●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byFrosty Piss ( 770223 ) * writes:
E-Cigarettes With Nicotine Increase Your Risk of Heart Disease
I'm shocked! SHOCKED I TELL YOU!
But I'll bet there's a hell of a lot less tar!
byTatarize ( 682683 ) writes:
The important bit is that when compared they should be compared with cigarettes not with nicotine-less ecigs or dummy e-cigs. And you will find that cigarettes kill 400k people a year. Whereas e-cigs will kill a couple people with heart attacks and stimulant linked deaths and maybe a doofus screwing up and overdosing through utter stupidity, but you will *never* get to 400k deaths in a year.
Add to this the fact that this research will be used to attack e-cigs and this research will end up causing many thous
byjandersen ( 462034 ) writes:
The important bit is that when compared they should be compared with cigarettes not with nicotine-less ecigs or dummy e-cigs. And you will find that cigarettes kill 400k people a year. Whereas e-cigs will kill a couple people with heart attacks and stimulant linked deaths and maybe a doofus screwing up and overdosing through utter stupidity, but you will *never* get to 400k deaths in a year.
So, in a word, you are saying that e-cigarettes are less dangerous than real cigarettes, and you are trying to sell the idea that the difference is enormous ("400k deaths" vs "a couple"), which is something you simply know nothing about, but which researchers are working on finding out. Nicotine is a known nerve agent in the same generic class as Sarin and VX, just point out the scary ones; it is worth studying the health effects of long term, recreational use of it. So far there appears to be little reason
bysound+vision ( 884283 ) writes:
It doesn't seem like a stretch that cutting out the majority of carcinogens in the smoke leads to less cancer. And that eliminating the tar cuts the risk for obstructive lung diseases. If it doesn't, then our whole understanding of the health risks of tobacco are deeply flawed. That could be true, but as far as I'm concerned, the burden of proof is on the people who are claiming ecigs are *not* significantly less harmful than whole tobacco.
byjandersen ( 462034 ) writes:
It doesn't seem like a stretch that cutting out the majority of carcinogens in the smoke leads to less cancer. And that eliminating the tar cuts the risk for obstructive lung diseases. If it doesn't, then our whole understanding of the health risks of tobacco are deeply flawed. That could be true, but as far as I'm concerned, the burden of proof is on the people who are claiming ecigs are *not* significantly less harmful than whole tobacco.
I absolutely agree - as I think I already stated in my original post. And as I spend some effort on saying, medical researchers are now studying whether e-cigarettes are actually as harmless as we expect them to be. The gp seemed to suggest that it was fundamentally wrong to even research this question, and I tried to put forward the arguments for why we must research these things rather than take it on faith. We haven't studied it in depth, so we don't know yet - what is so wrong about wanting to know the truth?
And that brings me to perhaps a more important subject, namely why are people especially here on /. so on the jump to take offence of anything they don't agree with - or maybe haven't quite understood after a first, superficial reading? Personally, I don't really mind that my comments here get modded down, but it is deeply worrying that a forum that is notionally about "news for nerds - stuff that matters" (or used to be) is now dominated by people that appear to be unable to read and understand a thoughtful and factual text, simply because they think they disagree with it. I have seen this several times - I have written something, and then people think they contradict me by putting forward the same arguments I just gave. Or the opposite: I write something that is clearly insulting and provocative, and get modded up and people "agree" with me with opinions that are clearly the opposite of what I said. So what is the point of trying to communicate on /.? (That was a rhetorical question, by the way)
Parent
twitter
facebook
●nt threshold.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...