in trace amounts....that's not really the issue...what 2 of the 3 MAIN chemicals are present in analogs that are 4-10x higher than the nicotine level?
Here I will post this again:
Last edited:
- Status
Here I will post this again:
Yes, it's clearly true that "smoking causes cancer", because you are more likely to get certain cancers the more you smoke. (Interestingly, I recall that there is one form of cancer that you're actually less likely to get if you smoke.) Of course, if you take the word "cause" to mean that you absolutely will get cancer if you smoke, then the statement is not true.
Actually, if cancer was the only negative health effect of smoking, then I would happily keep smoking. The risk of cancer is actually quite small, and it's a risk that I think I would be willing to take, given the pleasure I derived from smoking. Unfortunately, there are other negative health effects that are considerably more likely. These are the respiratory and heart problems. "Cancer stick" isn't a very good name, but it's a lot catchier than "emphysema stick", which is a much more accurate description.
Actually, if cancer was the only negative health effect of smoking, then I would happily keep smoking. The risk of cancer is actually quite small, and it's a risk that I think I would be willing to take, given the pleasure I derived from smoking. Unfortunately, there are other negative health effects that are considerably more likely. These are the respiratory and heart problems. "Cancer stick" isn't a very good name, but it's a lot catchier than "emphysema stick", which is a much more accurate description.
I should take a bigger MP picture so it looks even more disgusting.
Sorry for the hijack. I imagine that there are chemicals in them that may cause cancer. I think the individual is as important to the equation as the cigarette. Some people smoke into their 90s no problem, and some have their throat removed in their 30s. I think it depends.
Sorry for the hijack. I imagine that there are chemicals in them that may cause cancer. I think the individual is as important to the equation as the cigarette. Some people smoke into their 90s no problem, and some have their throat removed in their 30s. I think it depends.
True.
But, I'm done with those debates.
I don't believe everything I read on the internet nor find something true because "everyone" says it is. Pick about any subject and one can find debate, opposing views and opposing studies. Dare I mention global warmin....er......climate change?
But, I'm done with those debates.
I don't believe everything I read on the internet nor find something true because "everyone" says it is. Pick about any subject and one can find debate, opposing views and opposing studies. Dare I mention global warmin....er......climate change?
You could - but it's about as likely to cause a rumpus as the "Which is better - Vamo or Provari?" threads.
The answer to the former is that we all accept climate change but there is debate about causation.
The answer to the latter is "Whichever works for you".
Well E-cigs aren't 100% safe, they are just a metric-%^$#TON better than cigarettes. Obviously they are not as safe as not smoking/vaping at all.
What ANTZ do not want to accept is Tobacco Harm Reduction. With them it's quit or die.
That is because of all the pollution in the air. I'm willing to put money on that the crap we inhale as "fresh air" is worse than cigarette smoke will ever be. Maybe that is why the Govt so badly wants us to believe that it is smoking, second-hand smoke, third-hand smoke etc.... - cause if the truth comes out, maybe they'd have to actually do something about the tons of pollution being pumped into the air daily. They'd have to give up their precious oil etc....
Just a theory - but sounds perfectly plausable to me.
I look at it this way...with all the chemicals and perservitives and food colorings and gosh knows what added to the food we eat..who in the heck knows what causes cancer?
I have started reading labels and I can't believe how much stuff has prophylene glycol in it! So I don't really worry about vaping it.
I have started reading labels and I can't believe how much stuff has prophylene glycol in it! So I don't really worry about vaping it.
Then add to that list that has vegetable glycerin in it...not even the pharmaceutical grade stuff!
That's the thing ain't it...they keep harping on the "trace amounts of carcinogens and bad stuff" but completely gloss over the fact when smoking you are tarring your roof (in your lungs) and sucking down HUGE amounts of Carbon Monoxide which is KNOW to be lethal (smokers just build a tolerance to it...just like drinking alcohol)...hell 20 years of beating on your body with Carbon Monoxide saturation on top of turning your lungs from pink healthy lungs into dried up leather, and now you understand why people die, some are stronger...some are susceptible to cancers...or emphysema or any other myriad of illnesses...
heck read what it does...in metered amounts for years..no wonder people are dying
CDC - Carbon Monoxide Poisoning - Frequently Asked Questions
http://www.epa.gov/airquality/carbonmonoxide/health.html
Personal Vapes DON'T have that....
Last edited:
Exactly. Even if smoking tobacco doesn't cause cancer, nobody's been smoking just tobacco for somewhere in the ballpark of 50 or 60 years now, not since filtered cigarettes assumed the mantle of being the norm instead of a novelty when it came to smoking tobacco. And, of course, before that people were inhaling higher levels of tar along with tobacco smoke from nonfiltered cigarettes.
Where cancer is concerned, I have friends in their 80s who smoked all their adult lives, and I've known (or known of) people who have succumbed to cancer in their 50s who never took a drag off a cigarette even once. I don't have studies ready-to-hand, but my intuition says that cancer is all down to genetic predisposition, with exposure to TSNAs acting as a catalyst rather than an independent cause for setting it off.
Considering all the stuff listed (and, more importantly, NOT listed) that's contained in a cigarette, it's safe to say that smoking causes SOMETHING.
Switch to e-cigs, and ditch the uncertainty.
The End.
Switch to e-cigs, and ditch the uncertainty.
The End.
Corruption in science is a big problem faced by ecig supporters.
In the 80's I was standing on Mt. Washington in Pittsburgh. That is where the skyline photos of the city are taken from. At that time, it was possible to look at a photo of that same skyline from the 60's. The 60's there was a black covering over the city from all the pollution but the early 80's Pittsburgh was listed as near the top of the list for air quality in a city of that size in the world.
My point - air quality since the clean air act of 1955 has actually been getting better overall.
Junk science was mentioned in this thread. One of the problems in the scientific community is allowing the degradation of what is presented as fact and the responsibility of scientists to set that straight. When scientists are questioned if they believe in man caused global climate change it is their responsibility to the purity of science to set the record straight when the layperson media weasel presents it as fact. Same goes when they present atheism as scientifically proven. Same goes when people claim ecigs are as bad or worse than traditional cigarettes.
Isn't it ironic...
A bunch of ex-smokers agreeing that while smoking may not cause cancer, it's not a healthy choice.
Add that to the fact that these ex-smokers would likely still be smoking were it not for vaping.
Are you listening, FDA, and legislators?
A bunch of ex-smokers agreeing that while smoking may not cause cancer, it's not a healthy choice.
Add that to the fact that these ex-smokers would likely still be smoking were it not for vaping.
Are you listening, FDA, and legislators?
I think the whole Global Warming fiasco has shown that most scientists have gone the way of the media, siding with whomever is paying the most.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
