New Study says e-cigarettes may lead to cancer and heart disease

[editor]

Interesting development:

Regulators may have had a change of heart about the danger of using e-cigarettes, but scientists would beg to differ. A newly published New York University School of Medicine study indicates that vaping may put you at a "higher risk" of cancer and heart disease. Mice subjected to the equivalent of "light" e-cigarette smoking for 10 years (12 weeks in reality) suffered DNA damage to their bladders, hearts and lungs, in addition to limiting both DNA repair and lung proteins. In short: nicotine can become a carcinogen in your body regardless of how it's transmitted.

The study isn't completely shocking when researchers have identified other harmful chemicals. And it's not conclusive, either. While the testing shows that e-cigarettes are harmful, the highly compressed smoking exposure is far from what you'd see in real life -- tumors don't grow that quickly. You may not see more definitive results until additional animal testing in a year, and much longer than that for humans. Study author Moon-shong Tang also noted to Bloomberg that it's not clear whether conventional cigarettes or e-cigarettes would be more harmful.

Study says e-cigarettes may lead to cancer and heart disease

Study link: E-cigarette smoke damages DNA and reduces repair activity in mouse lung, heart, and bladder as well as in human lung and bladder cells

 

[maomao]

What people really want to know is the comparative danger to analogue cigarettes.

Glad I gave them up though. One year nicotine-free today.

 

[Vintage Paw]

What people really want to know is the comparative danger to analogue cigarettes.

This is key.

e-cigs don't have the raft of other chemicals, so right away they're going to be better for you in that regard. So it seems the research needs to find out:

a) if the presence of nicotine was what made those other chemicals so bad to begin with, so removing them doesn't make much difference
b) if there's something about vaping the nicotine oil that somehow supercharges it or whatever to make it worse than when taken in a normal ciggie, and if that offsets any benefits of not having the other chemicals.

 

[scifisam]

Did anyone ever expect vaping nicotine not to cause damage? I thought it was that you can gradually reduce the nicotine amount and eliminate it altogether while still keeping the "holding cigarette-type thing in your fingers" habit going.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Did anyone ever expect vaping nicotine not to cause damage? I thought it was that you can gradually reduce the nicotine amount and eliminate it altogether while still keeping the "holding cigarette-type thing in your fingers" habit going.

my experience of me and those I know who vape is that few of us have kicked nicotine. I was under no illusions that vaping was harmless but my general cardiovascular health improved when I switched. I'm a decent test case for that as I didn't change anything else.

 

[maomao]

I know very very few vapers (apart from myself) who have given up vaping. The main argument seems to be that it's harm reduction which is fair enough but I think, like cigarettes all those years ago, we won't know the true level of harm till we've had a few million people smoking them for a few decades.

 

[T & P]

I suspect there are very few pleasurable things that may not 'lead to cancer' if one looks at stats hard enough. Alcohol consumption leads to cancer. Living in cities leads to cancer. And so on. As others have said, it's about risk reduction.

 

[Fez909]

I've just read the paper, and have a few questions, if there's any biologists/scientists on the boards:

They administered a dose of "10 mg/mL, 3 h/d, 5 d/wk) for 12 wk; the dose and duration equivalent in human terms to light E-cig smoking for 10 y" to the mice to do this experiment. Ignoring that light smoking comment (most e-cig smokers I know have cut down to 6mg/mL within a few months), would there be a difference in humans because of how this was administered in a much more concentrated fashion? I've read that if you stop smoking by age 30, you can reverse a lot of the damage you've done over the years, to something like 5% above the non-smoker bassline.

That suggests that the cells repair themselves when given a break from the mutogenic chemicals. As the human equivalent of this experiment would be carried out over a much longer period of time, then surely a higher amount of cell repair would take place compared to the mice whose cells had a much higher dose, in a much shorter period of time, with smaller gaps between doses?

