Measurements of electronic cigarette-generated particles for the evaluation of lung cancer risk

[5150sick]

Measurements of electronic cigarette-generated particles for the evaluation of lung cancer risk of active and passive users


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021850217301155



"The use of electronic cigarettes as an alternative to traditional cigarettes, in the described conditions and considering typical habits for Italian smokers, reduces the risk to get lung cancer from about 4×10−1 to about 7×10−6 (40,000 additional cases versus 0.7 additional cases over a population of 100,000). The exposure to second-hand aerosol, instead, determines a negligible increment of lung cancer cases (0.001–0.003 new cases over a population of 100 000). Higher risks are associated to ECs with nicotine due to the presence of NNN and NNK. In particular, NNK, As and Cd are the main contributors to the total ELCR for ECs with nicotine, while for ECs without nicotine, the main contributor is Cd."


So, out of every 100,000 Smokers 40,000 of them get lung cancer and VAPING reduces that risk to 0.7 out of 100,000 people.

That would be 7 out of 1,000,000

There are 40,000,000 Smokers in the United States

16,000,000 Smokers would die of lung cancer if nothing changes

280 Vapers would die of lung cancer if all 40,000,000 of those smokers switched to vaping.

I call this GOOD NEWS - 5150

 

[Rossum]

The notion that 40% of smokers will get lung cancer doesn't seem right; it strikes me as too high. Unfortunately, it's beyond pay grade to prove this. But let's look at it in broad terms: It's commonly accepted that half of smokers will die of some smoking-related cause. If 40% of smokers get lung cancer, then 80% of smoking-related deaths would be attributed to it, and only 20% of smoking related deaths are due to heart disease, stroke, COPD, and all the other cancers that smoking supposedly causes? My gut tells me that's not the case.

[time passe while I dig further]

Here's a paper that estimates the lifetime lung cancer risk at 17.2% for make smokers and 11.6% for female smokers. Call it a gender-neutral 15%.

Her'es another that estimates.

When expressed as cumulative probability rather than annual death rates, the cumulative risk of dying from lung cancer before age 85 y was 22.1% for a male smoker and 11.9% for a female current smoker, in the absence of competing causes of death.

We might call this one a gender-neutral 17%.

These strike me as in line with reality than 40%...

 

[PoppaVic]

is it gender neutral if they are neutered?

And, how many die of cancer - "and other related illness" - that never smoked? (we know, of course, it's all the dirty smokers fault).

sounds like a whole lot of flop "statistics, damned statistics" - and 90% of everything is bullshit.

 

[MC5]

If the average smoking related cancer rate is 15% and the Italian ecig estimate of .7% is close, approximately 6 million smokers die vs 280 vapers.

Still pretty significant.

 

[5150sick]

The notion that 40% of smokers will get lung cancer doesn't seem right; it strikes me as too high. Unfortunately, it's beyond pay grade to prove this. But let's look at it in broad terms: It's commonly accepted that half of smokers will die of some smoking-related cause. If 40% of smokers get lung cancer, then 80% of smoking-related deaths would be attributed to it, and only 20% of smoking related deaths are due to heart disease, stroke, COPD, and all the other cancers that smoking supposedly causes? My gut tells me that's not the case.

[time passe while I dig further]

Here's a paper that estimates the lifetime lung cancer risk at 17.2% for make smokers and 11.6% for female smokers. Call it a gender-neutral 15%.

Her'es another that estimates.

We might call this one a gender-neutral 17%.

These strike me as in line with reality than 40%...

Fuck the 40% part.
Maybe it's wrong (not in Italy i guess)

The important part is that 0.7 is much lower no matter what numbers you use.

 

[murmeldeier]

Good News indeed ... I initially totally misunderstood the sentence and thought they were saying that is reduces the risk between 0.4 and 0. ..... 7 which (for the min figure) did not seem to make any big difference (between 0.4 and 1 ... ).

Another interesting point to note is that the risk is lower than the limit values proposed by EPA and WHO.

Thanks a lot for sharing the publication.