Jump to content
BANGKOK 23 February 2019 16:49
webfact

Ban on e-cigarettes under study after enforcement problems emerge

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

I'm not aware of any CREDIBLE science -- as opposed what you may find on pro vaping or vaping industry websites -- that supports the claim you're making above.

 

The vaping products contain nicotine, which is an addictive drug, just as it is in regular cigarettes. Then, depending on the product, there may be various chemicals added to the mix that aren't good or healthy for people to be inhaling. 

 

There's also the potential for vaping products, which are very popular with the young because of their flavors, to end up serving as a gateway drug into regular cigarette smoking.

 

I'm not saying vaping is more dangerous than regular cigarette smoking. But the professional public health agencies are hardly convinced it's either safe or healthy.

 

Health England are convinced, as is Cancer Research UK.  They have mirror organisations in NZ for instance, and throughout Europe.  

 

The consensus is that vaping is 97% safer than smoking, but is not completely safe because nicotine can produce adverse health effects. And of course no longitudinal studies are available at this time.  Nobody is ever going to say it is safe or healthy when compared to fresh air (if you can find it).  However, significant health bodies will now say it is much less dangerous than smoking, and this is surely the most salient comparison, isn't it?

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Health England are convinced, as is Cancer Research UK.  They have mirror organisations in NZ for instance, and throughout Europe.  

 

The consensus is that vaping is 97% safer than smoking,

 

 

You want to offer a citation where any of those government health organizations are actually saying that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

You want to offer a citation where any of those government health organizations are actually saying that?

 

This is from the UK Government website: https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2018/02/20/clearing-up-some-myths-around-e-cigarettes/

 

To quote some of it:

'Despite the sometimes confused, and confusing, media reporting around the safety of e-cigarettes, there is growing consensus around the evidence. While not without some risk, when compared to smoking e-cigarettes are far less harmful.

This view is supported by a number of key bodies, including Cancer Research UK, Action on Smoking and Health, the Royal College of Physicians, the British Medical Association and recently, a major US science body, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.'

 

Note: Most of the links provided by others that allege potential dangers are in vitro and speculative designed only to show a theoretical risk. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

This is from the UK Government website: https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2018/02/20/clearing-up-some-myths-around-e-cigarettes/

 

To quote some of it:

'Despite the sometimes confused, and confusing, media reporting around the safety of e-cigarettes, there is growing consensus around the evidence. While not without some risk, when compared to smoking e-cigarettes are far less harmful.

This view is supported by a number of key bodies, including Cancer Research UK, Action on Smoking and Health, the Royal College of Physicians, the British Medical Association and recently, a major US science body, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.'

 

Note: Most of the links provided by others that allege potential dangers are in vitro and speculative designed only to show a theoretical risk. 

 

Is there your 97% figure in there anywhere?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control has a less favorable view of e-cigs:

 

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/pdfs/Electronic-Cigarettes-Infographic-508.pdf
 

Quote

 

A recent CDC study found that many adults are using e-cigarettes in an attempt to quit smoking. However, most adult e-cigarette users do not stop smoking cigarettes and are instead continuing to use both products (“dual use”). Because smoking even a few cigarettes a day can be dangerous, quitting smoking completely is very important to protect your health.

 

 

431708084_2019-01-1623_25_07.jpg.5cb99d6a8dbcfbc2587e9e4be96a72aa.jpg

 

2097235330_2019-01-1623_25_27.jpg.6eec3ca17af6a01fb79bf64c15644b5e.jpg

 

1823475848_2019-01-1623_25_45.jpg.fbdd21e8695c9372667fcb0657d84b97.jpg

Edited by TallGuyJohninBKK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Is there your 97% figure in there anywhere?

 

Sorry I thought it was 97 but is in fact 95%.  Here it is:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-less-harmful-than-tobacco-estimates-landmark-review

 

This is just one public health body, albeit a very well respected one.  But others have acted on it, for instance New Zealand, and Norway. 

 

The studies you are relying on are small, prospective studies that are essentially lab tests.  One such study was totally groundless because it burned the liquid at unfeasibly high temperatures. Others often use impossible concentrates to show human cells are damaged- one even used industrial chemicals.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

'The U.S. Centers for Disease Control has a less favorable view of e-cigs:

 

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/pdfs/Electronic-Cigarettes-Infographic-508.pdf'

 

Outdated info: every reliable study shows that the trace chemicals in e-cig liquid are in much, much lower concentrations than in cigarettes.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

The studies you are relying on are small, prospective studies that are essentially lab tests.  One such study was totally groundless because it burned the liquid at unfeasibly high temperatures. Others often use impossible concentrates to show human cells are damaged- one even used industrial chemicals.

