![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 |
+See "Research reveals potential health risks in aerosolizing nicotine salts and metal toxins that are produced.[4]" That content failed verification. It is not a falsehood masquerading as a fact?
Unsourced content and failed verification was restored after the article was redirected. No content was merged. That would be inappropriate to merge unsourced or failed verification content. The main article has content about a variety of different devices, including pod mods. I hope other editors will help remove the unsourced and failed verification content. E-cigs including pod mods produce aerosol rather than smoke. Is it appropriate more than half the article contains unsourced content? See current discussion. Also see WP:REDUNDANTFORK. QuackGuru ( talk) 06:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
minthreadsleft = 4
Minimum threads left = 4
This is the default setting at User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo. Example 2: Incremental archives.
It encourages discussion. Auto archiving avoids problems with arguments about premature closing of discussions. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 15:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
To resolve a dispute I am seeking consensus/ideas about including a sentence reguarding seizures and their link to vaping products in the intro -- in a close location to the vaping related lung outbreak. There have been over 100 reported cases of these instances, which may be linked to the e-cigarettes high nicotine content. https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/ctp-newsroom/some-e-cigarette-users-are-having-seizures-most-reports-involving-youth-and-young-adults
Also would like to remove the sentence "The risk of early death is anticipated to be similar to that of smokeless tobacco." from the intro or change it to emphasize the fact that it is likely additional hazards will be discovered. In 2019, it is not possible to anticipate the chronic side effects of vaping, just as the long term effects of smoking were not fully revealed until after many decades of research. And with the rise of both THC and Nicotine only vaping related lung illnesses, it is no longer up to date to compare vaping to products like chewing tobacco because vaping is shown to more substantially impact the lungs and arteries.
Also, a similar sentence in the lead "The risk from serious adverse events was reported in 2016 to be low." should come out of the intro because again it does not account for the most recent incidents. More importantly though, this sentence is a total misrepresentation of the original source, which was about "Corneoscleral Laceration and Ocular Burns Caused by Electronic Cigarette Explosions". The concluding paragraph of this study says "ECs pose a number of health safety risks beyond nicotine content and gateway drug concerns."
The only thing even along the lines of this sentence is embedded in the paragraph "Protective eyewear and even mouthguards may be advisable during EC use, although strict compliance is unlikely. Although the number of serious adverse events is small compared with the number of EC users worldwide, the consequences may be devastating to those involved in an EC-related blast. Because the FDA collects only voluntary reports,2 adverse events may be underreported. Further study is warranted to investigate the explosion hazard presented by these devices."
Lastly, at some point I think it would be appropriate to expand on the fact that some experts now think vaping may be more addicting than burned cigarettes. This is due to the fact that nicotine content has increased almost 3X in the leading brands (in unregulated markets like US) and e-cigarettes are capable of delivering nicotine to the brain faster than paper cigarettes. SCBY ( talk) 21:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I still think it isn't right to keep info on many recently discovered adverse effects out of the main article while keeping the two dated studies finding little harm so prominently. The more adverse effects that come up, the more the balance of the article and its tone from the beginning should change. But adding the info about seizures to sub-article is a step in the right direction. I see it is up to 127 cases being reported in popular press but CDC website only shows those 30 something cases. SCBY ( talk) 22:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok SCBY ( talk) 22:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
There is content about the sales ban in Massachusetts in the subarticle. [3]. This article is the not the best place to add the sales ban in Massachusetts. [4] List of vaping bans in the United States is the best place to add the bans.
The NY 90-day flavor ban also does not belong in this article. [5] I'm sure there are more bans and the List of vaping bans in the United States subarticle can cover those. QuackGuru ( talk) 10:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
See /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Pod_mod QuackGuru ( talk) 13:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
This article has content presented as present circumstances, but supported by old sources. It requires serious re-writing now. A first step would be to change the present tense claims to past tense. When the only source to support a "present condition," is from 2014, the statement at least should be changed to past tense. For example, if the article says,
After temporarily changing all the present tense claims to dated past tense claims ("as of 2015 there was"), then the entire article requires revision based on 2019-2020 sources. ( PeacePeace ( talk) 00:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC))
A 2019 source supports this statement: "In 2019, an outbreak of severe lung illness across multiple states in the US was linked to vaping.[38]" The material which precedes that statement seems to contradict that statement. And note that this statement in past tenses supported by 2019 source, is preceded by contrary claims presented using the present tense, though their source may be 2014 or 2015. Many articles on Wikipedia seem to err by using a present tense where the content will soon become obsolete since the situation in at a given time may change in the future, making the present tense claim false. ( PeacePeace ( talk) 00:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC))
I am just getting things started. Others with more time will have to dig up the WP:MEDRS sources.
US cancer death rate sees largest-ever single-year drop, report says. By Audrey McNamara, Jan 8, 2020. CBS News. Article quote with emphasis and info added:
new report from the American Cancer Society. ... "This steady progress is largely due to reductions in smoking [tobacco with hundreds of additives, many proven to cause cancer and subsequent declines in lung cancer mortality, which have accelerated in recent years," reads the report. ... The American Cancer Society has said e-cigarettes are "likely to be significantly less harmful for adults than smoking regular cigarettes," |
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 02:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
These redirects are duplication or similar to other redirects. No readers is going to first type "marketing of/for" to search for an e-cig article. I don't know how to bundle the redirects and nominate them together. QuackGuru ( talk) 02:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_December_30
Article was deleted against the Deletion review. QuackGuru ( talk) 03:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
CDC just released this report. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6902e2.htm?s_cid=mm6902e2_w
I don't have time right now, but its content should be added to the article about the lung illness. Among the main facts is that the vast majority of those with lung illness consumed THC cartridges from informal sources, 82% and 78% respectively. KristofferR ( talk) 21:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Here is some info that might be included somehow in the Wikipedia article. Others with more time than me might check this out, and its deeper sources.
A new study by UNC School of Medicine ... The scientists tested a proof-of-concept sample of 148 e-liquids and also performed a standard gas chromatography and mass spectrometry analysis of the ingredients. They found that these ingredients varied tremendously across the e-liquid products tested, and on the whole, more ingredients meant greater toxicity. The greatest toxicity effects came from two flavor compounds, vanillin and cinnamaldehyde, which have been widely used in e-liquids. |
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 11:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
(unindent). I didn't see all the subarticles. I saw some of the subarticle links found at the beginning of subheadings. It is hard to see the full spread of health-related subarticles unless one remembers the navbox at the bottom of the main page. It is in the external links section. I think it should be in its own section: "See also".
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 11:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
{{ Electronic cigarettes}}. I think it would serve a much more useful purpose if it were added to the top of the article rather than to the bottom.
I am not saying this idea of putting navboxes at the top of an article is always a good idea. Some navboxes only cover sideways-related articles, not directly related articles.
For example; {{ Cigarettes}} should not go to the top of this article. It should go on the bottom of the article, if it goes on this article at all. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 14:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Operation Condor |
---|
Wikipedia:Navigation template: "The two main types of navigation template are navboxes and sidebars."
See also: Wikipedia:Article series. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 08:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
| ||
---|---|---|
![]() |
||
(unindent). I left a note on their talk page: User talk:Ambrosiawater. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 00:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
See /info/en/?search=Talk:Nicotine_pouch#Proposal QuackGuru ( talk) 13:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
New sources were recently added to the article. [7] User:Sunline09, can you put all the new source here on the talk page. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
References
I noticed Electronic cigarette#Frequency did not follow WP:SYNC. Since all the previous versions did not follow SYNC I copied the content from the lede of the subarticle. QuackGuru ( talk) 23:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Request reintroduction of this line, deleted by QuackGuru. Genetics4good ( talk) 17:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
For medications we often have 100s or 1,000 of brand names. For drugs we often have 100s of lay terms.
We often have sections under "Society and culture" were we cover this. Putting them in a hatnote here is not the best formatting as it makes things harder to edit and somewhat hides them. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I tried to include the name that the FDA and other U.S. entities have adopted- Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) in an effort to assist readers and researchers, but it has been repeatedly reverted. I do not consider it a 'lay term'. I have also (for 8 years) restrained myself from being an editor on these pages because I am an e-cigarette user and Harm Reduction advocate. Over these 8 years I have also read and collected over 1900 papers, articles on all aspects of the subject mainly for my own health decisions. I chose to trust in the WikiPedia community's purported and theoretical pillar of Neutrality, but this page, it's constant editing (some justified as vandalism, others clearly to set a tone to the subject), and my recent experience leaves me with no confidence in WikiPedia, and have turned from an advocate of it as trustworthy, to just another web info source that requires close and time consuming scrutiny. This, after criticizing others on the web for bashing it rather than helping to correct it by properly and in good faith contributing. It's likely that this statement is a "violation" of some sort of WikiPedia rule, and it will get deleted but I needed to make it clear that this page was the final straw for me with WikiPedia. Jd4x4 ( talk) 17:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
that the medical community in different countries takes a different view of e-cigarettes. Here in the UK the strategy is to get people off tobacco by any route possible. Quitting with conventional NRT is preferred, but for those who can't or won't, converting to e-cigs is viewed as preferable to continuing with tobacco. But I think that in other countries, the medics tend to take a more skeptical view. Is that an accurate and fair thing to put in the article?— S Marshall T/ C 17:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
in the UK, e-cigarettes are widely supported as a reduced risk nicotine alternative for smokers, and has [sic] received support from a number of agencies(page 2, column 1, paragraph 2) but doesn't explicitly contrast that with the rest of the world, and this which gives us
Recently, authoritative UK groups, including Public Health England (PHE), the Royal College of Physicians, the Smoking in Pregnancy Challenge Group, and the National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training (NCSCT) who provide training for all SSS staff, have stated that they believe benefits from e-cigarettes are likely to be far greater than harms, including in pregnancyand then, after several intervening pages, gives us
In the U.S., surveys of health professionals caring for pregnant women have indicated that many appear to have concerns about the use of e-cigarettes; obstetricians and gynecologists were uncertain about how to advise on e-cigarettes due to lack of guidance, and of US family physicians who provided obstetric care, most respondents thought that e-cigarettes are unsafe to use during pregnancybut again that's comparing UK vs US and I'm sticking together sentences from different parts of the document to get there.— S Marshall T/ C 15:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I think this is the most verbose and hard-to-read article I've ever read on Wikipedia. This doesn't look at all like some definitive article, rather a case where every damn person who wanted to was able to add something. Sanpitch ( talk) 16:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
CDC has multiple times stated very clearly that Vitamin E acetate adulteration has been linked to the EVALI outbreak.
"Vitamin E acetate is strongly linked to the EVALI outbreak. Vitamin E acetate has been found in product samples tested by FDA and state laboratories and in patient lung fluid samples tested by CDC from geographically diverse states. Vitamin E acetate has not been found in the lung fluid of people that do not have EVALI." https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/severe-lung-disease.html
"Thanks for joining the call today. As the year draws to a close based on extensive investigations by state and local public health authorities, CDC scientists, our partners at FDA, and expert clinicians, we are able to make more definitive conclusions about the outbreak of e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury or EVALI. Some of the support for these conclusions comes from CDC-authored articles being released today in the New England Journal of Medicine as well as two articles in today’s early release of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. As of December 17, 2019, a total of 2,506 patients have been hospitalized for EVALI including reports from all 50 states. Sadly, there have been 54 deaths from 27 states. But based on the data being released today, we can make more definitive statements about the trajectory of the epidemic.
[...]
Second, we are confident that Vitamin E acetate is strongly linked to the EVALI outbreak. In a second report in the New England Journal of Medicine, CDC scientists found Vitamin E acetate in lung fluid washings, what we call bronchioloalveolar lavage samples in 48 of 51 samples of patients with EVALI but not in a variety of comparison patient groups. The patients with EVALI came from 16 different states, suggesting this was not a single local supplier of tainted products. These expanded patient clinical specimen results are consistent with previous work including identification by FDA and others of Vitamin E acetate in THC-containing products collected from patients with EVALI, as well as Minnesota’s recent report that Vitamin E acetate was in seized THC products from 2019 but not in any samples from 2018.
