from the world's big
What we know about the dangers of e-cigarettes
Compared to traditional cigarettes, e-cigarettes are extremely understudied. There is, however, some evidence on their negative effects on your health.
- Traditional cigarettes have the benefit of decades' worth of research on their harmful effects. E-cigarettes are relatively new, and our understanding of their long-term effects is limited.
- To fill this gap, researchers are conducting studies to identify exactly how e-cigarettes effect our bodies.
- To date, it appears that e-cigarettes are better for you than traditional cigarettes, but that doesn't make them harmless.
E-cigarettes are, in all likelihood, better for your health than smoking cigarettes. There's a general agreement among the medical community that vaping exposes people to fewer toxic chemicals than cigarettes, but that doesn't mean they're consequence-free.
For one, e-cigarettes use a different cocktail of chemicals than cigarettes, which, even if they're fewer in number, may be of a more dangerous variety. But more importantly, cigarettes have had the benefit of many decades worth of research; e-cigarettes are simply too new for us to know what the long-term consequences will be.
That being said, there is some empirical evidence as to the negative health effects of e-cigarettes. Here's what we know so far.
Nicotine alone isn't harmless
The main appeal of e-cigarettes is that they deliver nicotine, which functions as a stimulant, ensuring both that e-cigarettes are enjoyable and addictive. However, even by itself, nicotine can do a number on your body.
It's been implicated in cardiovascular diseases such as coronary artery disease, atherosclerosis, and aortic aneurysms. Though nicotine is not a carcinogen in and of itself, new research suggests it promotes tumor growth, the formation of blood vessels that supply tumors with nutrients, and metastasis. Hopefully this doesn't need to be said, but it's also quite unhealthy for pregnant mothers and young children.
Exposure to metals from e-cigarette coils
Most e-cigarettes produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid with a metal coil. These coils are made out of a variety of metals, with the majority made out of Kanthal (an alloy of iron, chromium, and aluminum) and nichrome (an alloy of nickel and chromium). A 2018 study found that the metals associated with these heating coils were leaching into the liquid solution — and, commensurately, into the bodies of the people inhaling them — at unsafe levels. Chronic exposure to such metals has been linked to lung, liver, heart, and brain damage, and may also depress immune function and increase cancer risk.
The cocktail of flavoring agents
E-liquids for use in vaporizers on display. Image source: Justin Sullivan / Getty Images
One of the biggest concerns with vaping is the chemicals used to flavor e-liquids. While many chemicals used in e-cigarettes are labelled as safe for human consumption by the FDA, typically, this labeling applies to their ingestion. Inhaling them may have very different consequences. While there are far too many to go through individually, a few stand out:
Cinnamaldehyde — which, as you may have guessed, has a cinnamon-like taste — has been found to be significantly toxic. Four very common flavoring agents — vanillin, ethyl maltol, ethyl vanillin, and methol — are either carcinogenic or toxic and contribute to cardiopulmonary and neurodegenerative diseases. In general, many of the sweeter flavorings tends to be more toxic. Diacetyl is sometimes found in flavored e-liquids, which provides a sort of buttery flavor. Originally, it was used in microwave popcorn, but manufacturers stopped including it when it was revealed to contribute to bronchiolitis obliterans, also known as popcorn lung.
Propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin
While flavoring chemicals can vary from e-liquid to e-liquid, propylene glycol (PG) and vegetable glycerin (VG) are essentially universal. As mentioned above, these are considered non-toxic when ingested, but their toxicity when inhaled is not clear. Some research, however, has been conducted on these chemicals.
One study, for instance, focused on testing a wide variety of e-liquid chemicals on cell cultures. Based off of the reduced rates at which the treated cells grew, the researchers could then evaluate the toxicity of e-liquid chemicals on those cells. In addition to testing a number of flavoring compounds, they also tested a pure PG/VG treatment, and found that it significantly impacted cell growth.
That being said, the evidence isn't entirely conclusive on PG/VG's toxicity. Another study, for instance, found no toxic effects in mice exposed to aerosolized PG/VG. Ultimately, the preliminary evidence seems to suggest that inhaling PG/VG over the short-term is not toxic, but there is a serious lack of data on their effects over the long-term.
There's another potential concern related to PG/VG in e-cigarettes: formaldehyde exposure. When PG/VG is heated, it can become oxidized to produce carbonyl compounds, such as glyoxal, acrolein, acetaldehyde, and formaldehyde, especially at higher wattages. However, a report by the Royal College of Physicians states that "In normal conditions of use [i.e., low wattages/temperatures], toxin levels in inhaled e-cigarette vapour are probably well below prescribed threshold limit values for occupational exposure."
Ultimately, vaping can be said to be safer than smoking traditional cigarettes, but it's clearly not harmless. If you use e-cigarettes and are concerned about the toxicity of the chemicals in your e-liquid, the Center for Tobacco Regulatory Science and Lung Health maintains a database on the toxicity of a variety of e-liquid brands at eliquidinfo.org
- Researchers Find the 1st Possible Negative Side Effect of Marijuana ... ›
- Health Myths About E-Cigarettes Cause Rising Popularity Among ... ›
- Safe? New research confirms the toxic effect of vaping - Big Think ›
Join us at 2 pm ET tomorrow!
Construction of the $500 billion dollar tech city-state of the future is moving ahead.
