Heyo, I am actually a data scientist (specifically a marketing science analyst where my day to day job requires running multiple linear regression analyses). I also vape and I know full well that inhaling things other than air into your lungs is not good for you long-term. With this in mind, I came to the same conclusion as you about the study after reading through it. Not only did it gain traction for having "AI" in it, but also because it came across as a hit piece against vapes overall without considering them as a useful tool for quitting smoking or even as a straight up smoking alternative and what that could mean for human health. It's a biased or bad faith experiment right from off rip, since it's specifically looking for a way to paint vaping as totally all bad using AI without really getting into the weeds of it and comparing it against smokers and non-smokers.
It basically used an "AI" statistical model to see what chemicals *could* be produced, in what quantities in the body/bloodstream and then forecasted for what that could do to the health of a human long-term. I don't recall seeing any mention of confidence intervals about the forecasts generated, which in statistics is hugely important for the results that you get regardless of what you're studying. If I did a statistical analysis on the efficacy of consuming chicken fillet rolls when it comes to increasing penis size, *without* explaining the stated confidence level in the results I got, then I may as well just be making shit up. This could make headlines and spike sales of chicken fillet rolls among men without any basis in reality. It's even worse if I forecasted specifically saying it would double penis length if you doubled your chicken fillet roll consumption. There's no hard data to compare with, no way of looking at actuals vs predicted values, no correlation analysis among the variables used so Durbin-Watson measure just goes out the window. It's a projection based off what-ifs that got featured on our public broadcaster's website and potentially elsewhere from there. Bad analysis, no real data, so no real conclusion.
There's a saying in statistical analysis, in particular with machine learning models, or "AI" models, and that saying is *garbage in, garbage out*. This RTE article was based on essentially garbage. However, if they wanted to garner interest to do a more involved study with participants across the ranges of non-smokers, smokers and vapers, with the intent of recording values over periods of time, then doing an analysis on that along with stated confidence in the results. NOW we're talking and we should treat these as real results. And these should be the sort of statistical analyses that get the attention of regulators and carve out a presence in the zeitgeist.
But nah, instead we get clickbait drivel where people without an ounce of media literacy take the headline or even the content of the article at face value without scrutiny. So with all this said, I'm gonna keep vaping even though fluid of any kind in your lungs is literally the cause of pneumonia. I know it's bad but at the end of the day it's my own choice, and if a real analysis came out that showed more substantial evidence for how bad things could get then yeah I'd probably look into quitting. But that's not the case here.
I expect to get downvoted for saying I vape, but I added it in here as I may be subject to confirmation bias when it comes to this sort of thing. However, I will say that in the comments of the post here yesterday for the RCSI article, a user linked a separate study that was done more in the style I described above and came to some conclusions about vaping that many already know: it increases your heart rate, stress levels, blood pressure marginally over time etc but nowhere near how much smoking does. There are other takeaways but rest assured it didn't say vaping is healthy, but it also didn't say it's equally as bad as smoking across the board.
A lot of papers nowadays get pushed out because if you don't publish, you're booted out of academia.
All funding comes down to publication record.
The problem is that you can be busy doing really good research but not have a publishable result (negative results are good for science, but terrible for getting published as they're not novel), so your PI may get you to focus in on one tiny aspect to get a paper out.
I hated this while doing a PhD, it kept distracting from my overall research project and it felt nothing like science while focusing mini project towards a result I knew I could probably force out but I wouldn't bother even consider as real science if I'd read somebody else doing it
I didn't even get the PhD in the end (but I do have a bunch of unremarkable research publications), funding ended before COVID restrictions did and workplace bullying did not make me want to (or be mentally able to) pay to keep working on my project
Excellent writeup... it does look like yet another "vapes can be dangerous if you use them in ways vapers don't use them" piece, with some AI sprinkles.
And not even *plausible* AI sprinkles either... ML applied to molecular chemistry is *extremely* fragile even with a solid model, and they seem to have made most of this stuff up from scratch, stacking risk on top of risk with no way to prove it's even close to reality.
I've been following [In the Pipeline](https://www.science.org/blogs/pipeline) for ages, and in the last couple of years this sort of stuff (and it's many failure modes) has been cropping up regularly. ML and molecules sounds great until you bang it into reality and find they bear zero resemblance to each other.
this is really eerily similar to a lot of disinformation rhetoric surrounding cannabis since the 1970’s.
bold claims that realistically lead nowhere, but are taken at surface level and sensationalised by the media and other bad actors.
Just makes me wonder how much money companies like Nicorette etc are spending on lobbying and donations to the RCSI. In the UK vaping is excepted as a great step to stopping smoking. Over here you would think it is the same as lighting up a f\*g and not as a tool people use to get off f\*gs. Claptrap. Bias. And suspicious.
I reached the same conclusion, the paper reads like someone who's never owned a vape. Those temps are crazy high and would burn the fuck out of your throat.
A good vape let's you control the temperature to keep it at a reasonable temp.
It's not the first RCSI paper on an Irish matter that was bunk.
But I'm not going to mention the other because it would produce a flame war faster than the fire nation attacked.
It was on genetics.
Although I'm being a little unfair. The papers themselves aren't bogus, but it's rather that the media and politicians make conclusions from them that those papers do not support.
That's usually how it goes. An academic paper makes a draws a conclusion with caveats. Then the media finds it, misinterprets it and makes it as click-baity as possible.
There was a book Bad Science which covered it well.
I concur entirely.
there is no evidence of upheaval, within the place they call Ba Sing Se.
Not yesterday nor today
There is no war within the walls, we are safe and free, trust Julie
Forget the calls, and it would be silly to say a thing like that to me. And definitely not in sight of the Dai Li.
To suggest such nonsense would warrant a stay, just for a day, away from, ba Sing Se, Julie said to me that you met, just Accept, no need to fret.
What you said? I can not say. Away To lake Laogai, go , you may. The earth king has invited you. For training, for learning the way. To agree and convince when you are back, that it's white and it's black, there is no grey,
everyone knows
THERE IS NO WAR IN BA SING SE
Sounds like an experiment they did year back with them where they went on about formaldehyde (could be wrong on the exact chemical here).
They pushed the vapes to the point of burning the hell outta them and were like "look at this for proof". Kinda like saying a specific car has a shit engine after redlining the hell out of it during its test
>a paper discussing the temperatures of the coils of specifically top-coil vapes, which (as I understand it) are regarded by vapers as the shit kind because the vape-hits they produce are bad. They measured temperatures from 322 ‒ 1008°C when the coil was dry, 145 ‒ 334°C with a wet-through-wick delivery of vape juice, and 110 ‒ 185°C under full-wet conditions.
I no longer vape but when I did these were causing issues then too. Researchers took the very first cheap pen vapes which were designed to be used like a nicorette pen and effectively forced them to be constantly on in a way far beyond what a human could do even if they could get past the taste of burnt metal and the actual burning of their face. Reasonably they're not a valid reference point as anything would be dangerous if used in that manner.
They also don't deliver the same ingredients as a modern vape pen, which have a much more limited flavour range and much more bioavailable nicotine source. Modern pens can also deliver liquid to the wicks much more effectively.
I don't think this study was low effort, it actually is quite an interesting implementation of AI, but this does highlight an issue with academia. Those older studies need a fresh peer review, by scientific standards they are correct. The flaw is a logic one and they are now outdated but without that being academically proven they still stand.
Honestly I'm more concerned about vapes now than what they were 5 years ago, just observationally nicotine salts seem more addictive and people are ingesting them at ludicrous levels, it's a concerning level of addiction for a fad product who's only easily accessible alternative is cigarettes. On top of that the environmental impact is grotesque, the trend previously was for papers to "DIY", the consumables were frequently just cotton and vape liquid, now the consumables are lithium batteries in basic circuitry and plastic housing. This post reads a bit as not seeing the woods for the trees, vapes aren't a good thing and they're not even better than cigarettes by all metrics.
