Can you show me other studies where that’s done? You’re saying thousands of peer-reviewed, journal published studies where the carcinogenic effects or toxicity of various chemicals evaluated alone are useless? Useless studies pass peer-review and make it into respected journals?
There are several links to peer-reviewed, journal published studies in that report. Hardly equal to Google-vomit. EVERY study is an indication that more studies are needed. Studies on mice and rats don’t close the books on anything, nor do human studies. Mice and rats are used for several reasons, two of them being that their genealogy and biology closely resembles ours in many ways and they have a long history of giving us evidence for how substances will affect our bodies.
Those keywords are words that they entered so people using those words in a search will find their article, not keywords they used to find studies for their report. But even if you were correct, I don’t see how you can make that claim. Those keywords could also show them studies that find nicotine benign, not just harmful. What keywords would you find non-partial?
You have to keep in mind that me posting that report wasn’t to show proof that nicotine is harmful. There is no proof in science. But there is plenty of evidence that it’s harmful and I am responding to your claim that “The actual science says that nicotine isn’t a particularly harmful drug.” Science is saying no such thing.
Let’s start with the second sentence in your link:
IARC is the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a part of the WHO (World Health Organization). Your author later mentions the WHO stance on ecigs – which has been soundly trashed by researchers as flawed and biased, an agenda-driven publication supporting the status quo big pharma nicotine products while lambasting the new ecig technology. (There is controversy regarding whether or not WHO receives funds from pharmaceutical companies but it definitely receives funds from various agenda-driven organizations, causing some of their opinions / positions to be suspect.)
Hmmm … So they really do promote gum and patches but condemn ecigs … hmmm
Then he starts in about “insecticide”, another of the common but totally irrelevant anti-ecig memes.
He finds 3436 articles on adverse effects of nicotine, but chose only 90 to include in his review. Must have been a lot of sour cherries on that tree.
He goes into the LD50, stating that 30-60 mg of nicotine is a fatal dose. This is another of the repeating memes in anti-ecig literature, and another point that has been totally disproved, with the British National Health Service reporting people surviving doses ten times that with no long-term effects.
Me, I’m gonna stick with the IARC, the National Health Service, and the 32,000 medical professionals in the Royal College of Physicians.
Useless on their own, yes. Of course not every study will do such comparisons within itself, but if we want something actionable we need a comparison.
Suppose I run a study showing that smoke detectors expose humans to 10 microRem of radiation per year. Radiation is bad, right? The current exposure standards say that there’s no safe level of radiation. So are smoke detectors bad?
You can’t know without a comparison. In this case, we look at other studies that show that background levels of radiation are about 360 milliRem per year. Now, the smoke detector doesn’t look so bad–it’s 1/36000 the background levels that everyone is exposed to. Whatever the real risk is, it’s tiny compared to other stuff that’s considered harmless.
Nicotine is a mood-altering drug, and this is where I’d expect to see the benefits. So I’d want to see the search include things like “mood”, “alertness”, “concentration”, etc.
The study you linked to argues that nicotine has some harmful effects. But I said “particularly harmful”. As in, the harms are out of proportion from stuff that’s generally considered benign. Everything on earth is at least slightly harmful, but there is some threshold where we don’t consider it relevant. I would say that strong regulation of nicotine demands evidence of harm past this threshold.
None of these organizations (and certainly not all of the individuals who have membership in them) have uncritically endorsed e-cigarettes.
For instances, the Royal College of Physicians, while approving of the potential e-cigs have for reducing smoking, has in its 2016 statement noted:
“The RCP also recognises that these new products present potential risks as well as opportunities for individual and population health, and therefore advocates proportionate regulation to maximise the overall public health benefit.
Regulation should ensure that products deliver nicotine effectively and safely; that advertising and promotion do not target young people or other non-smokers; and that advertising and use (for example, in public places) do not undermine smoking prevention policies. The RCP therefore supports regulation of electronic cigarettes and other novel nicotine products as medicines. [ii]
Close monitoring of the use of electronic cigarettes in UK society is essential to ensure trends that are counter to public health are identified and acted upon promptly.”
