The debate rolls on... http://yahoonewsdigest-i...es-may-boost-cancer-risk

I really dont have much of a view on the subject, but saw the news and thought id post as lots of people talk about it. Im sure eventually they will probably be treated the same as any other tobacco product. e.g banned from workplaces legally. Inhaling anything other than fresh air really isnt a good idea in my book.

After looking through the study it appears it is a research project designed to come up with a predefined headline. For those not familiar with the operation of an e-cig, vapour is produced by heating a solution of 1-2% nicotine in propylene glycol. If the heating coil is starved of liquid it can overheat causing an acrid and very unpleasant taste to develop. E-cig users do not inhale or continue to use their device in these situations. A good analogy to this study would be the cooking of a nice steak, I could burn it to a black crisp which is full of a variety of different carcinogens at high concentration, does this mean that all steaks should now be considered as dangerously full of carcinogens?. No, of course not, this study also showed that zero formaldehyde was produced during typical vaping conditions, the study should have been headlined "Vaping produces no carcinogens in normal use". Vaping is at least 95% safer than smoking, this is not a health claim or opinion, this is simply a fact. If your employee health policies persuaded every smoker in your company to switch it is probably about the most effective employee health initiative you could ever implement.

So you are saying because of this putting a less concentrated carcinogen in your mouth is ok...? And your facts are what? there is only 2% nicotine generally in this unregulated device...DOH! ...a proper cessation of smoking course should be encouraged under the guidance of a medical professional not 'Bill from the pub or the corner shop'...

SteveDM Nicotine is not a carcinogen, inhaling a 2% nicotine solution in PG is orders of magnitude safer than inhaling of a cloud of burning particles and carcinogenic tars, this is basic toxicology and 95% is on the very pessimistic side. The "proper" cessation courses have a failure rate of about 95%, for smokers who have tried to quit and failed many times, traditional NRT therapy is rarely effective. Many in the public health profession have a "quit or die" attitude to smokers, it disappoints me that many in the health & safety profession who should be experts on relative risk also appear to share this attitude. I think you have also been misinformed regarding their "unregulated" status, they are not regulated as medicines, well because, they are not medicines... doh. They are however governed by trading standards regulations as well as CHIP. Clive Bates ( former director of ASH, the anti smoking organisation ) has put together a good summary on the risks & benefits of e-cigs along with the danger of over regulation on his blog, essential reading for anyone prepared to approach the subject of e-cigs with an open mind. - http://www.clivebates.com/?p=2309

http://www.medicalnewsto....com/articles/278265.php It is totally irresponsible of safety professionals to endorse a CANCER CAUSING, UNREGULATED product... That last guys who did this said Asbestos was safe...

I'm sorry but the risks of nicotine addiction and the resultant health effects are well documented. Just saying switch to a lower concentration doesn't get rid of the health effects. That isn't strong for any forum..

Agreed, but that is not what you wrote in your previous posting.

Attached is a study showing that nicotine is responsible for hairloss and tumours in mice http://whyquit.com/pr/041812.html However, when one takes into account that the amount of nicotine absorbed by the body from one cigarette is approximately 1mg, the scientists have been injecting the mice with the average human (11st) equivalent of 210 cigarettes a day, 5 days a week for 24 months - that's the equivalent of an 11 stone person who smokes 10 cigarettes a day smoking for 29.9 years! No wonder some of the mice are ill and what a rubbish study that proves diddly-squat! There are no conclusive, repeatable studies that nicotine causes cancer as the prevalence of cancers amongst those who chew tobacco is no higher than someone who has never touched a tobacco product. The problem lies with the tar in the cigarettes which coats and kills the lung tissues and is well documented to cause lung cancer, throat cancer, bowel and oesophageal cancer among others. Tar is made up of 4000 chemicals, 60 of which are known carcinogens, including such products as formaldehyde, cyanide, benzene. I'm not a fan of e-cigarettes, I think the studies so far are not far reaching enough to be able to draw any firm conclusions and one study does not a fact make. However, I think we would all agree that the first thing should be to eliminate the tar aspect of smoking and then work to eliminate the nicotine element. Anything that helps with this is a good thing.

Nicotine addiction is a risk, but for smokers who are already addicted, the long term effects of nicotine addiction are insignificant against the health effects of the other ~4000 chemicals found in tobacco smoke. Recent studies have also shown that many other chemicals in tobacco smoke increase the addictiveness of nicotine. Professor Michael Russell - "People smoke for nicotine but they die from the tar" The risk profile for nicotine use is very similar to the risk profile from caffeine, all NRT products regulated as medicines contain nicotine, nobody has ever developed cancer from any of these products. The nicotine in e-cigs is from the same GMP sources. Are e-cigs "safe", compared to breathing in clean mountain air - no, compared to inhaling tobacco smoke- YES, they are orders of magnitude less harmful. If smokers can not quit nicotine, switching to e-cigs is the next best thing. We don't live in a perfect world, when it comes to e-cigs don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

You sum up my feelings nicely

No need for a spat...just a little less contentious and provactive remarks will suffice.

Agree, think its pretty obvious that he works for or has interests in the e-cig industry...reminds me of that other poster on here who only ever posted on electrical stuff....

It was a direct quote from professor John Britton, Director of the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies. In the realms of public health you will struggle to find anyone with a higher academic standing than him. A product with the potential to save 5 million lives in the UK alone is a massive potential public health prize, however crazy you seem to consider it.

John

right back at you...

Of course if we did stop all smokers then many thousands of nurses doctors and other workers may become redundant as the health care needs shrink. The standards of care would however increase.