Become a Patron!

Was told to read this study and saw how it would relate to vaping, thoughts?

Do you believe this study and how it says that nicotine itself is a cause of cancer?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other?

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    1
  • Poll closed .

Time

Platinum Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Well, that's one way to get your first post in, lol.

My understanding from reading the abstract was that it's basically inconclusive. In other words it says more studies need to be done. I'm not sure why they are even pursuing it. Nicotine in cigs has been found to not be a carcinigen concern. We surely are not vaping significantly more nicotine in vapor than what we were smoking with cigs. In order to meet the higher concentration of nicotine they used we'd likely get very sick from nicotine poisoning long before any "enhanced colony growth" occured.

I didn't get in poll because the study fell short of claiming that nicotine itself is a cause for cancer. That's not quite what it said. It basically said there might, maybe, somehow be a concern but more studies need to be done.
 
Last edited:

Silverrune

Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Well, that's one way to get your first post in, lol.

My understanding from reading the abstract was that it's basically inconclusive. In other words it says more studies need to be done. I'm not sure why they are even pursuing it. Nicotine in cigs has been found to not be a carcinigen concern. We surely are not vaping significantly more nicotine in vapor than what we were smoking with cigs. In order to meet the higher concentration of nicotine they used we'd likely get very sick from nicotine poisoning.

It really is aha, I bring this up because I just had an argument about it with non-vapers and was hoping to see the side of the vapers before I make any hasty decisions. I personally took the same stance as you did, which seemed logical. Do you happen to know where I can find studies that prove the the nicotine isn't a carcinigen concern?
 

Time

Platinum Contributor
Member For 4 Years
It really is aha, I bring this up because I just had an argument about it with non-vapers and was hoping to see the side of the vapers before I make any hasty decisions. I personally took the same stance as you did, which seemed logical. Do you happen to know where I can find studies that prove the the nicotine isn't a carcinigen concern?

The easiest reference at hand is in the very study you linked.

Since nicotine is widely considered the addictive component in tobacco with limited ability to initiate cancer,
 

Silverrune

Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Well damn, fair enough eh?

I had practically admitted defeat as I am awful at researching, and was pitted against 3 adamant people. Thanks for your time, just trying to research as much as I can. That conversation happened earlier today and had me almost ready to change my habits.
 

Time

Platinum Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Or even Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine

Nicotine is not regarded as a carcinogen.[35] The IARC has not evaluated nicotine in its standalone form or assigned it to an official carcinogen group. While no epidemiological evidence supports that nicotine acts as a carcinogen in the formation of human cancer, research over the last decade has identified nicotine's indirect involvement in cancer formation in animal models and cell culture.[36][37][
 

Time

Platinum Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Well damn, fair enough eh?

I had practically admitted defeat as I am awful at researching, and was pitted against 3 adamant people. Thanks for your time, just trying to research as much as I can. That conversation happened earlier today and had me almost ready to change my habits.

It's always hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Basically, nicotine won't cause cancer on it's own. It may contribute to cancer if something like a known carcinegen has already gotten the ball rolling. That's what the study is looking at. But the study only shows it might happen with high concentrations.
 
Last edited:

Count Vapula

Member For 4 Years
Well damn, fair enough eh?

I had practically admitted defeat as I am awful at researching, and was pitted against 3 adamant people. Thanks for your time, just trying to research as much as I can. That conversation happened earlier today and had me almost ready to change my habits.

Here's my long-hand draft of a challenge to the policy update at my hospital.

You are free to grab whatever info from it you like :) Spent half a Sunday combing through research articles and finding some authorities on the matter:

This technology is not new , nor is the use of Propylene Glycol in the Health Care Industry. Non-toxic anti-microbial. Used since 1942 for mobile surgical theaters and for decades in nebulizers.

Researchers have shown that one part of glycol in 2,000,000 parts of air, within a few seconds, kill concentrations of air-suspended pneumococci, streptococci and other bacteria numbering millions to the cubic meter. Another study also showed complete protection from Influenza for lab mice.
There is great promise in using PG as a local, non-antibiotic treatment for pulmonary infections.

Anecdotally, I used to have one episode of Bronchitis and one of Tonsillitis per year, during my 25 years as a smoker. I have yet to have any since vaping June 2014. This is a very common occurrence when discussing health issues on 'Vaping Forums' I hope that at some point, when hundreds or thousands of people have the same experiences, it will be considered evidence.


