Vaping is distinctly less harmful than smoking.

We don't actually know that yet. The main studies are still ongoing, because this tends to be the kind of thing you measure over decades, and we haven't had those yet.

Does it increase the risk of Alzheimers? Does it riddle your brain with cancer at a later stage?

We don't know.

We do know that it is short-term less harmful, than something where most of the concerns are long-term.

▲

loeg 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Smoking's harms are observable in the short term! You don't need long-term longitudinal studies to show smoking is bad. And we have known mechanisms for that harm that relate to combustion. We know mechanically that vapes are not combusting plant material, and we also don't see the same kinds of obvious harms in the short term. It takes willful blindness to the ills of smoking to suggest that vaping might be as harmful or more harmful than smoking.

	▲	shakna 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It takes "wilful blindness" to suggest vaping can be understood completely today. We already know there are unexpected side-effects. Like kids starting to go blind, when they start young. I didn't use Alzheimer's as a random example above. There is a known correlation. So... Maybe it isn't combusting plant material. But it is probably causing brain damage in some form or another - and that is precisely the kind of symptom that requires a longitudinal study to understand the impact!

▲

grvdrm a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I suspect (anecdote) vaping is just as bad if not worse. People vape EVERYWHERE. Almost any place you can't smoke, people still vape. So - that it happens that way makes me think the total exposure is a lurking problem.

▲

HPMOR a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I actually do not know if this is true.

▲

hoppp a day ago | parent [-]

Vaping is not healthy but there is a lot less material inhaled. No fine particles which do real damage.

So vaping is still unhealthy but less than smoking plant matters.

▲

nobody9999 a day ago | parent [-]

>Vaping is not healthy but there is a lot less material inhaled. No fine particles which do real damage.

Propylene glycol covers the alvoelae and over time (~15-20 years) blocks uptake of oxygen, causing respiratory failure and a slow, painful death.

Vegetable glycerine coats the lungs and over time (~10-25 years) blocks fluid from draining out of the lungs, causing congestive heart failure/pulmonary edema. Which ends up causing one to drown in their own bodily fluids and a slow, painful death.

If you disagree, please cite any long term studies that disprove the above. Thanks!

▲

hoppp 18 hours ago | parent [-]

I do not disagree, but can you cite the studies proving this?

Also proof that people did die from respiratory failure due to propylene glycol inhaling?

You shouldn't ask for disprove studies if you don't provide proof studies.

▲

nobody9999 17 hours ago | parent [-]

>You shouldn't ask for disprove studies if you don't provide proof studies.

My point was that we don't know what the long-term effects of vaping are. Because there hasn't been time for the longitudinal studies that will tell us what those effects are.

I requested studies refuting those claims because I know they don't exist. I also know that studies confirming such claims don't exist either.

Making the statement that "...vaping is still unhealthy but less than smoking plant matters" is disingenuous because we have no idea what long-term (note that qualification) effects vaping does or does not have.

It might be that vaping increases human lifespan by 80%. Or it might be that vaping decreases lifespan by 25%. Or it might be that vaping either causes or prevents dementia. We just don't know. It may be that none of those things apply. Who knows? Not me. And not you or anyone else. Yet.

Because vaping hasn't been widely used for long enough to make claims about its long-term effects.

My claims are just as valid as yours ("...vaping is still unhealthy but less than smoking plant matters").

That was my point. My apologies for expecting you to make the conceptual leap and understand the above by making similarly unsupported claims as the one you made. I guess that wasn't the best way to do so. I'll try to do better in the future.

I hope I've cleared up your confusion.

	▲	hoppp 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Im not confused. A lot of the context you are inferring is just in your mind. It's funny to see someone invent a narrative then have a conversation with himself while trying to gaslight another person that they invented the narrative.