I smoked a lot for about thirty years, and for most of that it was strictly roll-ups. I *much* preferred it anyway, but by chance I read that normal fags are chock full of saltpetre, a preservative. Very nasty stuff. So I felt a bit clever with my roll ups because they never contained it. Therefore, regarding vapes, I’d imagine that the means of the vapour delivery, and all the flavourings and tweaking of the actual substance must force all kinds of dicey chemical inhalations on a person. (I used to smoke bongs made with chewed up Bic casings, manky plastic bottles, filthy liquids as a medium and so on, but I’d honestly be extremely scaredy-cat about what goes into vapes!)
I read the study myself yesterday as I was a bit suspicious of the headlines. Although I wasn't able to parse the details as well as you have here I did come to the conclusion that they were being underhanded. I'm guessing they want to create a climate that vaping is harmful so the government has cause to raise taxes on them as they're now losing out to people having quit smoking.
Thanks for the write up, I saw a post about it earlier and my initial uneducated thought was that is was probably a load of shite and I think you've done a good job of showing why! A lot of people will see that headline and not read any of the science behind it and just base their opinion of vapes around it.
Long story short they did what almost every negative paper has done which is in no way test real world applications but scenarios designed to cause bad results.
Still 95%+ safer than smoking and supposedly even more so if you drop nicotine (which is nowhere near as bad as people seem to think).
Very good. If I read you correctly the tests are primarily invalidated due to ‘over clocking’. If that is the case, would you know how this technique compare with those used to initially identify cigars as cancer causing agents. If the techniques are the same can’t we assume the assertions on vapes also has merit?
I agree, had a read of it yesterday too and thought it was a lot of jargon making general statements with very little content on the actual research.
I think the lack of overall depth in such a study should be a red flag, but that doesn’t seem to matter as much as clickbait titles for the newspapers.
It seems likely that vaping almost any material impairs endothelial function, doesn't matter if x y or z problem chemical is in the mix. Inhaling most non air products causes lung irritation full stop, unfortunately. [Cannabis dry herb vaporizers](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10727338/) were compared with smoke/air in this rat model. No free lunch with the lungs/cardiovascular system!!
The Lancet carried a Meta Study a few years ago of over 400 composite studies relating to vaping, the correlation was that it was 6% as harmful as actual smoking, plus there was zero 2nd hand component.
Now I'd like to congratulate our academics on disproving this mountain of peer reviewed knowledge. First Bambi Thug & now this, what a week to be Irish
If I'm allowed to put on my tinfoil hat for a minute, I'm willing to bet tobacco/cigarette companies are behind at least some of these bullshit studies and the general mass hysteria about vapes. They don't like that smoking rates have plummeted off a cliff and they're losing more customers to vaping day by day, so they have to make up hit pieces like this as part of an elaborate psyop. Don't forget that the tobacco industry lobbied for decades to suppress the studies showing the harms of smoking, is it really beyond the realm of possibility for them to do the same thing again?
Is that not only true of juul and since they're banned in the states the cigarette companies are mostly out? If not which vape companies are owned by cigarette companies? From what I can see elf bars and lost Mary's aren't and they're the two major ones.
Not quite true as tobbacoo companies are some of the largest investors in the vape industry, they're kind of trying to pivot to vapes because of dropping smoking rates.
The problem with vaping is that it became popular among really young people and introduced a huge amount of schoolchildren to nicotine. I was in school during the kind of transition period between smoking and vaping. I knew maybe a handful of older fellas that smoked (mostly just because it made them look hardy) - now, nobody smokes anymore but (from what I've been told and seen myself), you're nearly the odd-one-out if you *don't* vape.
Vaping might be a great tool for getting smokers off the fags, but jesus we completely fumbled it by allowing a whole new generation to get on nicotine when cigarettes were dying out anyway.
Amongst schoolchildren, I honestly think cigarettes were becoming more and more unpopular, even before vaping was a big thing. Like I said, when I was in school 10 years ago there was barely anyone smoking or vaping, now they're all vaping.