Try a social experiment. Ask people who have recently stopped smoking and used the 'government approved' methods of quitting "Do you think you will have another cigarette in your life?"
Answer is never definitive. Always some element of 'I hope so' 'maybe'
Ask the same question to a Vaper. You may be very surprised by the consistent replies you get.
Tobacco is the contributing factor for many diseases and death.

I honestly can't understand why the Medical Community is not championing this. I understand politicians have two huge lobbies to 'contend with' and a huge loss in taxation to resolve.
Drugs like Champix and others that radically change one's neural chemistry are approved for use ... and all NRT products are sold OTC due to the <4mg provision in the Prescription Drug Act. Even the highest concentrated Nicotine 'eJuice' is 50-100x lower per dose than OTC limits. As one inhalation is a dose.

Nicotine is classified as an insecticide. A family of plants produced it as a defense mechanism. I have performed many 'cloud chamber' experiments and had zero success in harming or killing any insect. They have the disadvantage of having every cell respirated to the outside (to deliver oxygen to mitochondria without lungs or blood) This makes them extremely susceptible to topical and gaseous toxins. The likelihood of a human absorbing nicotine with 1/100,000th the exposure, and protection of the skin, is nil.


The WHO report only states that 'not enough studies, tech evolving too fast for regulation, quality control for eLiquid' They reference studies that were inherently flawed. For example, doing gas chromatography on vapour that was superheated beyond 'normal device usage limits' and also burning the wick. Something no sane person would do when utilizing ENDS.
I personally blend everything I Vape. All ordered from laboratory supply with full MSDS sheets. There was some vaping community panic of diacetyl from butter-like flavours, which has caused most flavour vendors to reformulate. More famously, it has created a ban on microwave popcorn many places and the closure of many manufacturing facilities related to that food industry.
Will leave with some links to reputable sources and studies.

I thank you for your time in reading this.


Published Research Articles:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1625578/ Epidemiologic Observations on the Use of Glycol Vapors for Air Sterilization

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/18 Peering through the mist: systematic review of what the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tells us about health risks

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20647410 A clinical laboratory model for evaluating the acute effects of electronic "cigarettes": nicotine delivery profile and cardiovascular and subjective effects.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3524053/ Electronic Cigarettes: Effective Nicotine Delivery After Acute Administration

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/11/786 Effect of an electronic nicotine delivery device (e-Cigarette) on smoking reduction and cessation: a prospective 6-month pilot study

UK Policy Discussion:
http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_900.pdf


News Articles and Physicians who have studying ENDS:

http://vapers.org.uk/10-health-experts-who-endorse-e-cigarettes/
http://www.ecigarette-research.org/research/index.php/research/research-2015/210-ald
https://reason.com/blog/2015/03/04/study-confirms-that-e-cigarettes-generat#.6xwi9x:yZNG
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20...s-might-keep-us-healthy-says-researchers.aspx
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,932876,00.html
 

Mike H.

Gold Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
From what i understand you can get cancer and not have had to smoke to get it...Its a cancer gene...you either have it or you dont....Maybe nic or other chemicals can trigger it?..Well maybe, maybe not.

All i can say is my health has improved a significant amount and if im going to die from cancer becuase i use nic, id rather feel better now before it possibly happens.
 

Count Vapula

Member For 4 Years
My understanding is that cancer cells are just f'ked up cells. They produce wrong proteins, don't have programmed cell death, etc

Being still your cells, the immune system doesn't kill them.

Roughly, 1 in 3 billion times, DNA transcription fails and/or DNA gets cleaved by UV, Radiation .. basically any high energy particle, creating a f'd up cell.

If you are constantly damaging cells (by being exposed to 'carcinogens') and or/regular physical damage, you just roll those dice far more often than someone who isn't constantly exposed to toxins/damage.

It fits perfectly with skin cancer, cervical, lung etc. I don't think the body would have a gene to flip on to kill you. Most 'evolutionists' would say it goes against the principle of it. Of course DNA isn't everything, it's just the 'Kernel' to use a computer term. The Gene Regulatory System is like the Operating System, and does wildly change from birth to death. Usually to adapt to changes in environment, diet, stress etc. It's kind of the apex of our knowledge currently
 

NYNURSE

Bronze Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Personally, I hope this study was more then one page. I have little to no interest in the subject and I found flaws.
Can't vote because the publisher was so vague I'm not sure what they were trying to conclude.
 

ggvaper

Member For 4 Years
we all have cancer cells in our bodies ...carcinogenic triggers can cause the ca to flourish....count vapula has it correct..in my opinion
 

VU Sponsors

Top