
Vaping 'can damage vital immune system cells' - sjcsjc
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45170756
======
dave7
Key point from the article:

"Any smoker considering e-cigarettes should switch completely without delay."

~~~
marenkay
Or:

You could just survive 24 hours without smoking, after which physical
challenge is over. From there on it is just a fight against your brain, and
also being aware of the root issue that made you pickup smoking.

\- ex-smoker

~~~
marenkay
Why the downvotes? I was a smoker for twenty years, this is exactly how I quit
smoking.

~~~
krageon
If you have not spoken about this with other people who have quit/are
quitting, you should.

If you _have_ spoken about quitting with other people who have quit or are
still quitting, you would have found out that it is much harder for them than
what you are proposing. That, or some vanishingly small chance was hit and you
have only people around you who found quitting easy but somehow still smoked a
lot before doing so.

~~~
marenkay
I never claimed it was easy. I clearly stated you have to be aware of the root
issue that caused picking up smoking.

------
oliveshell
In this experiment, vapor "caused inflammation" and "impaired the activity of
alveolar macrophages, cells that remove potentially damaging dust particles,
bacteria and allergens."

So it's not great for lung function, but sounds orders of magnitude less bad
for you than smoking cigarettes.

Anecdotally, I quit vaping recently, as I'd grown frustrated with the 'chasing
the dragon' aspect (I was using its stimulant properties to help manage my
ADHD). I now find I get winded much less easily and generally have a little
more energy, which I've attributed to slightly improved lung function.

~~~
nyeus
Off-topic: What did you end up replacing vaping for to help manage your ADHD?
Or have you not found/(considered looking for) a replacement?

~~~
oliveshell
Firstly, I'm prescribed Vyvanse, which I find helps a _lot_ — it's certainly
my primary treatment method. I viewed the nicotine as a smaller, as-needed aid
in persevering through long projects.

When I stopped (because I had my wisdom teeth extracted), I used a nicotine
patch for a few weeks; however, I eventually found that simply being a little
more physically active helped enough that I no longer feel the need for that
extra cognitive "push".

~~~
LyndsySimon
Your story sounds much like mine - I took up vaping when I didn't have access
to Vyvanse (between jobs). It helps, but I found I liked it enough to
continue.

These days I use 6mg/ml juice, and use ~5ml per day on average. I've not found
any real negative effects after about a year. I go increase and decrease my
intake periodically, and the worst effect I've had is a "stuffy" feeling in
the morning when I hadn't vaped anything the evening before. Even that doesn't
seem to happen when I'm in a period of decreased usage; I've stopped for a day
or two before and didn't really notice.

FWIW, nicotine _does_ work as a cognitive stimulant, at least for me. It's
nowhere near as powerful as Vyvanse, but it's effective enough that it helps
me "get back in the flow" when I'm not interested in something but need to get
it done.

------
CosmicSteve
I think it could be safely assumed that vaporizing nicotine and propylene
glycol would lead to some negative health implications. Still, great job by
the researchers in building precident.

That being said, I'm personally curious above the health implications of dry
herb being vaporized at a controlled temperature, that prevents any
combustion, and controls the release of carcinogenic materials like
Benzene/ammonia.(produced at around 400 degrees by marijuana vaporization)

Think of a scenario like this: what if one uses a Volcano Vaporizer with dry
herb (marijuana). What are the negative health implications there at certain,
controlled temperatures? What about the beneficial implications? Do they
cancel out?

Or are the negative health implications on par with the sensationalized
articles about eating cured meat giving you a whopping 2% overall increased
risk of cancer? Basically, I'm very curious if there is a way to drastically
reduce the risk of vaporizing with the controlled vaping of dry herbs vs.
these e-liquids containing nicotine/other nasty things.

~~~
alexisnorman
With marijuana cartridges, I have been wondering what kind of temperature
something like a 1100mAh c-cell battery maxes out at; because they can get
_hot_.

