198
Vaping likely to cause lung and oral cancer, Australian researchers find in new review of evidence
(www.theguardian.com)
LOL, it's totally safe actually! Terrible!
this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2026
198 points (93.4% liked)
science
26259 readers
532 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
dart board;; science bs
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It was only a matter of time til this came out
Basically, breathing in any kind of particulates is bad for you, and very fine particles (like smoke/vapor) can pass through cell walls and interact with your proteins resulting in transcription errors during cellular reproduction. For instance, asbestos fibers can tangle with and damage chromosomes [2]. The more often you do it, and the more volume you expose your lung tissue to, the higher the odds that something will go catastrophically wrong.
Vapes don't actually produce vapor. They atomize the liquid, basically like how an essential oil diffuser functions.
O... K...
I don't think the distinction is relevant... Either way we're talking about particulates that are small and light enough to be airborne, be breathed into the lungs, and to interact with lung tissue such that some of the chemicals are absorbed into the bloodstream (which is how you get the drugs from the vape into your body).
The link that you provided does not say asbestos fibres tangle and damage chromosomes.
It says DNA damage is from oxidation of DNA, similar mechanism to tobacco smoke. Vaping ingests Dihydroacetone, the product of heating glycerol.
No it doesn't. The study that claims that had methodology designed to produce Dihydroacetone.
Two of the vapes they used were the old CE4 style clearomizers with coils that had a max wattage rating of 6W, which was their starting wattage.
The third vape was an obsolete but more modern style tank, and the only way they were able to get the GC/MS to detect it was to dope the sample with Dihydroacetone. Considering that all 4 wattages produced roughly the same levels and that those levels were 0.01-0.08ng, or 10x less than the clearomizers, it effectively means the results were negligible.
The average temperature for a nicotine vape is 400-450F, which is not high enough to break glycerin down into DHA.
Same goes for the formaldehyde study where they fired the same carts at nearly 2x the normal voltage for 90 seconds with almost no airflow.
Ah, did you look at the second link?
It is somewhat more difficult to understand the “chromosome tangling hypothesis.” We recently found that asbestos fibers including crocidolite are actively taken up by several different kinds of cultured cells. Furthermore, those fibers enter both the cytoplasm and the nucleus. In this situation, asbestos fibers may tangle with chromosomes when cells divide. Whether there is a specificity of tangling for any chromosomal region is the next question to be addressed.
Which comes with this image:
Granted there isn't a lot of experimental evidence for this (that I can find, anyway), but it makes sense that tiny little silicate needles that get absorbed by the nucleus interfere with the chromosomes both mechanically and chemically.
I also found this:
A normal (A) and an abnormal (B) anaphase from asbestos-treated Syrian hamster embryo cells. Note the asbestos fibers (arrows), some of which appear to be associated with displaced chromosomes (arrowheads) in the abnormal anaphase. Reproduced from Hesterberg and Barrett (42) with permission.
Asbestos fibers are observed in the mitotic cells and appear, in some cases, to interact directly with the chromosomes. From these studies we propose that the physical interaction of asbestos fibers with the chromosomes or structural proteins of the spindle apparatus causes missegregation of chromosomes during mitosis, resulting in aneuploidy.
Fun fact:
Your lungs are designed to breathe AIR.
This what you mean?
sexy boy
Not random chemicals from a Chinese plant?
Hmm, the link to the study in the article doesn't work, so I can't read it (or check who paid for it), but it sounds like it only says that there's a chance it might cause lung cancer, it doesn't say the rate. Also:
“We’ve always assumed that vapes are safer than cigarettes, but you know, what we’re showing is that they might not be safe after all. We have no conclusive way in which to get people off the vapes.
“So in smoking, we’ve got ways in nicotine gum, various drugs that we can give people to stop them from smoking. The evidence regarding people stopping vaping is very inconclusive.”
But nicotine gums and the like also work for vaping, it's still nicotine in the end
I will add that this study looked at biological markers of inflammation and so on with cells exposed to vape vapor. If you are looking at it and saying "looks like there is activity, so maybe there is harm, more likely than not" but not saying anything about how much harm then it is not very useful for making choices. Sure, it is not without some risk, but a quantified risk assessment would say that based on the current best evidence it is likely not anywhere near as bad as smoking and it is easier to taper nicotine out if you want to do that.
From a public health/harm reduction perspective vapes may be a useful tool if used correctly, or a terrible additional harm with increased addictiveness and known dangerous chemicals, such as the popcorn lung issues. We need rational science and appropriate regulation, not panic and bizarre policies.
The ironic thing is that there are no known cases of popcorn lung associated with vaping. The condition happens if you inhale high concentrations of diacetyl (the butter flavoring in popcorn) over a long period of time. So it has been preemptively outlawed as an additive to vapes in most countries for quite some time.
The only actually known case where vaping has caused lasting and terrible damage was when black market THC vapes were adulterated with Vitamin D in California some years ago, which is highly toxic when inhaled. It had gone through the media to show the dangers of vaping in general, even though that would be like saying cigarettes should be outlawed because people got harmed from gas station spice
Yeah, pretty much every case of popcorn lung was in industrial workers, and one dude who had an addiction to huffing microwave popcorn.
What's conveniently left out is that cigarettes have an order of magnitude more diacetyl than vapes.
Plus, most eliquid manufacturers stopped using DA and AP a decade ago, and it was never used for fruity flavors.
Whoa ho ho didn't realize I was entering the braindead takes dept
I mean obviously, inhaling nicotine can't be healthy or neutral for you... How does it compare to real cigarettes? 100x less bad? oh ok
You sure about that 100x?
It's 95% less harmful according to the NHS.
Always remember that 87.3% of all statistics online are imaginary
Whoa there silly, it's 92.5%
I like it when people preach these conclusions. X is 100x less damaging than y so I will use x 100 more! With cigarettes now you have to go outside smoke a few and go back in. With vapes just suck on. Not to mention the new vaping liquids with the nicotine salts that are so much more addictive than nicotine from a regular cigarette.
There was a brief moment when I thought nicotine will die out but then somehow we now have bubblegum flavoured disposable vaping pens littered all over. At least we got rid of the plastic straws. Fucking twats!
I guess it really depends on what you're vaping. To that end, I seriously doubt whatever's inside the sketchy disposables the majority of the public uses is 100x less bad.
I don't really think that it depends. Sure there might be a very few very toxic liquids but mostly it's just flavored glycerin and propylene glycol. Smoking a cigarette is literally like taking deep breaths over a campfire. That's a wild mixture of elements.
The flavoring is the problem, ultimately. Most haven't been studied to establish their inhalation safety, or how they will react with the base ingredients and other flavorings.
That's why I only vape unflavored eliquid I make myself.
Whodathunkit!
It's not that obvious. If this causes cancer then boiling potpourri and possibly anything where you're inhaling the fumes of a boiling liquid concoction, including food could cause cancer. It's possible this could lead to chefs wearing ventilators if more discoveries are made.
Since vaping has been around since 2006, we should have seen a whole lot of such cases, if it's likely.
Take a look at the timeline for cigarettes. The time between something causing harm and someone putting together the statistics to prove that it does is not that short. 2006 was like yesterday. Kids that started vaping as children in 2006 aren't even old enough for a midlife crisis yet.
They knew smoking was harmful for a long time before it became a major public health issue.
There should still have been lots of cases. Where are they?
It takes over 25 years to see cancer effects of smoking.
But any source of inflammation is an increased risk of cancer.
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›