Hacker News Reader

Comment by jessedhillon | Hacker News Reader

How long will it be until we can definitive statements about e-cigarettes? I hate being in a bar or club, or fucking anywhere really, and seeing people smoking those things indoors. But if asked whether that smoke is actually harming me, I couldn't say.

View on HN

That's a shame. The "smoke" from e-cigarettes is just vapour, and no more harmful to the people around the user than steam from a kettle.

However, there's a discussion to be had here, and it's possibly more important than the one surrounding cigarettes and second-hand smoke. It's a brand new industry and a brand new habit that people are only starting to adjust to.

Ecig manufacturers are, at present, allowed to advertise their product publicly, and sell them as a lifestyle choice. They're even allowed to advertise on TV, something that the tobacco boys haven't been able to do for a very long time (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2517504/VIP-E-cigare...).

As an ecig user myself I find myself using it indoors regularly. I'm harming nobody but myself with it. But that's the problem - it's normalised the recreational ingestion of nicotine, and it's only going to become more popular.

Smokers, even reformed smokers like myself, aren't going to change their habits unless they're forced to do so. So while many people are put off by indoor ecig use, until the law changes to forbid it, you're just going to have to deal with it.

And the counter to that is that 1) legislation has begun in a number of places, New York, Chicago, etc., to ban the indoor smoking of e-cigarettes because, at least primarily 2) the anti-smoking campaign so effectively illustrated the dangers of second-hand smoke, that people are now conditioned to equate smoke with evil (even smokers, like myself) so, despite the fact that e-cig 'smoke' is actually just vapor, many people are put off of it because of the stigma.

Also, at least in New York, the legislative bodies expressed great concern that e-cig users could gasp actually be smoking liquid THC instead of liquid THC, which still wouldn't be harmful, but they're worried about the evils that would certainly infest the hearts of men as a result.

I vape part-time and sneak in a pull here and there in public -- but it still feels wrong despite the lack of pollution.

This said, the vape scene is awesome for us hackers. The e-cigs that look more like cigarettes don't have as much of a scene, and aren't as enjoyable as a variable voltage, low-ohm 'pipe'.

I'm using an off-the-shelf ecig, the type that's designed to look like a regular cigarette. I'm loving /r/electronic_cigarette and all the clever mods they've been coming up with.

I have to be honest though, all of the various options are a bit overwhelming!

I started on the same type that you're on. Stop by your local B&M and check out the iTaste variable voltage battery with a dual-coil pro-tank. Also get an e-liquid that's 50/50 between vegetable glycerine (good vapor -- 'clouds') and propylene glycol (throat hit).

That's the best place to start. The mod scene is totally overwhelming. Here's a basic breakdown:

Low ohm - hotter liquid / pull VG - bigger 'smoke' PG - throat hit Higher wattage - fuller flavor / mouth feel Higher voltage - thicker pull

I'm in the same subreddit -- it's amazing what people come up with.

>But that's the problem - it's normalised the recreational ingestion of nicotine

What's the problem with recreational ingestion of nicotine? It's a light stimulant; I'm not sure why this is any worse than caffeine. And certainly isn't worse than other medications like opiates or amphetamines.

I'm not a cigarette smoker, although I love cigars and probably have one or two a month on average.

>What's the problem with recreational ingestion of nicotine? It's a light stimulant; I'm not sure why this is any worse than caffeine. And certainly isn't worse than other medications like opiates or amphetamines.

You're not wrong. But that's the problem - it's not enough to say "sure X is harmful, but so's Y, so it's alright". Ingesting nicotine by itself is a hell of a lot less harmful than taking it with tar and everything else that comes in a normal cigarette. But it's still a highly addictive substance, and personally, my concern is that marketing something highly addictive to the public (and, dare I say it, young people) is really seedy.

> But it's still a highly addictive substance

I'd call it slightly addictive. It seems it only becomes highly addictive in concert with other ingredients of tobacco smoke, at least that's what the German Wikipedia [1] has and it references [2,3,4,5,6,7] (I didn't read those myself as I can't say I understand their terminology)

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotin

[2] http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v30/n4/full/1300586a.html

[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9089846

[4] http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_la...