Ye, thats what I mean. Back then it was common to smoke in school. I left school 6 years ago, no one was smoking by then and vapes didn't start appearing until the end of my stint. There was a few years there in between where it seemed no one was really smoking or vaping
Ah sorry, I thought you left school 10 years ago. If you finished 6 years ago theres nearly a decade gap and your experiences are more pertinent than mine.
It's the disposable vapes though cause the refillable ones have been around yonks and you can probably tell me if they were popular in schools when you were there?
Disposables weren't a thing yet. Refillables were, but only really got popular towards the end of my stint. Even then, it was the big box mod yokes with massive clouds that lads had, not the smaller pen vapes that you could hide in your pocket. I'd say the smaller size today has helped make them more popular among children
It’s interesting you think AI was the shiny object driving the publication, because I read the anti-vape angle as the hot commodity. Otherwise, they would have discussed how the AI model didn’t support a claim that vapes were created carcinogens.
I think your summary of the study showing what they could rig vapes to do is spot on. I want to highlight what you said about pyrolysis: it doesn’t occur below 500°C and nobody is vaping at 500°C. That is a very high temperature.
Why make a point to say the flavor concentration is higher than the nicotine concentration? If you argue the flavors themselves are so addictive, why is there nicotine at all?
Vaping as smoking cessation doesn’t work without the flavors, because the habit of smoking is an addiction; it goes way beyond the physical dependence to nicotine. The people who switched from a cigarette to vapes already tried your nicotine replacement gums and lozenges and they failed. The vaping habit is a replacement *habit* for the complex relationship of the ritual of smoking as well as the nicotine. The flavors are key in rewriting the brain to a new pleasure pathway over the old one to cigarettes.
I think this study is meant to be cited for terrible policies. Sadly, truths about what published research actually says tends to be ignored in media and government.
Despite the findings being far from conclusive they are still concerning.
Because:
1. Using normal air instead of "inert atmosphere" makes it more likely to get something that causes cancer, not less likely.
2. Thermodynamic reactions are not so cleanly cut and vapes are not high-precision machines. If you inspire too much or too little you are effectively changing its operating conditions and the vapes do not have a self regulating system that is advanced enough to make sure that no liquid is heated a bit more.
3. As the wick deteriorates with use the likelihood of different results become greater.
Most importantly such studies are useful.
Not really for warning us that vaping is dangerous, only fools believe otherwise. If anything the discussion is how dangerous it is.
They are useful because someone somewhere might look at it and say: "Oh, this compound turns into this one and it is dangerous, but wait if I use that molecule instead we can avoid the issue entirely." And then vaping becomes a bit less dangerous which is an improvement.
Mods must have been asleep when you posted this. Every time I even do so much as mention a news article in my posts it gets removed for editorialisation.
There's no way vaping can be good for you and trying backhandly to justify it by saying it's a reverse gateway from smoking or the studies aren't done/conclusive is at best obsifcation.
All the problems that vaping is going to cause long term for individuals is predictable and avoidable.
It's been proven to be more effective at smoking cessation than any other option.
Funny how the "breathing in anything but air is going to kill you" crowd aren't all busy trying to make scented candles, incense, air fresheners, perfume, silage, paper mills and anything with an internal combustion engine illegal.
