Electronic cigarettes that heat propylene glycol and glycerol, with or without nicotine and flavours, have been found to be safe based on a new meta-analysis of studies:
An update to the Cochrane review on electronic cigarettes [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub3] [DX] has restated the findings of the initial research, which was completed two years ago. It found that e-cigarettes are potentially a valuable smoking cessation aid, although there was not enough evidence to conclude that they helped people quit smoking confidently.
The updated review now also includes observational data from an additional 11 studies which found no serious side-effects from using e-cigs for up to two years. Aside from throat and mouth irritation, which commonly dissipated over time, the review's co-author, Jamie Hartmann-Boyce, said "in the short to medium term, we didn't find any evidence that they were associated with any serious side-effects."
Evidence from two trials found that e-cigarettes helped smokers to quit in the long term, but "the small number of trials, low event rates and wide confidence intervals around the estimates" meant that the researchers could not conclude with confidence that e-cigs helped smokers quit more than other cessation aids.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Friday September 16 2016, @12:03AM
But since smart and/or upper class folks don't smoke they dislike anything thst looks like it, science be damned. They're denialists.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday September 16 2016, @01:17AM
Horseshit. There is no better way to look more cool than to smoke cigarettes.
Vapes are kinda gay, especially because the people who use them use ridiculous flavors that sno-cone makers used to use. But they have the awesome advantage of being stealthy enough to be smoked on the job, indoors, and are as a result one of the best ways to root out bitch-ass rat coworkers.
Well, to be fair, if I got a whiff of 'dat grape, then I'd rat him out on the basis of that stank alone.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday September 16 2016, @08:37AM
Two issues. The first is that a two-year study is really short. A lot of the effects of smoking are probabilistic or cumulative, and two years may be too short for them to show up. The second is that there's very little regulation on what goes into vapes. Inhaling water vapour is completely safe (well, in moderation - too much can increase the likelihood of fungal growths in the lungs). It looks as if inhaling water vapour with a little bit of nicotine is probably also more or less safe. There's a bunch of other crap that often ends up in the vapes that is known to be carcinogenic.
Vapes in well-ventillated spaces do seem better for avoiding passive smoke though. Honestly, I don't really care what kind of crap you put in your own body. Feel free to eat, drink, snort, or inject, whatever you want as long as you're not forcing people around you to do the same.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Friday September 16 2016, @12:13AM
E-cigs as tested may have good purpose, but that doesn't mean they should not regulate what is put in them. That would be as foolish as trusting the cigarette companies to not put toxins or substances in cigarettes that would make them more addictive for financial gain. I quit smoking cigarettes on my own many years ago, but I LOVE my E-cig to vaporize me some good THC bearing 'goo'.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 4, Insightful) by quintessence on Friday September 16 2016, @12:29AM
But the degree and type of regulation should be proportional to any problems currently found.
When the FDA takes it upon themselves to institute regulations prior to good research on the subject, it looks like a powergrab rather than anything done for public safety.
Thus far the market has been pretty good about regulating themselves, and it would seem require little more than gentle oversight and truth in labeling, which is more than required for some food.
We don't need a rehash of cyclamates.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @03:47AM
Thus far the market has been pretty good about regulating themselves
Well the FDA could come out and officially say "If you guys do any shit we will regulate the shit out of you".
Sometimes just a threat from Momma is good enough to keep the kids in line _enough_.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Friday September 16 2016, @03:51AM
Don't forget that the tobacco companies want regulation of the e-cig industry, in order to push their expensive and disposable versions of the technology and force many of the smaller players shut down. They don't want people refilling with cheap nicotine/flavor liquid.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday September 16 2016, @04:02AM
*to shut down.
Also, dug up my source:
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=7471&cid=183637#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/411658/big-tobaccos-war-vaping-gregory-conley [nationalreview.com]
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/issues/e-cigarettes/ [opensecrets.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Friday September 16 2016, @06:01AM
Hear! Hear!
Possibly because most ecig vendors in the U.S. are small businesses the industry as a whole has shown proper concern for safety. Advice and perhaps some spot testing and remediation should be more than sufficient.
The part of the new regulations banning vape shop employees from helping customers replace a heating coil (intended to be an end user procedure) claiming it constitutes manufacturing is proof enough that this is nothing more or less than the FDA grabbing power and throwing their weight around for amusement purposes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @06:24AM
Could they work around that by letting a customer trade in for a new vape, repairing it, then reselling it?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday September 16 2016, @07:02AM
No. If they repair it, they are a "manufacturer" and must meet a ton of additional requirements.
And that's just for replacing or even cleaning the expendable heating coil that is intended to be replaced by the owner.