Given all of these findings, including today’s study, we can conclude that what I call the explosive outbreak of cases of EVALI can be attributed to exposure to THC-containing vaping products that also contained Vitamin E acetate." https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2019/t1220_telebriefing_update_lung_injury.html
Some here also disagree that Vitamin E acetate is an adulterant, but not the CDC: "It’s pretty clear when you look at Vitamin E acetate, it’s a goopy, viscous liquid that’s pretty similar in the liquid viscousness to THC oil. So if you were kind of trying to extend your THC oil, it would be a pretty good way to do it. So how word of mouth or social media helped — contributed to this phenomenon, I don’t think right now anyone believes it was a single dealer or single producer that added Vitamin E acetate to THC oil. I think there is a sense that this was a distributed adulterated supply."
--- Are any of you still disputing that the CDC has been quoted correctly above? KristofferR ( talk) 05:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Isn't there plenty of evidence that tocopherol acetate is harmless to vape? E.g., [10]. Isn't there evidence here that the vitamin E oil is being used to dilute as-yet unidentified substances and sold as cannabis extract? It seems like a pretty bad idea to even use the word "linked" for this situation without further context for a substance that is known to be harmless for aerosol administration when there is no question that it's being used for its color and consistency with some other unknown psychoactive compounds likely to blame. The CDC has never actually said vitamin E is harmful if inhaled, have they? EllenCT ( talk) 22:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
This is based on a primary suorce "In a study comparing the birth weight of babies born to mothers who smoked, vaped, or did neither it was found that the birthweight of infants born to EC (e-cigarette) users is similar to that of non‐smokers, and significantly greater than cigarette smokers. [1]."
We should be using secondary sources per MEDRS. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
This article could sorely benefit from major existing section reorganization, beginning with putting the TOC immediately after paragraph 1, and moving what are currently paras 2, 3 and 4 into the relevant current TOC sections, adding sections as appropriate. I would certainly volunteer to do that, but I don't have much experience with Wiki Markup. Is the visual editor an option for this page? Jd4x4 ( talk) 18:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Personally I'm an ex-nicotine addict; I smoked tobacco for thirty years and then quit using conventional NRT. This was before I'd ever heard of vaping. If I'd known about e-cigs at that time, I might very well never have quit.
I understand why so many nicotine addicts are evangelical about vaping. I think it's important that this article reflects the medical sources' caution about how safe vaping is or isn't.— S Marshall T/ C 23:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
The introduction in this recent revision is so much better and easy to read than the current and previous very difficult to read version, I want to know what precisely it's detractors feel is inferior about it? EllenCT ( talk) 16:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I do think that revert was problematic. Looking at Doc James' logged edits for that evening, we can see how many articles this user maintains, how fast he edits, and how little time he spent looking at the article before deciding to revert. He took a little less than eight minutes over it, during which time he was actively editing the article. Now, I'm willing to stipulate that Dr Heilman is an extremely fluent reader, but I do not think it's plausible that in that tiny amount of time, he was able to thoughtfully and critically evaluate each of the 42 (forty-two) revisions he removed with that revert. In other words, I see this as good evidence that Doc James is reverting revisions he doesn't understand.
This is a problem behaviour that's been ongoing for at least five years and has gone all the way up to Arbcom. In
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles in 2015, I
specifically discussed this issue of misdiagnosing good faith edits as advocacy, bad faith, or vandalism. I'm disappointed that we're back here again. In that case, Arbcom reminded another editor, CFCF, to contact the editor they are in dispute with before resorting to reverting
, and I would like to ask Doc James to reflect on their advice.—
S Marshall
T/
C
18:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for that EllenCT and S Marshall for the revisions you made in the lead without causing bloat. When I reordered it I tried to retain everything in the previous versions that were not duplicated elsewhere in the entire text, and tried to categorize the rest without deleting. I too felt that it read and presented better if the lead remained concise but there were other points that were felt to be needed in the summary, one of note was the emphasis on youth cautions. Having said that, I would also like to hear Doc James comment on the need for more paragraphs rather than a synopsis of topics expanded upon later in the article. I hope that the comments I made on his talk page prior to my reorg re:undo's weren't upsetting but I didn't think the edit stats for this article looked much like consensus in action. Jd4x4 ( talk) 22:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I shall restore the contested revision, which enjoys widespread support here, and says in plain English "non-smokers should not try vaping", and I will add a little more to reflect Doc James's concerns. It's right that the article shouldn't evangelize for vaping but I insist on being allowed to make it readable.— S Marshall T/ C 09:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Including the US Surgeon General from 2016 [17]
The WHO from 2014 [18]
The National Academies of Science Engineering Medicine in 2018
[19]
We should look to see what their updated positions are sure but replacing these better sources with primary ones is not an improvement. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
While we are talking about secondary sources, why the removal of Public Health Scotland in the references to characterization/quantification of harm vs. smoking in the lead? Jd4x4 ( talk) 05:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I included these two sources and their summaries updating older sources:
Glasser, Allison M.; Collins, Lauren; Pearson, Jennifer L.; Abudayyeh, Haneen; Niaura, Raymond S.; Abrams, David B.; Villanti, Andrea C. (1 February 2017). "Overview of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: A Systematic Review". American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 52 (2): e33–e66. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.10.036. ISSN 0749-3797. Retrieved 24 February 2020.
“ | Conclusions
Studies indicate that ENDS are increasing in use, particularly among current smokers, pose substantially less harm to smokers than cigarettes, are being used to reduce/quit smoking, and are widely available. More longitudinal studies and controlled trials are needed to evaluate the impact of ENDS on population-level tobacco use and determine the health effects of longer-term vaping. |
” |
Farsalinos, Konstantinos (1 January 2018). "Electronic cigarettes: an aid in smoking cessation, or a new health hazard?". Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease. 12: 1753465817744960. doi: 10.1177/1753465817744960. ISSN 1753-4666. Retrieved 24 February 2020.
“ | Conclusions
E-cigarettes are one of the most controversial issues in public health today. There is little doubt that they are less harmful than smoking, but there is disagreement on the level of risk reduction. However, there is agreement that they are not absolutely harmless. Epidemiological evidence of long-term health effects is unavailable for now, and it will take years to generate final conclusions about the clinical effects of switching from tobacco to e-cigarette use. However, it is reasonable to communicate to smokers the relative risks of smoking and e-cigarette use based on current knowledge, keeping in mind that the ideal pathway is to quit without using any alternative products. While population studies suggest that smokers can successfully quit smoking with the help of e-cigarettes, randomized controlled trials and cohort studies have failed to show substantial effects. This is, at least in part, due to both methodological problems in studies and the complexity and dynamic evolution of the e-cigarette market, as well as the time-consuming research methods. While there is clear evidence that e-cigarettes are not attracting adult never-smokers, there is considerable experimentation among adolescents, including never-smokers. Recent evidence shows a trend for reduction of experimentation among youth while regular use appears to be largely confined to smokers, and smoking prevalence is continuously declining.... |
” |
EllenCT ( talk) 05:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
West, Robert; Brown, Jamie; Jarvis, Martin (7 October 2019). "Epidemic of youth nicotine addiction? What does the National Youth Tobacco Survey reveal about high school e-cigarette use in the USA? (Preprint)". Qeios. doi: 10.32388/745076.3. ISSN 2632-3834. Retrieved 24 February 2020.
Hallingberg, Britt; Maynard, Olivia M.; Bauld, Linda; Brown, Rachel; Gray, Linsay; Lowthian, Emily; MacKintosh, Anne-Marie; Moore, Laurence; Munafo, Marcus R.; Moore, Graham (1 March 2020). "Have e-cigarettes renormalised or displaced youth smoking? Results of a segmented regression analysis of repeated cross sectional survey data in England, Scotland and Wales". Tobacco Control. 29 (2): 207–216. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054584. ISSN 0964-4563. Retrieved 24 February 2020.
"Historical NYTS Data and Documentation | CDC". www.cdc.gov. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 17 December 2019. Retrieved 24 February 2020.
"CDC Fast Facts". www.cdc.gov. - is primary or secondary? Their data but compiled, checked, and verified by (them? specialist authors?). Jd4x4 ( talk) 18:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Not sure why this was removed "In 2019 an outbreak of severe vaping lung illness in the US was linked to e-liquid containing vitamin E acetate."? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Apparantly, safety risks can be improved by use of newer e-cigarettes which allow to control the temperature of the glow wire. The hotter the glow wire, the more aldehydes are formed (so keeping it only just hot enough to allow vaporising the liquid is best). Also, avoiding (certain) flavorings would also reduce health risks. [1]
References
The safety section does not mention any of this. Genetics4good ( talk) 09:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
So now the intro has a new paragraph about kids:
That's not compliant with the manual of style, violates WP:CRYSTAL, and has no sources whatsoever. This is just the same kind of ridiculous alarmism which has always plagued messaging about youth substance use and abuse. The fact is that kids are smoking a quarter as much as they were before vapes were easily available. The only evidence about the "potential" harm speculations are the fact that most kids who take nicotine are now doing it in a way that harms them 0.5% as much. We need to stop reaching for euphemism and alarmism. EllenCT ( talk) 18:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
There is a clear consensus for position statements #1, #2, and #4. No editors have supported position statement #3.
Editors agree that article version #1 should be restored. Based on the discussion in the RfC (including in the collapsed tangent), editors believe there are still more improvements that should be made to the lead and article. More discussions and RfCs are encouraged if there are disagreements about any changes.
Rfc participants are asked to support any of the following position statements, give their reasoning, and make any general comments or observations they might have.
Position statement #1: This article's
readability is poor.
Position statement #2: The lead requires improvement to comply with
Wikipedia:Summary style.
Position statement #3:
Article version #1 is unacceptably pro-electronic cigarette, advocates that readers should take up electronic cigarettes, or evangelises for e-cigarettes in any way.
Position statement #4:
Article version #1 is preferable to
article version #2.
Thanks for participating!— S Marshall T/ C 16:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Doc James:- ref your recent re-order of the lead paras, as a technical person my thinking was that a description of the vapor production (and it's own cautions) was a logical follow to the general item description, followed then by motivation to use, risk-benefits, youth concerns, and finally brief history & popularity. I find it interesting that you think risks-benefits and then vapor is more logical even though most of the risk-benefits are in fact due to the vapor. ? Comment if you like. Jd4x4 ( talk) 22:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Tangent, not related to this RfC
|
---|
|
The historical RfC does not overrule the one that was closed a few days ago.— S Marshall T/ C 22:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The first sentence usually contains one or two alternative names. Thus
"An electronic cigarette, also known as e-cigarette among other names, [notes 1] is an electronic device that simulates tobacco smoking. "
Is preferred per my understanding over
"An electronic cigarette is an electronic device that simulates tobacco smoking. Electronic cigarettes, also known as e-cigarette among other names, [notes 2]"...
Thoughts Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The amount of alternative names reflect the amount of names that have been used for this device by researchers since it's market introduction, and as such should be included somewhere (imo) for those doing archival research. Without referring to the 2000 articles in my own library, I believe that using the smaller number of names that have become common in the last 4-5 years in the lead would be appropriate. Jd4x4 ( talk) 12:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
References
We do not write text like "Non-smokers should not try vaping with or without nicotine." in the voice of Wikipedia. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm trying to make a lead for WP:JOHNNY. How may I communicate that Johnny shouldn't try vaping?— S Marshall T/ C 00:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
User:S Marshall All I was requesting was attribution of the statement in question. Here is a source
"WHO does not recommend the use of any form of nicotine for those who have never smoked or for children and pregnant women, and our report on e-cigarettes is consistent with this position."
