OP’s post says that vaping alleviates their anxiety. That’s probably the other way around—their anxiety is likely caused or worsened by nicotine withdrawal which is what drives them to vape.
We don’t have the longterm statistics to say one way or the other
But my gut tells me that there are significantly less carcinogens in vape juice than cigarettes (or anything burning)
Edit: I’m not condoning vaping either. I think it’s very stupid to vape, especially if you weren’t a smoker prior. I’m just saying vaping hasn’t been around long enough to draw definite conclusions
I can see it being used as a quitting tool, though
E-cigarettes produce a number of dangerous chemicals including acetaldehyde, acrolein, and formaldehyde. These aldehydes can cause lung disease, as well as cardiovascular (heart) disease. E-cigarettes also contain acrolein, a herbicide primarily used to kill weeds.
Those studies had extremely flawed methodologies. For the formaldehyde one, they burned a ce4 cart more than 40% higher than the nominal voltage (5.2v vs 3.7v) for 90 seconds.
I challenge you to inhale for 90 seconds. I can’t even do it and I’m a skilled brass instrument player.
Basically every study showing negative effects has either flawed methodology, or the news outlets reporting on them conveniently forget to mention that the levels are orders of magnitude lower than what cigarettes produce. Hell, even some of the heavy metal results were lower than atmospheric levels.
While that test may not be the norm, it represents cheap brand knockoffs that may have shitty voltage control, or faulty, etc. it is not like they run ever vape through rigid testing like airplane control systems ( and even those fail )
No, it doesn’t. No human would be able to draw on an atomizer that was being fired at 40% higher than normal voltage for more than a split second.
But yes, if you managed to draw on an atomizer that’s literally burning for 90 seconds and survive the lung scaring and smoke inhalation, the byproducts of burning plant matter and plastics is likely not healthy.
i wasn’t contesting the 90 seconds, sometimes tests are setup no following real world parameters to gain info that would take too long to gather otherwise. like Carcinogen tests with LD50. Black pepper is a carcinogen (when injected under the skin–per the test method). But nobody eats pepper that way.
The 90 seconds may be to test the amount of exposure in one day, etc
No, it’s straight up flawed methodology. Pretty much anything will produce harmful chemicals if you set it on fire.
These tests were designed to produce negative results, which is bad science.
Vaping cuts into profits from several industries as well as tobacco tax revenue. This is why any vaping study that comes out of the US needs to be heavily scrutinized.
It absolutely fucking isn’t. It’s “healthier” than smoking by a wide margin. So is abstaining from it. But for people already smoking, vaping will not only be better for them but can also help them kick the habit. Please keep your blatantly wrong garbage takes to yourself, misinformation like that does active harm to other people
Depends on how you mean worse.
Vapes, are worse in the sense that they have a lot more nicotine.
But cigarettes are way worse medically (Unless you count explosive vape batteries), do to all the extra toxic chemicals.
If you’re a chronic Vaper, the silica and other shit in the filter can get into your lungs, which is the primary cause of Vape related lungs diseases in chronic users, such as silicosis. You can get this from cigarettes too, but it’s less likely because you can actually see the filter and know when to stop.
Both are bad and unhealthy regardless.
Vaping is worse than smoking lmao
Vaping isn’t worse than smoking. It’s still addictive, could inhibit teenage brain development, and many chemicals found in vapes are toxic when you expose yourself to them chronically.
OP’s post says that vaping alleviates their anxiety. That’s probably the other way around—their anxiety is likely caused or worsened by nicotine withdrawal which is what drives them to vape.
We don’t have the longterm statistics to say one way or the other
But my gut tells me that there are significantly less carcinogens in vape juice than cigarettes (or anything burning)
Edit: I’m not condoning vaping either. I think it’s very stupid to vape, especially if you weren’t a smoker prior. I’m just saying vaping hasn’t been around long enough to draw definite conclusions
I can see it being used as a quitting tool, though
It’s not worth fighting over which cancer stick is worse when not smoking is an option.
deleted by creator
https://www.lung.org/quit-smoking/e-cigarettes-vaping/impact-of-e-cigarettes-on-lung
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/Quick-Facts-on-the-Risks-of-E-cigarettes-for-Kids-Teens-and-Young-Adults.html
Just don’t vape, man…
Those studies had extremely flawed methodologies. For the formaldehyde one, they burned a ce4 cart more than 40% higher than the nominal voltage (5.2v vs 3.7v) for 90 seconds.
I challenge you to inhale for 90 seconds. I can’t even do it and I’m a skilled brass instrument player.
Basically every study showing negative effects has either flawed methodology, or the news outlets reporting on them conveniently forget to mention that the levels are orders of magnitude lower than what cigarettes produce. Hell, even some of the heavy metal results were lower than atmospheric levels.
Source: I’ve read all of the studies.
While that test may not be the norm, it represents cheap brand knockoffs that may have shitty voltage control, or faulty, etc. it is not like they run ever vape through rigid testing like airplane control systems ( and even those fail )
No, it doesn’t. No human would be able to draw on an atomizer that was being fired at 40% higher than normal voltage for more than a split second.
But yes, if you managed to draw on an atomizer that’s literally burning for 90 seconds and survive the lung scaring and smoke inhalation, the byproducts of burning plant matter and plastics is likely not healthy.
i wasn’t contesting the 90 seconds, sometimes tests are setup no following real world parameters to gain info that would take too long to gather otherwise. like Carcinogen tests with LD50. Black pepper is a carcinogen (when injected under the skin–per the test method). But nobody eats pepper that way. The 90 seconds may be to test the amount of exposure in one day, etc
No, it’s straight up flawed methodology. Pretty much anything will produce harmful chemicals if you set it on fire.
These tests were designed to produce negative results, which is bad science.
Vaping cuts into profits from several industries as well as tobacco tax revenue. This is why any vaping study that comes out of the US needs to be heavily scrutinized.
Nothing you linked indicates that e-cigarettes are worse than traditional cigarettes.
It absolutely fucking isn’t. It’s “healthier” than smoking by a wide margin. So is abstaining from it. But for people already smoking, vaping will not only be better for them but can also help them kick the habit. Please keep your blatantly wrong garbage takes to yourself, misinformation like that does active harm to other people
Depends on
howyou mean worse.Vapes, are worse in the sense that they have a lot more nicotine.
But cigarettes are way worse medically (Unless you count explosive vape batteries), do to all the extra toxic chemicals.
If you’re a chronic Vaper, the silica and other shit in the filter can get into your lungs, which is the primary cause of Vape related lungs diseases in chronic users, such as silicosis. You can get this from cigarettes too, but it’s less likely because you can actually see the filter and know when to stop.
Both are bad and unhealthy regardless.
Yeah, no
deleted by creator