9 ms·

I'm also under the impression that the evidence for Juul being meaningfully safer than cigarettes doesn't really exist. It's more a lack of evidence in either d

I'm also under the impression that the evidence for Juul being meaningfully safer than cigarettes doesn't really exist. It's more a lack of evidence in either direction (whether Juul and similar vape products are more or less harmful than cigarettes) because research is still ongoing.

catalogia 7y ago
Lacking soot and tar, I find it hard to believe vape products are as harmful as smoking in principle. Of course there may be other factors in play; for instance it seems plausible that some vaporizers might out-gas other harmful chemicals when they get up to temperature. The use of plastic parts in such devices seems pretty sketchy. That's my strong intuition anyway. I don't have any skin in this game; I don't consume tobacco products in any form.
KingMachiavelli 7y ago
There's plenty of research about what harm tobacco/smoking does that isn't going to be present in vaping* [1]. There is also intrinsically less evidence on the parts of vaping that are unique to it such as the solvents, the device materials, etc. It's been a few years since I've really looked at the research in depth but as I recall (smoking) tobacco was just a crazy outlier on the scale of what causes cancer. Part of the issue was the amount people smoked what seems absurd now where even someone who seems like they smoke a lot really only smokes a few a day. And compare that to cannabis consumption and the amount of organic material burned/inhaled per day is just astounding when you look at heavy tobacco smokers. Also, as far as I've heard, the US's campaign against and problem with teenage vaping is unique and its treated completely differently in Europe/UK. [1]. http://ecigarette-research.org/research/index.php http://ecigarette-research.org/research/index.php
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
samatman 7y ago
The null hypothesis for the harm caused by vaping should have no reference to the harm caused by smoking. They're different activities. Our baseline should be the harm caused by nicotine by itself, propylene glycol, and food-safe flavors: nicotine causes addiction, which can definitely be considered a harm, but isn't itself associated with other negative health outcomes. Propylene glycol and flavors are generally regarded as safe. Then, of course, we should extensively study the subject, since the lungs are a new route of administration† and vaping has become popular. But it's important to correctly set the baseline. Associating vaping and smoking because they're behaviorally similar is superstitious behavior. † Not new for proylene glycol, which is used in fog machines.
- ineedasername 7y ago
  >> They're different activities It's the overlap in user groups that connects them, especially considering they are more frequently (though not always) mutually exclusive and one is positioned, in the market and as lobbying of public policy, as a safer alternative than the other. So, yes, scientifically it's important to understand the baseline risks of vaping independently of traditional smoking. But the outcome of that scientific research has to be used to inform policy decisions, and so from that perspective you have to compare those two baselines to each other. Think of it like research on new medications: Showing the efficacy of your new medication over placebo is necessary but not sufficient. Part of the process entails a discussion on how your new medication compares to existing medications targeted at the same/similar health issues.
  - samatman 7y ago
    Yes, this is an important comparison when there is adequate data. Which, we're not really starting from the null hypothesis at this point, but let's pretend that we are. Starting from no data, saying that there's no evidence that vaping is less harmful than cigarettes is no different from saying there's no evidence that vaping is less harmful than guavas. There's no evidence. That's where the sentence needs to stop. Then you get evidence, and we can have an informed conversation.
abstractbarista 7y ago
Certainly. But smoke a pack a day for 6 months, then vape incessantly for 6 months. Tell me how you feel after each. The unscientific observation is extremely clear.
aphextim 7y ago
Anecdata storytime: I used to smoke a pack a day, and when I switched to vaping I personally felt much better. I was able to do things a bit better than when I was smoking cancer sticks. Looking back I was lying to myself thinking it was just as good as quitting. I didn't feel the heavy tar on my lungs like cigarettes. I still noticed when pushing myself on work outs or hiking or biking or anything requiring aerobic activity that I would get sick to my stomach and almost puke like when you run long distance and are not used to it. I could go further than when I smoked but I would always hit this "wall" where I would get sick. Quit 100% 3 months ago and took up XC Skiing. I could only do 2 miles when I first started. Just last week I did 10 miles and I have been going once on the weekend every week so in 12 sessions I was able to 5x my aerobic ability. Starting at 0%, switching to vaping I would say made me feel/perform overall 15-20% better compared to cigarettes. Quitting vaping filled in that other 80% and the difference is like night and day and so obvious I was lying to myself to keep the habit alive longer than I needed to. Smoking timeline: Smoked 18-30, transitioned to vaping. 30-31 vaped 12mg juice. 31-32 vaped 6mg juice. 32-33 vaped 3mg juice. 33-34 vaped 0 mg juice. Quit Vaping 100% last Thanksgiving cold turkey (really was just mental habit at this point smoking 0 mg juice) 3 months vape free!
- liveoneggs 7y ago
  congrats it sounds like vaping really helped you
- lowdose 7y ago
  Never only just 1 cigaret again! I quit similar circumstances 4 years ago.
- RickJWagner 7y ago
  Congratulations on breaking free. Enjoy!
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  If you quit vaping and started skiing at the exact same time that makes it pretty hard to know how much of the improvement came from each.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
irthomasthomas 7y ago
This was posted on HN recently.... Tobacco smoke contains Polonium-210, the same stuff used to murder the Russian spy Litvinenko. A pack and half a day exposes the smoker to the same amount of radiation as 300 chest xrays a year. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2509609/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2509609/ So someone just needs to blow some vape on a Geiger counter to test its radiation levels. I suspect the vape will be radiation free, as it doesn't need to contain the extra chemicals that lend tobacco its flavour.
- xkcd-sucks 7y ago
  Wtf, radionuclides aren't flavorings they're concentrated from soil by plants!

catalogia 7y ago

Lacking soot and tar, I find it hard to believe vape products are as harmful as smoking in principle. Of course there may be other factors in play; for instance it seems plausible that some vaporizers might out-gas other harmful chemicals when they get up to temperature. The use of plastic parts in such devices seems pretty sketchy. That's my strong intuition anyway. I don't have any skin in this game; I don't consume tobacco products in any form.

