It can be like this even when you are 18

  • Lightfire228@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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

    • De_Narm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’s not worth fighting over which cancer stick is worse when not smoking is an option.

      • tsugu@slrpnk.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        Agreed. Don’t vape or smoke unless you fully acknowledge the possible side effects.

    • Yuki@kutsuya.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      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…

      • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • BCsven@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          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 )

          • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            9 months ago

            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.

            • BCsven@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              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

              • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                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.

      • SuperIce@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Nothing you linked indicates that e-cigarettes are worse than traditional cigarettes.

        • AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Sure, but I think in this case we’re trying to convince OP to not do either. Vaping is safer than smoking, it’s not safe. If you currently smoke and can’t/won’t quit the nicotine, switch to vaping. Don’t start vaping if you’re not already a cigarette smoker.

          I would like to see some better quality studies, but those are in short supply because of the amount of bullshit studies funded by people who profit from big tobacco. I think there was one good study about how nicotine specifically was bad for cardiovascular health?