Is vaping bad for health?

[Tampitump]

I've heard and read from various sources that vaping was found to contain the chemical diacetyl which gives the vaping liquid its delicious buttery flavor. I've heard that this is linked to a condition known as "popcorn lung". This may be an old question that is either debunked or confirmed, but I just wanted to know what the smart folks here thought about it. Does using vaporizers cause a real threat to human health/life? Thanks.

[StringJunky]

I've heard and read from various sources that vaping was found to contain the chemical diacetyl which gives the vaping liquid its delicious buttery flavor. I've heard that this is linked to a condition known as "popcorn lung". This may be an old question that is either debunked or confirmed, but I just wanted to know what the smart folks here thought about it. Does using vaporizers cause a real threat to human health/life? Thanks.

I think it's a relative thing; it's maybe not as risky as smoking leaves which contain many more different chemicals than vaping liquids. Not all vaping liquids are the same, so, some will be more risky than others. It wouldn't surprise if there are vaping concoctions that are as risky as cigarettes.

[Phi for All]

This Snopes article makes it sound like it was a bit of media scare tactics to make the diacetyl - popcorn lung connection.

 

While studies like Harvard's are critical to fully understanding e-cigs, they too often have the opposite effect. Tobacco cigarettes, for instance, have also long been known to contain diacetyl — at levels over 100 times those found in electronic cigarettes — yet earlier tobacco studies found that even these levels were not enough to cause popcorn lung in smokers.

[Strange]

It wouldn't surprise if there are vaping concoctions that are as risky as cigarettes.

 

 

Are you tired of that mellow vaping experience? Do you long for the real tobacco flavor? Then try La Brea, our unique Full Tar vape that will cure those nostalgic feelings.

[Not to be used within 14 miles of pregnant women or children under 34]

[Tampitump]

Yeah, I saw the snopes article. I've also read that cigarettes contain more diacetyl than vaping liquids. So is there really a risk for popcorn lung?

I'm not aware of any confirmed cases of popcorn lung caused by vaping. Perhaps I'm just ignorant of them.

[StringJunky]

 

 

Are you tired of that mellow vaping experience? Do you long for the real tobacco flavor? Then try La Brea, our unique Full Tar vape that will cure those nostalgic feelings.

[Not to be used within 14 miles of pregnant women or children under 34]

Yeah. Some bright spark will come up with authentic Navy Cut, Park Drive, Woodbine, No.6... flavours

[John Cuthber]

Nicotine is bad for you so...

[StringJunky]

Nicotine is bad for you so...

 

 

Limited data is available on the health effects of long term use of nicotine.[17] The general medical position is that nicotine itself poses few health risks, except among certain vulnerable groups.[18] Nicotine in the form of nicotine replacement products is less of a risk than compared to smoking.[19] Nicotine is associated with a range of harmful effects, including potential birth defects[20] and at high enough-doses, poisonings.[19] In vitro studies have associated it with cancer, but carcinogenicity has not been demonstrated in vivo.[20] There is inadequate research to demonstrate that nicotine is associated with cancer in humans.[19] As medicine, nicotine is used to help with quitting smoking and has good safety in this form.[21] During pregnancy, there are risks to the child later in life for type 2 diabetes, obesity, hypertension, neurobehavioral defects, respiratory dysfunction, and infertility.[21] At high enough doses,[15] nicotine is potentially lethal.[22] It is unlikely that a person would overdose on nicotine through smoking alone.[23] The use of electronic cigarettes, which are designed to be refilled with nicotine-containing e-liquid, has raised concerns over nicotine overdoses, especially with regard to the possibility of young children ingesting the liquids.[24] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine

Edited October 28, 2016 by StringJunky

[DrmDoc]

Yet, nicotine does have harmful effect. From the abstract:

 

With the advent of nicotine replacement therapy, the consumption of the nicotine is on the rise. Nicotine is considered to be a safer alternative of tobacco. The IARC monograph has not included nicotine as a carcinogen. However there are various studies which show otherwise. We undertook this review to specifically evaluate the effects of nicotine on the various organ systems. A computer aided search of the Medline and PubMed database was done using a combination of the keywords. All the animal and human studies investigating only the role of nicotine were included. Nicotine poses several health hazards. There is an increased risk of cardiovascular, respiratory, gastrointestinal disorders. There is decreased immune response and it also poses ill impacts on the reproductive health. It affects the cell proliferation, oxidative stress, apoptosis, DNA mutation by various mechanisms which leads to cancer. It also affects the tumor proliferation and metastasis and causes resistance to chemo and radio therapeutic agents. The use of nicotine needs regulation. The sale of nicotine should be under supervision of trained medical personnel.

