Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
E-cigs Not So Safe E-cigs Not So Safe

07-28-2014 , 10:25 AM
07-28-2014 , 10:38 AM
Safer than cigarettes.
07-28-2014 , 10:44 AM
Quote:
“There’s no question that a puff on an e-cigarette is less toxic than a puff on a regular cigarette,” says Stanton Glantz, director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco.
.
07-28-2014 , 11:48 AM
Still safer than reading a Paul D post.
07-28-2014 , 12:08 PM
Don't hate because people think you suck.
07-28-2014 , 12:09 PM
Paul D still pimpin' for Big Pharma, spreadin' dat FUD.



If you care, the dangers of very high wattage vaping have been acknowledged in the e-cig community. Thankfully, almost nobody vapes like that to begin with, outside of a few knuckleheads on youtube who have to custom build their own devices to get that much power out of them.

In related news, scientists have concluded that tricycles are much more dangerous than previously thought after studying examples of people using tricycles improperly. They released this finding in a carefully worded press release chock full of alarmist language, couched in qualifiers and weasel words.
07-28-2014 , 12:20 PM
In other news people do nicotine.
07-28-2014 , 12:21 PM
Just say no to e-drugs kids. There's nothing that makes the Hulkster madder than seeing kids who get high on electrons and don't live up to their potential. Before you know it, they move up to harder drugs like snorting freebase surge protectors.
07-28-2014 , 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spanktehbadwookie
In other news people do nicotine.
The shameless marketing of nicotine products to children continues unabated in the ketchup industry.
07-28-2014 , 12:49 PM
just dont smoke anything, trust me i work out and all that now and its taken more then a year to recover. not worth it imo.
07-28-2014 , 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ariolis30
just dont smoke anything, trust me i work out and all that now and its taken more then a year to recover. not worth it imo.
Spoken like a True American, brother. The Hulkster is proud.
07-28-2014 , 08:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry "Hulk" Hogan
Just say no to e-drugs kids. There's nothing that makes the Hulkster madder than seeing kids who get high on electrons and don't live up to their potential. Before you know it, they move up to harder drugs like snorting freebase surge protectors.
Is there a 2+2 Gimmick HoF?

There should be.
07-29-2014 , 12:58 PM
And here I thought I could trust Stephen Dorff for medical advice.
07-29-2014 , 11:09 PM
Quote:
Electronic cigarettes, marketed as safer than regular cigarettes, deliver a cocktail of toxic chemicals including carcinogens into the lungs, new studies show

...

“There’s no question that a puff on an e-cigarette is less toxic than a puff on a regular cigarette,” says Stanton Glantz, director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco.
This story is a pretty great example of ****ty science reporting btw. Notice how we get a lot of 'things can' or 'think' in that story? Notice how we get a lot of things are bad but nothing with actual bad effects quantified?
07-31-2014 , 06:25 PM
Il take my chances lol
07-31-2014 , 10:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVaut1
And here I thought I could trust Stephen Dorff for medical advice.
He was Deacon Frost though
08-02-2014 , 09:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikestoys
This story is a pretty great example of ****ty science reporting btw. Notice how we get a lot of 'things can' or 'think' in that story? Notice how we get a lot of things are bad but nothing with actual bad effects quantified?
It's an article, not a study.

There are links in the article to studies that may answer some of that for you.

That said, articles usually cherry pick what they want and misconstrue studies all the time.

b
08-02-2014 , 10:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernie
It's an article, not a study.

There are links in the article to studies that may answer some of that for you.

That said, articles usually cherry pick what they want and misconstrue studies all the time.

b
ikes is 100% right in that post. It's an alarmist, fear mongering article based almost entirely on an alarmist, fear mongering meta study. If you go out looking for potential safety concerns, you will find them in anything and everything. Don't even get me started on the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide.

A responsible study of ecigs without an agenda - you know, the sort of thing that could actually be used to intelligently guide public health policy - would evaluate the relative safety in comparison to smoking, and the successful quit rate (also along with relative safety, Hai Chantix!) in comparison to other methods.

In absolutely every single category, ecigs are >>>>>>> better than anything other than quitting cold turkey. There are hundreds of millions of people around the world who can't seem to quit cold turkey. Based on pretty consistent data from developed western countries, conventional anti-smoking campaigns started running into diminishing returns about ten years ago. There is no way to get smoking rates into the single digits without having some sort of alternative available, and it's pretty goddamn irresponsible for health officials to be constantly trying to undermine the best one out there with junk science and scare tactics.

Last edited by zikzak; 08-02-2014 at 10:41 AM. Reason: heh, oops
08-02-2014 , 11:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zikzak
ikes is 100% right in that post. It's an alarmist, fear mongering article based almost entirely on an alarmist, fear mongering meta study. If you go out looking for potential safety concerns, you will find them in anything and everything. Don't even get me started on the dangers of dihydrogen monoxideLOL nice .

A responsible study of ecigs without an agenda - you know, the sort of thing that could actually be used to intelligently guide public health policy - would evaluate the relative safety in comparison to smoking, and the successful quit rate (also along with relative safety, Hai Chantix!) in comparison to other methods.

In absolutely every single category, ecigs are >>>>>>> better than anything other than quitting cold turkey. There are hundreds of millions of people around the world who can't seem to quit cold turkey. Based on pretty consistent data from developed western countries, conventional anti-smoking campaigns started running into diminishing returns about ten years ago. There is no way to get smoking rates into the single digits without having some sort of alternative available, and it's pretty goddamn irresponsible for health officials to be constantly trying to undermine the best one out there with junk science and scare tactics.
I didn't say Ikes was wrong. You may want to reread what I wrote. Especially the last line.

b
08-02-2014 , 11:28 AM
Well the post is still ****ing stupid. I didn't confuse it for a "study", and the fact that it is not a "study" does not excuse the terrible reporting.
08-02-2014 , 11:34 AM
Journalists #1 trolls
08-02-2014 , 11:34 AM
Inb4 one early study with vague findings is used to justify public bans on ecigs
08-02-2014 , 11:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeedz
In way after one early study with vague findings is used to justify public bans on ecigs
fyp
08-02-2014 , 06:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikestoys
This story is a pretty great example of ****ty science reporting btw. Notice how we get a lot of 'things can' or 'think' in that story? Notice how we get a lot of things are bad but nothing with actual bad effects quantified?
"things can" and "could contain" and "may have" are pillars of the right wing platform of hope. ... Why is it suddenly anathema just because some cub reporter is doing it? He or she is covering her bases. It's not like she's lying about shale oil reserves or predicting what "terrists" might do if we don't respond exactly how chickenhawks demand.



#stfu_hypocrite
08-03-2014 , 10:24 AM
lol and itt jiggs tries to derail a thread about e-cigs into peak oil. Thanks for the reminder of why you were banned from 2+2.

      
m