I use mmj for an autoimmune disease, so it feels pretty ironic to read vaping
damages immune system cells; will have to go back to the Volcano.

~~~
snark42
> I use mmj for an autoimmune disease, so it feels pretty ironic to read
> vaping damages immune system cells; will have to go back to the Volcano.

Pure MMJ extracts are a different beast. This is almost definitely related to
PG/VG base used in electronic cigarettes. PG is used to kill airborne bacteria
in hospitals for instance.

------
onemoresoop
I applaud that they state it's still safer than regular cigarettes. I gifted a
friend who is a smoker with an e-cig package. A couple of months later he is
still smoking cigarettes as he thinks these may be more dangerous..

~~~
acchow
What does he base that conclusion on?

~~~
onemoresoop
Silly headlines like e-cigarettes not as harmless as thought, etc..

~~~
ben509
Even this expert phrases it in a way that gives an impression that is
completely contrary to reality:

> "I don't believe e-cigarettes are more harmful than ordinary cigarettes -
> but we should have a cautious scepticism that they are as safe as we are
> being led to believe."

I don't believe that crossing the street is more dangerous than cliff-diving,
but we should be cautiously skeptical that it's safe.

------
djohnston
"They caution the results are only in laboratory conditions and advise further
research is needed to better understand the long-term health impact - the
changes recorded took place only over 48 hours."

~~~
compcoffee
Are we supposed to look negatively upon this study because they say "more
research is needed"? Sounds like good science to me.

~~~
Obi_Juan_Kenobi
In the right context, it's good science. The issue with this, and most science
reporting, is that the context is missing or otherwise difficult to
understand.

This is quite preliminary work, using cell cultures instead of actual
organisms. It's quite common for effects seen in cell cultures to be very
different from what is observed in whole, living tissue. But it can still be
very useful for research: it can identify key diagnostic metrics, suggest
mechanisms, and otherwise guide future research.

One issue here is that we already look at general lung function quite well:
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-14043-2](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-14043-2)

This study examines the general lung function of _non smokers_ who began
vaping, with metrics taken from the start of vaporizer usage. This is about as
direct as you can get, though is still an observational study (i.e. they did
not randomly assign people to start vaping, for obvious ethical and adherence
issues).

The synthesis of these studies would be to include more analysis of lung
immune function. The results already suggest that inflammation is not an issue
as suggested by the cell culture.

------
johnbustram
One thing I'm confused about with vaping:

There is plenty of information about vaping w/ e-cigarettes. The negative
effects and what not.

However this information is not extended to vaping marijuana. I understand
that e-cigs use oil/liquid of some sort. In the marijuana world there is dry
herb vaping (heating the plant until it vaporizes), oil, wax, etc. I imagine
some of the e-cig issues extends to marijuana for oil and wax perhaps but does
dry herb suffer the same consequences.

I've tried researching this information but usually all the comes up are
"e-cigs are bad" or "vaping vs smoking marijuana" articles. It would seem
marijuana is relatively hush hush in this category.

~~~
waylayla
Part of the reason you see less research on marijuana is because there are
more obstacles to doing such research. Here is a 2017 National Academy of
Sciences report on the topic:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK425757/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK425757/)

~~~
gdaxthrowaway
> [...] the federal government has not legalized cannabis and continues to
> enforce restrictive policies and regulations on research into the health
> harms or benefits of cannabis products that are available to consumers in a
> majority of states

FFS, if I would want to invest into something that has barriers to conduct a
research, I'd give zero fucks about the law. Zero. These governments drive me
nuts.

~~~
freeone3000
This is not a position that can be taken by people who intend to publish
research under their own names. It'd be akin to signing a confession.

~~~
gdaxthrowaway
Correct. This is exactly what I wouldn't care about. You first create it and
then you let it evolve on its own. Like Bitcoin. Anonymously.

~~~
freeone3000
Unpublished anonymous illegal drug research isn't exactly in short supply.
Credibility is.

------
lingzb
I've been wondering about the safety of vaping.

Glad to see it's not as bad as smoking (a low bar) but will still kill you.

