Lungs are simply not made for absorption of substances of the vapor. The lung tissues are very delicate and are there for the exchange of gases. Everything else is a pollution and causes irritation.
I suspect it’s what got mixed in the nicotine. It is probably impossible economically to have a pure nicotine probably dangerous even. I haven’t read the article to be fair.
The first cited research regarding DNA damage is a dead link. It says “error: this is not a published article” or something like that.
The second cited research is an abstract claiming that 20% of mice developed lung cancer after being exposed to vape smoke for 9 weeks. The methodology is blocked behind a paywall, but I’m betting they concentrated trace components and blasted mice with it for two months straight. This isn’t very informative; if I concentrated the carcinogens found in normal city air, I could probably achieve a higher kill rate.
A better example of this strategy would be if I blasted mice with extremely high intensity UV radiation to prove that the sun was dangerous. Sure, 90% of mice would quickly get skin cancer, but it doesn’t tell us how harmful the sun is in real scenarios. Blasting an animal with a lifetime worth of sun in an hour is more dangerous than gradual exposure.
Tobacco the plant has a host of carcinogens. No matter where you put tobacco -mouth, lungs, bladder, nose, ass, wherever-it causes cancer. The article’s claim that nicotine causes lung cancer but nicotine gum is safe is pretty ridiculous.
Source: I’m a chemist. Part of my schooling was making mundane results appear as sensational as possible.
Idk man seems obvious to me.
how so? isn’t it the smoke that’s bad?
Lungs are simply not made for absorption of substances of the vapor. The lung tissues are very delicate and are there for the exchange of gases. Everything else is a pollution and causes irritation.
I suspect it’s what got mixed in the nicotine. It is probably impossible economically to have a pure nicotine probably dangerous even. I haven’t read the article to be fair.
I read it. It’s not compelling.
The first cited research regarding DNA damage is a dead link. It says “error: this is not a published article” or something like that.
The second cited research is an abstract claiming that 20% of mice developed lung cancer after being exposed to vape smoke for 9 weeks. The methodology is blocked behind a paywall, but I’m betting they concentrated trace components and blasted mice with it for two months straight. This isn’t very informative; if I concentrated the carcinogens found in normal city air, I could probably achieve a higher kill rate.
A better example of this strategy would be if I blasted mice with extremely high intensity UV radiation to prove that the sun was dangerous. Sure, 90% of mice would quickly get skin cancer, but it doesn’t tell us how harmful the sun is in real scenarios. Blasting an animal with a lifetime worth of sun in an hour is more dangerous than gradual exposure.
Tobacco the plant has a host of carcinogens. No matter where you put tobacco -mouth, lungs, bladder, nose, ass, wherever-it causes cancer. The article’s claim that nicotine causes lung cancer but nicotine gum is safe is pretty ridiculous.
Source: I’m a chemist. Part of my schooling was making mundane results appear as sensational as possible.
I suspect it has to do with repeated inhalation of something that is not air, but I’m not a doctor nor a scientist so this is purely vibes