No oils should be in properly made nicotine vape juice…but there is glycerin that comes from vegetable oil and often still contains oils, propylene glycol that’s not safe to breathe, sugars, formaldehyde, acroline (used in herbicides/damages DNA), unregulated “flavorings” and more, all of which are carcinogenic when heated.
Also, there’s plenty of fly by night nicotine vape juice makers that use whatever smokes, including massage oil in some cases.

The only way to be SURE what’s in it is to make your own from ingredients you either produce or vet well. Don’t buy it by the gallon on eBay or Craigslist.

As I mentioned above, I vape live rosen, which has zero additives and is simply heat pressed from fresh flowers. I’m not saying that’s healthy, but it is free of all carcinogenic man made chemical adulterants unlike ANY nicotine or most cannabis juices, and free of nearly all cellulose unlike plain tobacco or marijuana.

More like rubbing your junk in carcinogenic fiberglass. At least you can SEE cactus thorns.

That’s why I always wore a nomex thong when desert racing.

Nomex has been around since the late 60’s, and it works.

Moved this to profile pages, better late than never.

I'll try to be brief....and fail miserably I expect.
I accept the fact that some theories I hold will be wrong, and cause failure. At least theories can be tested and discarded when proven false. Yes, some are so engrained it would take TNT to dislodge them, but they aren't unchangeable, beliefs are immutable.

No morality in that claim. Moral excuses might be 1) I minimize any suffering by buying mostly family farmed meats and 2) those lives only exist for human pleasure and substance. If no one ate cows and pigs, they would be extinct nuisance animals. (And chickens rare) If the animal has a nice, pain and stress free life, but in trade that life ends early, as long as the end is humane I'm not bothered. That's life it otherwise wouldn't enjoy at all.
Factory farms don't meet those requirements.
They're tasty is why I eat meat. It might be snide, but it's honest. Yes, I'm obstinate, I like meat, I'm not claiming it the most moral, ethical, ecological, or empathetic thing to do, but if done thoughtfully it's not the worst either.

My meaning with "it's not the worst t thing people do" was to reply to " I believe (assuming humans survive) humans will look upon this time of killing billions of animals for nothing but human pleasure with disgusting disgrace." with a few other examples of things worse that we will be judged for, not to distract or excuse. I'm not sure how that's a logical falicy. Tens of Billions of animals are killed horrifically for pure greed and not even used as food, that's a disgusting disgrace I could denounce.

I read the WHO study he was referencing and it said no such thing, I told him, showed him, he kept repeating the bullshit lies. I'm not receptive to people who blatantly misrepresent science. I don't rely on any industry produced studies for any decisions, that would be dumb. The study said certain highly processed and preserved red meats had some carcinogens, not any meat at any level is equivalent to two packs a day. My degree is general science, I can read a study.

Oh shit, nutritionfacts.org is Dr Gregor, the one who outright lies about scientific studies, and the one who made the false equivalency between tiny amounts of meat and constant chain smoking, he also loved to misuse "plant based" to mean vegan and claim the studies on plant based (not plant exclusive) diets proved vegan benefits when they really proved a mixed diets benefits. I've been deep down his rabbit hole, and found him incredibly unscientific and dishonest. I don't trust him one bit, sorry.

I've only known a hand full, including the one who introduced me to Dr Gregor, my aunt, uncle, and cousins, and a few here in hippy central where I live. Not one was honest, they acted like it was religion and took statements as gospel with no investigation and were forceful in their insistence that everyone agree.

I once ate fish and thought it was fine. Three years of marine biology cured me of that, so my theories are changed by facts. I promised myself to never learn too much about chicken, pork, or beef because I don't want to know what's in them unless it's broken glass. That's a conscious decision. There is no hell hot enough to scare me away from good bacon. That said, I do care that they have a good life before being harvested.

I'm willing to change behavior and thinking. I previously thought the fda was good at protecting us, I decided I couldn't trust that.

I make some decisions based on MY morality, some on self interest, some on group/global interest, etc. I'm not willing to make any based on someone else's morality, especially if they're pushy.

I have no clue who visits, but this is where I come, so it's where I speak up.

I always make the mistake of thinking people will be logical.

Have I said any such things? I certainly don't recall saying any of that.
You must note, however, that the overreaction you get from some people likely stems from attempts to shame them using exaggeration, hyperbole, and even outright lies, which tend to make enemies to your cause rather than converts. I've never met a vegan that didn't operate that way to some degree. Perhaps those people are just giving back the same level of honest discussion and discourse they received. There's apparently something about veganism that makes it's practitioners think their movement is more important that fact and truth, like the "Dr." (and his followers) who claimed eating any amount of any red meat is just as carcinogenic as smoking a pack a day of cigarettes, citing WHO studies that said nothing of the sort. Many have said "If you agree with my goal, stopping animal suffering, why would you contradict my claims, even though I privately agree they're exaggeration and fantasy?". Ends don't justify means imo, and nothing justifies lying.

