correct, but I won't agree that they are unreasonable. In this post you presented many "but what if" arguments again, most of which are of low probability.

The probability of any of the scenarios which I presented is largely irrelevant, the point I was making is that these findings don't address their probability whatsoever, and it cannot be assumed that they or similar scenarios are not at play. I made it abundantly clear that I was not suggesting there was any good reason to believe they were likely, the point was simply to illustrate that it is unscientific to assume nothing like that is at play when there is nothing in the data under consideration to indicate that they are not.

I am far from an expert on free radicals and how they interact with the human body. Unless explicitly stated otherwise I assume that is true of everyone commenting in this thread. My intention was to comment on what can and can't reasonably be generalised from the findings of the study, as they were presented in this article.

I completely agree that "we should not go the other way and assume things are not at play"; but we should also not assume that they are without proving it first.

This sentence sums up a great deal of what I have said in my last couple of posts, so at this point it doesn't seem like we fundamentally disagree.

With respect, saying "I don't really understand how X and Y works" and then trying to base arguments on the (lacking) understanding does not give you credibility. Only because the logic you use is, most likely and mostly, inconsistent with the probable ways such matter behaves.

This is a pretty ridiculous misrepresentation of what I said. My arguments have been based on nothing more than the findings which have been presented in this article. Unlike yourself, I didn't engage in any pseudo scientific reasoning about matters which I do not fully understand. My examples were nothing more than illustrations of the limits of what can be concluded from the presented results, I openly acknowledged that some data may exist to discredit the possibility of some specific examples I used, this doesn't undermine the larger point I was making.

You are not an expert on free radicals. You may well know more than me, but you don't know anywhere near enough to definitively conclude that any relative reduction in concentration of free radicals in e-cigarette vapour compared to cigarette smoke corresponds to the same relative reduction in potential harm associated with free radicals. Even if you could draw that conclusion, you couldn't draw the conclusion that no other factors increase the relative harms of e-cigarette vapour.

Let's agree to disagree and shake hands. Have a nice evening, I'm off as well. To the bar.

Agreed. Have a good one.

 

[Flynnal]

These studies are about as useful as the studies that promote routine infant circumcision - there is a very very very slight risk of disease, but circumcision destroys 75% of the erotic function of the penis. Likewise vaping might cause a slight increase in your risk of disease, these risks are likely insignificant compared to the risks of disease caused by long-term smoking.

While the scientific claims in both instances might actually be true, they are so insignificant as to attract scorn and mockery.

They are nothing more than unimportant truths. Yes, forgoing 75% of the feeling in your penis might every so slightly reduce your risk of some STDs, is losing all that pleasure worth it? It isn't worth it. I vape on a daily basis and there is no way in hell I will be passing that up, certainly not just because there is like 1000th of the number of free radicals in the e-liquid vapour as there is in tobacco smoke. I smoked when I was 15,16,17 and I am not going back there again...even if the arseholes at Big Tobacco and Big Government want me to. I'll tell them, just as most vapers will tell them, that is, to fuck off and leave us alone. Oh, and get their filthy little hands off defenceless baby boys too - that is an issue that angers me deeply and intensely and it will continue to do so until it is banned and stays banned.

 

[Jabberwocky]

It was so nice not reading any of these posts for a while there...

 

[Vaya]

Interesting thread!

It's tough, these days, for those interested in scientific news related to vaping. With the propensity of our culture to resist change and novelty, many such "relatively unimportant truths" tend to be perverted for the sake of wide-scale fear mongering. Many people who don't oppose cigarettes tend to dislike such news not so much because of what the article is actually saying, but because of what another agency could imply about the fundamental nature of vaping by misdirecting the message of such an article. And that's its own fallacy, surely, which I'm not attempting to excuse.

I have a bias. In my mind, vaping saved my life - and I could list the numerous, signifiant evidence of my own life that would suggest that this is the case. That isn't the issue, however. The vaping movement is hurt in large part by the special interest groups like Big Tobacco, but a very close second to derailing the cause are those who support vaping by being overzealous about its positive effects. When you look at the majority of us, though - we've been right there with the mainstream the whole time.

We acknowledge the slight detriment that vaping might cause us, and we're familiar with the ways this can be achieved (unregulated liquid market/manufacturing processes, chronic use of high-temperatures with buttery, savory flavorings, 'cloud-chasing' and power hitting beyond what one could call reasonable amounts, improper appreciation for battery safety/purchase of counterfeit batteries prone to failure).

I appreciate the article. I'd be interested to learn more about the specific samples of liquid product from which the data have been collected. Furthermore, my inclination is to look more deeply into the specific components of said liquids (as many are not similar) as well as some of the methods used to produce the levels.

Vaping isn't without risk but in a world of harm reduction - as opposed to elimination - I've been nothing but ecstatic about my decision to switch to vaping for years now. The cost-benefit ratio is quite in my favor, and yet I'm always willing to learn more about the ways in which I can continue to improve it.