 

I'm not relying on/offering any studies... I'm simply sharing what is the official position and assessment of the U.S. Centers from Disease Control -- which is obviously different than the Public Health England views you posted.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

I'm not relying on/offering any studies... I'm simply sharing what is the official position and assessment of the U.S. Centers from Disease Control -- which is obviously different than the Public Health England views you posted.

 

In truth, markedly different from most western countries. Ok, I understand.  I guess that I would rather go with the other authorities which of course include the major US science body, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.'

 

So lets keep it banned and carry on smoking!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

I'm not aware of any CREDIBLE science -- as opposed what you may find on pro vaping or vaping industry websites -- that supports the claim you're making above.

 

Awareness. You're welcome 🙂

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/phe-publishes-independent-expert-e-cigarettes-evidence-review

Edited by Davedub
make link active
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you asked me if I can read as well? Then giving me one link, so speaking for one voice, one point of view on the subject.

So I will send you + - a dozen of studies published all on Pubmed in other words the "US

National Library of Medicine" where almost all studies in the world are bound to be published to be known by the scientific community worldwide. You will need/one will need to copy/paste the line under Abstract Source: to access it.

You will grant me that I do not take you for a donkey I would be grateful if you did not do so by asking me if I can read I found exactly 304 negatives studies about e-cigarets. It was part of my job (finding studies) years ago but I won't bother anyone with so many LOL. On the other hand, if some members still believed it is only  a funny past-time I hope it will change their minds. 

 

 

 Electronic Cigarettes Contain Higher Levels of Toxic Metal Nanopartices Than Tobacco Smoke 

The study authors concluded that "The presence of metal and silicate particles in cartomizer [atomizer/cartridge connecting to the battery] aerosol demonstrates the need for improved quality control in EC design and manufacture and studies on how EC aerosol impacts the health of users and bystanders."

 

image.png.5e6ec20afa2f5d78c8248c25a0c68707.png&key=e5695ccd165743826f594a314d254f3badcc3e3fc2551b567ddee930deb191fc

 

 

E-cigarettes and their delivered toxicants appear harmful to multiple organ systems.

Abstract Source:

Respir Care. 2018 Nov 6. Epub 2018 Nov 6. PMID: 30401756

 

The use of e-cigarettes significantly impaired various lung function parameters.

Abstract Source:

Am J Mens Health. 2018 Oct 15:1557988318806073. Epub 2018 Oct  15.PMID: 30318975

 

Cinnamaldehyde in e-cigarette liquids temporarily suppresses bronchial epithelial cell ciliary motility by dysregulation of mitochondrial function.

Abstract Source:

Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2019 Jan 3. Epub 2019 Jan 3. PMID: 30604630

 

 

 

Secondhand exposure to aerosol from electronic cigarettes: pilot study of assessment of tobacco-specific nitrosamine (NNAL) in urine.

Abstract Source:

Gac Sanit. 2018 Oct 27. Epub 2018 Oct 27. PMID: 30377020

 

Pro-inflammatory effects of e-cigarette vapour condensate on human alveolar macrophages.

Abstract Source:

Thorax. 2018 Aug 13. Epub 2018 Aug 13. PMID: 30104262

 

Electronic cigarettes can cause perceptible changes in tooth color, altering dental esthetics.

Abstract Source:

J Esthet Restor Dent. 2018 Oct 27. Epub 2018 Oct 27. PMID: 30367714

 

E-cigarette vapor, both with and without nicotine, is cytotoxic to epithelial cell lines and is a DNA strand break-inducing agent.

Abstract Source:

Oral Oncol. 2015 Nov 4. Epub 2015 Nov 4. PMID: 26547127

 

These findings suggest that both electronic cigarettes and tobacco smoking negatively impact vascular function.

Abstract Source:

J Hypertens. 2018 Jul 30. Epub 2018 Jul 30. PMID: 30063637

 

Exposure to E-cig vapor accelerates aortic stiffness, significantly impairs aortic endothelial function, and may lead to impaired cardiac function.

 Abstract Source:

J Appl Physiol (1985). 2017 Nov 2:jap.00713.2017. Epub 2017 Nov 2. PMID: 29097631

 

Pro-inflammatory effects of e-cigarette vapour condensate on human alveolar macrophages.

Abstract Source:

Thorax. 2018 Aug 13. Epub 2018 Aug 13. PMID: 30104262

 

Chronic vaping exerts marked biological effects on the lung.

Abstract Source:

Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018 Feb 26. Epub 2018 Feb 26. PMID: 29481290

 

Depressive symptoms were positively associated with e-cig use in both cross-sectionna and longitudinal analyses with a dose-dependent relationship. 