[5] http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/1/75.short

[6] http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v31/n8/full/1300987a.html

[7] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53018/

But its not addictive. I totally wish it was, but its not. The addictive part about smoking is psychological, placing the nicotine into a pill, gum, or a vapour pipe doesn't really help you stop smoking.

It sure did for me — I went from a twenty year long, two pack a day cigarette habit to e-cigarettes a month ago. I immediately preferred vaporization to smoking, and honestly haven't wanted an ordinary cigarette since.

I tried e-cigs last year. They weren't that robust (I ordered a Chinese package from Taobao) and didn't do anything for me besides break. Maybe I'll try again when I can find something higher end.

> That's a shame. The "smoke" from e-cigarettes is just vapour

Saying "just vapor" means nothing here; consider "just chlorine vapor," for instance. Obviously the substance that has been vaporized is the important part. The most common e-cigarette vapor, propylene glycol, does have very low toxicity. But you still might not want to inhale it constantly -- no longitudinal, long-term study has been performed that simulates the e-cigarette use of PG and shows beyond doubt that it is safe.

> and no more harmful to the people around the user than steam from a kettle.

Nicotine is a known carcinogen, and e-cigarette vapor contains nicotine. Tea kettles do not release vaporized nicotine. The e-cigarette vapor may have a low concentration of nicotine after being exhaled, but again, nobody has extensively studied the results of breathing second-hand e-cigarette vapor over a long time period. Your assertion is completely unsupported by evidence.

> I'm harming nobody but myself with it.

You cannot back that up with evidence. This is your guess, and it could be wrong.

Now, I happen to think that it is _likely_ that e-cigarettes will be shown to be much less dangerous than tobacco cigarettes. But my opinion, just like yours, is meaningless since it's not backed up by evidence.

> Nicotine is a known carcinogen

Is it? All I can find is that it promotes tumor growth if the tumor is already there but doesn't cause them by itself.

>> I'm harming nobody but myself with it. >You cannot back that up with evidence. This is your guess, and it could be wrong.

Clearstream [1] was done and at least one other study (can't remember the name atm). Nothing completely conclusive but at least it points towards it being rather safe.

[1] http://clearstream.flavourart.it/site/?p=1014&lang=en

> Is it?

I may have been too conclusive there; the CDC only says:

"Nicotine is a teratogen (capable of causing birth defects). Other developmental toxicity or reproductive toxicity risks are unknown. The information about nicotine as a carcinogen is inconclusive"

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ershdb/emergencyresponsecard_297500...

Yeah, I wouldn't say that Nicotine is not a toxic/dangerous substance, it certainly is :)

> All I can find is that it promotes tumor growth if the tumor is already there but doesn't cause them by itself.

What's the carcinogen in chewing tobacco?

Also, the idea "it's only harmful if cancer is already present" can be weak; consider prostate cancer, which is present in all men.

Not to forget that you don't always know you have cancer. So you might cut into your time where it's still easily treatable.

I wonder if anyone has studied the health outcomes of nicotine-only users eg: patches, or gum?

Aside from the nicotine, typical e-cigarette vapour is basically the same as the fog produced by a really common kind of fog machine.

The problem is, and you can't see this because you're a delusional addict, is that allowing e-cigs is like legalizing a highly addictive food substance and then allowing McDonald's to make a burger out of it. It might be better for smokers than smoking, but it's still a drug addiction.

And then worse you're blowing that highly addictive substance into the air in a confined place and stinking the place out with a foul chemical smell of 'chocolate' or 'mint' or some other 'pleasant' smell just because you're so addicted you can't even go a couple of hours without your hit.

If you were a normal person, and not a junkie, you'd never smoke those things in public because you'd see how bizarre, odd and selfish thing it is to do.

So no, it's not just 'vapour' and you've got no right to try and convince people otherwise because you are, ultimately, a junkie justifying your addiction.

I'm a junkie too, but at least I admit it.

e-cigs are not addictive, which is the problem. As a device to get people to stop smoking much more dangerous cigarettes, they aren't very effective (yet).

> It might be better for smokers than smoking,

It most definitely is better than cigarettes.

> but it's still a drug addiction.

And so is caffeine in coffee or sugar in coke or adrenaline from running. Human beings are quite easily addicted to many things (some better than others).