KingMachiavelli 7y ago

There's plenty of research about what harm tobacco/smoking does that isn't going to be present in vaping* [1]. There is also intrinsically less evidence on the parts of vaping that are unique to it such as the solvents, the device materials, etc. It's been a few years since I've really looked at the research in depth but as I recall (smoking) tobacco was just a crazy outlier on the scale of what causes cancer. Part of the issue was the amount people smoked what seems absurd now where even someone who seems like they smoke a lot really only smokes a few a day. And compare that to cannabis consumption and the amount of organic material burned/inhaled per day is just astounding when you look at heavy tobacco smokers. Also, as far as I've heard, the US's campaign against and problem with teenage vaping is unique and its treated completely differently in Europe/UK. [1]. http://ecigarette-research.org/research/index.php http://ecigarette-research.org/research/index.php

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

samatman 7y ago

The null hypothesis for the harm caused by vaping should have no reference to the harm caused by smoking. They're different activities. Our baseline should be the harm caused by nicotine by itself, propylene glycol, and food-safe flavors: nicotine causes addiction, which can definitely be considered a harm, but isn't itself associated with other negative health outcomes. Propylene glycol and flavors are generally regarded as safe. Then, of course, we should extensively study the subject, since the lungs are a new route of administration† and vaping has become popular. But it's important to correctly set the baseline. Associating vaping and smoking because they're behaviorally similar is superstitious behavior. † Not new for proylene glycol, which is used in fog machines.

ineedasername 7y ago
>> They're different activities It's the overlap in user groups that connects them, especially considering they are more frequently (though not always) mutually exclusive and one is positioned, in the market and as lobbying of public policy, as a safer alternative than the other. So, yes, scientifically it's important to understand the baseline risks of vaping independently of traditional smoking. But the outcome of that scientific research has to be used to inform policy decisions, and so from that perspective you have to compare those two baselines to each other. Think of it like research on new medications: Showing the efficacy of your new medication over placebo is necessary but not sufficient. Part of the process entails a discussion on how your new medication compares to existing medications targeted at the same/similar health issues.
- samatman 7y ago
  Yes, this is an important comparison when there is adequate data. Which, we're not really starting from the null hypothesis at this point, but let's pretend that we are. Starting from no data, saying that there's no evidence that vaping is less harmful than cigarettes is no different from saying there's no evidence that vaping is less harmful than guavas. There's no evidence. That's where the sentence needs to stop. Then you get evidence, and we can have an informed conversation.

abstractbarista 7y ago

Certainly. But smoke a pack a day for 6 months, then vape incessantly for 6 months. Tell me how you feel after each. The unscientific observation is extremely clear.

aphextim 7y ago

Anecdata storytime: I used to smoke a pack a day, and when I switched to vaping I personally felt much better. I was able to do things a bit better than when I was smoking cancer sticks. Looking back I was lying to myself thinking it was just as good as quitting. I didn't feel the heavy tar on my lungs like cigarettes. I still noticed when pushing myself on work outs or hiking or biking or anything requiring aerobic activity that I would get sick to my stomach and almost puke like when you run long distance and are not used to it. I could go further than when I smoked but I would always hit this "wall" where I would get sick. Quit 100% 3 months ago and took up XC Skiing. I could only do 2 miles when I first started. Just last week I did 10 miles and I have been going once on the weekend every week so in 12 sessions I was able to 5x my aerobic ability. Starting at 0%, switching to vaping I would say made me feel/perform overall 15-20% better compared to cigarettes. Quitting vaping filled in that other 80% and the difference is like night and day and so obvious I was lying to myself to keep the habit alive longer than I needed to. Smoking timeline: Smoked 18-30, transitioned to vaping. 30-31 vaped 12mg juice. 31-32 vaped 6mg juice. 32-33 vaped 3mg juice. 33-34 vaped 0 mg juice. Quit Vaping 100% last Thanksgiving cold turkey (really was just mental habit at this point smoking 0 mg juice) 3 months vape free!

liveoneggs 7y ago
congrats it sounds like vaping really helped you
lowdose 7y ago
Never only just 1 cigaret again! I quit similar circumstances 4 years ago.
RickJWagner 7y ago
Congratulations on breaking free. Enjoy!
Dylan16807 7y ago
If you quit vaping and started skiing at the exact same time that makes it pretty hard to know how much of the improvement came from each.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

irthomasthomas 7y ago

This was posted on HN recently.... Tobacco smoke contains Polonium-210, the same stuff used to murder the Russian spy Litvinenko. A pack and half a day exposes the smoker to the same amount of radiation as 300 chest xrays a year. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2509609/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2509609/ So someone just needs to blow some vape on a Geiger counter to test its radiation levels. I suspect the vape will be radiation free, as it doesn't need to contain the extra chemicals that lend tobacco its flavour.

xkcd-sucks 7y ago
Wtf, radionuclides aren't flavorings they're concentrated from soil by plants!