Abstract Source:

Addict Behav. 2018 Oct 16 ;90:85-91. Epub 2018 Oct 16. PMID: 30368023

 

 

 

 

 

 

Problem is most of the studies in the US are sponsored by US tobacco giants who stand to loose millions of $. Better find some unbias research done outside the Us.
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when is the Thai law not confusing? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Thai law'. isn't that what is termed an oxymoron? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, mommysboy said:

Go to Health England (that's the body representing the National Health Service in England, UK) and Cancer Research UK, both actively endorse the use of vapes as a smoking alternative in helping people quit smoking. 

 

The viewpoint you espouse is the one that is regarded as needing justification, so I am not spending my time posting what is already well known, and common knowledge.  But you could check the following: 

 

 You do not read anything I have 304 studies for many countries had you clicked on the few links I sent, you had seen it was published in the USA because every country has to do so but it comes from everywhere so I do not lose my time with bad faith people:lock:

 

1 Department of Physiology, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

 

Birmingham Acute Care Research Group Institute of Inflammation and Ageing (IIA), University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

College of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.

Analytical Facility, School of Chemistry, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine,Department of Medicine, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA.

Group of Evaluation of Health Determinants and Health Policies, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Sant Cugat del Vallès (Barcelona), Spain; Tobacco Control Unit, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Institut Català d'Oncologia, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona), Spain; Cancer Prevention and Control Group, Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge - IDIBELL, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona), Spain. Electronic address: jmmartinez@uic.es.

Tobacco Control Unit, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Institut Català d'Oncologia, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona), Spain; Cancer Prevention and Control Group, Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge - IDIBELL, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona), Spain; Catalan Network of Smoke-free Hospitals, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona), Spain; Addictions Unit, Institute of Neurosciences, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Department of Clinical Sciences, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

3Social and Cardiovascular Epidemiology Research Group, School of Medicine, University of Alcalá, Alcalá de Henares (Madrid), Spain.

4Tobacco Control Unit, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Institut Català d'Oncologia, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona), Spain; Cancer Prevention and Control Group, Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge - IDIBELL, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona), Spain; Department of Clinical Sciences, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

5Tobacco Control Unit, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Institut Català d'Oncologia, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona), Spain; Cancer Prevention and Control Group, Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge - IDIBELL, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona), Spain; Social and Cardiovascular Epidemiology Research Group, School of Medicine, University of Alcalá, Alcalá de Henares (Madrid), Spain.

6Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute - IMIM, Barcelona, Spain; Department of Experimental and Life Sciences, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain.

7Tobacco Free Initiatives, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

8

Tobacco Control Unit, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Institut Català d'Oncologia, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona), Spain; Cancer Prevention and Control Group, Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge - IDIBELL, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona), Spain; Catalan Network of Smoke-free Hospitals, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat (Barcelona), Spain; Department of Clinical Sciences, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.

 

4)1

Birmingham Acute Care Research Group Institute of Inflammation and Ageing (IIA), University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

2

College of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.

3

Analytical Facility, School of Chemistry, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

4

Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine,Department of Medicine, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA.

Abstract

 

J Esthet Restor Dent. 2018 Oct 27. Epub 2018 Oct 27. PMID: 30367714

 

Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow.

2

Division of Cancer Research, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.

  1.  

Birmingham Acute Care Research Group Institute of Inflammation and Ageing (IIA), University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

2

College of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.

3

Analytical Facility, School of Chemistry, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

4

Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine,Department of Medicine, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA.

Inserm, UMS 011, Population-based Epidemiological Cohorts, Villejuif, France.

2

Inserm, UMS 011, Population-based Epidemiological Cohorts, Villejuif, France; Inserm, UMR 1168, VIMA, Villejuif, France; AP-HP, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris Ouest, Centre Ambulatoire d'Addictologie, Paris, France; Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Faculté de Médecine, Paris, France. Electronic address: guillaume.airagnes@aphp.fr.

3

Inserm, UMS 011, Population-based Epidemiological Cohorts, Villejuif, France; Inserm, UMR 1168, VIMA, Villejuif, France.

4

Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Université Paris 06, INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique (IPLESP UMRS 1136), F75012 Paris, France.

5

AP-HP, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris Ouest, Centre Ambulatoire d'Addictologie, Paris, France.

6

Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Faculté de Médecine, Paris, France; AP-HP, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris Ouest, Service de Psychiatrie de l'adulte et du sujet âgé, Paris, France; Inserm, U894, Centre Psychiatrie et Neurosciences, Paris, France.

7

Inserm, UMS 011, Population-based Epidemiological Cohorts, Villejuif, France; Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Faculté de Médecine, Paris, France.

8

Inserm, UMS 011, Population-based Epidemiological Cohorts, Villejuif, France; Inserm, UMR 1168, VIMA, Villejuif, France; Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Faculté de Médecine, Paris, France.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual, not thought through properly before implementation. This, plus (I think) the fact that Big Tobacco isn't ready with any viable initiatives or countermeasures i.e. new products, to counter e-ciggies eating into their sales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...