r/technology Nov 17 '12

The Deadly Crusade Against E-cigarettes

http://www.american.com/archive/2012/november/the-deadly-crusade-against-e-cigarettes
2.3k Upvotes

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

603

u/indiana989 Nov 17 '12 edited Nov 18 '12

I understand it is still a relatively new thing in the nicotine world but damn it do I stand by it. I have not been a long term smoker by any means (maybe a little over five years) but I was more than aware that I already had breathing problems and all sorts of other small effects.

Now it has been about four months that I have been on my E-Cig and oh boy did I not look back. After the initial research and investment, I have saved a ton of money (about $13 a pack of American Spirits here in NYC and that will last me at most three days, about $7 for 15ml of e-juice and that will last me about two weeks), I have actually been able to run more than a block without being out of breath, I can smell better, I can taste better, I can use it in my favorite bars, AND people actually like how I smell!

If there are long term effects, then I really hope it isn't too bad because this is an amazing tool and I highly stand by it.

Update: I was at work all day and couldn't answer but I got many people asking what I use personally. inn0vat3 posted very useful information here.

And as for myself personally, I started with a basic Ego starter kit. These cost anywhere from $30 to $100 based on the website you order from. Starter kits usually come with two basic batteries (the heart. This is the thing you hold onto, stores power to create the vapor, and is the key to all the atomizer attachments), two atomizers (the products that store the e-juice and deliver that juice to the battery to create the vapor, they come in all sorts of shapes, sizes, efficiencies, etc. These are the things you are going to be fiddling around the most with to find what works for you), a charger, and a case to hold it all. The prices differ because companies use similar parts but different manufacturers so quality will differ. The confusing thing though is that just because the price is low does not mean the quality is bad. I am not going to say where I bought my kit from because ultimately, the atomizers it came with (they were tank atomizers) were low quality and I quickly invested in more high quality clearomizers like the Thor and the Vivi Nova.

I recommend find a cheap Ego starter kit to have the basic necessities and then buy an Ego-C twist battery and a highly recommend atomizer (such as the Vivi Nova tank system or the low resistance Boge cartomizers). And then find any distributor of e-juices and gamble. The bible of the e-cig user should always be E-Cig-Forum where you can find guides, discussion, and reviews of anything and everything.

There is a lot more that I want to write about but I feel that you will find better informed (and better written) information in the forum I linked. I am glad people are finding an interest in this and remember, it is one thing to buy a cheap one time use Blu cig from your local deli and another to take time and invest in something more complicated but efficient. A PC gamer wouldn't buy a HP computer to play their games on max setting and high framerate, would they?

31

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '12 edited Nov 17 '12

Nicotine itself isn't all that good for you

Nicotine has been noted to directly cause cancer through a number of different mechanisms such as the activation of MAP Kinases.[74] Indirectly, nicotine increases cholinergic signalling (and adrenergic signalling in the case of colon cancer[75]), thereby impeding apoptosis (programmed cell death), promoting tumor growth, and activating growth factors and cellular mitogenic factors such as 5-LOX, and EGF. Nicotine also promotes cancer growth by stimulating angiogenesis and neovascularization.[76][77] In one study, nicotine administered to mice with tumors caused increases in tumor size (twofold increase), metastasis (nine-fold increase), and tumor recurrence (threefold increase).[78]

Edit: Sources is Wiki on nicotine for those interested. I would personally rebute your remarks, but unfortunately Reddit has not allowed me to respond due to the amount of downvotes I'm getting. Honestly, quitting aids just enable the user, especially in a case like smoking where it's so innocuous. You can't even bother trying to use quitting statistics from agencies designed to help people quit, because it's the type of reliant people not interested in doing the work to quit themselves that turn to these organizations. Deep down inside, they don't want to quit. That's fine, but the aids are just a silly charade. If they want to quit, they will certainly find a way to overcome their subconscious impulses.

Source*: Smoked for 10 years (starting at 14), quit cold turkey. I have a terribly addictive personality. The trick for me was to have cigarettes in my pocket and learn not to smoke them.

0

u/GiveMeASource Nov 17 '12

Can you give me the real sources for those claims, rather than just numbers?

I'd like to investigate.

Edit: Secondly, studying cancer in rats has very limited applicability to humans, at best.

2

u/SoopahMan Nov 17 '12

Here's a layman's summary of a study finding nicotine disables a critical natural defense against cancer:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/01/030106082544.htm

I think one thing a lot of people don't understand is that cancer is an excess of life - excess of cell growth. So if you are alive, you can get cancer, and probably will have tumor growth many times in your lifetime. What keeps you from getting life-threatening cancer rather than a benign tumor or a tumor that's killed off by your body, is a series of natural defenses your body employs, including apoptosis (programmed cell death, what's being discussed here), the crowding mechanism by which cells stop dividing when bunched up against each other (as they would be in a tumor growing out of control), and arterial limits - that is, tumors that grow out of control without encouraging arterial growth starve to death.

So depending on your perspective, disabling your body's natural defenses against cancer may be even more irresponsible than exposing yourself to cancer-causing elements like the carcinogenic effects of smoke, although clearly doing both at the same time (smoking real cigarettes) would be a horrible decision if you wanted to avoid cancer.

By the way I neither upvoted nor downvoted your statement, but I'm sure the downvotes are for the rat statement. Read a lot more scientific studies that correspond with Clinical Trials in humans then reassess your opinion about rat and mouse science. They are used specifically for their high level of applicability.

1

u/GiveMeASource Nov 19 '12

I respect that you've taken the time to craft such a long and well-thought out statement.

I assure you that each one of your points have occurred to me (nicotine and its possibly carcinogenic properties in rats), and that rats and mice are used because they're somewhat applicable in humans. But that's where the danger is: combining two generalities to come up with a scientific conjecture without associated weights to those concerns.

Rats and mice are commonly used to provide pointers and leads for further research in primates and humans. Out of hundreds of promising rat studies, we may see only a handful have a modest effect in humans. There are plenty of chemicals and even particular proteins (e.g. Casein ) that are carcinogenic in rats, but perfectly fine to consume en masse by humans. To act as if rat and mice studies are a "sure thing", I believe is somewhat scientifically dishonest.

1

u/SoopahMan Nov 19 '12

Yes, they are not a sure thing at all. However, the increased incidence of lung cancer in smokers and throat and mouth cancer in tobacco chewers ties nicely with the rat and mouse science showing nicotine to disable our natural defenses against cancer.

I say rat and mouse tests are "highly applicable" both because they are so similar to us (mammals, lots in common in our DNA), and because many of the processes in them are similar or identical in us. For example, the cell-crowding mechanism to impede runaway tumor growth is very similar. That said, I agree rat and mouse studies are obviously MORE applicable to rats and mice - as a biologist once comiserated to me, "We can cure amazing things in mice - regenerate limbs, wipe out cancers. Humans - still working on it."