So sentence could be "The World Health Organization does not recommend non smokers try e cigarettes." Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Electronic cigarette has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to suggest an addition to the following sentence: "The atomizer is a heating element that atomizes a liquid solution called e-liquid.[4]"
I would suggest adding: "Certain types of atomizers can be rebuilt, these are called RBAs (ReBuildable Atomizers)." With this link as a reference: https://vapingcheap.com/rba-rda-guide-rebuildable-atomizers/ ElPesero ( talk) 18:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
As I (barely) understand it (and the jargon), isn't an NPOV tag without a talk page topic on it a WP:DRIVEBY? Or, was the tag in reference to or caused by the Readability issue, and/or specifically my attempts to clean up the Lead? If not, it's confusing the readability topic resolution and I don't see the specific problems. I have refrained from editing the lead until readability is resolved so if the current version lead POV acceptable please remove the tag, or list the specifics please. Jd4x4 ( talk) 17:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Right, so the article reads like a whole heap of pseudo-medics telling us all how things should be, just like the tobacco and the smoking articles. I doubt most of these references, because they are made to fit the argument of the author. As a smoker that gave up with the use of a vape, after having smoked for 25 years, I can say vaping is the way to stop this. I stopped vaping 18 months ago, it did not make me want to smoke hard drugs as the article suggests. ZL3XD ( talk) 10:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
This edit was reverted because it is primary research and does not rely on a WP:MEDRS review. Cloudjpk has twice disputed and restored the revert. WP:BRD discusses why the burden of proof is on the editor wanting the statement to be included, so over to Cloudjpk for providing a strong source. Also, Cloudjpk is now warring over this content and primary sources, indicating the WP:3RR threshold. Zefr ( talk) 00:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Is there a reason cigs and vaping are page locked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.32.236 ( talk) 13:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Electronic cigarette has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article states:
People who vape are more likely to start smoking.[15
Change to,
there is no evidence that people who vape, especially teens, are more likely to start smoking. In fact, the number of teens who vape has now exceeded teens who smoke. In fact, three out of four teens who started smoking have carried the habit into adult hood. Based on the decrease in teen smoking, a cigarette free lifestyle will be continued on into their adulthood.
Proof is the end note itself. There is No mention in the article that vaping leads to cigarette smoking. The points I raised in the edit above, are in the article.
I submit the actual end note as proof that this is not true. Vapinglies ( talk) 11:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. When you took that sentence out, the source is now gone. If you can send me the source again, I'll show you the information (it was the end note attached to the sentence, "People who vape are more likely to start smoking.[15"
About my username. I hope to write other stuff too. I have always wanted to edit and write stuff on Wikipedia, but it wasn't till I read that article that I was motivated enough to do it. Thus the name. Vapinglies ( talk) 05:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Cloudjpk, I think that last paragraph in the lead is now confusing and convoluted. We need the lead to communicate a message that's clear, even to people who didn't do well in school -- or people who're still at school -- because the encyclopaedia is for them too. This means keeping the reading age of the lead low: simple sentence structure, simpler language, no equivocation. The greater complexity belongs lower down the article.
The intended message from that paragraph is that if you aren't already addicted to nicotine, then you shouldn't touch an e-cigarette, but if you are, e-cigarettes are likely less harmful than tobacco and they can help you quit (add citation to Cochrane meta-analysis).
Unfortunately your good faith quest for increased accuracy is undermining the goal of the paragraph as well as introducing concepts that don't appear in the Cochrane meta-analysis. I would ask that you please kindly consider moving this Wang-sourced business about e-cigarettes as consumer products, which isn't from Cochrane, lower down the article?— S Marshall T/ C 22:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello. As scientists often use the words electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), could these be added in the introduction?
83.228.145.34 ( talk) 21:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC).
Your article lists that e-cigarettes emit a VAPOR yet the article it references clearly states it emits an AEROSOL. This is a critical distinction. Vapor implies gasses only while aerosol specifically includes tiny particles. Studies clearly show that particles of lead are present in e-cigarette emissions. This is critical information that is misleading and implies that these products are safer than they actually are. The article you site is listed as the second resource in your citations. Please review and repair. This is VERY important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBairos ( talk • contribs) 18:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
E-cigarettes create an aerosol, often called vapor. Scientifically it's an aerosol but in the e-cigarette subcommunity it's pretty much always called vapor. Because of this, whichever term we use, we always get people who passionately insist that we change it— S Marshall T/ C 00:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2019 and 30 April 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Sailorbo. Peer reviewers:
Skyguythor.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2020 and 23 April 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Ismaray Ruiz.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Ajameson1.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Electronic cigarette has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There was s further rise to 82 million in 2021. There is a typo in the above sentence in the "was s". Casterianwizard ( talk) 16:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
This line isn't entirely accurate. Vaporizers have progressed far beyond a tobacco smoking replacement, and are better described as a nicotine aerosol delivery device.
The only similarities between tobacco smoking is the name "electronic cigarette" and the (optional) use of nicotine. In fact, the devices can be used to deliver a wide range of drug aerosols...
2603:8080:B400:5D2B:F5A4:4EB7:7888:1B17 (
talk)
16:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
This ignores RDAs which are neither a cartridge or a tank — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:B400:5D2B:F5A4:4EB7:7888:1B17 ( talk) 16:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with electronic cigarettes, and everything to do with THC distillate vaporizers.
The info isn't relevant to this article whatsoever 2603:8080:B400:5D2B:F5A4:4EB7:7888:1B17 ( talk) 16:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
User:Zvi Zig, I assure you that I'm aware of WP:NPOV. I invite you to reconsider your efforts to remove Wang et. al. and Hedman et. al. from the lede. These are recent meta-analyses, i.e. sources of the absolute utmost reliability. I have restored the longstanding consensus text for the time being, as would be expected in an editing dispute.— S Marshall T/ C 20:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Cbyler22 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Cbyler22 ( talk) 14:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC) I added results from more recent research studies (2021-2022). There are more symptoms and medical conditions that have been correlated with usage of e-cigarettes and I thought it worthwhile to add these relationships. Also, more recent studies show more youths using e-cigarettes than what was last added to the article. This usage among youths is continuing to accelerate in many countries but more severely in Canada and United States. The last topic that I included was an experiment done on women on the effects of dual smoking. These results were interesting and could possibly relate to a larger portion of the population who dual smoke and have trouble sleeping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbyler22 ( talk • contribs) 14:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Because e-cigarettes are so new, they haven't been studied enough to fully understand them. What I find to be most curious is what the long term effects of e-cigarettes will be. They haven't been out long enough to have reliable studies done showing the long term effects on the human body. When research about that does come out in the future it will be interesting to see the results and I hope to see them in this wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbyler22 ( talk • contribs) 01:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
The statistics cited are a couple years old, I think with the rapid rise in e-cigarettes, we should find new sources and update some of the metrics. EZMedMan ( talk) 16:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Lbw119 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Lbw119 ( talk) 07:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
The fourth paragraph of the article starts with "Nicotine is harmful and highly addictive.[14][15]". The first source (Mishra et al, 2015, "Harmful effects of nicotine") supports that claim, but the second source (Royal College of Physicians, 2016, "Nicotine without smoke: tobacco harm reduction") actually argues against nicotine being significantly harmful:
Nicotine is not, however, in itself, a highly hazardous drug (see Chapters 4 and 5). It increases heart rate and blood pressure, and has a range of local irritant effects, but is not a carcinogen. ... Although the nature and extent of any long-term health hazard from inhaling nicotine remain uncertain, because there is no experience of such use other than from cigarettes, it is inherently unlikely that nicotine inhalation itself contributes significantly to the mortality or morbidity caused by smoking. The main culprit is smoke and, if nicotine could be delivered effectively and acceptably to smokers without smoke, most if not all of the harm of smoking could probably be avoided.
DecipheredStones ( talk) 00:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
As use of nicotine alone in the doses used by smokers represents little if any hazard to the user, complete substitution of smoking with conventional NRT products is, for practical purposes, the equivalent of complete cessation in almost all areas of harm to the user
References
It is the smoke from combustible tobacco products—not nicotine—that injures and kills millions of smokers.
{{
cite journal}}
: URL–wikilink conflict (
help)
Beyond its addictive properties, short-term or long-term exposure to nicotine in adults has not been established as dangerous
I've been aiming at an lead that would be understood by a curious high school child who is considering taking a puff. This would include children in lower attainment quartiles. The recent edits to the second paragraph have hugely raised the reading age. We've made the article more specific and accurate, but the cost in accessibility has been very high. I'm minded to move the current second paragraph right down into the body text, and restore the previous version of paragaph 2.— S Marshall T/ C 16:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
According to a Public Health England 2018 report
Other aspects of nicotine products may potentiate addictiveness. These include the monoamine oxidase (MAO) inhibitors in tobacco smoke, substances added to tobacco such as sugars and polysaccharides, flavourings such as menthol or alkaline additives, as well as design characteristics. . . . In summary, nicotine addictiveness depends on a number of factors including presence of other chemicals, speed of delivery, pH, rate of absorption, the dose, and other aspects of the nicotine delivery system, environment and behaviour. Tobacco smoking with rapid delivery of nicotine to the lungs and absorption, has been demonstrated to be highly addictive, compared with the NRT patch, for example, which has much lower dependence potential and long term use. Addictiveness is related to pleasure as well as severity of withdrawal discomfort, which are hard to tease apart. The addictive potential of other nicotine products is likely to be within the two extremes set by the cigarette and NRT patch, with some products, eg snus, also being addictive. It is thus inaccurate to say that nicotine per se is highly addictive, such statements need to be more nuanced, as addictiveness is dependent on the delivery system (emphasis added).
Evidence review of e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products 2018 (publishing.service.gov.uk) Similarly, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report on e-cigarettes says
whether e-cigarettes cause dependence and what the relative magnitude of risk is relative to combustible tobacco cigarettes are questions that cannot be answered solely by the translation of knowledge about nicotine and combustible cigarettes . . . . Conclusion 8-2. There is moderate evidence that risk and severity of dependence are lower for e-cigarettes than combustible tobacco cigarettes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK507163/
Therefore, I think that writing that nicotine is "highly addictive" in the context of vaping is not supported.
Zvi Zig (
talk •
contribs
21:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
The pharmacokinetic properties of nicotine, or the way it is processed by the body, contribute to its addictiveness. When cigarette smoke enters the lungs, nicotine is absorbed rapidly in the blood and delivered quickly to the brain, so that nicotine levels peak within 10 seconds of inhalation. But the acute effects of nicotine also dissipate quickly, along with the associated feelings of reward; this rapid cycle causes the smoker to continue dosing to maintain the drug's pleasurable effects and prevent withdrawal symptoms.[32] [33]FDA " Nicotine Is Why Tobacco Products Are Addictive":
Nicotine is a highly addictive chemical compound present in a tobacco plant. All tobacco products contain nicotine, including cigarettes, non-combusted cigarettes (commonly referred to as “heat-not-burn tobacco products” or “heated tobacco products”), cigars, smokeless tobacco (such as dip, snuff, snus, and chewing tobacco), hookah tobacco, and most e-cigarettes... To date, no e-cigarette has been approved as a cessation device or authorized to make a modified risk claim, and more research is needed to understand the potential risks and benefits these products may offer adults who use tobacco products.[34] — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
It is thus inaccurate to say that nicotine per se is highly addictive, such statements need to be more nuanced, as addictiveness is dependent on the delivery system
whether e-cigarettes cause dependence and what the relative magnitude of risk is relative to combustible tobacco cigarettes are questions that cannot be answered solely by the translation of knowledge about nicotine and combustible cigarettes
It is possible that the addictiveness of tobacco cigarettes may be enhanced by compounds in the smoke other than nicotine....As e-cigarettes have evolved, their nicotine delivery has improved. This could mean that their addiction potential has increased, but this may also make them more attractive to smokers as a replacement for smoking. It is not yet clear how addictive e-cigarettes are, or could be, relative to tobacco cigarettes."NASEM report:"
cigarettes contain liquids (referred to as e-liquids) that are aerosolized upon operation of the device. E-liquids typically contain nicotine (although some users prefer zero-nicotine solutions), flavorings, and humectants. Nicotine is a well-understood compound with known central and peripheral nervous system effects. It causes dependence and addiction" — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 19:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Specific to youth, nicotine addiction and dependence leading to lifelong tobacco use is a major concern when considering e-cigarette use...Nicotine addiction is an adaption to nicotine exposure over time, and thus the high concentrations of nicotine in e-cigarettes are of major concern. Studies of e-cigarette use have revealed that, depending on duration of use and user puffing topography, serum levels of nicotine can be as high with e-cigarette use as with use of a conventional cigarette. In 1 study, the urinary cotinine concentrations (a biomarker for nicotine exposure) among adolescents using JUUL was even higher than the urinary cotinine concentrations of those who smoked conventional cigarettesIf you cannot see how that source supports the phrase "nicotine is highly addictive" then I cannot help you. I hope you find what you're looking for on Wikipedia.
Nicotine is highly addictive and hasnegative effects on brain development from the prenatal period into adolescence.
