[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 62 KB, 225x225, žabiak fajčí cigu.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6882807 No.6882807 [Reply] [Original]

What is the current scientific consensus on e-cigarettes and their effects on health?

>> No.6882809

Don't smoke, idiot.

>> No.6882817

According to wikipedia there's not enough studies, but there's some review claiming it's significantly less harmful than smoking cigarettes.

With that said I don't see how E-cigarettes would be more unhealthy than regular cigarettes, if not the quality of the product was so low there's some unwanted substances in it or the indoor smoking potential of E-cigs causing higher use.

>> No.6882824

>>6882817
it also makes it possible to take in way higher doses of nicotin at a time, like in ye olde days when people died from tobacco enema's.

>> No.6882830

I'm not a doctor or scientist, but I am one of the more well-regarded names in food and drug litigation. I also use e-cigs.

They're almost certainly less harmful than regular cigarettes, because they reduce (but do not eliminate) the carcinogens emitted from the combustion of tobacco, and the physical act of smoking itself is harmful. It also eliminates exposure to carbon monoxide.

Unfortunately, I have seen few long-term studies on its health effects. You also may expose yourself to other unwanted carcinogens present in the mixture. Nicotine is also carcinogenic in itself, and using nicotine increases your risk of heart disease, period. You also have an increased risk of emphysema versus the general population due to the act of continually inhaling (yes, that itself increases emphysema risk).

So it's less harmful, but still worse than not smoking at all.

>> No.6882833

>>6882824
Current studies suggest the amount of nicotine absorbed is fairly low. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6KBGH2F63A

They even let the participants of the study vape ad liberum.

>> No.6882838

>>6882833
ok
but you could put more concentrated stuff in it no?

>> No.6882839

>>6882830
>using nicotine increases your risk of heart disease
I've heard nicotine doesn't do this.

>> No.6882846

>>6882838
Yes indeed you can. 9-18mg/ml is common, but technically you can get a 100mg/ml solution because your liquid supplier fucked up.
But even then I can't imagine it would be dramatic, you just realize you get headaches quickly.

I vaped 30mg/ml and never had any issues and I vape all day long.

>> No.6882858 [DELETED] 

>>6882839
It seems to me that nicotine on it's own isn't all that bad. It's in many different plants and only accounts for at most 5% of the composition of tobacco.

It's all the other shit in smokeables and possibly even tobacco itself that do all the long-term harm.

>> No.6882874

>>6882858
True, I came to the conclusion that it's quite benefical, as long as it's not the deadly culprit.
If you google for nicotine benefits and harms, benefits are quite rich but as the main harm always addiction gets called and the fact that you smoke plants. If you selectively pick out those studies that deal with nicotine and ONLY nicotine, it's a benefical substance overall with the harms comparable to nicotine.

>> No.6882878

>>6882874
comparable to caffeine*

>> No.6882882

>>6882858
The nicotine found in most other plants we consume (e.g., many types of peppers) is MUCH MUCH lower than the amount found in tobacco. Plus most of the scant nicotine in these foods will be destroyed upon cooking, since nicotine has a relatively low boiling point.

And yes, nicotine itself is a carcinogen.

>> No.6882884

>>6882878
Caffeine has long-term harms? First I've heard of that.

Yes, I know it can lower the quality of sleep, increase anxiety, etc. But I was not aware that it was harmful in any way. My wife is an M.D. and always told me that my coffee addiction was fine (drink 5 cups per day).

>> No.6882887

>>6882882
>nicotine itself is a carcinogen
Seems like it at first glance, but it was only shown to have effects on newborn rats so far.
http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v14/n6/full/nrc3725.html

>> No.6882890

>>6882884
Just comparable to caffeine m8, and caffeine doesn't kill, go figure

>> No.6882901
File: 372 KB, 554x438, 1390746206001.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6882901

I especially wonder what happens with the propylenglycol and vegetable glycerin when it comes into your lungs. That stuff is quite viscuous and sugary. Surely it can't be too healthy.

The thing is these substances are known for decades now and employees who work in environments like cosmetic factiries where lots of PG and VG gets vaporized inhale much more of it than any normal vaper.

Additionally there are food flavourings and colouring substances, all deemed safe but does that apply for the lungs as well? This was never researched.

>> No.6882911

On this note, is there any problem with vaporizing large quantities of marijuana?

I personally get high on vaporized marijuana 3-5 times per day, 7 days a week. I've been doing so for almost every day for the past decade. (inb4 loser stoner; I'm a gainfully-employed adult in a legitimate career.)

I only vaporize, but I do it a lot. Is there any conceivable harm here?

>> No.6882916

>>6882911
Just dive into the literature of THC effect. Naturally you avoid tar and other nasty combustion shit by vaporizing.

>> No.6882920

>>6882916
Yes, that's precisely why I only vaporize.

But I'm also a fairly heavy user when compared to other marijuana users. And I've been doing this a long time. I just can't figure out if vaporizing large amounts is risk-free.

For what it's worth, I'm a long-distance runner as one of my hobbies. I run 10K's roughly 4 times a week, and vaporizing doesn't seem to affect my lung functioning whatsoever.

>> No.6882927

>>6882920
I can't imagine consuming anything regularly for a long period can not have an effect. There's probably some cognitive effect long or short term or inbetween or whatever. But then I don't think lungs are harmed by vapor atleast.

>> No.6882941

>>6882911
Why don't potheads just eat it if they don't want to smoke a jiff? I've heard the effect is solid.

The thing about nicotine is the whole ritual of smoking. But if you're vaping weed you have a quite large machine for that so I can't imagine it's the same ritual thing either

>> No.6882948

>>6882927
It probably does have cognitive effects. Frankly, I'd be surprised if it didn't. I'm high for roughly half of my waking life (every minute I'm not at work).

That said, I exercise regularly, have a fairly intellectual job, completely abstain from alcohol and other drugs (including caffeine), and spend my spare time studying math and physics instead of watching TV (albeit, while I'm high). My other lifestyle decisions more than make up for my marijuana consumption.

>> No.6882951

>>6882941
It takes a LOT longer to hit (60+ minutes) compared to the immediate effects of smoking or vaporizing (less than 5 minutes). This means it's hard to control your dosing. You end up waiting longer, then not having the right amount.

It's also is much less efficient compared to vaporizing, since much of the THC will evaporate when cooking it.

>> No.6882959

>>6882941
because i don't want to be incapacitated all day. you are high for HOURS when you eat it.