 

[StringJunky]

Yet, nicotine does have harmful effect. From the abstract:

 

There are caveats to what I posted.

 

Yet, nicotine does have harmful effect. From the abstract:

 

Vaping is about harm reduction rather harm avoidance. The nicotine element is not as bad as the myriad other chemicals in tobacco. Your link doesn't feel neutral in approach. They've gone into their study saying "nicotine is harmful" then looked for things to support it; an exercise in confirmation bias, it looks to me. I don't think nicotine or vaping is good per se and I'm at this moment engaged in smoking cessation but I like to keep a level head about things and keep them in perspective.

Edited October 28, 2016 by StringJunky

[Moontanman]

There are caveats to what I posted.

 

Vaping is about harm reduction rather harm avoidance. The nicotine element is not as bad as the myriad other chemicals in tobacco. Your link doesn't feel neutral in approach. They've gone into their study saying "nicotine is harmful" then looked for things to support it; an exercise in confirmation bias, it looks to me. I don't think nicotine or vaping is good per se and I'm at this moment engaged in smoking cessation but I like to keep a level head about things and keep them in perspective.

 

 

Nicotine is a poison, cigarettes can be used to make a very effective insect poison. A non smoker can killed by eating as few as 30 cigarettes, small children are more vulnerable. But hey! It's organic!

[StringJunky]

 

 

Nicotine is a poison, cigarettes can be used to make a very effective insect poison. A non smoker can killed by eating as few as 30 cigarettes, small children are more vulnerable. But hey! It's organic!

People are not insects.

 

Good luck with actually eating 1 cigarette, let alone 30.

 

Sorry mate... FAIL!!!

Edited October 28, 2016 by StringJunky

[Moontanman]

People are not insects.

 

Good luck with actually eating 1 cigarette, let alone 30.

 

Sorry mate... FAIL!!!

 

 

I've seen little kids eat them like candy and I know several people who chew tobacco but do not spit the juices out! little kids are the most vulnerable with people who smoke the least vulnerable. Nicotine is indeed poisonous to mammals...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine_poisoning

 

 

The estimated lower limit of a lethal dose of nicotine has been reported as between 500 and 1000 mg.^[7] Children may become ill following ingestion of one cigarette;^[8] ingestion of more than this may cause a child to become severely ill.^[5][9] The nicotine in the e-liquid of an electronic cigarette can be hazardous to infants and children, through accidental ingestion or skin contact.^[10] In some cases children have become poisoned by topical medicinal creams which contain nicotine.^[11]

People who harvest or cultivate tobacco may experience Green Tobacco Sickness (GTS), a type of nicotine poisoning caused by skin contact with wet tobacco leaves. This occurs most commonly in young, inexperienced tobacco harvesters who do not consume tobacco.^[4][12]

[John Cuthber]

Limited data is available on the health effects of long term use of nicotine.[17] The general medical position is that nicotine itself poses few health risks, except among certain vulnerable groups.[18]

You seem to have bolded the wrong bit

The general medical position is that nicotine itself poses few health risks,

I accept that it's less harmful to inhale nicotine than to inhale nicotine plus a whole pile of **** that we know is carcinogenic but that's not relevant to the question posed in the title.

"-is-vaping-bad-for-health"

to which he answer is, unequivocally, yes.

 

Of course, if you hear that, but don't want to accept it, that's fine (Your heat and brain, not mine)- but don't try post anything that suggests that nicotine is anything other than bad for you on a science web site.

Edited October 28, 2016 by John Cuthber

[StringJunky]

You seem to have bolded the wrong bit

The general medical position is that nicotine itself poses few health risks,

That's totally misquoting the intention of the authors which is *dishonest but I'll go along with that vaping is harmful in the absolute sense.