Many e-cigarettes sold in the U.S. contain far more nicotine than e-cigarettes sold elsewhere, which increases the risk of addiction and harm to the developing brains of youth and young adults.
Some ENDS products can result in rapid delivery of a similar amount of nicotine as modern American cigarettes, which contribute to high addiction potentials...As stated above, flavors are a key driver of youth initiation of ENDS, with the pharmacology of nicotine leading to addiction and continued, repetitive use
Never smokers
There is high certainty of evidence that nicotine-containing e-cigarette use can result in increased dependence on e-cigarettes (1, 13). Findings from cross-sectional studies indicate that nicotine-containing e-cigarette dependence may be associated with earlier age of initiation, daily use and later generation/more powerful devices.
Current smokers
There is low certainty of evidence that nicotine-containing e-cigarette use may result in increased dependence on e-cigarettes (1, 13). There is also low certainty of evidence that nicotine-containing e-cigarette use may have lower abuse liability[4] than tobacco cigarettes but may have a higher abuse liability than nicotine-replacement therapies
The addictive power of nicotine, particularly in the developing adolescent brain, and its adverse effects should not be underestimated
The appeal to users and primary concern for health advocates is nicotine, which is highly addictive
— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 05:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Many adolescents do not understand that e-cigarettes deliver nicotine and do not understand how addictive they are, often much more than traditional cigarettes... E-cigarettes containing high levels of nicotine are highly addictive for nicotine naïve teens.
ENDS contain nicotine, a highly addictive drug
In the categories, can someone replace "Nicotine products with harm-reduction claims" and "Heated tobacco products" with "Category:Non-tobacco nicotine products"?
Thanks. Lordal Planquette ( talk) 21:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC).
@ Zvi Zig, please follow WP:BRD and discuss this before reverting. Do not edit war to keep your preferred version of the text. The AHA is an established health authority, and it has this opinion as described in its policy statement. The fact that it disagrees with other sources is the point. We are showing that there is controversy, as we describe several sentences before. We also describe where the controversy comes from (animal studies) in plain language. What is the issue? — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 11:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
it is impossible for nicotine to cause hypertension and atherosclerosis when NRT and snus do not cause these effects.I seem to remember you spent several comments above explaining why it was inappropriate to use one mode of tobacco consumption (or derivative thereof) to prove or suggest anything about another (smoked tobacco for nicotine). Why is that acceptable now? And do you have a source to support the conclusion that nicotine does not cause transient hypertension? Because I agree with you, it is inappropriate to draw conclusions about nicotine delivered in a different form based on research on tobacco products like SNUS or highly regulated specifically dosed nicotine products like NRT.I would add that the position you take on Bhatnagar 2014 (which was authored by quite a few more people than just Benowitz) is not compatible with the interpretation that the Surgeon General has on that same review, which it summarizes as:
American Heart Association (AHA) (Bhatnagar et al. 2014): There are no reports of e-cigarette safety in patients with known cardiovascular disease...For patients with existing cardiovascular disease and stroke, or at risk of a cardiovascular disease event, intensive cessation counseling should be offered as soon as possible.
The American Heart Association and others have raised concerns about the impact of nicotine on cardiovascular health, especially in those with preexisting cardiovascular problems." — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Differences between US and UK on smoking and e-cigarettes
|
---|
Reminder that I am not saying we should not include UK health authorities, but just that NPOV would dictate we also include other countries' health authorities as well. |
|
I would deny that the UK authorities are more permissive towards tobacco
@
Zvi Zig you cannot use one agency's opinion to modify what another agency has said
[61]: The evidence is sufficient for the RCP and PHE, who I would suggest are not less reliable than whichever US authority that is
. Each health agency gets to say their peace, and we attribute those claims to that agency. We should never water down the attributed claims of one agency based on the claims of another, as this would violate
WP:V. —
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕)
12:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
The article states that EC vapor contains "some harmful substances not found in cigarette smoke"
. However, the source
[62] refers to "substances", not "harmful substances" not present in tobacco smoke.
Below is the full paragraph in the source (AJPH review):
Among potentially toxic substances common to both products, cigarette smoke generally contains substantially larger quantities than e-cigarette aerosol.42–44 However, e-cigarette aerosol contains some substances not found in cigarette smoke.45
The substances present in tobacco smoke are described as "potentially toxic", but those exclusive to e-cigarettes are not. Indeed, the reference [63] for the last sentence above relates to phenolic compounds detected at nanogram levels (ppb). It also states that its authors did not evaluate whether their presence will lead adverse consequences.
Phenolic compounds and flame retardants are certainly concerning at high levels, but it would be misleading to say that e-cigarettes contain "harmful substances not found in cigarette smoke" based on ppb levels not known to cause harm. As Paracelsus states
All things are poison, and nothing is a poison; The dosage alone makes a thing not a poison.
More generally, PHE writes of chemicals exclusive to e-cigarettes, "the main chemicals present in e-cigarettes only have not been associated with any serious risk" [64]. Zvi Zig ( talk • contribs 07:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
My problem with "potentially harmful" in the lead is that it raises the reading age quite a lot. "Potentially" is one of those words that comes naturally to people like yourselves -- i.e. those in the upper reading attainment deciles. (I expect the median Wikipedian has at least a college degree.) It's an appropriate word to use in the body text, but I want to keep the lead super-accessible because it's so likely that high school children will turn to this article when deciding whether to take a puff. I think we're aiming at a Flesch reading ease score of 70+.— S Marshall T/ C 20:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Over 80 harmful chemicals such as formaldehyde and metallic nanoparticles have been found in e-liquids. [1]Do we still think that's accurate?— S Marshall T/ C 22:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Rheaxx666 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by StellaJiang333 ( talk) 03:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The NPOV problem with the “Gateway Theory” section is that it puts out statements that while technically true leave out important context that could lead the reader to wrongly conclude that vaping as ones first method of tobacco consumption leads to higher rates of smoking of traditional cigarettes which so far as I know has yet to be casually proven. First sections first sentence is problematic as the “gateway hypothesis” is controversial and not yet ben definitively proven in the way advocates of the concept claim so far as I know and while the first sentence implies this by using the word hypothesis, it might be better for some readers if we were clearer on this post. We should find some way to state that the scientific/medical community has not yet reach a conclusion on the validity of the gateway hypothesis in part or as a whole, without going to much into depth on the controversy here (readers can read the Gateway hypothesis article if they want more details on the debate. As for the second sentence, the statement “Evidence shows that many users who begin by vaping will go onto also smoke traditional cigarettes.”, while indeed backed up by several reliable sources, is by itself potentially misleading. The problem here is that the statement leads to many questions which this section does not answer and thus certain readers not familiar with the controversial over the gateway hypothesis might draw firmer conclusions regarding causation regarding vaping leading to smoking of cigarette then the evidence supports. We sate state, at least roughly or within a range how many is “many” in this instance. Since we don’t known how many of these would have smoke traditional cigarettes anyways had e-cigarettes not been invented, we should be clear if the cited studies don't properly take that into account or can't for whatever reasons. As we don’t know if there are other factors that lead manny of the e-cigarette users in question in these cited studies to move to traditional cigarette smoking that would make the fact that they started out as vapors is purely coincidental, we should be clear on that. Now, i'll admit that I have not examined the all the cited studies depth so if they do indeed prove causation rather the simple correlation then we can mention that where applicable but I have not heard of such causal effect being proven with regard to the supposed gateway drug hypothesis of any "drug" (including tobacco/nicotine, alcohol, caffeine, cannabis, etc.) so I'll bet this is still merely at best hypothetical as are all previous gateway drug claims. What this all means if we need to rephrase and add to the statements first two statements in the section to clarify that some researchers and anti-tobacco advocates posit a gateway drug theory claim regarding vaping and later traditional tobacco smoking but that such claims are not yet proven in any causal way. Notcharliechaplin ( talk) 22:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the content that was added by WikiEd student Cbyler22 in the following two edits: [69] [70], because I believe it misrepresents the cited sources.
Firstly, the
Pisinger source (which, incidentally, is not peer-reviewed) exclusively focuses on the health effects of dual use of e-cigarettes and conventional cigarettes, and therefore doesn't support our article's claims about the health effects of e-cigarettes in general. So for example, our article says [the study found] a positive correlation between the usage of e-cigarettes and medical conditions such as myocardial infarctions, coronary artery disease and strokes
, where the source only says DUs [dual-users] had higher odds of myocardial infarction and stroke than CCU [conventional cigarette users]
and warns that there may be many factors contributing to the correlation. Additionally, the statement in the article about chemicals used in electronic cigarettes that are ... known to be toxic to humans
is not supported by anything in the source; I can only assume it to be based on a misreading of the section about toxins found in the bodily fluids of smokers.
The second source,
Balfour et al., is cited in support of some very firm statements on the health risks of vaping, which are at odds with the cautious approach taken by the source. For example, our article says the vapors in e-cigarettes can cause damage to the neurons in developing brains
, but the source is careful not to draw any definite conclusions on this point: Animal model studies have found that nicotine can affect maturation of brain parts associated with executive function and decision-making ... [However], the validity of extrapolation to humans is speculative. Whether impaired brain development with behavioral consequences occurs in young nicotine consumers is difficult to determine...
etc.
I think my removal of this content will be non-controversial, but feel free to revert and discuss here if need be. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 22:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
poor quality of child article and wide overlap with parent article fgnievinski ( talk) 00:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
The article implies that vapes are only available on prescription in the UK, and none have been approved. This isn't the case as vaping is all over the high street. This needs work. Secretlondon ( talk) 22:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Electronic cigarette has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like this to be added to the section about the marketing of electronic cigarettes this is a great survey. While electronic cigarettes have been marketed as a safer alternative to traditional cigarettes, surveys have shown that 90% of nicotine users state that they started abusing nicotine before the age of 18(Bhatnagar et.al, 2019). Highlighting the risk that e-cigarettes and their relationship to marketing can pose to young people. As nicotine use during adolescence can lead to long-term addiction, making it difficult to quit throughout adulthood. Mental health issues and other risky behaviors are often linked to nicotine use in adolescents, underscoring the need for comprehensive support and intervention for vulnerable youth. With 70% of teens reported exposure to e-cigarette advertising such as posters of Juul and other disposable vape companies in gas stations(Bhatnagar et.al, 2019). Concerns have been raised about the impact of marketing on youth and the glorification of the use of these products, emphasizing the need for tighter regulation and control over the marketing and sale of e-cigarettes to protect public health. https://www.ahajournals.org/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1161%2FCIR.0000000000000669 Kloran74 ( talk) 00:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
The page cites meta-analyses finding no evidence for EC aiding smoking cessation in observational studies, Hedman et al. explicitly stating the quality of included studies are "consistently low".
However, Vilanti et al have refrained from a meta-analyses for studies diverse in their quality. Instead, they graded studies based on their quality, and found that "Only a small proportion of studies seeking to address the effect of e-cigarettes on smoking cessation or reduction meet a set of proposed quality standards. Those that do are consistent with randomized controlled trial evidence in suggesting that e-cigarettes can help with smoking cessation or reduction."
How do we reflect these findings in the page? Zvi Zig ( talk • contribs 20:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
For people trying to quit smoking without medical help, e-cigarettes have not been found to raise quit rates,[24] but the quality of evidence on this was graded "consistently low"[25]is a ghastly sentence. We need to keep this article accessible for teenagers, including teenagers of lower reading attainment. That's a key purpose of writing an encyclopaedia.
the American Heart Association put out an article talking about the negative health effects of secondhand vaping https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/05/31/in-secondhand-vape-scientists-smell-risk
the article says that secondhand vape is even more dangerous than secondhand smoke on account of the heavy metals in e-cig aerosol particles.
vapes should also not be described as a "safe alternative" to cigarettes because they actually contain more nicotine than traditional cigarettes
Cat-with-the-'tism ( talk) 16:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
In the second paragraph of the "Young adult and teen use" section it states that young people who do not smoke vape… this comes across as a generalisation of All young people. It simply is not true and maybe should be amended JcwDenno ( talk) 10:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Electronic cigarette has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "am" to "an" in the first paragraph 203.221.193.234 ( talk) 06:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Merge the second and third sentences of the second paragraph using “although” 78.175.54.104 ( talk) 21:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=notes>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=notes}}
template (see the
help page).
