Hacker News Reader

Comment by gnaritas | Hacker News Reader

> vaping definitely isn't healthy

That's a bold statement, how exactly is vaping definitely not healthy?

Because you are inhaling foreign chemicals into your lung in higher then normal dosages.

How is that a bold statement? People run around vaping like there are zero consequences, but I wouldn't be surprised if research eventually emerges saying certain lower quality fillers/vape mixtures will result in mechanical damage and cancer of the lungs and esophagus. Something similar was apparent with flavoring agents being used in the vape world.

"There's a plausible mechanism for harm" is not the same as "definitely unhealthy". The word "definitely" is the bold part.

"I wouldn't be surprised..." isn't really a strong enough sentiment to support the statement "vaping definitely isn't healthy". At the moment, the harms of vaping are speculative.

Actually, as I already mentioned, there are cases with flavoring additives and other chemicals in the vape causing lung disease and other problems. I don't have it offhand but google should help you.

My sentiment is more about where I think the research will go.

Popcorn Lung is the only thing I've seen in my research

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/flavorings/

I'd be interested to hear of more.

I think that is kind of the major one that sticks out in my mind. But, its just more sinister then that IMO. Being that it is something newer, I have a feeling more will pop up.

I was friends with a major twitch streamer who used to vape literally 24/7, every stream. He got esophageal cancer and died after fighting it for ~1-2 years, roughly around age of 23. Now, obviously this is anecdotal, and obviously it could have just been bad luck/other factors/coincidence. But, I have always raised an eyebrow towards vaping since then. The only forms I consider safer with minimal consequence is dry herb based vaping with convection heat --- See silver surfer vapes for example.

Lung cancer is known to be caused by carcinogens in smoke, vapor is not smoke, you cannot simply transfer the ills of smoking to vaping just because.

Nicotine alone is not harmful, it's addictive, but not harmful, it's not what causes cancer from smoking.

All apparent evidence is that vaping appears vastly healthier than smoking and there's no reason yet to believe vapor is harmful to the lungs; you breath water vapor all day every day. Calling something "foreign chemicals" might sound scary, but is not a plausible reason to call something definitely unhealthy. The word definitely is very bold, and not remotely justified.

> People run around vaping like there are zero consequences

No, they run around like it's vastly safer than smoking, which it clearly is. There's zero evidence anything to do with vaping has the cancer causing effects of smoke and burnt carcinogens.

> Nicotine alone is not harmful, it's addictive, but not harmful, it's not what causes cancer from smoking.

Nicotine is a vasoconstrictor. It substantially increases the risk of Deep Vein Thrombosis, especially when combined with another chemical that produces clotting enzymes, such as estrogen. Speaking of estrogen, nicotine also antagonizes the estrogen receptor, which is pretty bad if you're a woman. Ever notice how women who have been smoking for a long time look pretty bad? It's not your imagination, it's because nicotine shuts down their bodies' ability to use estrogen (and estrogen is what causes smooth skin, curves, etc.).

Also, go look up "Green Tobacco Sickness" [0]. Too much nicotine can have all kinds of adverse effects, and since it can be absorbed by the skin, people who handle wet tobacco plants get all kinds of health problems. Oh, and too much nicotine can stop your heart. I've seen people seriously suggest it as a suicide method.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Tobacco_Sickness

And too much water will kill you; too much of anything is bad, the question is in what amount. However, I was unaware of the estrogen thing, very interesting, you do see that in women.

As for it being a vasoconstrictor, so is caffeine and any number of other stimulants, that itself in not inherently bad, it's simply an effect.

Haha, I just have to comment that this is the funniest whataboutism I've ever seen:

"Nicotine is bad for you."

"What about water??"

That's not remotely whataboutism; whataboutism is when you're deflecting to another bad to justify something, I'm not deflecting nor justifying, I'm using reductio ad absurdum to make a point that everything is bad with enough quantity so simply calling nicotine bad because it's a vasoconstrictor-as stimulants tend to be-is not a valid argument. I suggest you learn the difference.

I have to admit, your reply here is actually making me laugh more than your original "what about water??".

I don't know if it's intentional, but thanks for making my morning better. :)

You're welcome, now go look up what whatabout'ism is, because you don't seem to know.

There is a lot of wrong in this comment. While I agree with most of your sentiment about vaping being a safer alternative, it is wrong to assume that the chemicals introduced via vaping are not carcinogenic because there is no smoke.

I don't assume that; I simply don't assume they are because they are in smoking. I'm saying the science isn't in yet, I'm not claiming it's safe.

Because you are inhaling foreign chemicals into your lung in higher then normal dosages.

We do that all the time. Ever worked in a newly constructed building? Wondering what that smell is? Plasticizers, monomers, adhesive solvents, etc.

Same with a new car. Or cooking over the stove, bbq'ing. Or walking down a busy street with cars on it.

Just because you are inhaling "foreign chemicals" doesn't mean there are significant risk associated with it.

It doesn't mean they are safe either. The difference between these situations and vaping are, vaping you are doing intentionally and habitually.

I agree, but people who vape are (generally) moving from something that has a lot of known risk. Moving from smoking tobacco to vaping is likely orders of magnitude lower risk, just from the fact combustion isn't happening.

I agree that we should get more information about the risk of vaping, but the wholesale banning of vaping is likely to be more harmful than just leaving things as is.[1]

[1]Not saying you are arguing for banning vaping, but FDA did take that position originally until they got smacked down

Uh oh, you’ve triggered the vaping police!

"Also there is evidence that e-cigs deliver some toxic stuff of their own such as formaldehyde (a known carcinogen), nitrosamines (linked to cancer) and lead (a neurotoxin). Though the toxicant levels of e-cigs may be “9–450 times lower than in cigarette smoke,” as this study suggests, levels of formaldehyde andmetalshave been found to be comparable to or higher than those found in conventional cigarettes.*Silicate particles, which are a cause of lung disease, have also been found in e-cigarette vapors."

source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/e-cigs-and-second...

I'm not sure why you consider the OP's statement to be bold as I don't think there are many instances where ingesting chemicals into the lungs is considered healthy.

There's a whole lot of may and might in all that; but you have to see it from the perspective of a smoker, not a non-smoker. It's clearly vastly safer than smoking. Any smoker who switched can tell you how they're starting to be able to breath well again, the smokers cough is going away, the lungs feel better and not full of shit. Yes, eciggs may still be more dangerous than nothing, but smokers aren't approaching it from doing nothing.

Eciggs make quitting smoking vastly easier, and eciggs are easier to quit than cigarettes. I routinely go half a day without hitting my ecigg, that never happened with smokes.

>"There's a whole lot of may and might in all that; but you have to see it from the perspective of a smoker, not a non-smoker."

I was responding the the OP's statement that saying e-cigarrets were unhealthy was a bold claim.

There are always things that might be considered less harmful but that does not mean they are considered healthy.

Might and may are one thing, the OP said definitely, and that's a bold claim as we don't yet know if it's definitely anything. Had he even said probably that'd be ok, but definitely, no, that's not supportable.

So your contention is that inhaling propylene glycol into your lungs might not be unhealthy?

"In its product safety assessment for propylene glycol, the Dow Chemical Company recommends individuals avoid inhaling the chemical"[1]

[1] https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/122-a244/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com