Unfortunately it’s easy for political groups to become hyperpartisan and/or full of “purists”.
Nuclear power is the boogeyman of the green movement. It doesn’t matter that it’s far cleaner than coal (which is sometimes slightly radioactive itself!), a lot of environmentalists will oppose nuclear power in all of its forms. (In Ontario, the biggest problem with the nuclear power plants aren’t leaks of radiation, but heating up Lake Ontario, devastating some kinds of fish. These fish aren’t developing tumors or mutations, they just can’t stand the heat.)
Abortion is a boogeyman of the social conservative movement. It is to be opposed in all situations, period, even if it makes you look nutty.
I’m a non-smoker. I don’t like vaping, and treat it like cigarette smoke, eg I will stay away from anyone who is vaping. However, vaping is measurably less dangerous than cigarette smoking. The percentage of smokers has been going down, but slowly. If instead of 1 fewer smoker we have 10 people who have switched from smoking to vaping I will call it a win.
Because vaping is “safer” a lot of vapers don’t follow the rules of smoking, eg don’t smoke close to this building, etc.
Your post says you are linking to the 2016 statement, however, you have actually linked to the 2014 statement. On the page to which you linked, the first sentence reads:
Both the RCP and the NHS dispute much of the anti-ecig literature that has come out in the past couple of years.
A few points from their update:
However, the hazard to health arising from long-term vapour inhalation from the e-cigarettes available today is unlikely to exceed 5% of the harm from smoking tobacco.
Technological developments and improved production standards could reduce the long-term hazard of e-cigarettes.
There are concerns that e-cigarettes will increase tobacco smoking by renormalising the act of smoking, acting as a gateway to smoking in young people, and being used for temporary, not permanent, abstinence from smoking.
However, the available evidence to date indicates that e-cigarettes are being used almost exclusively as safer alternatives to smoked tobacco, by confirmed smokers who are trying to reduce harm to themselves or others from smoking, or to quit smoking completely.
There is a need for regulation to reduce direct and indirect adverse effects of e-cigarette use, but this regulation should not be allowed significantly to inhibit the development and use of harm-reduction products by smokers.
However, in the interests of public health it is important to promote the use of e-cigarettes, NRT and other non-tobacco nicotine products as widely as possible as a substitute for smoking in the UK.
Rather than give the ecig industry to big tobacco and allow them, with a mandate from the FDA, to insure that no new technology will be used (the current proposed regulation, supported by the tobacco companies, states that only devices which were on the market in 2007 [the ones the tobacco companies now sell] can be sold – newer devices must undergo testing costing hundred of thousands or million of dollars, making it extremely difficult for innovators (in an extremely fast-moving and innovative market) to compete.
Keep in mind, too, that the National Health Service now gives ecigs to people to reduce or stop smoking … because they work better than gum or patches.
So yeah. I’m sticking with the people who want to prevent a billion people from getting sick and dying from tobacco related illnesses in this century. And I want the industry to continue to improve and innovate, rather than be controlled by big tobacco, which is doing its best to stamp out innovation and competition.
I don’t much care whether the people who choose to use nicotine are weak-willed or morally inferior to non-users, or if they use it just because it feels good or because they are addicted to it. I simply don’t care about that. I do feel some empathy for the many who will die if they are denied the use of this new technology – don’t you?
Just pointing out for the OP, this kind of over-the-top rhetoric about how vaping SAVES LIVES and the long posts insisting that inhaling and releasing a gas of unregulated batches of chemicals can’t possibly hurt the user or anyone else in the room is exactly what I was talking about. “If you don’t entirely support vaping everywhere and anywhere, don’t you have empathy for the many who will die if you don’t?” is exactly the kind of thing to get someone voting for ‘ban this crap’.
You do realize that that is not at all what he said, right? Not even close.