~~~
compcoffee
> _Glad to see it 's not as bad as smoking (a low bar) but will still kill
> you._

I think inhaling _anything_ into your lungs will probably affect them
negatively. But it wouldn't surprise me if vaping was healthier than LA (or
Beijing) air. Everything in moderation.

~~~
sjg007
[https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/no-the-
econo...](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/no-the-
economist-1-day-in-beijing-is-still-not-equal-to-smoking-40-cigarettes/)

------
dqpb
Though I've grown up surrounded by drug use, I still find it shocking and
fascinating to read people's comments about their addiction.

It's hard to fully grasp the mind-fuck of being reliant on your own self
destruction.

------
RickJWagner
Seems intuitive to me-- anything you ingest into your body has potential for
harm. We pay a price every time we take something in.

Vaping and marijuana are two hot topics these days. They're less costly than
tobacco and alcohol, but are certainly not free.

In the end, we all decide how to spend our lives. Some pleasures are worth the
cost, others are not.

------
blubb-fish
for a second I was worried that this refers to vaping weed - my little VapCap
M can't do no harm ...

------
1996
And it is known by the state of California to give cancer to rats - just like
anything else in California

~~~
dqpb
I've never understood the point of those signs that say "Some products in this
store are known by the State of California to cause cancer".

What is the law that requires them to tell customers they are at risk but not
have to disclose which items put them at risk?

~~~
criddell
[https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/health-and-safety-code/hsc-
sect...](https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/health-and-safety-code/hsc-
sect-25249-6.html)

------
luizfzs
More than smoking damages it?

~~~
k_
They don't mention immune system cells specifically, but they do say vaping is
still much less harmful

> However, Public Health England advises they are much less harmful than
> smoking and people should not hesitate to use them as an aid to giving up
> cigarettes.

-

What annoys me, though, is that while cigarettes are banned on most public
places here (in France), people tend to use e-cigarette anywhere from work
(open space) to transports, restaurants, bars, etc.

If they can't stop smoking, it seems to be better for them to be "vaping", but
they should stop forcing us to endure their chemicals (although I'm not sure
if this can be toxic for people around - but that's more or less the point
too: we don't really know what it does to our body, so it shouldn't be allowed
everywhere).

We've already fought cigarettes (well, I'm an ex smoker so I shouldn't really
say "we" here), we shouldn't have to start over again for another form of
smoking.

~~~
nbar1
>The review concluded there was "overwhelming evidence" they were far safer
than smoking and "of negligible risk to bystanders"

~~~
onemoresoop
Remember the days when people were smoking in offices, univs, hospitals, etc?
Vaping is 100x less disgusting, less harmful. I see people vaping and it
doesn't smell, they don't leave ashes and butts everywhere and it doesn't
bother me at all. The second hand nicotine vapor is not "a thing" unless you
go to a room where a visible cloud of e-cigs vapor is present. I think we are
much better off with people vaping than smoking. The only problem is that kids
might start vaping because a lot of these juices are fruit flavored.

~~~
k_
There are e-cigs that do smell, the one in my previous company "vaping" in the
open space used some kind of flavor that had a strong [unpleasant] smell, even
over 5 meters away.

Overall it's a great improvement. I just hope this improvement doesn't come
with regressions (more [e-]smokers, especially in public areas and maybe in
newer generations) precisely because it is so great an improvement.

~~~
onemoresoop
You're absolutely right and those are somewhat bothersome. Also there are some
units, the bigger ones I've noticed, that have the ability to create a thick
dense cloud of vapor as if an invoked spirit is about to materialize into
Alladin. These are not cool at all.

At the same time i saw small electronic cigarettes that people use discretely
and I think that's a big win to the old nasty and stinky analog cigarettes.