I don't need a degree in nutrition or to be a dietitian to understand the basics covered in multiple health classes I've passed and multiple scientific studies I've read. Is meat healthy? Yes....if it's raised and prepared properly and eaten in moderation. Is meat unhealthy? Yes...when eaten excessively or prepared unsafely.
Is veganism healthy? Yes....when practiced properly with a balanced diet that has all the nutrients humans need. Is veganism unhealthy? Yes...it is the way it's practiced by most vegans who don't have a grasp on what proper nutrition is. It's definitely harder to have a balanced healthy diet without any animal products, but isn't impossible.

Once again, I feel you are being fast and loose with fact by implying any of those statements have come from me. The only people I expect to die 6 times in a row are the ones in my dungeon that I'm keeping alive to prolong their torture....and they know what they did to deserve it. ;-)

The cancer arm of the World Health Organization has some serious concerns about some of Americans’ favorite foods. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies processed meat as a carcinogen, something that causes cancer. And it classifies red meat as a probable carcinogen, something that probably causes cancer.

Processed meat includes hot dogs, ham, bacon, sausage, and some deli meats. It refers to meat that has been treated in some way to preserve or flavor it. Processes include salting, curing, fermenting, and smoking. Red meat includes beef, pork, lamb, and goat.

Twenty-two experts from 10 countries reviewed more than 800 studies to reach their conclusions. They found that eating 50 grams of processed meat every day increased the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. That’s the equivalent of about 4 strips of bacon or 1 hot dog. For red meat, there was evidence of increased risk of colorectal, pancreatic, and prostate cancer.

Overall, the lifetime risk of someone developing colon cancer is 5%. To put the numbers into perspective, the increased risk from eating the amount of processed meat in the study would raise average lifetime risk to almost 6%.

----------------------------

Read the study. The average raises almost 1 percent. This was copied straight from https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/hot-dogs-hamburgers-bacon.html.

Video Title: Slurring guy on the internet defends alcohol consumption, jesus wept lol.

And let's talk about bias for a minute. Nobody is drinking alcohol for the protective effects for the 3 cancers it apparently protects against.Aaron is clearly trying to make himself feel better about his bad habits.

Moderate alcohol is not protective against 3 types of cancers, it's merely associated with it, because people who drink moderately are in a certain demographic, age, class, social/economical, education etc. and the studies that are shown in the nutritionfacts.org video control for these kinds of things.

I'm not sure if you watched the video , but they show research which says that the alcohol industry use the same tactics as big tobacco do (that Aaron is perpetuating) to keep the public confused.

The tactic Aaron is using, is cherry picking a weak study, debunking their shitty method, and then using it to dismiss all other credible evidence. It's effectively a strawman, because he did nothing to address the hundreds of studies with strong evidence.


TL:DR ALCOHOL IS A GROUP 1 CARCINOGEN - IT CAUSES CANCER:

EVERY MEDICAL BODY RECOMMENDS ZERO CONSUMPTION

Indeed....
In this interview Neal Barnard admits he exaggerates and lies to get people to consider going vegan.....
https://www.livekindly.co/dr-neal-barnard-accused-cherry-picking-studies-netflixs-health/

Edit:
Far from the first time, I have yet to hear a vegan doctor who wasn't a bold faced liar about the science. One claimed the WHO had declared eating moderate levels of red meat more dangerous than smoking cigarettes when in fact the study he cited was for high consumption of highly processed cured meats and only said they appear to be carcinogenic and need more study, they did not make a comparison with cigarettes or rate the danger levels, but vegans still make that false claim based on these "doctors'" exaggerated claims because it seems being vegan rots your brain.

I think it can be linked more to tobacco being a carcinogen. While smoking 'anything' may cause other issues with your respiratory system (bronchitis, emphysema, COPD, etc), smoking a carcinogen means you are exposing cells to a substance that can alter their genome.

An easier comparison would be chewing gum and nicotine gum. Since nicotine is a carcinogen, you run the risk of developing cancers of the mouth, throat, and gums by chewing the gum. Regular chewing gum does not contain a carcinogen, so it wouldn't affect you in that way.

As far as the smoke itself, I know that cigarette smoke has additional carcinogens other than nicotine. I do not know if these transfer to weed simply because it is smoked as well. One would assume you could bypass this, just in case, by vaping or using edibles.

I didn't argue against any study, only his (and your) consistent misrepresentations of them. Those 9037 studies may indicate eating large amounts of red meat seems to raise the risk of certain cancers, they never claim red meat causes cancer, no legitimate study would make that leap, and no legitimate scientist would lie to you about that....but he does.