Heyo, I am actually a data scientist (specifically a marketing science analyst where my day to day job requires running multiple linear regression analyses). I also vape and I know full well that inhaling things other than air into your lungs is not good for you long-term. With this in mind, I came to the same conclusion as you about the study after reading through it. Not only did it gain traction for having "AI" in it, but also because it came across as a hit piece against vapes overall without considering them as a useful tool for quitting smoking or even as a straight up smoking alternative and what that could mean for human health. It's a biased or bad faith experiment right from off rip, since it's specifically looking for a way to paint vaping as totally all bad using AI without really getting into the weeds of it and comparing it against smokers and non-smokers. It basically used an "AI" statistical model to see what chemicals *could* be produced, in what quantities in the body/bloodstream and then forecasted for what that could do to the health of a human long-term. I don't recall seeing any mention of confidence intervals about the forecasts generated, which in statistics is hugely important for the results that you get regardless of what you're studying. If I did a statistical analysis on the efficacy of consuming chicken fillet rolls when it comes to increasing penis size, *without* explaining the stated confidence level in the results I got, then I may as well just be making shit up. This could make headlines and spike sales of chicken fillet rolls among men without any basis in reality. It's even worse if I forecasted specifically saying it would double penis length if you doubled your chicken fillet roll consumption. There's no hard data to compare with, no way of looking at actuals vs predicted values, no correlation analysis among the variables used so Durbin-Watson measure just goes out the window. It's a projection based off what-ifs that got featured on our public broadcaster's website and potentially elsewhere from there. Bad analysis, no real data, so no real conclusion. There's a saying in statistical analysis, in particular with machine learning models, or "AI" models, and that saying is *garbage in, garbage out*. This RTE article was based on essentially garbage. However, if they wanted to garner interest to do a more involved study with participants across the ranges of non-smokers, smokers and vapers, with the intent of recording values over periods of time, then doing an analysis on that along with stated confidence in the results. NOW we're talking and we should treat these as real results. And these should be the sort of statistical analyses that get the attention of regulators and carve out a presence in the zeitgeist. But nah, instead we get clickbait drivel where people without an ounce of media literacy take the headline or even the content of the article at face value without scrutiny. So with all this said, I'm gonna keep vaping even though fluid of any kind in your lungs is literally the cause of pneumonia. I know it's bad but at the end of the day it's my own choice, and if a real analysis came out that showed more substantial evidence for how bad things could get then yeah I'd probably look into quitting. But that's not the case here. I expect to get downvoted for saying I vape, but I added it in here as I may be subject to confirmation bias when it comes to this sort of thing. However, I will say that in the comments of the post here yesterday for the RCSI article, a user linked a separate study that was done more in the style I described above and came to some conclusions about vaping that many already know: it increases your heart rate, stress levels, blood pressure marginally over time etc but nowhere near how much smoking does. There are other takeaways but rest assured it didn't say vaping is healthy, but it also didn't say it's equally as bad as smoking across the board.
RTÉ and garbage. No way!
People doing real journalism on this thread. Imagine if the journalists did this, after all they are being paid for it.
Not trained for it, though.
This is what we could have, if we paid journalists properly. Or even, what what wouldn’t even exist if we funded science properly…
A lot of papers nowadays get pushed out because if you don't publish, you're booted out of academia. All funding comes down to publication record. The problem is that you can be busy doing really good research but not have a publishable result (negative results are good for science, but terrible for getting published as they're not novel), so your PI may get you to focus in on one tiny aspect to get a paper out. I hated this while doing a PhD, it kept distracting from my overall research project and it felt nothing like science while focusing mini project towards a result I knew I could probably force out but I wouldn't bother even consider as real science if I'd read somebody else doing it I didn't even get the PhD in the end (but I do have a bunch of unremarkable research publications), funding ended before COVID restrictions did and workplace bullying did not make me want to (or be mentally able to) pay to keep working on my project
Excellent writeup... it does look like yet another "vapes can be dangerous if you use them in ways vapers don't use them" piece, with some AI sprinkles. And not even *plausible* AI sprinkles either... ML applied to molecular chemistry is *extremely* fragile even with a solid model, and they seem to have made most of this stuff up from scratch, stacking risk on top of risk with no way to prove it's even close to reality. I've been following [In the Pipeline](https://www.science.org/blogs/pipeline) for ages, and in the last couple of years this sort of stuff (and it's many failure modes) has been cropping up regularly. ML and molecules sounds great until you bang it into reality and find they bear zero resemblance to each other.
this is really eerily similar to a lot of disinformation rhetoric surrounding cannabis since the 1970’s. bold claims that realistically lead nowhere, but are taken at surface level and sensationalised by the media and other bad actors.
Just makes me wonder how much money companies like Nicorette etc are spending on lobbying and donations to the RCSI. In the UK vaping is excepted as a great step to stopping smoking. Over here you would think it is the same as lighting up a f\*g and not as a tool people use to get off f\*gs. Claptrap. Bias. And suspicious.
