Hacker News Reader

Comment by 8f2ab37a-ed6c | Hacker News Reader

What is the current state of research into the safety of e-cigs? The things have been around for over a decade now, but I haven't seen studies to show how much of a carcinogen they are for regular users. Has the product not been on the market lot enough for studies to be able to prove much of anything in either direction?

View on HN

I read a bit about that, and now that tocopherol is no longer used as an additive, the only questions seem to be 1) if flavorings are not turned into bad things by the vaporization process 2) if nicotine has enough negative side effects when inhaled to warrant restricting what's an efficient and self-directed smoking cessation method.

About 1) the solution for the FDA has been to ban flavorings, under the "think about the children" idea. While the risk of childen getting addicted to nicotine could be a concern, given the lack of measured risk, it could be as innocent as enjoying beer. About 2), nicotine seem to have negative effects on arteries and the skin mostly, causing premature aging (increase elastases and metalloproteases).

We may have more data in a generation or two, but it would be advisable to plan on reducing your use of e-cigs.

Tocopherol wasn't used as an additive as far as I know, at least any any reputable ejuice vendor, and from I recall the timing on the flavored vape juice ban was oddly around the same time as first COVID cases. It is likely that they jumped to conclusions and then used "some" vendors adding vitamin E as an excuse for such a drastic terrible measure.

Maybe I wasn't clear, but tocopherol was not a flavoring agent. It was likely the cause of the mysterious lung issue affecting vapers, that stopped after it was removed.

I believe those cases were black market THC vape liquid that the news lumped in with above board nicotine vape liquid.

Research is great but common sense is a good starting point.

We know lungs are very sensitive and easily accumulate shit in them. Therefore the reasonable position is to assume that anything you point into your lungs is harmful, unless you have extremely strong evidence that it's not (as opposed to assume that something is safe until evidence that it's not.)

So: assume that e-cigs will give you lung cancer.

But of relative safety viz-a-viz regular cigarettes: is it not possible to assume that e-cigs are safer than regular cigs?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com