Electronic Cigarette

[Deleted User]

they certainly work, my lady has been on them for over 6 months after being a lifelong smoker and is very happy. she switched from buying the fake import fags heaving with unknown carcigens. If she can do it anyone can

Isaac-the-red

Bleeding gums is a quite common side effect of giving up smoking - but as brook2jack & karmacookie have said, it's best to see your dentist

terra_ferma

Toothsmith wrote: »

The problem with e cigarettes is that they are very new, and there is no regulation whatsoever concerning what can be put in them!

Now - compared to actual cigarettes that are full of toxins, the probability is that they might not be as bad. But NOBODY KNOWS and as there is no regulation of them, it could well vary wildly between brands.

It's easily possible that one type might be pure water vapour, and the type next to it on the shelf is a cocktail of poison.

Do not kid yourselves that they are a 'safe' alternative!

If that's a worry, you can make your own e-juice so you know exactly what is in it, using food flavourings. It's very simple to do.
Smoking kills, but there is no evidence that e-cigarettes kill, a part from a few reports about unscrupulous retailers, this happens in every industry, including food, but we don't stop eating.

There are people out there who have been smoking for several years, and there are no reports of long term damage.
It would be very easy to prove that e-cigarettes are bad for you, if that was the case, but somehow nobody is interested probably because they don't want to show that they are in fact safe.

Toothsmith

It took the best part of 400 years before the effects of smoking were finally realised!

Introduced in about 1580, it was the late 1950s when the penny began to drop.

Even now it has not been 'proved' - simply because it would be unethical with what we DO know to do the study that would prove it! (Take a large group of healthy non-smoking humans and monitor the effects that smoking has on them)

I suspect the same is true of e cigarettes.

How long have they been around? 5 or 6 years? Hardly long enough to study the 'long term' effects. And particularly difficult if most those taking part were tobacco smokers anyway.

terra_ferma

Toothsmith wrote: »

It took the best part of 400 years before the effects of smoking were finally realised!

Introduced in about 1580, it was the late 1950s when the penny began to drop.

Even now it has not been 'proved' - simply because it would be unethical with what we DO know to do the study that would prove it! (Take a large group of healthy non-smoking humans and monitor the effects that smoking has on them)

I suspect the same is true of e cigarettes.

How long have they been around? 5 or 6 years? Hardly long enough to study the 'long term' effects. And particularly difficult if most those taking part were tobacco smokers anyway.

There are plenty of people who already use e-cigarettes and it would be easy to start collating some information about them.
Also following your logic it would be impossible to research any substance that could potentially be harmful to humans, for example how would they know class A drugs are harmful if they did research they way you describe?
Also the argument about long-term effects on health would apply to a lot of other products, e.g. GM food/animals.

There is a very powerful lobby campaigning against e-cigarettes, I believe that's why they are being banned even though there is absolutely no evidence that they are harmful.
The way to serve the public interest would be to do some proper research instead of trying to stop us using a method that could save many lives. This is my main concern, that banning an effective smoking cessation method could cause avoidable deaths rather than prevent some vague harm that doesn't seem to he happening.

We should all be lobbying for proper research instead of arguing about the use or ban of e-cigarettes.

speedfreek1000

Toothsmith wrote: »

It took the best part of 400 years before the effects of smoking were finally realised!

Introduced in about 1580, it was the late 1950s when the penny began to drop.

Even now it has not been 'proved' - simply because it would be unethical with what we DO know to do the study that would prove it! (Take a large group of healthy non-smoking humans and monitor the effects that smoking has on them)

I suspect the same is true of e cigarettes.

How long have they been around? 5 or 6 years? Hardly long enough to study the 'long term' effects. And particularly difficult if most those taking part were tobacco smokers anyway.

I suspect?

Nicotine as a drug has some quite remarkable benefits. The issue is nicotine is now evil due to it's association with cigarettes.

Burning things changes the chemical properties of the thing being burnt and produces an ash cloud full of minute particles called smoke. Vapourising does not burn but atomizes a liquid into a gas producing a fog - so it's chemical composition is the same and only it's state has changed

Lets take Extra Virgin Olive oil there's a reason why it's used raw. You don't call for E V Olive oil bans due to the fact some plonkers are risking cancer by shallow frying with it?

Whilst we all agree it's not 100% safe and some folks can be allergic to some of the ingredients, people have to get their heads round that it's not smoking and they are not cigarettes.

Most GP's now consider vapers as non-smokers - mine does!

Toothsmith

You really don't know how scientific studies work do you?