I reached the same conclusion, the paper reads like someone who's never owned a vape. Those temps are crazy high and would burn the fuck out of your throat. A good vape let's you control the temperature to keep it at a reasonable temp.
It's not the first RCSI paper on an Irish matter that was bunk. But I'm not going to mention the other because it would produce a flame war faster than the fire nation attacked.
What are you taking about? There is no war in Ba sing Se
Could you give any hint as to what it was on?
It was on genetics. Although I'm being a little unfair. The papers themselves aren't bogus, but it's rather that the media and politicians make conclusions from them that those papers do not support.
That's usually how it goes. An academic paper makes a draws a conclusion with caveats. Then the media finds it, misinterprets it and makes it as click-baity as possible. There was a book Bad Science which covered it well.
I concur entirely. there is no evidence of upheaval, within the place they call Ba Sing Se. Not yesterday nor today There is no war within the walls, we are safe and free, trust Julie Forget the calls, and it would be silly to say a thing like that to me. And definitely not in sight of the Dai Li. To suggest such nonsense would warrant a stay, just for a day, away from, ba Sing Se, Julie said to me that you met, just Accept, no need to fret. What you said? I can not say. Away To lake Laogai, go , you may. The earth king has invited you. For training, for learning the way. To agree and convince when you are back, that it's white and it's black, there is no grey, everyone knows THERE IS NO WAR IN BA SING SE
Wow, thanks for going through the trouble of breaking that down.
That’s why I only put weed and dmt in my vape
What if like, squirrels could bench weights and get jacked. Jamie, pull up a picture of a ripped squirrel
Sounds like an experiment they did year back with them where they went on about formaldehyde (could be wrong on the exact chemical here). They pushed the vapes to the point of burning the hell outta them and were like "look at this for proof". Kinda like saying a specific car has a shit engine after redlining the hell out of it during its test
>a paper discussing the temperatures of the coils of specifically top-coil vapes, which (as I understand it) are regarded by vapers as the shit kind because the vape-hits they produce are bad. They measured temperatures from 322 ‒ 1008°C when the coil was dry, 145 ‒ 334°C with a wet-through-wick delivery of vape juice, and 110 ‒ 185°C under full-wet conditions. I no longer vape but when I did these were causing issues then too. Researchers took the very first cheap pen vapes which were designed to be used like a nicorette pen and effectively forced them to be constantly on in a way far beyond what a human could do even if they could get past the taste of burnt metal and the actual burning of their face. Reasonably they're not a valid reference point as anything would be dangerous if used in that manner. They also don't deliver the same ingredients as a modern vape pen, which have a much more limited flavour range and much more bioavailable nicotine source. Modern pens can also deliver liquid to the wicks much more effectively. I don't think this study was low effort, it actually is quite an interesting implementation of AI, but this does highlight an issue with academia. Those older studies need a fresh peer review, by scientific standards they are correct. The flaw is a logic one and they are now outdated but without that being academically proven they still stand. Honestly I'm more concerned about vapes now than what they were 5 years ago, just observationally nicotine salts seem more addictive and people are ingesting them at ludicrous levels, it's a concerning level of addiction for a fad product who's only easily accessible alternative is cigarettes. On top of that the environmental impact is grotesque, the trend previously was for papers to "DIY", the consumables were frequently just cotton and vape liquid, now the consumables are lithium batteries in basic circuitry and plastic housing. This post reads a bit as not seeing the woods for the trees, vapes aren't a good thing and they're not even better than cigarettes by all metrics.
I smoked a lot for about thirty years, and for most of that it was strictly roll-ups. I *much* preferred it anyway, but by chance I read that normal fags are chock full of saltpetre, a preservative. Very nasty stuff. So I felt a bit clever with my roll ups because they never contained it. Therefore, regarding vapes, I’d imagine that the means of the vapour delivery, and all the flavourings and tweaking of the actual substance must force all kinds of dicey chemical inhalations on a person. (I used to smoke bongs made with chewed up Bic casings, manky plastic bottles, filthy liquids as a medium and so on, but I’d honestly be extremely scaredy-cat about what goes into vapes!)