 

* I can't believe you even suggested it should be bolded like that given that you are, apparently, a scientist.

Edited October 28, 2016 by StringJunky

[DrmDoc]

There are caveats to what I posted.

 

Vaping is about harm reduction rather harm avoidance. The nicotine element is not as bad as the myriad other chemicals in tobacco.

 

I agree, however...

 

They've gone into their study saying "nicotine is harmful" then looked for things to support it; an exercise in confirmation bias, it looks to me.

 

According to the abstract:

 

We undertook this review to specifically evaluate the effects of nicotine on the various organ systems.

It appears they were evaluating the effects of nicotine, which I agree should have included both positive and negative effects. However, I posted that link to contrast what I believe was an inaccurate Wiki statement regarding:

 

The general medical position is that nicotine itself poses few health risks, except among certain vulnerable groups.[18]

Although it a much healthier alternative to other tobacco additives, nicotine does indeed pose several health risks.

Edited October 28, 2016 by DrmDoc

[John Cuthber]

That's totally misquoting the intention of the authors which is *dishonest but I'll go along with that vaping is harmful in the absolute sense.

 

* I can't believe you even suggested it should be bolded like that given that you are, apparently, a scientist.

OK, so, I point out that something (which is - on a weight for weight basis- roughly as toxic as hydrogen cyanide) is "bad for you" and , when you try to refute that, I call you out.

Your reply is that I'm dishonest.

 

In citing that line out of context, and tacitly implying that it suggested my statement was anything other than true, you were flatly ignoring reality.

I have no qualms about showing up your foolishness by changing your bolding.

[StringJunky]

 

Although it a much healthier alternative to tobacco additives, nicotine does indeed pose several health risks.

Yes, I have conceded that in absolute terms it has health risks.

 

OK, so, I point out that something (which is - on a weight for weight basis- roughly as toxic as hydrogen cyanide) is "bad for you" and , when you try to refute that, I call you out.

Your reply is that I'm dishonest.

 

In citing that line out of context, and tacitly implying that it suggested my statement was anything other than true, you were flatly ignoring reality.

I have no qualms about showing up your foolishness by changing your bolding.

No, I was looking at the question from a different perspective - from the perspective of harm reduction. You pulled me saying the the question was about absolute harm, which I have conceded. What's dishonest about that? Selectively bolding quotes is dishonest when it detracts from the authors intent which is what I pulled you up for.

Edited October 29, 2016 by StringJunky

[John Cuthber]

I was looking at the question from a different perspective - from the perspective of harm reduction.

...What's dishonest about that?...

"I was looking at the question from a different perspective - from the perspective of harm reduction."

Well, that's neither the title's nor the OP's question, so...

 

 

What's dishonest is using a quote "The general medical position is that nicotine itself poses few health risks, except among certain vulnerable groups."

as if it refutes someone's point, when it doesn't.

 

The only bit of the quote that you highlighted is the bit that says I'm right- the stuff is bad for you.

Yet you presented it in such a way as to seek to make it look like a refutation. That's dishonest.

 

Would you have been happier if I'd changed it thus

"The general medical position is that nicotine itself poses few health risks, except among certain vulnerable groups." and pointed out that few <> zero?

 

The difference between what I did originally, and what I did there was to start with your quote rather than the original.

Essentially in both cases I just flipped the bolding on one word to make my point.

[Tampitump]

Compared to other things you could do like drinking alcohol in excess or smoking excessively, where does vaping lie on that spectrum in terms of health risks?

[John Cuthber]

The annoying answer is that we don't know. Nobody has been doing it for long enough to find out.

However the initial indications seem to be that it's a lot less harmful than smoking tobacco.

 

At first glance I'd be more worried about acrolein than diacetyl.

[wtf]

Depends on what you're vaping. Nicotine is a poison regardless of how you ingest it. Perhaps there's some harm reduction from vaping rather than smoking, but vaping is too new for data to be conclusive. In ten or twenty years we'll have a better idea.

[LizW12]

It's not "As bad" but it isn't necessarily good for you.