And well yes, new health hazards will be discovered about vaping, there is no doubt about it. Just as new health hazards are still discovered about smoking.
But as of our scientific knowledge right now it’s better, and it’s unlikely to shift because the main source of toxins has been eliminated: combustion. I’ve yet to see a source that says otherwise and you have no other way than to use the current knowledge to make a choice.
I don’t really see your point, why should people keep doing what we know to be worse?
And what do you call mid, long-term? Because vaping has been around long enough to have people that have been doing it for almost 20 years.
I also don’t understand why you speak about water related to vapor. Vapor, or gas, is a state of matter, if you heat something, anything, it’ll vaporise (or boil as we say for water) into a gas. Different elements have different melting points, that’s why cannabis vaporisers have an adjustable temperature. Set it low and only the THC will vaporise, higher and you’ll get the CBD too. That’s why combustion is so bad, because the temperature is so high that almost everything vaporise, there is no point in having a temperature this high, it’ll vaporise so many toxic elements. We can discuss nicotine vaporisation because there can issues with elements coming from the flavouring, but for cannabis it’s very straightforward, using a lower temperature than what you get with combustion gets you all the interesting substances (maybe not some terpenes that gives some flavours) without a lot of the toxic ones. Also the herbs are never going to be 100% dry so they’ll have some water, creating a little bit of steam, but that’s only one of the many vaporised elements.
This is what’s called “risk reduction”, less harmful is better.
I meant regulated as having standards, of course.
Of course it says further research is needed, most papers say that. Again I’ve yet to see a paper that puts vape as more harmful that smoke.
I’ve never seen vape marketing using the word steam, vapor is the scientifically correct word, it’s not an aerosol. An aerosol is a solid or liquid element in suspension inside a gas, this is not the case, the elements you are inhaling are gaseous, it’s a vapor.
And how would you know the amount of water in the myst you see? How can you visually differentiate between the elements? The vapor is composed of all the elements with lower boiling point (I made a mistake using the word melting point in my previous message) than what you set on the vaporiser. Smoke has water in it too.
It’s really simple, burn the thing and you get a very night temperature, almost everything gets vaporised, a lot of elements react to create more harmful ones and you get a lot of smoke (with a little bit of water in it too). Now use a vaporiser, heat it a lot less, to a lower temperature and less elements get vaporised, there are way less reactions (no CO) and you get way less visible gas.
You accuse me of shifting the conversation and you end up being the one doing it. I never said the conversation was irrelevant, I said that whether or not the end goal was to stop or not was irrelevant in deciding about switching to a less toxic mode of consumption.
You complain that it’s mostly bro-saying, marketing and low quality source but when the conversation becomes serious you drop it and never bring any research to your argument.
And you don’t even know the definition of words central to the subject, like vaporisation or aerosol, and yet you act like you know, saying so many approximate to downright false things. It’s OK not to know a subject, no one can know everything, but don’t act like you, misleading people along the way.
I’m OK continuing this conversation if you bring some substance to it. Other please edit your initial message to avoid misleading people.
Who’s “you people”?
And well yes, new health hazards will be discovered about vaping, there is no doubt about it. Just as new health hazards are still discovered about smoking. But as of our scientific knowledge right now it’s better, and it’s unlikely to shift because the main source of toxins has been eliminated: combustion. I’ve yet to see a source that says otherwise and you have no other way than to use the current knowledge to make a choice.
I don’t really see your point, why should people keep doing what we know to be worse?
And what do you call mid, long-term? Because vaping has been around long enough to have people that have been doing it for almost 20 years.
deleted by creator
I’m not trying to shift the conversation, vaping is better as a replacement. Whether it’s to quit altogether or not afterwards is irrelevant.
I don’t get why you say it’s not regulated because it is, at least in my country and in a lot of others.
There are a lot of research, the sources for the video you posted has some, here is another well known one.
I also don’t understand why you speak about water related to vapor. Vapor, or gas, is a state of matter, if you heat something, anything, it’ll vaporise (or boil as we say for water) into a gas. Different elements have different melting points, that’s why cannabis vaporisers have an adjustable temperature. Set it low and only the THC will vaporise, higher and you’ll get the CBD too. That’s why combustion is so bad, because the temperature is so high that almost everything vaporise, there is no point in having a temperature this high, it’ll vaporise so many toxic elements. We can discuss nicotine vaporisation because there can issues with elements coming from the flavouring, but for cannabis it’s very straightforward, using a lower temperature than what you get with combustion gets you all the interesting substances (maybe not some terpenes that gives some flavours) without a lot of the toxic ones. Also the herbs are never going to be 100% dry so they’ll have some water, creating a little bit of steam, but that’s only one of the many vaporised elements.
deleted by creator
This is what’s called “risk reduction”, less harmful is better.
I meant regulated as having standards, of course.
Of course it says further research is needed, most papers say that. Again I’ve yet to see a paper that puts vape as more harmful that smoke.
I’ve never seen vape marketing using the word steam, vapor is the scientifically correct word, it’s not an aerosol. An aerosol is a solid or liquid element in suspension inside a gas, this is not the case, the elements you are inhaling are gaseous, it’s a vapor.
And how would you know the amount of water in the myst you see? How can you visually differentiate between the elements? The vapor is composed of all the elements with lower boiling point (I made a mistake using the word melting point in my previous message) than what you set on the vaporiser. Smoke has water in it too.
It’s really simple, burn the thing and you get a very night temperature, almost everything gets vaporised, a lot of elements react to create more harmful ones and you get a lot of smoke (with a little bit of water in it too). Now use a vaporiser, heat it a lot less, to a lower temperature and less elements get vaporised, there are way less reactions (no CO) and you get way less visible gas.
deleted by creator
Yeah, I expected this.
You accuse me of shifting the conversation and you end up being the one doing it. I never said the conversation was irrelevant, I said that whether or not the end goal was to stop or not was irrelevant in deciding about switching to a less toxic mode of consumption.
You complain that it’s mostly bro-saying, marketing and low quality source but when the conversation becomes serious you drop it and never bring any research to your argument.
And you don’t even know the definition of words central to the subject, like vaporisation or aerosol, and yet you act like you know, saying so many approximate to downright false things. It’s OK not to know a subject, no one can know everything, but don’t act like you, misleading people along the way.
I’m OK continuing this conversation if you bring some substance to it. Other please edit your initial message to avoid misleading people.
deleted by creator