The closest to a workaround is if another customer volunteers to help or point them to search on youtube for an instructional video.
Imagine if only an FCC certified radio technician was allowed to put a battery in a cellphone for a customer and you'll have some idea of the level of overreach here.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Friday September 16 2016, @06:38PM
Agreed, a light regulation of proper food grade substances, like someone down the line pointed out would seem sufficient, and maybe a requirement to post how much nicotine or whatever 'active' ingredient is in the mix. I just foresee big tobacco getting into the mix and putting so much crap into them to force the issue and get the competition crippled.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @01:46PM
If marriage didn't exist, would you invent it? Would you go "Baby, this shit we got together, it's so good we gotta get the government in on this shit. We can't just share this commitment 'tweenst us. We need judges and lawyers involved in this shit, baby. It's hot!"
-- Doug Stanhope (Comedian)
The industry already regulates the quality of the ingredients in e-cigs albeit indirectly. Simply mandating that e-cig fluid producers use food grade ingredients is sufficient. Anything past that is just bureaucratic creep and leads to graft, bribery and corruption.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @12:46AM
The whole point of quitting smoking is to stop ingesting shit into your lungs, other than the air you breathe as part of that natural function. using e-cigs is not a natural function. period.
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Friday September 16 2016, @01:03AM
Vaping some flavored nicotine water is a massive reduction in harm if smokers switch from smoking cigarettes.
Nicotine is addictive, and if you can get a smoker to switch to vaping then you have turned their bad habit into something almost as harmless as that natural function of breathing air.
Of course, that natural function will harm you anyway, unless you live far away from modern civilization:
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2013/04/10/hidden-dangers-in-the-air-we-breathe/ [lbl.gov]
http://www.healthline.com/health-news/air-pollution-what-are-we-breathing-and-how-bad-is-it-for-us-102115 [healthline.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/05/toxic-air-pollution-particles-found-in-human-brains-links-alzheimers [theguardian.com]
Just kidding, you will be harmed by breathing even if there was no air pollution:
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/25/magazine/free-radicals-the-price-we-pay-for-breathing.html?pagewanted=all [nytimes.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday September 16 2016, @08:40AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @10:21AM
There are 'vaping' shops going up all in my area, same as the old cigar stores. Their purpose is not to get you to quit smoking. They put fragrant flavors in the "vapor" that are not unpleasant when someone puffs one out, but you can still smell them from a distance. If you catch a whiff of berries in the air, while walking in a crowd, it is highly likely that it is someone vaping. If someone wants to smoke or vape, then do it in your house/car, with the windows sealed. You should get 100% of the chemicals in your lungs, and not puff them out for me to breathe. Anyone who believes it is just water vapor is deluding themselves. When last I checked, water vapor does not have a scent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @12:23PM
It's not scented vape water, it's just the smell of an apple pie on someone's windowsill.
(Score: 2, Funny) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday September 16 2016, @02:01PM
Well, it's clear what we need to do. Have you ever smelled an apple pie? Disgusting odor. We need to make apple pie illegal. Any smells I can't stand need to be illegal! Ban all pies, in fact. I'll bet apple pies don't even have meat in them. What a hipster fraud! Damn Millennials think they can survive eating apple pie! We evolved to eat meat!
I demand that the only thing I smell in public is meat being grilled! Anything else is just politically correct new age bullshit!
You want to bake an apple pie? Do it in your own house with the windows sealed shut.
/s
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @01:54PM
Please just stop eating mass manufactured food. Those flavoring are found in the items in your grocery store.
The world thanks your for your cooperation in regards to improving the gene pool.
Neither those (food grade) flavorings*, (food grade) propylene glycol or (pharmaceutical grade) nicotine cause cancer.
* There was a brew-ha-ha a while back about cheaper Chinese flavorings containing DiAcetyl-something-or-other and that it could possibly, potentially, some day maybe, cause cancer.
The same DiAcetyl was found to be a very common ingredient in butter flavored microwave popcorn found in every grocery store in the western world. May as well ban DiHydrogen Monoxide. That shit will kill you! /s
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Friday September 16 2016, @02:03PM
I thought quitting smoking was to quit... smoking?
What is inhaled is a secondary nature, as you can see with the popularity of e-cigs. Maybe it made sense in the past that quitting smoking equaled the elimination of the addiction, but that approach has changed due to technology (gum/patches didn't help with psychological addiction behaviors, which often is a contributor to failing to stop smoking)
Mind you, smoking cessation is not the same as recovering from addiction. Most 'vapers' I know have zero intention to truly quit -- but are very happy there is a harm reduction technique that is inexpensive and works very well and is much less olfactorily offensive to others.