No one said “can’t possibly hurt the user or anyone else”, though it has been stated that there is plenty of evidence that it is significantly less harmful than burning tobacco products.
No one said “If you don’t entirely support vaping everywhere and anywhere, don’t you have empathy for the many who will die if you don’t?”, or anything close, though it has been stated that should regulation push e-cigs out of the market, then that will probably cause much more harm than good. You may get a few more people to quit nicotine entirely, but not nearly the number that would switch from cigarettes to e-cig.
I fully support keeping vaping relegated to places where smoking is allowed. I fully support your complaint about assholes vaping indoors in public places. I fully support your complaint about “cloud chasers” making giant plumes of smoke to bother others, even outdoors.
I do not support your characterization of those who wish to reduce the harm of their nicotine addiction.
Actually, these are quotes from this thread. They don’t contain the exact quoted phrase that you used, of course, but what they say is pretty clear.
(Denying that there’s even a smell for people to be bothered by)
(Denying that there is anything harmful in vapor, and specifically nicotine, and in fact saying they’re no different than systems that have no second-hand exhaust).
(Claims that second-hand vape is indistinguishable from normal background, and that studies showing toxins in vape are sponsored by biased parties)
(Denial that vapor has harmful chemicals, and incidentally complete denial that anyone has ever gotten a serious illness from secondhand smoke (not just vapor)
What I quoted in the message you’re replying to did, I’m not going to requote it. I could do another batch of quotes from this thread, but it’s not worth the effort, and of course it’s based on interpretation. If you don’t want to see the absurd, over the top rhetoric filled with accusations as that, I’m not going to be able to make you, but it is something that contributes to the ‘vape-hate’.
I haven’t said anything about that specific group. I have complained about a specific subgroup of that group.
Duly noted, as well as the following comment you didn’t bother to quote from the 2016 update:
“E-cigarettes are not currently made to medicines standards and are probably more hazardous than (nicotine replacement therapy).”
Mostly though, it is disturbing that the “update” makes claims and assumptions that have not been borne out by research and/or evidence to date, such as:
“Technological developments and improved production standards could reduce the long-term hazard of e-cigarettes.”
I’m reminded of all the efforts made by the tobacco industry in past years to assure us that they’d come up with a “safer” cigarette. And just how does the RCP know that long-term hazards of e-cigs might be mitigated by product development, when we haven’t even begun to characterize those long-term hazards?
I also love “There is a need for regulation to reduce direct and indirect adverse effects of e-cigarette use, but this regulation should not be allowed significantly to inhibit the development and use of harm-reduction products by smokers.”
Yep, can’t let any pesky regulations keep manufacturers from profiting from the nicotine addiction market, regardless of harms.
Whoever generated that position statement for this supposedly professional group seems have gone largely into the tank for e-cig promotion, and it may well come back to bite them.
Meantime, other organizations aren’t buying into this rosy picture.
*"Early studies show that e-cigarettes contain nicotine and other harmful chemicals, including carcinogens. The Surgeon General has found that nicotine has negative health impacts on fetal development and adolescent brain development. Nicotine is believed to contribute to increased incidence of premature birth, and low birth weight. Research has also shown a negative impact on pulmonary function in newborns, an issue of paramount concern to the Lung Association.
A 2014 study showed wide ranging nicotine levels in e-cigarettes and substantial variability between listed and actual nicotine levels in these products. In 2009, the FDA conducted lab tests and found detectable levels of toxic cancer-causing chemicals, including an ingredient used in antifreeze, in two leading brands of e-cigarettes and 18 various cartridges. A 2014 study found that e-cigarettes with a higher voltage level have higher amounts of formaldehyde, a carcinogen."*
The American Lung Association, American Academy of Pediatrics and the A.M.A. have all applauded the FDA’s decision to regulate e-cigs, while business groups like the American Vaping Association are sounding uncannily like the RCP, warning of fellow businessmen going bust because they supposedly can’t comply with the new rules, and gee golly, smokers won’t be able to quit because they won’t have access to such wonderful nicotine devices.
I’m just waiting for one of these trade groups or their apologists to label regulation a New Holocaust for smokers. :dubious:
What those doctors are concerned about is the prospect that the proposed FDA ecig regulations will give control of the industry to the tobacco companies – who are attempting to squash innovation and competition.
Ah yes, the antifreeze story. Eliquids do indeed contain an ingredient used in some antifreeze – those where it is important that the antifreeze be NONTOXIC. The same ingredient (PG) is vaporized and pumped into hospital ventilation systems. But we’ve already covered that. In fact, we’ve already covered all of this crap.
I think I can sum up the thread for the OP with the line from The Big Short:
“Truth is like poetry. And most people fucking hate poetry.”
The very same tobacco companies who have been enthusiastically moving into e-cig marketing, because it guarantees new generations of hopeless nicotine addicts. Whereas the smaller firms are only in it for the noble purpose of helping said addicts quit smoking, and undoubtedly will be industry leaders in producing safer products. :dubious:
First of all, propylene glycol cannot be considered nontoxic for prolonged inhalation. And in an e-cig system, it is heated to produce a probable carcinogen - propylene oxide.
Yes, we’ve covered this, as well as the other worrisome chemicals in e-cig vapor such as acetaldehyde and acrolein. The vape-heads just won’t listen.
I would love for you to show me what hospitals are pumping propylene glycol vapor into their ventilation system, in other words, CITE??!?*
The meme about propylene glycol (found in e-cig liquids) being “good for you” has made the rounds of e-cig enthusiast websites, apparently due to a 1942 study done in mice that found its vapor had a germicidal effect.
I am unaware that any hospitals are using the chemical for this purpose, particularly as propylene glycol vapors have a known harmful effect on the respiratory tract.
*and no, “Steve K’s Vaping World” will not be accepted as an authoritative source.
I don’t smoke, don’t vape, never have, never will. But I tend to agree with the above. I think there is some kind of neo-Puritanism Health Nazi mindset, and in California it’s coming from the state anti-tobacco board. They were funded with the tobacco settlement, and it’s their job to get people to quit smoking. But they’ve also decided that they hate vaping.
It feels like, if vaping emitted clouds of healthful aromatherapy crystals that gave the faint essence of unicorn breath, the anti-tobacco haters would still come down on it hard, just because Nicotine = BAD.
Right. The doctors don’t want the tobacco companies to control the ecig market. The doctors want research and innovation, the tobacco companies want to restrict anything newer than the 2007 models they paid billions for. They want to restrict “open” models – ecigs with a simple glass tank which can be refilled with inexpensive eliquid so they can sell old style cartridges containing a few pennies worth of juice for $4 to $6. They want to sell batteries that last an hour or two instead of batteries that last a day or two. Etc. etc. etc.
The doctors say part of the reason they updated their position paper is to repudiate much of the garbage that has been coming out of the anti-tobacco organizations – inaccurate, scientifically flawed, out-dated, and sometimes just plain lies – the doctors have looked at it and felt a need to reaffirm their position in favor of ecigs. Your Berkeley link is such an example; anything coming out the University of California system is going to be negative on ecigs.
Even if that was the case, “the doctors” behind that position statement should be concerning themselves with public health and not with market forces supplying addictive products.
Your own link says nothing about propylene glycol being “pumped into hospital ventilation systems”, as you previously claimed. It was approved as an aerosol can application in a closed room for sanitizing (i.e. antimicrobial) purposes, not so patients, visitors and staff could be exposed to its vapors all over the hospital. Chlorox is also approved for antimicrobial use in hospitals, but they don’t give patients rubdowns with it.
It’d be nice if you’d acknowledge the fact that numerous health/medical organizations have expressed support for the FDA’s regulation of the e-cig industry.
Ol’ Steve is as screwed up as the rest of the e-cig dealers and apologists who spout online nonsense.