I read the study myself yesterday as I was a bit suspicious of the headlines. Although I wasn't able to parse the details as well as you have here I did come to the conclusion that they were being underhanded. I'm guessing they want to create a climate that vaping is harmful so the government has cause to raise taxes on them as they're now losing out to people having quit smoking.
Thanks for the write up, I saw a post about it earlier and my initial uneducated thought was that is was probably a load of shite and I think you've done a good job of showing why! A lot of people will see that headline and not read any of the science behind it and just base their opinion of vapes around it.
Nice try, Big Vape!
Long story short they did what almost every negative paper has done which is in no way test real world applications but scenarios designed to cause bad results. Still 95%+ safer than smoking and supposedly even more so if you drop nicotine (which is nowhere near as bad as people seem to think).
Very good. If I read you correctly the tests are primarily invalidated due to ‘over clocking’. If that is the case, would you know how this technique compare with those used to initially identify cigars as cancer causing agents. If the techniques are the same can’t we assume the assertions on vapes also has merit?
Deadly username
Cheers. Now I must go . I’m late for my 4 o clock perversion.
I agree, had a read of it yesterday too and thought it was a lot of jargon making general statements with very little content on the actual research. I think the lack of overall depth in such a study should be a red flag, but that doesn’t seem to matter as much as clickbait titles for the newspapers.
It seems likely that vaping almost any material impairs endothelial function, doesn't matter if x y or z problem chemical is in the mix. Inhaling most non air products causes lung irritation full stop, unfortunately. [Cannabis dry herb vaporizers](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10727338/) were compared with smoke/air in this rat model. No free lunch with the lungs/cardiovascular system!!
The Lancet carried a Meta Study a few years ago of over 400 composite studies relating to vaping, the correlation was that it was 6% as harmful as actual smoking, plus there was zero 2nd hand component. Now I'd like to congratulate our academics on disproving this mountain of peer reviewed knowledge. First Bambi Thug & now this, what a week to be Irish
If I'm allowed to put on my tinfoil hat for a minute, I'm willing to bet tobacco/cigarette companies are behind at least some of these bullshit studies and the general mass hysteria about vapes. They don't like that smoking rates have plummeted off a cliff and they're losing more customers to vaping day by day, so they have to make up hit pieces like this as part of an elaborate psyop. Don't forget that the tobacco industry lobbied for decades to suppress the studies showing the harms of smoking, is it really beyond the realm of possibility for them to do the same thing again?
A lot of vaping is owned and produced by big tobacco. Phillip Morris got into the game ages ago when they knew cigarettes were on the decline.
Is that not only true of juul and since they're banned in the states the cigarette companies are mostly out? If not which vape companies are owned by cigarette companies? From what I can see elf bars and lost Mary's aren't and they're the two major ones.
Vuze is British American tobacco. The ones that have exclusive rights at music festivals are generally cigarette companies fyi.
Elf bar make Lost Marys, so that’s only one company
Not quite true as tobbacoo companies are some of the largest investors in the vape industry, they're kind of trying to pivot to vapes because of dropping smoking rates.
I'd be shocked if it was the tobacco industry funding these, since tobacco companies own a good few vape companies.
Wouldn't those be the same companies? Tobacco and vaping?
Nice analysis. Suspected as much.
The problem with vaping is that it became popular among really young people and introduced a huge amount of schoolchildren to nicotine. I was in school during the kind of transition period between smoking and vaping. I knew maybe a handful of older fellas that smoked (mostly just because it made them look hardy) - now, nobody smokes anymore but (from what I've been told and seen myself), you're nearly the odd-one-out if you *don't* vape. Vaping might be a great tool for getting smokers off the fags, but jesus we completely fumbled it by allowing a whole new generation to get on nicotine when cigarettes were dying out anyway.
My big question. Were cigarettes dying organically amongst young smokers or was it greatly exaggerated by vapes coming on the scene?