They also state that "recent studies show that E-cig smokers, similar to individuals on nicotine replacement therapy, have 97% less 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL), an isoform form of NNK, a tobacco nitrosamine and lung carcinogen, in their body fluid than tobacco smokers". Does this mean that the previous studies that showed that vaping is 95% (I've never heard the 97% claim) safer than cigarette smoking still apply here? It's only when compared to non-smokers that their is an elevated risk - something I don't think anyone has ever come out and denied before anyway. The next statement seems to back up my thoughts here, but I'm unsure: "However, E-cig smoking is gaining popularity rapidly particularly in young individuals and it is important to note that many of these E-cig smokers have taken up E-cig smoking habit are not necessary doing it for the purpose of quitting TS, rather, it is because they are assuming that E-cig smoking is safe."

I take that to mean: Smoking is very bad. E-cigarettes are much safer. But still it's better to do neither. If so, what's new here?

 

[Corax]

IIRC the 97-98% figure is what Public Health England have used.

 

[Fez909]

IIRC the 97-98% figure is what Public Health England have used.

E-cigarettes '95% less harmful than smoking' says report

 

[Fez909]

Anyway, no offence, but that's the least important part of my post.

 

[Corax]

You say "no offence" but that doesn't stop the offence given. I've taken my toys off into the corner and will sit here in a huff until home time now.

More seriously, I agree with a lol of what you said. The idea that young people are taking up eCigs alone though, as opposed to giving up smoking, needs to be taken alongside information about how many of them would have had a fag instead.

It's far far more effective than any other form of NRT and I suspect "Big Tobacco" aren't too keen on that.

 

[krtek a houby]

I seem to remember health fears raised about using mobile phones. Not just phone mast fears but putting the device to your head etc.

 

[Pickman's model]

I can't say I've ever known a tobacco cigarette to explode: not all risks from vaping emanate from inhaling

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I've just read the paper, and have a few questions, if there's any biologists/scientists on the boards:

They administered a dose of "10 mg/mL, 3 h/d, 5 d/wk) for 12 wk; the dose and duration equivalent in human terms to light E-cig smoking for 10 y" to the mice to do this experiment. Ignoring that light smoking comment (most e-cig smokers I know have cut down to 6mg/mL within a few months), would there be a difference in humans because of how this was administered in a much more concentrated fashion? I've read that if you stop smoking by age 30, you can reverse a lot of the damage you've done over the years, to something like 5% above the non-smoker bassline.

That suggests that the cells repair themselves when given a break from the mutogenic chemicals. As the human equivalent of this experiment would be carried out over a much longer period of time, then surely a higher amount of cell repair would take place compared to the mice whose cells had a much higher dose, in a much shorter period of time, with smaller gaps between doses?

They also state that "recent studies show that E-cig smokers, similar to individuals on nicotine replacement therapy, have 97% less 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (NNAL), an isoform form of NNK, a tobacco nitrosamine and lung carcinogen, in their body fluid than tobacco smokers". Does this mean that the previous studies that showed that vaping is 95% (I've never heard the 97% claim) safer than cigarette smoking still apply here? It's only when compared to non-smokers that their is an elevated risk - something I don't think anyone has ever come out and denied before anyway. The next statement seems to back up my thoughts here, but I'm unsure: "However, E-cig smoking is gaining popularity rapidly particularly in young individuals and it is important to note that many of these E-cig smokers have taken up E-cig smoking habit are not necessary doing it for the purpose of quitting TS, rather, it is because they are assuming that E-cig smoking is safe."

I take that to mean: Smoking is very bad. E-cigarettes are much safer. But still it's better to do neither. If so, what's new here?

Sounds about right. The study I think you're quoting was the biggest health study ever undertaken, irrc. It followed millions of women over the course of many decades. Only women, but no reason to think it doesn't apply to men. It found no measurable difference in life expectancy for women who gave up smoking before the age of 30 compared to women who never smoked, about one year's difference if they gave up before they were 40, and 15 years' difference if they never gave up. So yes, the pattern is very clear - that it is cumulative damage over decades that kills people from smoking, and damage can be repaired when you give up, but this capacity for repair nosedives with age.

 

[elbows]

I gave up the icky sticks just a few days before my 40th and have been on e-cigs ever since. Coming up to 3 years this April. The plan is that I'm supposed to give these up too eventually, aiming for 5-10 years max use of ecigs.