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 |
+See "Research reveals potential health risks in aerosolizing nicotine salts and metal toxins that are produced.[4]" That content failed verification. It is not a falsehood masquerading as a fact?
Unsourced content and failed verification was restored after the article was redirected. No content was merged. That would be inappropriate to merge unsourced or failed verification content. The main article has content about a variety of different devices, including pod mods. I hope other editors will help remove the unsourced and failed verification content. E-cigs including pod mods produce aerosol rather than smoke. Is it appropriate more than half the article contains unsourced content? See current discussion. Also see WP:REDUNDANTFORK. QuackGuru ( talk) 06:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
minthreadsleft = 4
Minimum threads left = 4
This is the default setting at User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo. Example 2: Incremental archives.
It encourages discussion. Auto archiving avoids problems with arguments about premature closing of discussions. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 15:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
To resolve a dispute I am seeking consensus/ideas about including a sentence reguarding seizures and their link to vaping products in the intro -- in a close location to the vaping related lung outbreak. There have been over 100 reported cases of these instances, which may be linked to the e-cigarettes high nicotine content. https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/ctp-newsroom/some-e-cigarette-users-are-having-seizures-most-reports-involving-youth-and-young-adults
Also would like to remove the sentence "The risk of early death is anticipated to be similar to that of smokeless tobacco." from the intro or change it to emphasize the fact that it is likely additional hazards will be discovered. In 2019, it is not possible to anticipate the chronic side effects of vaping, just as the long term effects of smoking were not fully revealed until after many decades of research. And with the rise of both THC and Nicotine only vaping related lung illnesses, it is no longer up to date to compare vaping to products like chewing tobacco because vaping is shown to more substantially impact the lungs and arteries.
Also, a similar sentence in the lead "The risk from serious adverse events was reported in 2016 to be low." should come out of the intro because again it does not account for the most recent incidents. More importantly though, this sentence is a total misrepresentation of the original source, which was about "Corneoscleral Laceration and Ocular Burns Caused by Electronic Cigarette Explosions". The concluding paragraph of this study says "ECs pose a number of health safety risks beyond nicotine content and gateway drug concerns."
The only thing even along the lines of this sentence is embedded in the paragraph "Protective eyewear and even mouthguards may be advisable during EC use, although strict compliance is unlikely. Although the number of serious adverse events is small compared with the number of EC users worldwide, the consequences may be devastating to those involved in an EC-related blast. Because the FDA collects only voluntary reports,2 adverse events may be underreported. Further study is warranted to investigate the explosion hazard presented by these devices."
Lastly, at some point I think it would be appropriate to expand on the fact that some experts now think vaping may be more addicting than burned cigarettes. This is due to the fact that nicotine content has increased almost 3X in the leading brands (in unregulated markets like US) and e-cigarettes are capable of delivering nicotine to the brain faster than paper cigarettes. SCBY ( talk) 21:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I still think it isn't right to keep info on many recently discovered adverse effects out of the main article while keeping the two dated studies finding little harm so prominently. The more adverse effects that come up, the more the balance of the article and its tone from the beginning should change. But adding the info about seizures to sub-article is a step in the right direction. I see it is up to 127 cases being reported in popular press but CDC website only shows those 30 something cases. SCBY ( talk) 22:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok SCBY ( talk) 22:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
There is content about the sales ban in Massachusetts in the subarticle. [3]. This article is the not the best place to add the sales ban in Massachusetts. [4] List of vaping bans in the United States is the best place to add the bans.
The NY 90-day flavor ban also does not belong in this article. [5] I'm sure there are more bans and the List of vaping bans in the United States subarticle can cover those. QuackGuru ( talk) 10:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
See /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Pod_mod QuackGuru ( talk) 13:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
This article has content presented as present circumstances, but supported by old sources. It requires serious re-writing now. A first step would be to change the present tense claims to past tense. When the only source to support a "present condition," is from 2014, the statement at least should be changed to past tense. For example, if the article says,
After temporarily changing all the present tense claims to dated past tense claims ("as of 2015 there was"), then the entire article requires revision based on 2019-2020 sources. ( PeacePeace ( talk) 00:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC))
A 2019 source supports this statement: "In 2019, an outbreak of severe lung illness across multiple states in the US was linked to vaping.[38]" The material which precedes that statement seems to contradict that statement. And note that this statement in past tenses supported by 2019 source, is preceded by contrary claims presented using the present tense, though their source may be 2014 or 2015. Many articles on Wikipedia seem to err by using a present tense where the content will soon become obsolete since the situation in at a given time may change in the future, making the present tense claim false. ( PeacePeace ( talk) 00:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC))
I am just getting things started. Others with more time will have to dig up the WP:MEDRS sources.
US cancer death rate sees largest-ever single-year drop, report says. By Audrey McNamara, Jan 8, 2020. CBS News. Article quote with emphasis and info added:
new report from the American Cancer Society. ... "This steady progress is largely due to reductions in smoking [tobacco with hundreds of additives, many proven to cause cancer and subsequent declines in lung cancer mortality, which have accelerated in recent years," reads the report. ... The American Cancer Society has said e-cigarettes are "likely to be significantly less harmful for adults than smoking regular cigarettes," |
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 02:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
These redirects are duplication or similar to other redirects. No readers is going to first type "marketing of/for" to search for an e-cig article. I don't know how to bundle the redirects and nominate them together. QuackGuru ( talk) 02:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_December_30
Article was deleted against the Deletion review. QuackGuru ( talk) 03:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
CDC just released this report. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6902e2.htm?s_cid=mm6902e2_w
I don't have time right now, but its content should be added to the article about the lung illness. Among the main facts is that the vast majority of those with lung illness consumed THC cartridges from informal sources, 82% and 78% respectively. KristofferR ( talk) 21:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Here is some info that might be included somehow in the Wikipedia article. Others with more time than me might check this out, and its deeper sources.
A new study by UNC School of Medicine ... The scientists tested a proof-of-concept sample of 148 e-liquids and also performed a standard gas chromatography and mass spectrometry analysis of the ingredients. They found that these ingredients varied tremendously across the e-liquid products tested, and on the whole, more ingredients meant greater toxicity. The greatest toxicity effects came from two flavor compounds, vanillin and cinnamaldehyde, which have been widely used in e-liquids. |
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 11:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
(unindent). I didn't see all the subarticles. I saw some of the subarticle links found at the beginning of subheadings. It is hard to see the full spread of health-related subarticles unless one remembers the navbox at the bottom of the main page. It is in the external links section. I think it should be in its own section: "See also".
-- Timeshifter ( talk) 11:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
{{ Electronic cigarettes}}. I think it would serve a much more useful purpose if it were added to the top of the article rather than to the bottom.
I am not saying this idea of putting navboxes at the top of an article is always a good idea. Some navboxes only cover sideways-related articles, not directly related articles.
For example; {{ Cigarettes}} should not go to the top of this article. It should go on the bottom of the article, if it goes on this article at all. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 14:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Operation Condor |
---|
Wikipedia:Navigation template: "The two main types of navigation template are navboxes and sidebars."
See also: Wikipedia:Article series. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 08:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
| ||
---|---|---|
![]() |
||
(unindent). I left a note on their talk page: User talk:Ambrosiawater. -- Timeshifter ( talk) 00:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
See /info/en/?search=Talk:Nicotine_pouch#Proposal QuackGuru ( talk) 13:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
New sources were recently added to the article. [7] User:Sunline09, can you put all the new source here on the talk page. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
References
I noticed Electronic cigarette#Frequency did not follow WP:SYNC. Since all the previous versions did not follow SYNC I copied the content from the lede of the subarticle. QuackGuru ( talk) 23:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Request reintroduction of this line, deleted by QuackGuru. Genetics4good ( talk) 17:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
For medications we often have 100s or 1,000 of brand names. For drugs we often have 100s of lay terms.
We often have sections under "Society and culture" were we cover this. Putting them in a hatnote here is not the best formatting as it makes things harder to edit and somewhat hides them. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I tried to include the name that the FDA and other U.S. entities have adopted- Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) in an effort to assist readers and researchers, but it has been repeatedly reverted. I do not consider it a 'lay term'. I have also (for 8 years) restrained myself from being an editor on these pages because I am an e-cigarette user and Harm Reduction advocate. Over these 8 years I have also read and collected over 1900 papers, articles on all aspects of the subject mainly for my own health decisions. I chose to trust in the WikiPedia community's purported and theoretical pillar of Neutrality, but this page, it's constant editing (some justified as vandalism, others clearly to set a tone to the subject), and my recent experience leaves me with no confidence in WikiPedia, and have turned from an advocate of it as trustworthy, to just another web info source that requires close and time consuming scrutiny. This, after criticizing others on the web for bashing it rather than helping to correct it by properly and in good faith contributing. It's likely that this statement is a "violation" of some sort of WikiPedia rule, and it will get deleted but I needed to make it clear that this page was the final straw for me with WikiPedia. Jd4x4 ( talk) 17:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
that the medical community in different countries takes a different view of e-cigarettes. Here in the UK the strategy is to get people off tobacco by any route possible. Quitting with conventional NRT is preferred, but for those who can't or won't, converting to e-cigs is viewed as preferable to continuing with tobacco. But I think that in other countries, the medics tend to take a more skeptical view. Is that an accurate and fair thing to put in the article?— S Marshall T/ C 17:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
in the UK, e-cigarettes are widely supported as a reduced risk nicotine alternative for smokers, and has [sic] received support from a number of agencies(page 2, column 1, paragraph 2) but doesn't explicitly contrast that with the rest of the world, and this which gives us
Recently, authoritative UK groups, including Public Health England (PHE), the Royal College of Physicians, the Smoking in Pregnancy Challenge Group, and the National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training (NCSCT) who provide training for all SSS staff, have stated that they believe benefits from e-cigarettes are likely to be far greater than harms, including in pregnancyand then, after several intervening pages, gives us
In the U.S., surveys of health professionals caring for pregnant women have indicated that many appear to have concerns about the use of e-cigarettes; obstetricians and gynecologists were uncertain about how to advise on e-cigarettes due to lack of guidance, and of US family physicians who provided obstetric care, most respondents thought that e-cigarettes are unsafe to use during pregnancybut again that's comparing UK vs US and I'm sticking together sentences from different parts of the document to get there.— S Marshall T/ C 15:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I think this is the most verbose and hard-to-read article I've ever read on Wikipedia. This doesn't look at all like some definitive article, rather a case where every damn person who wanted to was able to add something. Sanpitch ( talk) 16:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
CDC has multiple times stated very clearly that Vitamin E acetate adulteration has been linked to the EVALI outbreak.
"Vitamin E acetate is strongly linked to the EVALI outbreak. Vitamin E acetate has been found in product samples tested by FDA and state laboratories and in patient lung fluid samples tested by CDC from geographically diverse states. Vitamin E acetate has not been found in the lung fluid of people that do not have EVALI." https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/severe-lung-disease.html
"Thanks for joining the call today. As the year draws to a close based on extensive investigations by state and local public health authorities, CDC scientists, our partners at FDA, and expert clinicians, we are able to make more definitive conclusions about the outbreak of e-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury or EVALI. Some of the support for these conclusions comes from CDC-authored articles being released today in the New England Journal of Medicine as well as two articles in today’s early release of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. As of December 17, 2019, a total of 2,506 patients have been hospitalized for EVALI including reports from all 50 states. Sadly, there have been 54 deaths from 27 states. But based on the data being released today, we can make more definitive statements about the trajectory of the epidemic.
[...]
Second, we are confident that Vitamin E acetate is strongly linked to the EVALI outbreak. In a second report in the New England Journal of Medicine, CDC scientists found Vitamin E acetate in lung fluid washings, what we call bronchioloalveolar lavage samples in 48 of 51 samples of patients with EVALI but not in a variety of comparison patient groups. The patients with EVALI came from 16 different states, suggesting this was not a single local supplier of tainted products. These expanded patient clinical specimen results are consistent with previous work including identification by FDA and others of Vitamin E acetate in THC-containing products collected from patients with EVALI, as well as Minnesota’s recent report that Vitamin E acetate was in seized THC products from 2019 but not in any samples from 2018.
