I stopped smoking 31 years ago, and I hate the smell of it now, I too was a very heavy smoker but stopped overnight in March 1986, I hate it even if I walking behind a smoker in the street these days, I will cross the road to get away from it these days. Electronic cigarettes, I don't get where the '-tronic' part comes from to my mind they are electric cigarettes no bleeding -tronic involved whatsoever (someone will probably tell me they have a chip to control the temperature ) FRAGRANT god that is worse than REAL ciggies, it makes me want to puke when I am stuck somewhere with someone using a strawberry scented e-cig utterly revolting
i had a heart attack 20 years ago--was in intensive care for a week. up till then i was a 20 a day person. i havent smoked since. subsequently i was found to have very high cholestrol--in my case an inherited condition. i later discovered the problem with smoking--and having high cholestrol----is actually carbon monoxide poisoning !
Correct that is a large part of it. However the other large part is the build up of plaque on the interior of your arteries I am just about to buy a blood pressure measuring device as the other day when I was in hospital for a sigmoidoscopy they measured my BP before the procedure and after (I walked to the hospital as it is 10 minutes from where I live), before it was quite high 151 over 97 after it was 135 over 79. Now normally one might think oh that's great I was stressed out on the way up for this horrible procedure and now I am relaxed so it is a lot better, however I observed a difference and I want it checked, the first measure was right arm the second measure was left arm. It turns out that significant differences between your arms can indicate 'peripheral arterial disease', 10 or more points, on the scale, difference between arms indicates a problem
Got to say and I fully understand the arguments for and against but I think they should be banned in public like Oss says some of the smells are vile
The one I use has no odour but I understand what you are saying, electronic cigarettes have moved on somewhat from their initial development and you can buy ones now that look like the user is on fire when blowing the vapour out . Its all about the user taking some responsibility and being aware of the people around when using the e-cig. Regarding the odour, I hate it when I'm stuck in a confined space with a woman who is wearing too much cheap or expensive for that matter perfume, there are many odours we have to endure in a daily life.
Electronic cigarette smokers irritate me. Idiots who smoke cheap cigarettes irritate me. But sit me alongside somebody enjoying a quality smoke, a decent Davidoff cigar for example, and I have no problem, I can be a happy passive smoker.
My main worry is the whole lithium battery system being used. Note 7 anyone? http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/25/health/e-cigarette-explodes-in-mans-pocket/
E-cigarettes are no safer than smoking tobacco, scientists warn Vaping is no safer than smoking, scientists have warned after finding that e-cigarette vapour damages DNA in ways that could lead to cancer. Researchers at the University of California created an extract from the ‘smoke’ of e-cigarettes and used it to treat human cells in a lab. The exposed cells developed DNA damage and died far sooner than those left untreated. Nicotine free e-cigarettes caused 50 per cent more DNA strand breaks, while for those containing nicotine the damage rose three fold over eight weeks. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...o-safer-than-smoking-tobacco-scientists-warn/
This is either bad research or badly reported research. For example, they created an "extract", a process which of itself could produce false readings; did they try blowing unmodified 'smoke'? Fifty percent more than what? Ice cream?!
Let's face it cigarettes are harmful, be they with tobacco or electric - I stopped 38 years ago smoking - you can stop today!
I'll start with 'I have not read the science behind this assertion' but what do you imagine they would have done, I would expect a control to have been used, for example blowing air over the control samples (I am making this up they would almost certainly have a decent control) the fifty percent more would have been in comparison to the control, standard procedure. Vaping involves making some kind of liquid turn into a smoke, I have not looked up the constituents but I am guessing it is some kind of oil, real cigarettes are full of oils and tar, so they share something more than just nicotine. Are you criticising the Telegraph journalist for the way it was published or the scientists that performed the work that came to this conclusion. I would expect their work to be peer reviewed and I would expect others to perform similar research to make sure it was repeatable and I would expect others to be using slightly different methods to cross check the methodology. It is easy to dismiss a few words in a newspaper through personal bias, it is a lot harder to dismiss peer reviewed research, of course the journalist in the Telegraph is unlikely to report full details of the all the peer reviewed work, they only have a limited number of column inches, it is your responsibility if you doubt the conclusions to go and dig up that work and read it yourself, me I am only likely to do that once in a while, I trust the system in spite of the occasional frauds, fraud in science is always uncovered one way or another, reality is the ultimate reviewer. And in terms of reading a peer reviewed paper the vast majority of people will be in deep doo-doo before the end of the first paragraph, one of the young lads that works with me has a PHD in maths, I read his paper and it was an important proof of something that had hitherto only been confirmed by brute force computation, I was lost before the end of the first paragraph even though I understand the question he was answering
I wasn't expecting an essay in reply, Jim!! I would hope there was a control but we're not told what it was therefore the 50% figure may be accurate but it is meaningless. Hence my ice cream suggestion. We're told that the 'smoke' was modified and presumably was a gaseous cocktail that a human would be unlikely to 'vape'; what did they do, lace it with diesel exhaust fumes? We're given no details and therefore our points of reference, which would allow us to decide if vaping were less/more/as dangerous as smoking tobacco, are missing. As you may know, I am a former journalist and I am truly surprised that the Telegraph's editor allowed such a loosely-written piece to appear in print. I am not that shocked, however, as I do know that a lot of well-trained staff have left that paper in recent months.
The vapour from e-cigarettes is propylene glycol, for us growing up in the seventies it is the chemical used for disco smoke, remember that on the dance floor?
Drawing it straight into your lungs in concentrated form is probably a lot worse than ingesting a much diluted version as disco smoke once a week or so. Who knows, that is the point of the research. What happens when you introduce the essential oils that represent flavour? What do you get then, are electrically evaporated raspberry's safe, I reckon ordinary raspberries are probably pretty good for you in vitamin C at least, maybe a few more vitamins as well, I have not checked, but some kind of essential oil from the raspberry? Do essential oils interact and react with propylene glycol, when heated, who knows, that's the point of research! Probably Strawberry flavour is more popular, I far prefer Raspberries (in general)
All I know is that the government is losing a lot of tax revenue because of popularity of e-cigarettes and I'm sure in due course they will be taxing e-cigarettes and the liquid especially. Both the liquid and the e-cigarettes should be covered by the CE mark as to improve safety. At the end of the day it is pretty obvious to me that e-cigarettes are less harmful thank standard cigarettes, I think the e liquid just has a handful of chemicals in its make up compared with over a hundred in the regular cigarette. Nicotine is the addictive part of smoking which is obviously present in liquid but is generally thought as harmless on its own.
I draw your attention to two pieces of research, one by Cancer Research UK contained in this pdf: www.cancerresearchuk.org/sites/.../electronic_cigarette_marketing_report_final.pdf and http://www.researchprotocols.org/20...MD&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=JMIR_TrendMD_1 E-cigarettes are better than real cigarettes apparently, but there were concerns about the liquid that was being added. Then 2017 http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk...t-e-cigarettes-arent-as-dangerous-as-smoking/ With regards to the ditty in the Telegraph do you think then that was fake news?
What I'm looking forward to is a tobacco replacement that is safe, e-cigarettes are definitely a step in the right direction I do not think anyone can disagree with that