Activated my first step of e-cig risk minimisation a few weeks ago - I no longer put any flavourings in the juice.

 

[weltweit]

..
Activated my first step of e-cig risk minimisation a few weeks ago - I no longer put any flavourings in the juice.

I am moving from 12mg nicotine to 6 shortly.

 

[elbows]

I am moving from 12mg nicotine to 6 shortly.

My memory of what it was like to do that is starting to fade a little - I know I found it very easy, but I think it also increased my usage considerably. In part because when on 12mg it wasnt very hard overdo it and feel rather ill, but with 6 it is much harder to reach the sickly feeling stage.

 

[weltweit]

My memory of what it was like to do that is starting to fade a little - I know I found it very easy, but I think it also increased my usage considerably. In part because when on 12mg it wasnt very hard overdo it and feel rather ill, but with 6 it is much harder to reach the sickly feeling stage.

Oh ok, will bear that in mind, thanks.

I didn't have a problem going from 18 to 12 .... will have to keep an eye on my vaping though.

 

[Orang Utan]

I was considering taking up vaping, but have no interest in smoking nicotine. Are there figures for the risks for non-nicotine vapers?

 

[Corax]

I seem to remember health fears raised about using mobile phones. Not just phone mast fears but putting the device to your head etc.

It makes me laugh that petrol stations still have the 'no mobile phones' signs. Because the signals going to ignite the reservoirs of fuel underneath or something.

 

[Corax]

I can't say I've ever known a tobacco cigarette to explode: not all risks from vaping emanate from inhaling

To my knowledge, these have only come from people using cheap knock-off parts, or hobbiests dicking about with incompatible coils, batteries etc. Like someone deciding to spice up their rollies with a touch of magnesium powder or something.

 

[scifisam]

I can't say I've ever known a tobacco cigarette to explode: not all risks from vaping emanate from inhaling

And of course cigarettes have never started a fire

 

[Corax]

I also think the OP should receive an instant permaban for starting a thread consisting only of a link to an article without adding any substantial comment of his own.

 

[Ax^]

as a smoker i trusted vaps as much as a trust bitcoin


but if it less well cancery that normal fags so be it

 

[Pickman's model]

And of course cigarettes have never started a fire

Slow evening on urban I see

 

[NoXion]

I seem to remember health fears raised about using mobile phones. Not just phone mast fears but putting the device to your head etc.

Fuck knows why. The radiation emitted by such devices is non-ionising, meaning that each photon does not have enough energy to break chemical bonds. Of course, microwaves are used for cooking, but the power emitted by a microwave oven in order to cook food (700-900 watts) is orders of magnitude less than that emitted by mobile devices (about 2 watts). Microwave ovens can make eggs explode, while phones can't even warm them up. So there can be no question of damage to DNA, enzymes or similar sub-cellular structures.

 

[girasol]

I'm just waiting to finish this supply of nicotine that I have (about 2 months worth) and I'm going to knock it on the head (vaping). In terms of lung capacity it's definitely far better than smoking fags but the little health warning voice in my head keeps urging me to stop. I've already cut down to 40-50 puffs a day from the 80-90 I was doing at one point and I'm on 6mg nicotine, but my last few bottles will be 3mg. I have been getting mild acid reflux recently and until I stop I won't know if it's vaping or something else causing it. When I smoked a lot my stomach was very unhappy, then when I stopped it was happy again, so there may be a connection.

 

[Corax]

I was considering taking up vaping, but have no interest in smoking nicotine. Are there figures for the risks for non-nicotine vapers?

Suspect it's too new for any meaningful conclusions, only competing hypotheses.

 

[Corax]

Fuck knows why. The radiation emitted by such devices is non-ionising, meaning that each photon does not have enough energy to break chemical bonds. Of course, microwaves are used for cooking, but the power emitted by a microwave oven in order to cook food (700-900 watts) is orders of magnitude less than that emitted by mobile devices (about 2 watts). Microwave ovens can make eggs explode, while phones can't even warm them up. So there can be no question of damage to DNA, enzymes or similar sub-cellular structures.

Because new things are scary and bad.

See also - everything, since the dawn of humanity.