Given all of these findings, including today’s study, we can conclude that what I call the explosive outbreak of cases of EVALI can be attributed to exposure to THC-containing vaping products that also contained Vitamin E acetate." https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2019/t1220_telebriefing_update_lung_injury.html
Some here also disagree that Vitamin E acetate is an adulterant, but not the CDC: "It’s pretty clear when you look at Vitamin E acetate, it’s a goopy, viscous liquid that’s pretty similar in the liquid viscousness to THC oil. So if you were kind of trying to extend your THC oil, it would be a pretty good way to do it. So how word of mouth or social media helped — contributed to this phenomenon, I don’t think right now anyone believes it was a single dealer or single producer that added Vitamin E acetate to THC oil. I think there is a sense that this was a distributed adulterated supply."
--- Are any of you still disputing that the CDC has been quoted correctly above? KristofferR ( talk) 05:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Isn't there plenty of evidence that tocopherol acetate is harmless to vape? E.g., [10]. Isn't there evidence here that the vitamin E oil is being used to dilute as-yet unidentified substances and sold as cannabis extract? It seems like a pretty bad idea to even use the word "linked" for this situation without further context for a substance that is known to be harmless for aerosol administration when there is no question that it's being used for its color and consistency with some other unknown psychoactive compounds likely to blame. The CDC has never actually said vitamin E is harmful if inhaled, have they? EllenCT ( talk) 22:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
This is based on a primary suorce "In a study comparing the birth weight of babies born to mothers who smoked, vaped, or did neither it was found that the birthweight of infants born to EC (e-cigarette) users is similar to that of non‐smokers, and significantly greater than cigarette smokers. [1]."
We should be using secondary sources per MEDRS. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
This article could sorely benefit from major existing section reorganization, beginning with putting the TOC immediately after paragraph 1, and moving what are currently paras 2, 3 and 4 into the relevant current TOC sections, adding sections as appropriate. I would certainly volunteer to do that, but I don't have much experience with Wiki Markup. Is the visual editor an option for this page? Jd4x4 ( talk) 18:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Personally I'm an ex-nicotine addict; I smoked tobacco for thirty years and then quit using conventional NRT. This was before I'd ever heard of vaping. If I'd known about e-cigs at that time, I might very well never have quit.
I understand why so many nicotine addicts are evangelical about vaping. I think it's important that this article reflects the medical sources' caution about how safe vaping is or isn't.— S Marshall T/ C 23:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
The introduction in this recent revision is so much better and easy to read than the current and previous very difficult to read version, I want to know what precisely it's detractors feel is inferior about it? EllenCT ( talk) 16:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I do think that revert was problematic. Looking at Doc James' logged edits for that evening, we can see how many articles this user maintains, how fast he edits, and how little time he spent looking at the article before deciding to revert. He took a little less than eight minutes over it, during which time he was actively editing the article. Now, I'm willing to stipulate that Dr Heilman is an extremely fluent reader, but I do not think it's plausible that in that tiny amount of time, he was able to thoughtfully and critically evaluate each of the 42 (forty-two) revisions he removed with that revert. In other words, I see this as good evidence that Doc James is reverting revisions he doesn't understand.
This is a problem behaviour that's been ongoing for at least five years and has gone all the way up to Arbcom. In
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles in 2015, I
specifically discussed this issue of misdiagnosing good faith edits as advocacy, bad faith, or vandalism. I'm disappointed that we're back here again. In that case, Arbcom reminded another editor, CFCF, to contact the editor they are in dispute with before resorting to reverting
, and I would like to ask Doc James to reflect on their advice.—
S Marshall
T/
C
18:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for that EllenCT and S Marshall for the revisions you made in the lead without causing bloat. When I reordered it I tried to retain everything in the previous versions that were not duplicated elsewhere in the entire text, and tried to categorize the rest without deleting. I too felt that it read and presented better if the lead remained concise but there were other points that were felt to be needed in the summary, one of note was the emphasis on youth cautions. Having said that, I would also like to hear Doc James comment on the need for more paragraphs rather than a synopsis of topics expanded upon later in the article. I hope that the comments I made on his talk page prior to my reorg re:undo's weren't upsetting but I didn't think the edit stats for this article looked much like consensus in action. Jd4x4 ( talk) 22:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I shall restore the contested revision, which enjoys widespread support here, and says in plain English "non-smokers should not try vaping", and I will add a little more to reflect Doc James's concerns. It's right that the article shouldn't evangelize for vaping but I insist on being allowed to make it readable.— S Marshall T/ C 09:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Including the US Surgeon General from 2016 [17]
The WHO from 2014 [18]
The National Academies of Science Engineering Medicine in 2018
[19]
We should look to see what their updated positions are sure but replacing these better sources with primary ones is not an improvement. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
While we are talking about secondary sources, why the removal of Public Health Scotland in the references to characterization/quantification of harm vs. smoking in the lead? Jd4x4 ( talk) 05:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I included these two sources and their summaries updating older sources:
Glasser, Allison M.; Collins, Lauren; Pearson, Jennifer L.; Abudayyeh, Haneen; Niaura, Raymond S.; Abrams, David B.; Villanti, Andrea C. (1 February 2017). "Overview of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: A Systematic Review". American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 52 (2): e33–e66. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.10.036. ISSN 0749-3797. Retrieved 24 February 2020.
“ | Conclusions
Studies indicate that ENDS are increasing in use, particularly among current smokers, pose substantially less harm to smokers than cigarettes, are being used to reduce/quit smoking, and are widely available. More longitudinal studies and controlled trials are needed to evaluate the impact of ENDS on population-level tobacco use and determine the health effects of longer-term vaping. |
” |
Farsalinos, Konstantinos (1 January 2018). "Electronic cigarettes: an aid in smoking cessation, or a new health hazard?". Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease. 12: 1753465817744960. doi: 10.1177/1753465817744960. ISSN 1753-4666. Retrieved 24 February 2020.
“ | Conclusions
E-cigarettes are one of the most controversial issues in public health today. There is little doubt that they are less harmful than smoking, but there is disagreement on the level of risk reduction. However, there is agreement that they are not absolutely harmless. Epidemiological evidence of long-term health effects is unavailable for now, and it will take years to generate final conclusions about the clinical effects of switching from tobacco to e-cigarette use. However, it is reasonable to communicate to smokers the relative risks of smoking and e-cigarette use based on current knowledge, keeping in mind that the ideal pathway is to quit without using any alternative products. While population studies suggest that smokers can successfully quit smoking with the help of e-cigarettes, randomized controlled trials and cohort studies have failed to show substantial effects. This is, at least in part, due to both methodological problems in studies and the complexity and dynamic evolution of the e-cigarette market, as well as the time-consuming research methods. While there is clear evidence that e-cigarettes are not attracting adult never-smokers, there is considerable experimentation among adolescents, including never-smokers. Recent evidence shows a trend for reduction of experimentation among youth while regular use appears to be largely confined to smokers, and smoking prevalence is continuously declining.... |
” |
EllenCT ( talk) 05:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
West, Robert; Brown, Jamie; Jarvis, Martin (7 October 2019). "Epidemic of youth nicotine addiction? What does the National Youth Tobacco Survey reveal about high school e-cigarette use in the USA? (Preprint)". Qeios. doi: 10.32388/745076.3. ISSN 2632-3834. Retrieved 24 February 2020.
Hallingberg, Britt; Maynard, Olivia M.; Bauld, Linda; Brown, Rachel; Gray, Linsay; Lowthian, Emily; MacKintosh, Anne-Marie; Moore, Laurence; Munafo, Marcus R.; Moore, Graham (1 March 2020). "Have e-cigarettes renormalised or displaced youth smoking? Results of a segmented regression analysis of repeated cross sectional survey data in England, Scotland and Wales". Tobacco Control. 29 (2): 207–216. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054584. ISSN 0964-4563. Retrieved 24 February 2020.
"Historical NYTS Data and Documentation | CDC". www.cdc.gov. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 17 December 2019. Retrieved 24 February 2020.
"CDC Fast Facts". www.cdc.gov. - is primary or secondary? Their data but compiled, checked, and verified by (them? specialist authors?). Jd4x4 ( talk) 18:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Not sure why this was removed "In 2019 an outbreak of severe vaping lung illness in the US was linked to e-liquid containing vitamin E acetate."? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Apparantly, safety risks can be improved by use of newer e-cigarettes which allow to control the temperature of the glow wire. The hotter the glow wire, the more aldehydes are formed (so keeping it only just hot enough to allow vaporising the liquid is best). Also, avoiding (certain) flavorings would also reduce health risks. [1]
References
The safety section does not mention any of this. Genetics4good ( talk) 09:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
So now the intro has a new paragraph about kids:
That's not compliant with the manual of style, violates WP:CRYSTAL, and has no sources whatsoever. This is just the same kind of ridiculous alarmism which has always plagued messaging about youth substance use and abuse. The fact is that kids are smoking a quarter as much as they were before vapes were easily available. The only evidence about the "potential" harm speculations are the fact that most kids who take nicotine are now doing it in a way that harms them 0.5% as much. We need to stop reaching for euphemism and alarmism. EllenCT ( talk) 18:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
There is a clear consensus for position statements #1, #2, and #4. No editors have supported position statement #3.
Editors agree that article version #1 should be restored. Based on the discussion in the RfC (including in the collapsed tangent), editors believe there are still more improvements that should be made to the lead and article. More discussions and RfCs are encouraged if there are disagreements about any changes.
Rfc participants are asked to support any of the following position statements, give their reasoning, and make any general comments or observations they might have.
Position statement #1: This article's
readability is poor.
Position statement #2: The lead requires improvement to comply with
Wikipedia:Summary style.
Position statement #3:
Article version #1 is unacceptably pro-electronic cigarette, advocates that readers should take up electronic cigarettes, or evangelises for e-cigarettes in any way.
Position statement #4:
Article version #1 is preferable to
article version #2.
Thanks for participating!— S Marshall T/ C 16:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Doc James:- ref your recent re-order of the lead paras, as a technical person my thinking was that a description of the vapor production (and it's own cautions) was a logical follow to the general item description, followed then by motivation to use, risk-benefits, youth concerns, and finally brief history & popularity. I find it interesting that you think risks-benefits and then vapor is more logical even though most of the risk-benefits are in fact due to the vapor. ? Comment if you like. Jd4x4 ( talk) 22:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Tangent, not related to this RfC
|
---|
|
The historical RfC does not overrule the one that was closed a few days ago.— S Marshall T/ C 22:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The first sentence usually contains one or two alternative names. Thus
"An electronic cigarette, also known as e-cigarette among other names, [notes 1] is an electronic device that simulates tobacco smoking. "
Is preferred per my understanding over
"An electronic cigarette is an electronic device that simulates tobacco smoking. Electronic cigarettes, also known as e-cigarette among other names, [notes 2]"...
Thoughts Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The amount of alternative names reflect the amount of names that have been used for this device by researchers since it's market introduction, and as such should be included somewhere (imo) for those doing archival research. Without referring to the 2000 articles in my own library, I believe that using the smaller number of names that have become common in the last 4-5 years in the lead would be appropriate. Jd4x4 ( talk) 12:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
References
We do not write text like "Non-smokers should not try vaping with or without nicotine." in the voice of Wikipedia. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm trying to make a lead for WP:JOHNNY. How may I communicate that Johnny shouldn't try vaping?— S Marshall T/ C 00:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
User:S Marshall All I was requesting was attribution of the statement in question. Here is a source
"WHO does not recommend the use of any form of nicotine for those who have never smoked or for children and pregnant women, and our report on e-cigarettes is consistent with this position."
