• This forum has been archived

    If you'd like to post a thread, post it here instead!

    View Forum

7 in 10 youths unaware of cancer-causing chemicals in e-cigarettes: HPB

Status
Not open for further replies.

PandaPanda77

Full Member
Jul 4, 2012
57
10
Sing A Song
Scare tactics

7 in 10 youths unaware of cancer-causing chemicals in e-cigarettes: HPB


SINGAPORE: More than seven in 10 youths are unaware that e-cigarettes contain nicotine and cancer-causing chemicals, according to a Health Promotion Board (HPB) survey, which polled 600 youths in 2018.

A campaign was launched on Saturday (Jan 26) to raise awareness on the negative health effects of e-cigarettes, which were banned in 2017.


"There is a worrying global trend on the use of e-cigarettes, especially among youths," said Mr Amrin Amin, Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Health, at the campaign's launch.

"We have to ensure that our public and young know the facts, and understand the reasons why we have banned Electronic Nicotine Delivery System, or ENDS, which include e-cigarettes."

Chemical compounds in e-cigarettes include cancer-causing substances such as nicotine, a highly addictive and toxic chemical found in insecticides. They also contain formaldehyde, which is used as embalming fluid, as well as benzene, which is found in car exhaust. Existing evidence shows that these chemicals pose multiple health risks to both users and non-users.

Mr Amrin drew parallels to the tobacco industry's lobbying in the 1960s and 1970s, which made use of research claiming that smoking did not cause diseases. He added that public health authorities remain divided on whether e-cigarettes can help smokers quit.

"The evidence for the use of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid is actually mixed and limited," said Mr Amrin. "It is clear today – conclusive, convincing scientific proof on the harms of cigarettes, linking smoking to various diseases. This is an important lesson. Don't take the so-called experts without studying the evidence. We have to do what's right for our people. It's our public duty and responsibility.”

"We are taking a prudent course in banning ENDS, with public safety and interest firmly on our minds. And if there’s sound evidence we would be glad to review it," he added.

The campaign will run for three months on social media and include workshops at institutes of higher learning.

One 18-year-old student said the campaign could be helpful: "As far as I know, I only know it's nicotine, but now I'm quite surprised there are other things inside also. I think this might help – maybe not to help (smokers stop) but to help them realise it's more than just nicotine."


Read more at 7 in 10 youths unaware of cancer-causing chemicals in e-cigarettes: HPB
 

bombastinator

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 12, 2010
11,784
24,832
MN USA
Mr Amrin appears to also be completely full of it.

AfaikThe ban against e-cigarettes in Singapore was based entirely origionally on pure nicotine being illegal because of a law that had little to do with it.

Nicotine is not a carcinogen.

The amounts of formaldehyde and benzine, while detectable (barely) are similar to those found in city air.

Apparently the whole “let’s just flat out lie about it”. Method is going global.
 

kross8

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Feb 20, 2016
2,405
15,276
stuck in a squishy pod called my brain
I suspect our very own Mikepetro has done more research on the subject than all these "informed" people have done combined.

It's disturbing that out of all the really harmful products (Food,pharmaceutical,)

Vaping tends to bring out the clowns looking for big headlines in small risk...its like they want to brag they got a participation award for sounding warning sounds. (Imagine that legacy)

Or it's just hackers looking for anyone willing to hit their click bait.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nermal

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,328
1
83,885
So-Cal
... Don't take the so-called experts without studying the evidence. ...

This is Sound Advise.

So when someone Tells you that something contains "Cancer Causing Compounds", shouldn't you ask them Three Fundamental Questions...

How Much Cancer Causing Compounds are in what we are talking about?
How does the Amount of Cancer Causing Compounds compare to things around you like Everyday Food/Drinks/Air?
How Many People Explicitly Develop Cancer who ingest the same amount of Cancer Causing Compounds?

Note: The Fact that you would have to Ask these Questions is a Very Bad Sign that what you are being told is for Purpose of Public Health. And not for the Promotion of some Other Agenda.
 

kross8

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Feb 20, 2016
2,405
15,276
stuck in a squishy pod called my brain
This is Sound Advise.

So when someone Tells you that something contains "Cancer Causing Compounds", shouldn't you ask them Three Fundamental Questions...

How Much Cancer Causing Compounds are in what we are talking about?
How does the Amount of Cancer Causing Compounds compare to things around you like Everyday Food/Drinks/Air?
How Many People Explicitly Develop Cancer who ingest the same amount of Cancer Causing Compounds?

Note: The Fact that you would have to Ask these Questions is a Very Bad Sign that what you are being told is for Purpose of Public Health. And not for the Promotion of some Other Agenda.
And the names of affected people with their contact info,,,, and all supporting data that proves the listed people got cancer.. Technically we should demand this info from any claim. Without the full data proof for all we know these are phantom cases,, like phantom voters.
 

bombastinator

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 12, 2010
11,784
24,832
MN USA
And the names of affected people with their contact info,,,, and all supporting data that proves the listed people got cancer.. Technically we should demand this info from any claim. Without the full data proof for all we know these are phantom cases,, like phantom voters.
Yes and no. The cancer sufferers don’t have to be human necessarily. Lab animal tests can be accurate if they’re done correctly. The problem with them is they’re often not. Big problems tend to occur when gigantic amounts of chemical are used to make the reaction faster and the test cheaper. Just about anything is poisonous in a high enough dose. There is a saying “all models are by definition wrong but some of them are useful”. The issue I have with a lot of anti vaping testing is they’re producing a reaction and then assuming the cause. That’s bad science.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: kross8

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,328
1
83,885
So-Cal
And the names of affected people with their contact info,,,, ...

That might be somewhat Problematic. But I understand what you are saying.

The use of Statistics is a Fantastic and Powerful Tool for drawing inferences about a Population. But in the hands of those who want to deceive casual readers, it is just as Powerful.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: kross8

kross8

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Feb 20, 2016
2,405
15,276
stuck in a squishy pod called my brain
Yes and no. The cancer sufferers don’t have to be human necessarily. Lab animal tests can be accurate if they’re done correctly. The problem with them is they’re often not. Big problems tend to occur when gigantic amounts of chemical are used to make the reaction faster and the test cheaper. Just about anything is poisonous in a high enough dose. There is a saying “all models are by definition wrong but some of them are useful”. The issue I have with a lot of anti vaping testing is they’re producing a reaction and then assuming the cause. That’s bad science.
Agree ,, watched a video of a Dr who said he doesn't trust any headline like the one above without all of the supporting data ,, otherwise it's just clickbait for lazy doctors
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread