Worried about the toxins in e cigs/capes

[Glittery7]

Am hearing recently of research claiming vaping contains levels of carcinogenics such as nitrosamines and formaldehyde.

I love vaping and thought it was safe. I am still on 18mg nicotine in my liquids but was ok with that.

I'm panicking.

Any thoughts? I was happy to continue with my vaping indefinately as I really enjoy it but should I be aiming to quit asap?

Compared to absolutely nothing at all, they are still looking for proof that e-cigs are potentially harmful to health.

Have a read of Dr Farsalinos - a highly respected cardiac surgeon, it may help you to decide.

The formaldehyde studies are seriously flawed. Whenever they have found formaldehyde, the study has always involved overheating the atomiser. You wouldn't vape on it at that temperature, it would be a horrible 'dry hit'. Michael Siegel explains it well, as does Farsalinos.

Nitrosamines have been found in trace amounts - about the same as in nicotine gum.

There is sadly a very ugly propaganda war going on against ecigs. These won't be the last alarmist 'studies' you hear about.

And yes as Allergic says, they nearly always compare to fresh mountain air or something, when the comparison should be with smoking. Here is a good study that doesn't make that mistake. If you scroll down to table 4 you will see that both nitrosamines (TSNAs) and formaldehyde (included in carbonyls) in the ecigs tested are only a tiny fraction of those present in the actual fags. The amounts are so low that they get a < value - i.e. too small to accurately measure.

If you read a lot of stories- lots of them are written by people with connections to big tobacco companies. Think about it. They expect in another 10 years that ecigs will outsell traditional cigarettes. Granted there isn't much evidence to prove either way- but so far; i'll stick with my ecig over the thousands of chemicals that tobacco contains. I'll shit myself when the proof comes through and/or I get lung cancer/seriously ill.

It's not quite that simple, sherbert. I wish it was, it would be so much easier to discount the bad science if you could just point to tobacco funding.

Instead, there is a complex mixture of vested interests - tobacco companies as you say, but also pharmaceutical companies (who have seen sales of NRT plummet), tobacco control organisations (who are looking at a future where they are obsolete) and governments (who stand to lose billions in tax if a substantial proportion of smokers switch).

Clive Bates is good at explaining it. is good too and a bit more polite about public health bodies

What is noticeable is that the worst research frequently comes from California. There's a reason for that: They have basically gambled on smokers' lives through the and are now up shit creek.