So sentence could be "The World Health Organization does not recommend non smokers try e cigarettes." Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Electronic cigarette has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to suggest an addition to the following sentence: "The atomizer is a heating element that atomizes a liquid solution called e-liquid.[4]"
I would suggest adding: "Certain types of atomizers can be rebuilt, these are called RBAs (ReBuildable Atomizers)." With this link as a reference: https://vapingcheap.com/rba-rda-guide-rebuildable-atomizers/ ElPesero ( talk) 18:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
As I (barely) understand it (and the jargon), isn't an NPOV tag without a talk page topic on it a WP:DRIVEBY? Or, was the tag in reference to or caused by the Readability issue, and/or specifically my attempts to clean up the Lead? If not, it's confusing the readability topic resolution and I don't see the specific problems. I have refrained from editing the lead until readability is resolved so if the current version lead POV acceptable please remove the tag, or list the specifics please. Jd4x4 ( talk) 17:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Right, so the article reads like a whole heap of pseudo-medics telling us all how things should be, just like the tobacco and the smoking articles. I doubt most of these references, because they are made to fit the argument of the author. As a smoker that gave up with the use of a vape, after having smoked for 25 years, I can say vaping is the way to stop this. I stopped vaping 18 months ago, it did not make me want to smoke hard drugs as the article suggests. ZL3XD ( talk) 10:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
This edit was reverted because it is primary research and does not rely on a WP:MEDRS review. Cloudjpk has twice disputed and restored the revert. WP:BRD discusses why the burden of proof is on the editor wanting the statement to be included, so over to Cloudjpk for providing a strong source. Also, Cloudjpk is now warring over this content and primary sources, indicating the WP:3RR threshold. Zefr ( talk) 00:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Is there a reason cigs and vaping are page locked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.32.236 ( talk) 13:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Electronic cigarette has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article states:
People who vape are more likely to start smoking.[15
Change to,
there is no evidence that people who vape, especially teens, are more likely to start smoking. In fact, the number of teens who vape has now exceeded teens who smoke. In fact, three out of four teens who started smoking have carried the habit into adult hood. Based on the decrease in teen smoking, a cigarette free lifestyle will be continued on into their adulthood.
Proof is the end note itself. There is No mention in the article that vaping leads to cigarette smoking. The points I raised in the edit above, are in the article.
I submit the actual end note as proof that this is not true. Vapinglies ( talk) 11:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. When you took that sentence out, the source is now gone. If you can send me the source again, I'll show you the information (it was the end note attached to the sentence, "People who vape are more likely to start smoking.[15"
About my username. I hope to write other stuff too. I have always wanted to edit and write stuff on Wikipedia, but it wasn't till I read that article that I was motivated enough to do it. Thus the name. Vapinglies ( talk) 05:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Cloudjpk, I think that last paragraph in the lead is now confusing and convoluted. We need the lead to communicate a message that's clear, even to people who didn't do well in school -- or people who're still at school -- because the encyclopaedia is for them too. This means keeping the reading age of the lead low: simple sentence structure, simpler language, no equivocation. The greater complexity belongs lower down the article.
The intended message from that paragraph is that if you aren't already addicted to nicotine, then you shouldn't touch an e-cigarette, but if you are, e-cigarettes are likely less harmful than tobacco and they can help you quit (add citation to Cochrane meta-analysis).
Unfortunately your good faith quest for increased accuracy is undermining the goal of the paragraph as well as introducing concepts that don't appear in the Cochrane meta-analysis. I would ask that you please kindly consider moving this Wang-sourced business about e-cigarettes as consumer products, which isn't from Cochrane, lower down the article?— S Marshall T/ C 22:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello. As scientists often use the words electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), could these be added in the introduction?
83.228.145.34 ( talk) 21:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC).
Your article lists that e-cigarettes emit a VAPOR yet the article it references clearly states it emits an AEROSOL. This is a critical distinction. Vapor implies gasses only while aerosol specifically includes tiny particles. Studies clearly show that particles of lead are present in e-cigarette emissions. This is critical information that is misleading and implies that these products are safer than they actually are. The article you site is listed as the second resource in your citations. Please review and repair. This is VERY important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBairos ( talk • contribs) 18:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
E-cigarettes create an aerosol, often called vapor. Scientifically it's an aerosol but in the e-cigarette subcommunity it's pretty much always called vapor. Because of this, whichever term we use, we always get people who passionately insist that we change it— S Marshall T/ C 00:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2019 and 30 April 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Sailorbo. Peer reviewers:
Skyguythor.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2020 and 23 April 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Ismaray Ruiz.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Ajameson1.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 20:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Electronic cigarette has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There was s further rise to 82 million in 2021. There is a typo in the above sentence in the "was s". Casterianwizard ( talk) 16:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
This line isn't entirely accurate. Vaporizers have progressed far beyond a tobacco smoking replacement, and are better described as a nicotine aerosol delivery device.
The only similarities between tobacco smoking is the name "electronic cigarette" and the (optional) use of nicotine. In fact, the devices can be used to deliver a wide range of drug aerosols...
2603:8080:B400:5D2B:F5A4:4EB7:7888:1B17 (
talk)
16:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
This ignores RDAs which are neither a cartridge or a tank — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:B400:5D2B:F5A4:4EB7:7888:1B17 ( talk) 16:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with electronic cigarettes, and everything to do with THC distillate vaporizers.
The info isn't relevant to this article whatsoever 2603:8080:B400:5D2B:F5A4:4EB7:7888:1B17 ( talk) 16:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
User:Zvi Zig, I assure you that I'm aware of WP:NPOV. I invite you to reconsider your efforts to remove Wang et. al. and Hedman et. al. from the lede. These are recent meta-analyses, i.e. sources of the absolute utmost reliability. I have restored the longstanding consensus text for the time being, as would be expected in an editing dispute.— S Marshall T/ C 20:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Cbyler22 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Cbyler22 ( talk) 14:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC) I added results from more recent research studies (2021-2022). There are more symptoms and medical conditions that have been correlated with usage of e-cigarettes and I thought it worthwhile to add these relationships. Also, more recent studies show more youths using e-cigarettes than what was last added to the article. This usage among youths is continuing to accelerate in many countries but more severely in Canada and United States. The last topic that I included was an experiment done on women on the effects of dual smoking. These results were interesting and could possibly relate to a larger portion of the population who dual smoke and have trouble sleeping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbyler22 ( talk • contribs) 14:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Because e-cigarettes are so new, they haven't been studied enough to fully understand them. What I find to be most curious is what the long term effects of e-cigarettes will be. They haven't been out long enough to have reliable studies done showing the long term effects on the human body. When research about that does come out in the future it will be interesting to see the results and I hope to see them in this wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbyler22 ( talk • contribs) 01:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
The statistics cited are a couple years old, I think with the rapid rise in e-cigarettes, we should find new sources and update some of the metrics. EZMedMan ( talk) 16:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Lbw119 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Lbw119 ( talk) 07:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
The fourth paragraph of the article starts with "Nicotine is harmful and highly addictive.[14][15]". The first source (Mishra et al, 2015, "Harmful effects of nicotine") supports that claim, but the second source (Royal College of Physicians, 2016, "Nicotine without smoke: tobacco harm reduction") actually argues against nicotine being significantly harmful:
Nicotine is not, however, in itself, a highly hazardous drug (see Chapters 4 and 5). It increases heart rate and blood pressure, and has a range of local irritant effects, but is not a carcinogen. ... Although the nature and extent of any long-term health hazard from inhaling nicotine remain uncertain, because there is no experience of such use other than from cigarettes, it is inherently unlikely that nicotine inhalation itself contributes significantly to the mortality or morbidity caused by smoking. The main culprit is smoke and, if nicotine could be delivered effectively and acceptably to smokers without smoke, most if not all of the harm of smoking could probably be avoided.
DecipheredStones ( talk) 00:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
As use of nicotine alone in the doses used by smokers represents little if any hazard to the user, complete substitution of smoking with conventional NRT products is, for practical purposes, the equivalent of complete cessation in almost all areas of harm to the user
References
It is the smoke from combustible tobacco products—not nicotine—that injures and kills millions of smokers.
{{
cite journal}}
: URL–wikilink conflict (
help)
Beyond its addictive properties, short-term or long-term exposure to nicotine in adults has not been established as dangerous
I've been aiming at an lead that would be understood by a curious high school child who is considering taking a puff. This would include children in lower attainment quartiles. The recent edits to the second paragraph have hugely raised the reading age. We've made the article more specific and accurate, but the cost in accessibility has been very high. I'm minded to move the current second paragraph right down into the body text, and restore the previous version of paragaph 2.— S Marshall T/ C 16:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
According to a Public Health England 2018 report
Other aspects of nicotine products may potentiate addictiveness. These include the monoamine oxidase (MAO) inhibitors in tobacco smoke, substances added to tobacco such as sugars and polysaccharides, flavourings such as menthol or alkaline additives, as well as design characteristics. . . . In summary, nicotine addictiveness depends on a number of factors including presence of other chemicals, speed of delivery, pH, rate of absorption, the dose, and other aspects of the nicotine delivery system, environment and behaviour. Tobacco smoking with rapid delivery of nicotine to the lungs and absorption, has been demonstrated to be highly addictive, compared with the NRT patch, for example, which has much lower dependence potential and long term use. Addictiveness is related to pleasure as well as severity of withdrawal discomfort, which are hard to tease apart. The addictive potential of other nicotine products is likely to be within the two extremes set by the cigarette and NRT patch, with some products, eg snus, also being addictive. It is thus inaccurate to say that nicotine per se is highly addictive, such statements need to be more nuanced, as addictiveness is dependent on the delivery system (emphasis added).
Evidence review of e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products 2018 (publishing.service.gov.uk) Similarly, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report on e-cigarettes says
whether e-cigarettes cause dependence and what the relative magnitude of risk is relative to combustible tobacco cigarettes are questions that cannot be answered solely by the translation of knowledge about nicotine and combustible cigarettes . . . . Conclusion 8-2. There is moderate evidence that risk and severity of dependence are lower for e-cigarettes than combustible tobacco cigarettes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK507163/
Therefore, I think that writing that nicotine is "highly addictive" in the context of vaping is not supported.
Zvi Zig (
talk •
contribs
21:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
The pharmacokinetic properties of nicotine, or the way it is processed by the body, contribute to its addictiveness. When cigarette smoke enters the lungs, nicotine is absorbed rapidly in the blood and delivered quickly to the brain, so that nicotine levels peak within 10 seconds of inhalation. But the acute effects of nicotine also dissipate quickly, along with the associated feelings of reward; this rapid cycle causes the smoker to continue dosing to maintain the drug's pleasurable effects and prevent withdrawal symptoms.[32] [33]FDA " Nicotine Is Why Tobacco Products Are Addictive":
Nicotine is a highly addictive chemical compound present in a tobacco plant. All tobacco products contain nicotine, including cigarettes, non-combusted cigarettes (commonly referred to as “heat-not-burn tobacco products” or “heated tobacco products”), cigars, smokeless tobacco (such as dip, snuff, snus, and chewing tobacco), hookah tobacco, and most e-cigarettes... To date, no e-cigarette has been approved as a cessation device or authorized to make a modified risk claim, and more research is needed to understand the potential risks and benefits these products may offer adults who use tobacco products.[34] — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 15:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
It is thus inaccurate to say that nicotine per se is highly addictive, such statements need to be more nuanced, as addictiveness is dependent on the delivery system
whether e-cigarettes cause dependence and what the relative magnitude of risk is relative to combustible tobacco cigarettes are questions that cannot be answered solely by the translation of knowledge about nicotine and combustible cigarettes
It is possible that the addictiveness of tobacco cigarettes may be enhanced by compounds in the smoke other than nicotine....As e-cigarettes have evolved, their nicotine delivery has improved. This could mean that their addiction potential has increased, but this may also make them more attractive to smokers as a replacement for smoking. It is not yet clear how addictive e-cigarettes are, or could be, relative to tobacco cigarettes."NASEM report:"
cigarettes contain liquids (referred to as e-liquids) that are aerosolized upon operation of the device. E-liquids typically contain nicotine (although some users prefer zero-nicotine solutions), flavorings, and humectants. Nicotine is a well-understood compound with known central and peripheral nervous system effects. It causes dependence and addiction" — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 19:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Specific to youth, nicotine addiction and dependence leading to lifelong tobacco use is a major concern when considering e-cigarette use...Nicotine addiction is an adaption to nicotine exposure over time, and thus the high concentrations of nicotine in e-cigarettes are of major concern. Studies of e-cigarette use have revealed that, depending on duration of use and user puffing topography, serum levels of nicotine can be as high with e-cigarette use as with use of a conventional cigarette. In 1 study, the urinary cotinine concentrations (a biomarker for nicotine exposure) among adolescents using JUUL was even higher than the urinary cotinine concentrations of those who smoked conventional cigarettesIf you cannot see how that source supports the phrase "nicotine is highly addictive" then I cannot help you. I hope you find what you're looking for on Wikipedia.
Nicotine is highly addictive and hasnegative effects on brain development from the prenatal period into adolescence.