Stating there are studies that say highly processed cured red meat appears to contain carcinogens is true. Saying those studies concluded and claimed eating red meat is the same or worse than heavy smoking is wholly unsupported nonsense. He did the latter....and you repeat it.

Sweet zombie Jesus...."they" huh? They who? Clearly huh? Clear to whom? That's not what that would mean even if it was in the study, which I doubt. Your obvious bias completely overwhelms your ability to read a study.

Besides, who eats >2.5 lbs of highly processed cured red meat every week for life?
Keep in mind that's >2.5lbs cooked/processed weight that appears to raise your risk, (so probably 5-7.5lbs uncooked weight) without a rate of rise listed (the study didn't say "serious risk", did it, I would bet it said "elevated risk" or similar if it actually said anything about risk), so you must make umpteen leaps away from logic and fact to make your statement

.....why are you arguing this again. You eventually conceded you were totally wrong and he had exaggerated and misrepresented data last time we had this discussion. Were you just hoping to not be contradicted again so you could fool/scare some people into your vegan mindset with misinterpretations and misrepresentations of studies you've previously admitted were totally misrepresented by Greger?

Also keep in mind the study was only about highly cured and processed red meats, not just red meat...one more fudging of fact in a long line. It's intended to be studying the results of processing/curing meats, not the meat itself.

PSA: Pepsi has more carcinogenic caramel colouring agents than coke. But you know, it's best to have 0.

EDIT: Based on past experience with his claims, that's not presenting the science, it's completely misrepresenting it. It's what this guy does, he cherry picks someone else's data, totally misrepresents the study and it's conclusions, and makes huge leaps and extrapolations to say things like 'eating meat is now proven to be the same carcinogenic cancer risk as being a chain smoker'....but anyone who can understand the study he cites, limited to highly processed cured meats and mentioning the levels of possible carcinogens was not measured but are likely infinitesimal, can see it said no such thing, and didn't even come close to implying it. That type of misuse of data gets my goat....I think lying about science and data are crimes against humanity, and I wish they were actionable.

Bullshit, that's not true at all. My wife eats cheese about 3-4 times a year, and enjoys it those times. Same with beef. No addiction cycle exists with that long of a period that I'm aware of.
Food preference/taste is in no way the same as addiction, and any "doctor" telling you differently is a liar.
Habits and addictions are different concepts, that's why they are spelled and pronounced differently.

They should have less risk. They don't have carcinogenic chemicals added to make them stay lit or preserve them, and they aren't inhaled (by those who know how to smoke them).
That doesn't mean they're safe, as you mentioned. I think oral and throat cancers, while still a risk, are more likely with cigarettes because of the extra chemicals.
You are right, there's very little data about cigar risks. It would be silly to pretend they don't have risks, though.

I would note that I've seen people publicly harass cigarette smokers, then come tell me how good my cigar smells. I've also never had someone complain about my cigar smoke, but heard it often back when I smoked cigarettes.

Awesome to have real concrete information presented in a way that seems very distinct from what you'd get from sources on the far ends of the spectrum, like High Times or the DEA.

I'm quite surprised that smoking pot seems to carry an increased risk of bronchitis, like tobacco, but apparently NOT lung cancer (unlike tobacco). Are the carcinogens in tobacco cigarettes all from additional ingredients? Could people be growing their own tobacco and rolling their own cigarettes and avoiding one of the biggest health consequences? If so, shouldn't there be a market for tobacco cigarettes without any added ingredients?


I have never smoked pot OR tobacco. A lot of my reasons for avoiding either come down to a hatred of and pretty real sensitivity to / negative reactions to exposure to smoke. Some of my bias against that transfers into bias against pot in general, since smoking it is the default method.

At the same time, it seems ridiculous to me that pot is double-secret schedule 1 illegal while alcohol and tobacco are both perfectly legal. Especially when it seems apparent (although I don't really know what I'm talking about since I've never used it myself) that the intoxicating effects of pot are comparable to but generally LESS dangerous than alcohol, and the negative health consequences of pot are FAR LESS than either alcohol OR tobacco.

Getting real facts and knowledge out there like this video is doing has to have a positive effect on that very questionable policy.

What kind of moron rides through something like that without knowing what it actually was? Hell, it could have been caustic or carcinogenic. Hopefully it causes sterility.

"Smoking vs. high consumption of processed meat
Even though smoking is in the same category as processed meat (Group 1 carcinogen), the magnitude or level of risk associated with smoking is considerably higher (e.g., for lung cancer about 20 fold or 2000% increased risk) from those associated with processed meat."

I could be reading this wrong - but are they saying that you're 2000% more likely to get lung cancer from smoking, than getting lung cancer from processed meat?
If that's the case then my response is "Duh, you don't put processed meat into your lungs"