- The futuristic megacity Neom is being built in Saudi Arabia.
- The city will be fully automated, leading in health, education and quality of life.
- It will feature an artificial moon, cloud seeding, robotic gladiators and flying taxis.
The Red Sea area where Neom will be built:
Saudi Arabia Plans Futuristic City, "Neom" (Full Promotional Video)<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c646d528d230c1bf66c75422bc4ccf6f"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N53DzL3_BHA?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
Coronavirus layoffs are a glimpse into our automated future. We need to build better education opportunities now so Americans can find work in the economy of tomorrow.
- Outplacement is an underperforming $5 billion dollar industry. A new non-profit coalition by SkillUp intends to disrupt it.
- More and more Americans will be laid off in years to come due to automation. Those people need to reorient their career paths and reskill in a way that protects their long-term livelihood.
- SkillUp brings together technology and service providers, education and training providers, hiring employers, worker outreach, and philanthropies to help people land in-demand jobs in high-growth industries.
Source: McKinsey Global Institute analysis [PDF]<p>Work in understanding the skills at the heart of the new digital economy is leading to novel assessments that allow individuals to prove mastery to faithfully represent their abilities—but also to give weight and stackability to the emerging ecosystem of micro-credentials that make education more seamless across time and education providers. And we are seeing the beginnings of a renewal in the liberal arts, focused on building human skills in affordable ways that are accessible to many more individuals and far more effective.</p><p>Amidst these dark times, there is much opportunity to refresh the nation's education and training solutions to support the success of individuals and society writ large.</p>
Do we really know what we want in a romantic partner? If so, do our desires actually mean we match up with people who suit them?
- Two separate scientific studies suggest that our "ideals" don't really match what we look for in a romantic partner.
- Results of studies like these can change the way we date, especially in the online world.
- "You say you want these three attributes and you like the people who possess these attributes. But the story doesn't end there," says Paul Eastwick, co-author of the study and professor in the UC Davis Department of Psychology.
Do we really know what we want in love or are we just guessing?<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="204859156383d358652fda6f7eadda0f"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vQgfx2iYlso?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>More than 700 participants selected their top three qualities in a romantic partner (things like funny, attractive, inquisitive, kind, etc). They then reported their romantic desire for a series of people they knew personally. Some were blind date partners, others were romantic partners and some were simply platonic friends.</p><p>While participants did experience more romantic desire to the extent that these personal connections of theirs (people they knew) had the qualities they listed, there was more to the study. </p><p>Paul Eastwick, co-author and professor in the UC Davis Department of Psychology <a href="https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-07-romantic-partner-random-stranger.html" target="_blank">explains</a>: "You say you want these three attributes and you like the people who possess these attributes. But the story doesn't end there." </p><p>The participants also considered the extent to which their personal acquaintances possessed three attributes nominated by some other random person in the study. For example, if Kris listed "down-to-earth", intelligent and thoughtful as her own top three attributes, Vanessa also experienced more desire for people with those specific traits. </p>
Does what we want really match up with what we find?<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzQ0NDA4Ni9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTU5NjM3NzY5OX0.gdUo-UbjYhKUDOL39BDZseRynbwaK2H5dfJtbV0nw8Y/img.jpg?width=980" id="ff376" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7c1e3a1bb9d576872ef5dce39b2e8e80" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="illustration of a man and woman matching on a dating app" />
What we claim to want and what we look for may be two separate things...
Image by GoodStudio on Shutterstock<p>So the question became: are we really listing what we want in an ideal partner or are we just listing vague qualities that people typically consider as positive?</p><p>"So in the end, we want partners who have positive qualities," Sparks explained, "but the qualities you specifically list do not actually have special predictive power for you." </p><p>In other words, the idea that we find certain things attractive in a person does not mean we actively seek out people who have those qualities, despite saying it's what we want in a love interest. The authors of this study suggest these findings could have implications for the way we approach online dating in the digital age. </p><p>This isn't the first study of its kind to suggest that what we find in love isn't really what we were looking for. The evidence suggests that we really are consistent in the abstract of it all: when asked to evaluate what you want on paper, you are more likely to suggest overall attractiveness in accordance with what you've stated are important ideals to you. But real life isn't so similar. </p><p>According to <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/meet-catch-and-keep/201506/when-it-comes-love-do-you-really-know-what-you-want" target="_blank">Psychology Today,</a> who covered a 2015 study with similar results, initial face-to-face encounters have very little effect on our romantic desire. "When we initially meet someone, our level of romantic interest in the person is independent of our standards."</p><p>While you might have no immediate interest in John, he may fit your criteria of being kind, loyal, and intelligent. Similarly, someone may be attracted to Elaine even though she doesn't have any of the qualities they originally said were important to them. </p><p><strong>What does this all mean? </strong></p><p>The authors of both the 2015 and 2020 studies say the same thing: give someone a chance before writing them off as a poor match. If your initial attraction is independent of the standards you've set out, the qualities which you've listed as important to you, the first time you meet someone may not give you enough information to make an informed decision.</p><p>"It's really easy to spend time hunting around online for someone who seems to match your ideals," said Sparks, "But our research suggests an alternative approach: Don't be too picky ahead of time about whether a partner matches your ideals on paper. Or, even better, let your friends pick your dates for you." </p>