A proper scientific study need approval, and if the thing you're looking at has as much circumstantial evidence that it's injurious to health, and so much extrapolated data from animal studies and other evidence - then a definitive study will never get approval.

So it has never been proven that cigarettes cause lung cancer, or heart disease. (This is one of the reasons they are still on sale and that compensation claims against tobacco companies are next to impossible)

Similarly, sugar causing tooth decay in humans has never been 'proved'.

This actually came close in the 1950s when a researcher fed caramel toffees to a group of institutionalized special needs patients and found that they produced more tooth decay than the group that he didn't give toffees to. Unfortunately the study wasn't big enough to count as proper 'proof'. As I'm sure you would agree though, we live in changed and better times now, and carrying out such studies is not considered ethical any more.

The 'safety' or otherwise of e cigarettes will only come out very gradually. I would guess that the vast majority of users are people coming to it from tobacco smoking - so for many years to come it will not be possible to differentiate possible damage from e cigarettes from the damage already done by tobacco.

It will oly be when significant numbers of people come fresh to the e habit and the effects on them can be monitored that any evidence will even begin to emerge.

As I said in my original post though, at present there is NO REGULATION WHATSOEVER on what can or can't be put into these liquids. So you certainly can't say they are 'safe' and have that apply to them all. Some might be, some certainly will not be. The first thing that is needed here is a bit of control in the industry.

Toothsmith

speedfreek1000 wrote: »

Most GP's now consider vapers as non-smokers - mine does!

That's fair enough - but if he tells you it's 'safe' - then he's a fool!

Without regulation of what is in them it's just too much like Russian roulette. It's true that nicotine is probably of similar toxicity to caffeine.

And compared to the problems of cigarettes, the probability is that e cigarettes are less harmful. So for coming off fags, e cigarettes areprobably a very good way to go.

Would I want a child of mine taking up e cigarettes from scratch though?

No - I wouldn't.

terra_ferma

Toothsmith wrote: »

You really don't know how scientific studies work do you?

A proper scientific study need approval, and if the thing you're looking at has as much circumstantial evidence that it's injurious to health, and so much extrapolated data from animal studies and other evidence - then a definitive study will never get approval.

So it has never been proven that cigarettes cause lung cancer, or heart disease. (This is one of the reasons they are still on sale and that compensation claims against tobacco companies are next to impossible)

Similarly, sugar causing tooth decay in humans has never been 'proved'.

This actually came close in the 1950s when a researcher fed caramel toffees to a group of institutionalized special needs patients and found that they produced more tooth decay than the group that he didn't give toffees to. Unfortunately the study wasn't big enough to count as proper 'proof'. As I'm sure you would agree though, we live in changed and better times now, and carrying out such studies is not considered ethical any more.

The 'safety' or otherwise of e cigarettes will only come out very gradually. I would guess that the vast majority of users are people coming to it from tobacco smoking - so for many years to come it will not be possible to differentiate possible damage from e cigarettes from the damage already done by tobacco.

It will oly be when significant numbers of people come fresh to the e habit and the effects on them can be monitored that any evidence will even begin to emerge.

As I said in my original post though, at present there is NO REGULATION WHATSOEVER on what can or can't be put into these liquids. So you certainly can't say they are 'safe' and have that apply to them all. Some might be, some certainly will not be. The first thing that is needed here is a bit of control in the industry.

First of all you may think that the first statement makes you look more credible but it doesn't. Don't make assumptions about what people know and don't know.

If the interest was genuinely to protect the public they would be doing more research on e-cig to have certain proof that they are safe, or even find ways of making them even safer. The potential of savings lives if too great to just make e-cig much less accessible to the general public without a good justification.
There is no logical argument that I can see would justify that, except protecting vested interests.

Anyway I have no interest in getting into arguments with people who don't know how to have a civilised discussion without being rude and insult other posters, because often it just means that their arguments are not strong enough

There is a lot of information out there if people want to find it, and make their mind up.

Have a goo day.

speedfreek1000

Well we've bought even more kit and 250 ml of liquid to last the festive period.

Going for more fruity flavours and a bit of menthol from health-e-vape plus my usual AV4 from acevapers - got to give special mention to AVs strawberry shortcake juice as it's impressive.

Now running 2x EVODs 2x Pro Tanks, with 2x MT3s in reserve and 2x iClear 16s I'm yet to try. Also got an iClear 30s but it arrived dead.

Plus added an Innokin iTaste SVD (with 2 800 mah bats) to the MVP2.

The SVD is crackin