Many e-cigarettes sold in the U.S. contain far more nicotine than e-cigarettes sold elsewhere, which increases the risk of addiction and harm to the developing brains of youth and young adults.
Some ENDS products can result in rapid delivery of a similar amount of nicotine as modern American cigarettes, which contribute to high addiction potentials...As stated above, flavors are a key driver of youth initiation of ENDS, with the pharmacology of nicotine leading to addiction and continued, repetitive use
Never smokers
There is high certainty of evidence that nicotine-containing e-cigarette use can result in increased dependence on e-cigarettes (1, 13). Findings from cross-sectional studies indicate that nicotine-containing e-cigarette dependence may be associated with earlier age of initiation, daily use and later generation/more powerful devices.
Current smokers
There is low certainty of evidence that nicotine-containing e-cigarette use may result in increased dependence on e-cigarettes (1, 13). There is also low certainty of evidence that nicotine-containing e-cigarette use may have lower abuse liability[4] than tobacco cigarettes but may have a higher abuse liability than nicotine-replacement therapies
The addictive power of nicotine, particularly in the developing adolescent brain, and its adverse effects should not be underestimated
The appeal to users and primary concern for health advocates is nicotine, which is highly addictive
— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 05:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Many adolescents do not understand that e-cigarettes deliver nicotine and do not understand how addictive they are, often much more than traditional cigarettes... E-cigarettes containing high levels of nicotine are highly addictive for nicotine naïve teens.
ENDS contain nicotine, a highly addictive drug
In the categories, can someone replace "Nicotine products with harm-reduction claims" and "Heated tobacco products" with "Category:Non-tobacco nicotine products"?
Thanks. Lordal Planquette ( talk) 21:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC).
@ Zvi Zig, please follow WP:BRD and discuss this before reverting. Do not edit war to keep your preferred version of the text. The AHA is an established health authority, and it has this opinion as described in its policy statement. The fact that it disagrees with other sources is the point. We are showing that there is controversy, as we describe several sentences before. We also describe where the controversy comes from (animal studies) in plain language. What is the issue? — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 11:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
it is impossible for nicotine to cause hypertension and atherosclerosis when NRT and snus do not cause these effects.I seem to remember you spent several comments above explaining why it was inappropriate to use one mode of tobacco consumption (or derivative thereof) to prove or suggest anything about another (smoked tobacco for nicotine). Why is that acceptable now? And do you have a source to support the conclusion that nicotine does not cause transient hypertension? Because I agree with you, it is inappropriate to draw conclusions about nicotine delivered in a different form based on research on tobacco products like SNUS or highly regulated specifically dosed nicotine products like NRT.I would add that the position you take on Bhatnagar 2014 (which was authored by quite a few more people than just Benowitz) is not compatible with the interpretation that the Surgeon General has on that same review, which it summarizes as:
American Heart Association (AHA) (Bhatnagar et al. 2014): There are no reports of e-cigarette safety in patients with known cardiovascular disease...For patients with existing cardiovascular disease and stroke, or at risk of a cardiovascular disease event, intensive cessation counseling should be offered as soon as possible.
The American Heart Association and others have raised concerns about the impact of nicotine on cardiovascular health, especially in those with preexisting cardiovascular problems." — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Differences between US and UK on smoking and e-cigarettes
|
---|
Reminder that I am not saying we should not include UK health authorities, but just that NPOV would dictate we also include other countries' health authorities as well. |
|
I would deny that the UK authorities are more permissive towards tobacco
@
Zvi Zig you cannot use one agency's opinion to modify what another agency has said
[61]: The evidence is sufficient for the RCP and PHE, who I would suggest are not less reliable than whichever US authority that is
. Each health agency gets to say their peace, and we attribute those claims to that agency. We should never water down the attributed claims of one agency based on the claims of another, as this would violate
WP:V. —
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕)
12:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
The article states that EC vapor contains "some harmful substances not found in cigarette smoke"
. However, the source
[62] refers to "substances", not "harmful substances" not present in tobacco smoke.
Below is the full paragraph in the source (AJPH review):
Among potentially toxic substances common to both products, cigarette smoke generally contains substantially larger quantities than e-cigarette aerosol.42–44 However, e-cigarette aerosol contains some substances not found in cigarette smoke.45
The substances present in tobacco smoke are described as "potentially toxic", but those exclusive to e-cigarettes are not. Indeed, the reference [63] for the last sentence above relates to phenolic compounds detected at nanogram levels (ppb). It also states that its authors did not evaluate whether their presence will lead adverse consequences.
Phenolic compounds and flame retardants are certainly concerning at high levels, but it would be misleading to say that e-cigarettes contain "harmful substances not found in cigarette smoke" based on ppb levels not known to cause harm. As Paracelsus states
All things are poison, and nothing is a poison; The dosage alone makes a thing not a poison.
More generally, PHE writes of chemicals exclusive to e-cigarettes, "the main chemicals present in e-cigarettes only have not been associated with any serious risk" [64]. Zvi Zig ( talk • contribs 07:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
My problem with "potentially harmful" in the lead is that it raises the reading age quite a lot. "Potentially" is one of those words that comes naturally to people like yourselves -- i.e. those in the upper reading attainment deciles. (I expect the median Wikipedian has at least a college degree.) It's an appropriate word to use in the body text, but I want to keep the lead super-accessible because it's so likely that high school children will turn to this article when deciding whether to take a puff. I think we're aiming at a Flesch reading ease score of 70+.— S Marshall T/ C 20:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Over 80 harmful chemicals such as formaldehyde and metallic nanoparticles have been found in e-liquids. [1]Do we still think that's accurate?— S Marshall T/ C 22:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Rheaxx666 (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by StellaJiang333 ( talk) 03:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
The NPOV problem with the “Gateway Theory” section is that it puts out statements that while technically true leave out important context that could lead the reader to wrongly conclude that vaping as ones first method of tobacco consumption leads to higher rates of smoking of traditional cigarettes which so far as I know has yet to be casually proven. First sections first sentence is problematic as the “gateway hypothesis” is controversial and not yet ben definitively proven in the way advocates of the concept claim so far as I know and while the first sentence implies this by using the word hypothesis, it might be better for some readers if we were clearer on this post. We should find some way to state that the scientific/medical community has not yet reach a conclusion on the validity of the gateway hypothesis in part or as a whole, without going to much into depth on the controversy here (readers can read the Gateway hypothesis article if they want more details on the debate. As for the second sentence, the statement “Evidence shows that many users who begin by vaping will go onto also smoke traditional cigarettes.”, while indeed backed up by several reliable sources, is by itself potentially misleading. The problem here is that the statement leads to many questions which this section does not answer and thus certain readers not familiar with the controversial over the gateway hypothesis might draw firmer conclusions regarding causation regarding vaping leading to smoking of cigarette then the evidence supports. We sate state, at least roughly or within a range how many is “many” in this instance. Since we don’t known how many of these would have smoke traditional cigarettes anyways had e-cigarettes not been invented, we should be clear if the cited studies don't properly take that into account or can't for whatever reasons. As we don’t know if there are other factors that lead manny of the e-cigarette users in question in these cited studies to move to traditional cigarette smoking that would make the fact that they started out as vapors is purely coincidental, we should be clear on that. Now, i'll admit that I have not examined the all the cited studies depth so if they do indeed prove causation rather the simple correlation then we can mention that where applicable but I have not heard of such causal effect being proven with regard to the supposed gateway drug hypothesis of any "drug" (including tobacco/nicotine, alcohol, caffeine, cannabis, etc.) so I'll bet this is still merely at best hypothetical as are all previous gateway drug claims. What this all means if we need to rephrase and add to the statements first two statements in the section to clarify that some researchers and anti-tobacco advocates posit a gateway drug theory claim regarding vaping and later traditional tobacco smoking but that such claims are not yet proven in any causal way. Notcharliechaplin ( talk) 22:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the content that was added by WikiEd student Cbyler22 in the following two edits: [69] [70], because I believe it misrepresents the cited sources.
Firstly, the
Pisinger source (which, incidentally, is not peer-reviewed) exclusively focuses on the health effects of dual use of e-cigarettes and conventional cigarettes, and therefore doesn't support our article's claims about the health effects of e-cigarettes in general. So for example, our article says [the study found] a positive correlation between the usage of e-cigarettes and medical conditions such as myocardial infarctions, coronary artery disease and strokes
, where the source only says DUs [dual-users] had higher odds of myocardial infarction and stroke than CCU [conventional cigarette users]
and warns that there may be many factors contributing to the correlation. Additionally, the statement in the article about chemicals used in electronic cigarettes that are ... known to be toxic to humans
is not supported by anything in the source; I can only assume it to be based on a misreading of the section about toxins found in the bodily fluids of smokers.
The second source,
Balfour et al., is cited in support of some very firm statements on the health risks of vaping, which are at odds with the cautious approach taken by the source. For example, our article says the vapors in e-cigarettes can cause damage to the neurons in developing brains
, but the source is careful not to draw any definite conclusions on this point: Animal model studies have found that nicotine can affect maturation of brain parts associated with executive function and decision-making ... [However], the validity of extrapolation to humans is speculative. Whether impaired brain development with behavioral consequences occurs in young nicotine consumers is difficult to determine...
etc.
I think my removal of this content will be non-controversial, but feel free to revert and discuss here if need be. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 22:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
poor quality of child article and wide overlap with parent article fgnievinski ( talk) 00:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
The article implies that vapes are only available on prescription in the UK, and none have been approved. This isn't the case as vaping is all over the high street. This needs work. Secretlondon ( talk) 22:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Electronic cigarette has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like this to be added to the section about the marketing of electronic cigarettes this is a great survey. While electronic cigarettes have been marketed as a safer alternative to traditional cigarettes, surveys have shown that 90% of nicotine users state that they started abusing nicotine before the age of 18(Bhatnagar et.al, 2019). Highlighting the risk that e-cigarettes and their relationship to marketing can pose to young people. As nicotine use during adolescence can lead to long-term addiction, making it difficult to quit throughout adulthood. Mental health issues and other risky behaviors are often linked to nicotine use in adolescents, underscoring the need for comprehensive support and intervention for vulnerable youth. With 70% of teens reported exposure to e-cigarette advertising such as posters of Juul and other disposable vape companies in gas stations(Bhatnagar et.al, 2019). Concerns have been raised about the impact of marketing on youth and the glorification of the use of these products, emphasizing the need for tighter regulation and control over the marketing and sale of e-cigarettes to protect public health. https://www.ahajournals.org/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1161%2FCIR.0000000000000669 Kloran74 ( talk) 00:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
The page cites meta-analyses finding no evidence for EC aiding smoking cessation in observational studies, Hedman et al. explicitly stating the quality of included studies are "consistently low".
However, Vilanti et al have refrained from a meta-analyses for studies diverse in their quality. Instead, they graded studies based on their quality, and found that "Only a small proportion of studies seeking to address the effect of e-cigarettes on smoking cessation or reduction meet a set of proposed quality standards. Those that do are consistent with randomized controlled trial evidence in suggesting that e-cigarettes can help with smoking cessation or reduction."
How do we reflect these findings in the page? Zvi Zig ( talk • contribs 20:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
For people trying to quit smoking without medical help, e-cigarettes have not been found to raise quit rates,[24] but the quality of evidence on this was graded "consistently low"[25]is a ghastly sentence. We need to keep this article accessible for teenagers, including teenagers of lower reading attainment. That's a key purpose of writing an encyclopaedia.
the American Heart Association put out an article talking about the negative health effects of secondhand vaping https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/05/31/in-secondhand-vape-scientists-smell-risk
the article says that secondhand vape is even more dangerous than secondhand smoke on account of the heavy metals in e-cig aerosol particles.
vapes should also not be described as a "safe alternative" to cigarettes because they actually contain more nicotine than traditional cigarettes
Cat-with-the-'tism ( talk) 16:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
In the second paragraph of the "Young adult and teen use" section it states that young people who do not smoke vape… this comes across as a generalisation of All young people. It simply is not true and maybe should be amended JcwDenno ( talk) 10:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Electronic cigarette has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "am" to "an" in the first paragraph 203.221.193.234 ( talk) 06:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Merge the second and third sentences of the second paragraph using “although” 78.175.54.104 ( talk) 21:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=notes>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=notes}}
template (see the
help page).