Of course, I'd hope people would try to kick the addiction, but I also know smart people that keep track of how much of a dose they appear to get and tend to reorder the products that give them the most 'bang for their buck'. Reduction of nicotine via this mechanism of delivery is not on their radar at all; its about maximizing the gain via cost control and thus is about *addiction management* as opposed to nicotine usage cessation.
And as one person told me, it beats picking out cigarettes based on the tar content. Some people really preferred a given brand, but many that had smoked for years... just wanted the cheapest and hopefully a selection from among the least damanging of the evils proffered for sale. Now they can be choosey and improve their health at the same time while still indulging (if you can call it that).
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @01:25AM
By gifts to the researchers from the manufacturers?
Whenever a story on that comes up, nobody here is surprised. But it takes 30 years to come to light.
People need to use common sense. Don't tell us 25 years from now that you were lied to. THINK about it now.
(Score: 4, Informative) by melikamp on Friday September 16 2016, @02:25AM
https://www.bu.edu/research/articles/behind-the-vapor/ [bu.edu]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday September 16 2016, @06:18AM
The ecig industry isn't like the tobacco industry. It's mostly small sole proprietorships renting one single building with less than 100 employees. Even the ones turning a profit aren't going to be able to offer the sort of gifts that make researchers consider risking a career over."Hey, if you fake your data I can get you a REALLY good discount at Jimbo's used cars!".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @02:02AM
LOL I remember when that actually meant something.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @05:04AM
Something really needs to be done about this issue of selling "science" and calling it science. This article was behind a paywall. In searching for a nonpaywalled version I came across an identically named article from 2013 by 4 of the same authors here [researchgate.net]. What an unsurprising coincidence. Anyhow the reason I wanted a nonpaywalled version is to check the declared conflicts of interests. And more unsurprising coincidences there.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Within the last three years HM has undertaken educational sessions sponsored by Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson, manufacturers of
smoking cessation medications.
Within the last three years PH has provided consultancy to GSK, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson, manufacturers of smoking cessation
medications.
Due to these two interests, this review is not compliant with the Cochrane commercial sponsorship policy, as updated in 2014. At the
time the protocol was published it was compliant.
Two authors (HM, CB) have additional declarations:
CB and HM were investigators on a study of ECs from an EC manufacturer (Ruyan Group, Beijing and Hong Kong). Ruyan supplied
the ECs used in the trial and contracted with Health NZ Ltd. to undertake the study. Health New Zealand Ltd funded The University
of Auckland to conduct the trial, independently of Ruyan Group (Holdings) Ltd. The trial design conduct, analysis and interpretation
of results were conducted independently of the sponsors.
CB and HM were investigators on the ASCEND EC trial funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand that used product
supplied at no charge from PGM international, a retailer of ECs.
JHB has no conflicts of interest to declare.
The abbreviations are all 4 authors of this "study" as well:
HM = Hayden McRobbie
CB = Chris Bullen
JHB = Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
PH - Peter Hajek
In other words. Paid consultants and speakers of e-cig industry declare them safe. Nicotine is one of the deadliest substances known to man. It is a natural insecticide intended to protect the tobacco plant's seeds (which contain no nicotine) from insects. The LD50, or the amount it takes to kill, is lower in mice than even cyanide. More "science" has tried to cast uncertainty on this doubt as it relates to humans. For obvious reason we do not have precise LD50 values on humans for most substances. The "science" rebuttal of that is that it may be possibly up to 10 times safer than cyanide, which is rather like the difference between choosing whether you'd like to get hit in the head with a fired bullet or a slung sledge hammer.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Friday September 16 2016, @06:46AM
Nicotine is one of the deadliest substances known to man. It is a natural insecticide intended to protect the tobacco plant's seeds (which contain no nicotine) from insects.
Much like caffeine in other plants. Much like capsaicin keeps mammals from eating seed pods in other plants.
If you extract the arsenic from the amount of potatoes an average American eats in a year, you'll have enough to kill a horse.
Warfarin, the popular anti-coagulant drug used to be used as rat poison, but the rats evolved immunity.
It's all a matter of doses. Many common foods have things in them that could kill if concentrated and administered as a single dose. If containing a natural insecticide is a no-go for you, you must avoid coffee, tea, chocolate, mustard, pepper, wasabi, ginger, any sort of radish, and on and on.
As for conflicts of interest, note that GSK, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson would very much like to see e-cigs disappear from the market.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @02:01PM
Can you show me any evidence that nicotine causes cancer? I couldn't seem to find any. Thanks in advance.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday September 16 2016, @05:59AM
I don't think so! [transportation.gov]
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @06:05AM