> If you were a normal person, and not a junkie, you'd never smoke those things in public because you'd see how bizarre, odd and selfish thing it is to do.

Self righteousness is actually not effective in this case at all.

> So no, it's not just 'vapour' and you've got no right to try and convince people otherwise because you are, ultimately, a junkie justifying your addiction.

Strong perfume is also not just vapour and can be downright annoying, especially for someone who is allergic.

> I'm a junkie too, but at least I admit it.

Great. Because someone who hasn't been addicted to something bad before has absolutely ZERO clue about what is going on (skinny people telling fat people to eat less, non-smokers telling smokers to just stop smoking...its so easy right?).

I'm not a junkie nor an addict. I have used e-cigs in the past, as I enjoy the flavor. There are liquids that do not even contain nicotine. I have used it in public. Your assertion that only a junkie would use one in a public place has been debunked.

"it's not just 'vapour'"

Citation needed.

"The "smoke" from e-cigarettes is just vapour"

No it's not. "The levels of the toxicants were 9–450 times lower than in cigarette smoke"

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/03/05/tobac...

Would it help to know that it isn't smoke? There is no reason at this point to assume there is harm from them (i.e. give them the benefit of the doubt). The vapor is propylene glycol, which is the same thing used to generate 'fog' at concerts, etc.

It's too bad they are calling them e-cigarettes because it triggers responses like yours where people apply their notions of regular cigarettes to them. The only thing they actually have in common is nicotine, which is not the harmful part of regular tobacco products.

On the hobby side of the vape scene, there's a concerted effort to remove the 'cigarette' from the equation. A lot of the original modders started with flashlights (as far as I am told).

Years ago I participated in a study to test the effects of smoke machines. I was working at a large arcade that threw huge parties with DJs and such on the weekend. Naturally, we had smoke machines. The researchers found that the PG had no effect on our respiratory system, which was actually what concluded that vaping would be a good alternative to smoking.

As far as I know, the only emission from must e-cigs is water vapor. I'm not a fan of second hand smoke at all, but a friend if mine uses an e-cigarette and it doesn't bother me or my wife in the slightest.

Given my experience with them, I'm of the opinion that people who gripe about them are being judgmental based on the association with smoking actual cigarettes, which is legitimately disgusting.

Water is not vaporized in e-cigarettes, typically propylene glycol and nicotine are. Thus the emissions are propylene glycol, nicotine, and possibly whatever other impurities were vaporized due to poor manufacturing. Multiple analyses have shown bad things present in various e-cigarette liquids. Perhaps the higher quality liquids are more pure, but who knows?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/health/policy/23fda.html

Citing that horrible FDA study is comparable to saying that electronic devices are unsafe because you tested the cheapest available clones you could find in China. Here are just a few analyses that are more current.

[1] http://truthaboutecigs.com/science/13.pdf

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23701634

[3] https://zeecigs.com/PDF/Gamucci-electronic-cigarette-Lab-Stu...

I think it is pretty certain that car exhaust is harmful. Did you drive today?

I always find the anti-smoking crowd incredibly hypocritical when they jump in a car without second thought. There are many cities in the world where it is claimed the pollution is equivalent to x cigarettes per day.

I also wonder how many control experiments are done to deduce that "second hand smoke" is causing many of the problems described, as opposed to air pollution from diesel engines.

E-cigarette use is almost entirely in place of cigarette use, so it should probably be encouraged. I doubt the vapour is dangerous second hand.

I wouldn't say it's "not dangerous" but definitely a lot less dangerous and offensive than smoke. 100%

What leads you to believe they might be dangerous?

Inhaling any particulates or vapours which could deposit on your lungs is potentially dangerous.

I was splitting hairs though, because essentially nothing is completely free of danger. I do think it's much much better than smoke.

Since it's the same chemical that is used at live event and nightclub to generate 'fog', I sure hope it is not dangerous.

What exactly do you hate about it? You're unsure of the harm, and quick searches seem to indicate no harm, so is it just the aesthetic?

Mostly psychological and irrational. I don't like the feel of the vapor in my face, it definitely feels and smells off-putting. It's the unseemliness, the (my Wikipedia-level understanding) lack of scientific evidence backing up claims of non-harm. And if you do it in a theater it's distracting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com