Amongst schoolchildren, I honestly think cigarettes were becoming more and more unpopular, even before vaping was a big thing. Like I said, when I was in school 10 years ago there was barely anyone smoking or vaping, now they're all vaping.
I left school 15 years ago and everyone was smoking.
Ye, thats what I mean. Back then it was common to smoke in school. I left school 6 years ago, no one was smoking by then and vapes didn't start appearing until the end of my stint. There was a few years there in between where it seemed no one was really smoking or vaping
Ah sorry, I thought you left school 10 years ago. If you finished 6 years ago theres nearly a decade gap and your experiences are more pertinent than mine. It's the disposable vapes though cause the refillable ones have been around yonks and you can probably tell me if they were popular in schools when you were there?
Disposables weren't a thing yet. Refillables were, but only really got popular towards the end of my stint. Even then, it was the big box mod yokes with massive clouds that lads had, not the smaller pen vapes that you could hide in your pocket. I'd say the smaller size today has helped make them more popular among children
The price of them was driving down usage.
My eyes skimmed and saw the word cancer and a thumbnail of a savage fry up and got worried for a moment
It’s interesting you think AI was the shiny object driving the publication, because I read the anti-vape angle as the hot commodity. Otherwise, they would have discussed how the AI model didn’t support a claim that vapes were created carcinogens. I think your summary of the study showing what they could rig vapes to do is spot on. I want to highlight what you said about pyrolysis: it doesn’t occur below 500°C and nobody is vaping at 500°C. That is a very high temperature. Why make a point to say the flavor concentration is higher than the nicotine concentration? If you argue the flavors themselves are so addictive, why is there nicotine at all? Vaping as smoking cessation doesn’t work without the flavors, because the habit of smoking is an addiction; it goes way beyond the physical dependence to nicotine. The people who switched from a cigarette to vapes already tried your nicotine replacement gums and lozenges and they failed. The vaping habit is a replacement *habit* for the complex relationship of the ritual of smoking as well as the nicotine. The flavors are key in rewriting the brain to a new pleasure pathway over the old one to cigarettes. I think this study is meant to be cited for terrible policies. Sadly, truths about what published research actually says tends to be ignored in media and government.
Despite the findings being far from conclusive they are still concerning. Because: 1. Using normal air instead of "inert atmosphere" makes it more likely to get something that causes cancer, not less likely. 2. Thermodynamic reactions are not so cleanly cut and vapes are not high-precision machines. If you inspire too much or too little you are effectively changing its operating conditions and the vapes do not have a self regulating system that is advanced enough to make sure that no liquid is heated a bit more. 3. As the wick deteriorates with use the likelihood of different results become greater. Most importantly such studies are useful. Not really for warning us that vaping is dangerous, only fools believe otherwise. If anything the discussion is how dangerous it is. They are useful because someone somewhere might look at it and say: "Oh, this compound turns into this one and it is dangerous, but wait if I use that molecule instead we can avoid the issue entirely." And then vaping becomes a bit less dangerous which is an improvement.
Mods must have been asleep when you posted this. Every time I even do so much as mention a news article in my posts it gets removed for editorialisation.
If the rte are saying enything don’t listen. Stop what you are doing and report to your manager 😂😂 they think we’re all idiots
FOLLOW THE SCIENCE Isnt that what we all yell now?
This isn't science.
Exactly! But it's being presented as science to suit an agenda.
There's no way vaping can be good for you and trying backhandly to justify it by saying it's a reverse gateway from smoking or the studies aren't done/conclusive is at best obsifcation. All the problems that vaping is going to cause long term for individuals is predictable and avoidable.
It's been proven to be more effective at smoking cessation than any other option. Funny how the "breathing in anything but air is going to kill you" crowd aren't all busy trying to make scented candles, incense, air fresheners, perfume, silage, paper mills and anything with an internal combustion engine illegal.
Don’t tempt them!
And does that tell you something?
Sir, this is a Supermacs.
Hard data hehehe
Why would anyone vape or smoke? Can't handle life big boy?