Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Research Estimates Vaping is At Least 95% Less Harmful than Smoking

posted by n1 on Tuesday January 01 2019, @07:19PM   Printer-friendly
from the blowing-smoke dept.

"exec" writes:

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Public Health England (PHE) has released a new film showing the devastating harms that come from smoking, and how this can be avoided by switching to an e-cigarette or using another type of quit aid.

The film has been released as part of PHE’s Health Harms campaign, which encourages smokers to attempt to quit this January, by demonstrating the personal harm to health from every single cigarette.

The film features smoking expert Dr Lion Shahab and Dr Rosemary Leonard, visually demonstrating the high levels of cancer-causing chemicals and tar inhaled by an average smoker over a month, compared to not smoking or using an e-cigarette.

The results of the demonstration visually illustrate the stark contrast between the impacts of smoking and vaping. Research estimates that while not risk-free, vaping is at least 95% less harmful than smoking.

Around 2.5 million adults are using e-cigarettes in England, and they have helped thousands of people successfully quit – but many smokers (44%) either believe that vaping is as harmful as smoking (22%) or don’t know that vaping poses much lower risks to health (22%).

-- submitted from IRC

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Research Estimates Vaping is At Least 95% Less Harmful than Smoking | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 60 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by black6host on Tuesday January 01 2019, @10:39PM (2 children)

    by black6host (3827) on Tuesday January 01 2019, @10:39PM (#780765) Journal

    Actually, there's a good read in the Lancet about where the figure of 95% came from: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2900042-2/fulltext [thelancet.com]

    The last two paragraphs are worth reading with care.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=3, Overrated=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   4  

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 01 2019, @11:01PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 01 2019, @11:01PM (#780769)

    Excellent catch! OP may have been kidding, but looks like it really is the case.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by SpockLogic on Wednesday January 02 2019, @01:37PM

    by SpockLogic (2762) on Wednesday January 02 2019, @01:37PM (#781006)

    I think it is worth quoting from the final paragraph of The Lancet article cited above for those who find it tl;dr.

    But the reliance by PHE on work that the authors themselves accept is methodologically weak, and which is made all the more perilous by the declared conflicts of interest surrounding its funding, raises serious questions not only about the conclusions of the PHE report, but also about the quality of the agency's peer review process. PHE claims that it protects and improves the nation's health and wellbeing. To do so, it needs to rely on the highest quality evidence. On this occasion, it has fallen short of its mission.

    As always, FOLLOW THE MONEY.

    --
    Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII