National Geographic
Menu

Cigarettes vs. e-Cigarettes: Which Is Less Environmentally Harmful?

Photo: e-Cigarette
An e-cigarette. The health effects of the devices are unknown, but might they provide some environmental benefits over traditional smokes? Photo: Jakemaheu, Wikimedia Commons

 
For years environmentalists have been pressuring cigarette makers to cut back on synthetic chemicals in their products, to reduce their harm to both smokers and non-smokers. Regulators have been worried about second hand smoke for years, and have been passing indoor smoking bans state by state. Today you can go to work, shop, or go out to eat in many places without being inundated with toxic haze from smokers.

However, there is still a problem with cigarette butts left behind by smokers. We all see this litter on our sidewalks, roads, and parking lots, often just feet from a trash bin. Unfortunately, many smokers still toss their spent cigarettes out their cars.

Although people are smoking less in America thanks to decades of public health campaigns, cigarette butts are still a significant trash problem. The core of the butt can take anywhere from 18 months to 10 years to decompose. During that time, the cigarette filters are full of tar, nicotine, and other toxins that can leach into the ground, potentially affecting any organism that comes into contact with them.

Butts pushed by rain into storm drains can make it into the ocean, where they can release their toxic chemicals, or get eaten by fish or birds.

Although it is also a controversial product, electronic cigarettes, or e-cigarettes, could help reduce this toxic burden. The devices use a small amount of power to vaporize nicotine, which is then inhaled. Some are marketed as entirely nicotine free, and many have flavorings added. Many are advertised as helping smokers wean themselves off their habit.

Most electronic cigarettes are reusable, meaning only a tiny amount of vapor needs to be refilled for each use. This means they are potentially more eco-friendly than going through mountains of single-use products, which take resources to produce. e-Cigarettes are typically powered by reusable batteries, and are often charged via USB ports.

Because electronic cigarettes don’t produce smoke, they are much less risky to non-users and to air quality in general. The health impacts on users are not well known, since the products have only been on the market for a few years. The FDA has recommended against their use, pointing out that there isn’t enough data to know how much nicotine a user might actually inhale, and whether there might be adverse effects.

A number of groups have also warned that the products might be attractive to children, given their novelty and option for different flavorings. While many e-cigarettes look like traditional tobacco products, others resemble pens or USB memory sticks.

While some health professionals suggest consumers steer clear of e-cigarettes, it’s also possible that they could function as a useful smoking cessation intermediary. It’s obvious that quitting smoking is difficult, so maybe there is value to a product that may or may not cause some harm, but that helps one stop using a product that we know causes harm.

It’s clear e-cigarettes are safer for non-users, so does that qualify them as a worthy lesser of two evils?

Is it too convenient for non-smokers to say that people “should just not smoke or use e-cigarettes”? If it were easy, they’d already be doing that.

What do you think?

Photo: Pen e-cigarettes
Some e-cigarettes are fashioned to look like pens or other items. Photo: Equazcion, Wikimedia Commons

Comments

  1. http://sheriffecig.com/
    November 5, 2013, 4:15 am

    E-cigarettes are highly recommended as an alternative to tobacco cigarettes. They are cheap and provide the necessary shot of nicotine without the side effects of tobacco cigarettes. These cigarettes seem a perfect aid for everyone who wants to quit smoking.

  2. Sheriff ecigs
    Finland
    November 5, 2013, 4:12 am

    There is too many random e-liquid companies making there own juice that is killing it for everybody! in my opinion just lay the facts on the table! http://www.sheriffecig.com

  3. [...] (Related: “Cigarettes vs. e-Cigarettes: Which Is Less Environmentally Harmful?”) [...]

  4. [...] (Related: “Cigarettes vs. e-Cigarettes: Which Is Less Environmentally Harmful?”) [...]

  5. electronic cigarettes UK
    http://www.vapourmaniacs.com/JACVapour-s/1833.htm
    March 1, 2013, 6:00 am

    E-cigarettes are highly recommended as an alternative to tobacco cigarettes. They are cheap and provide the necessary shot of nicotine without the side effects of tobacco cigarettes. These cigarettes seem a perfect aid for everyone who wants to quit smoking.

  6. Kelly Webber
    http://www.neatcigs.co.uk
    February 26, 2013, 5:12 pm

    These statements are all correct and I do think they should be regulated heavily. The main issue, certainly in the UK is there are a lot of E Liquid vendors popping up who are creating their own liquids for these e cigarettes in their own homes and because there are no regulations it is perfectly legal for them to sell them. This in many ways is a wonderful thing but if a vendor gets the mix of nicotine wrong in any way it could actually be life threatening. Once regulations are put in place it should stop anybody making E Liquid and put licensing in place.

  7. click the up coming post
    http://dlkfsldkflksdlk.com
    February 21, 2013, 12:57 am

    Hello just wanted to give you a quick heads up. The words in your content seem to be running off the screen in Internet explorer. I’m not sure if this is a format issue or something to do with browser compatibility but I figured I’d post to let you know. The layout look great though! Hope you get the issue solved soon. Many thanks|

  8. [...] Subject : Cigarettes vs. e-Cigarettes: Which Is Less Environmentally Harmful? [...]

  9. cigarettes
    January 20, 2013, 5:58 pm

    We’re a group of volunteers and starting a new scheme in our community. Your site provided us with helpful info to paintings on. You have performed an impressive activity and our entire neighborhood might be grateful to you.

  10. Lindsay Fox
    CA, United States
    October 13, 2012, 9:31 pm

    Well I think this is an easy debate. Let’s look at some of the benefits of E-Cigarettes over Cigarettes:

    E-Cigarettes:

    1. No Ash
    2. No Tar
    3. +1000 Less Chemicals
    4. No Second Hand Smoke
    5. No Cigarette Butt Waste
    6. Lower Fire Risk
    7. No Pollution

    Did you know over 14 million cigarette butts are not properly trashed every year? This means that our environment is polluted with over 14 m cigarette butts. Plus out of those that are properly trashed, it takes 4-7 years for all these cigarette butts to be recycles. This is extremely dangerous for the environment.

    However, with e-cigarettes, much less e-butts are used to begin with. And out of those, 98% of them are properly trashed and recycled.

    Need more proof? Here are 15 reasons e-cigarettes are better than cigarettes: http://ecigarettereviewed.com/15-reasons-to-switch-to-e-cigarettes

    -Lindsay

  11. Amy Lee
    September 19, 2012, 11:11 pm

    Smoking represents 98% of the harm that comes to tobacco, meaning if 500,000 die each year from smoking, and we ban cigarettes, and the ENTIRE population uses smokeless tobacco their entire lives, you’ve saved 490,000 lives.

    http://www.desire-ecig.com/

  12. eCigs and the Environment | SmartVapes
    September 11, 2012, 3:49 pm

    [...] An article published in April by National Geographic News looks at traditional and electronic cigarettes from a fresh angle – harm to the environment. [...]

  13. [...] Cigarettes vs. e-Cigarettes: Which Is Less Environmentally Harmful? [...]

  14. [...] Read full article. [...]

  15. sammy
    August 27, 2012, 5:32 am

    I have been a smoker for years and since i switched to ecigs ive not only saved a lot of money i wasted before on pack after pack of smokes but now i just use a refill ecig. i think the most important thing to look for when buying juice for electronic cigarets is to buy usa ejuce and not buy that Chinese cheap stuff

  16. Molly
    California
    August 15, 2012, 2:23 pm

    After using my e-cigs for about 2 months I certainly do feel the benefits. These are amazing tools for anybody to stop smoking real cigarettes. The flavors and different models keep things fun and interesting. I got mine from electroniccigarettegeneration.com They seem to have the largest variety, best prices and above all else the highest quality e-cigs and other products that I have ever found anywhere else. I highly recommend ECG for any vaper.

  17. Rip Washington
    Baltimore MD
    August 14, 2012, 12:11 pm

    The caption beneath the photo is a bit misleading. It should read,

    “…The LONG TERM health effects of the devices are unknown…”

    This is because the majority of electronic cigarette users report an almost immediate improvement of health. Having used electronic cigarettes for three years, I can personally report that I’m no longer congested, I haven’t experienced a cold (where I usually get at least one a year) since coverting to vaping, my sense of taste and smell have improved…

    …and I don’t stink anymore.

  18. Barbara
    UK
    July 14, 2012, 11:42 am

    I’m not a politician or a scientist but I’ve been using e-cigarettes for 6 month now and feel much better since so I think they are much better than real cigarettes. I got mine from http://www.paddypuff.com/ they are cheap and very reliable too, worth to try. Your pocket will feel heavier and your lungs lighter!

  19. Mark Jenkins
    Chester, NY
    July 9, 2012, 3:30 pm

    Well if I was to answer your question, “Which Is Less Environmentally Harmful?” It’s just as how you explained it, e-cigs are less harmful to the environment than the traditional ones. I don’t need to explain it do I?? I mean this is nationalgeographic, you guys probably know more logical explanation than I do, so I won’t bother explaining. As to the question, “It’s clear e-cigarettes are safer for non-users, so does that qualify them as a worthy lesser of two evils?” Well, there’s a potential that they might actually be a smoking cessation aid but never make them available to minors… Also, I definitely agree with you about quitting smoking, if it was that easy in the first place, how many smokers’ lives would have been saved… That’s what I think!

    Kind Regards To All!
    Mark Jenkins,
    Contact:
    Website:http://www.clickacig.com
    contact email: jenkinsmark01@gmail.com
    company email: va@clickacig.com

  20. Craig Cosby
    June 12, 2012, 12:53 am

    I quit smoking after 17years after logging on to viper-vape.com and I will never turn back, just the sheer fact alone that the product is not burning like a traditional cig and that I don’t hawk up a lung when Im running has me saying I will never go back, it’s been 9 months and not even a craving

  21. George
    May 27, 2012, 3:25 pm

    By using an e-cigarette as an alternative to smoking tobacco, smokers might be comforted with the fact that new nicotine replacement gadgets don’t carry any kind of tar and ash as their primary elements. Since tobacco and also tar are identified as the main causes of long-term respiratory disease development, the non-utilization of these substances tremendously assist in lowering your chance of acquiring unpleasant respiratory symptoms.
    George
    http://egotube.gr/

  22. [...] you do, give e cigs a try! You won’t be disappointed and according to this National Geographic article they could also be a better option [...]

  23. MD Limon Hossain
    USA
    May 18, 2012, 10:42 am

    There are a couple of misguided beliefs about e cigarettes I would like to discuss.
    Although some is speculation, much of this opinion piece is based on research and law.
    Myth 1: It doesn’t matter if an e-cigarette contains nicotine or not,
    they will be regulated the same. Busted? Currently the FDA is fighting in Federal.

  24. Romper187
    U.S.A
    May 12, 2012, 7:34 pm

    If you are looking for a safer way to quit i highly recommend the electronic cigarette. http://appealingsmokes.com has the new Micro which is now the worlds smallest electronic cigarette!

  25. christina
    Canada
    May 9, 2012, 4:09 pm

    i smoked for 11 years it was everything to me i lived my life around smoking i quit in oct 2011 with e cigs now i use mods but NO real cigarettes in 7 months and i dont miss it

  26. [...] * Reference: http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/04/11/cigarettes-vs-e-cigarettes-which-is-less-environm… [...]

  27. Silvya
    bqMmZmNkUsw
    April 29, 2012, 9:14 pm

    i started smknoig the e cig after 10 years of smknoig a pack a day its been 14 days now i have no cravings for an analog and i feel great i will NEVER go backto analog cigarettes !TO ALL WHO SMOKE ANALOG CIGARETTES !ITS TIME TO START A FIGHT AGAINST TRADITIONAL CIGARETTES AND TOBACCO COMAPNIES THERE IS A WAY TO QUIT AND LIVE A LONG HEATHY LIFE WITH OUT SHORTNESS OF BREATH , YELLOW FINGERS, YELLOW TEETH, AND THAT DISGUSTING STINK THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO GET AWAY FROM . TRY IT OUT !

  28. [...] Geographic News Watch I came across this really great article on National Geographic News Watch Cigarettes vs. e-Cigarettes: Which Is Less Environmentally Harmful? – News Watch the author makes some really interesting points, some of which discussed here, it's worth a read. [...]

  29. [...] came across this really great article on National Geographic News Watch  “Cigarettes vs. e-Cigarettes: Which Is Less Environmentally Harmful?” the author makes some really interesting points, some of which discussed here, it’s [...]

  30. [...] Cigarettes vs. e-Cigarettes: Which Is Less Environmentally Harmful? An e-cigarette. The health effects of the devices are unknown, but might they provide some environmental benefits over traditional smokes? Photo: Jakemaheu, Wikimedia Commons By Allen Tellis and Brian Clark Howard For years environmentalists have been … Read more on National Geographic [...]

  31. Romper
    U.S.A
    April 22, 2012, 8:21 pm

    I have been a fan of the electronic cigarette ever since the Safe Cig micro and blink came out. If you smoke cigarettes and want to quit i suggest at least trying an electronic cigarette. The health benifits can actually be seen quickly and as a result i have been focusing on my posittive steps forward with a cigarette. I used to smoke a pack a day for four and a half years! I have been using the e cig for a year now and love the impact it has had on my journey quitting!

  32. scott
    April 21, 2012, 12:54 pm

    The e cigarette has helped me with my journey of quitting cigarettes. I approve of the no tar, no ash, and no odor policy! :) If your looking to kick the habit i suggest the electronic cigarette. The best brands are The Safe Cig, Blu Cigs, Halo Cigs, Madvapes, and of course http://appealingsmokes.com !!!

  33. Bumstead68
    April 21, 2012, 2:12 am

    Jim – What does it matter what the population is?? – The yearly total death rate in the US has been an average of about 2.5 million a year since approx 2000 – – 440,000 is approx. 18-19% of the total death rate. – Like I said, approx 21% of the population smoke – yet approx 18% of the population dies from smoking related deaths – the CDC verified this in one of their publications – one of their charts specifically states that more NON SMOKERS die yearly from smoking related diseases than smokers do!!! – So why do they call them “SMOKING RELATED DISEASES”??? – don’t have the link handy – but can post it if needed

  34. Jim
    US
    April 18, 2012, 7:26 pm

    Bumstead68 “For all who quote the worn out figures of “19% of the population dies from smoking” or “440,000 a year, die from smoking” (this figture equals approx. 18% of the population)”

    There are about 350 Million here in the US. I am not sure of your math, because 440,000 is not anywhere close to 18, 19 or even 10 % of our population.

    The 440,000 is accurate, your math is not!

  35. Carrie
    North Carolina
    April 18, 2012, 2:44 pm

    I have been using my e-cig for well over a year now. They are wonderful. As others have mentioned already, there is very little in the liquid you use, PG (propelyne glycol), VG (vegetable glycerine), flavoring (which can be as simple as an extract off of grocery store shelves) and nicotine.You are not inhaling tar, carbon monoxide, hot smoke, etc. The vapor is cool, literally. The bottles of E-Liquid are all clearly labled as to their nicotine content. You can vary your nicotine level to an amount that suits your purpose; from the highest 36 mg per bottle all the way down to zero. It does help to kick the smoking habit. After just a few weeks you can breathe easier, lose the “smoker’s cough”, smell more than you ever knew was out there to smell, taste your food better, sleep better, etc, etc…. the benefits are really too many to list here. As for not being a pollution issue, of all the benefits of “e-cigs” I feel that this is the least of them. Yeah, you don’t throw them away after every use, and that’s great, but I think its more important that they can help people get healthier while keeping trash out of our environment.

  36. Lee
    North Carolina
    April 18, 2012, 1:41 pm

    It’s true that no extensive studies have been done, but having switched to a PV after 10+ years of smoking; I can tell you I feel like a new person. My blood pressure has gone down, my airways have opened up and my activity level has increased. I don’t think it’s a mere coincidence that I’ve lost over 20 lbs since taking up vaping. There are also the economic benefits. I’m a customer of Todd’s (who commented below) and he is just one example of all the small American businesses, from retail outlets to liquid/hardware manufacturers, that have sprung up as a result of this new market.

  37. Todd Webster
    King, NC
    April 18, 2012, 9:27 am

    Go to http://www.facebook.com/KingVapes and read the testimonials of my customers. Electronic Cigarettes, Personal Vaporizers, E-Cigs, whatever you choose to call them WORK! The nicotine liquid contains Vegetable Glycerin, Nicotine, Propylene Glycol, and Organic Flavorings. All these ingredients are USP. The nicotine dosages are labeled on the bottles of juice. I stopped smoking March 28th, 2011 by using E-Cigs and can now run and play with my sons without having to take a “breather” and interrupting out play time. Hiking, fishing, shooting, it’s ALL easier now. Food tastes and smells better than ever before and so do I. My wife loves the fact that I no longer smell of smoke any longer and neither does my car!

  38. Williams
    China
    April 18, 2012, 3:03 am

    Dear Sir/ Madam,
    My name is Michael from V-fast e-cigarette company ltd, we are the leading producer and supplier of V2, 21 century, smoke-tip, blog, tobacco, red wiki and all it’s related accessories. We are committed in producing OEM for these model for the past two years. Our boss was the first inventer of two pieces e-cigarette design and carttomizer (2piece design) because he dedicated much of his life to it and we have improved cartomizer to horizontal bottom coil design which is the perfect and best selling in the market now.

    All our products are CE,ROHS, SGS MSDS approved and certified with 6 months guarantee, we replace any faulty item and ship back to customer on our cost. We sincerely look forward to establish good business relationship with you.

    Warm regard

    Michael

    Address: 3F Fujinshun Industrial Park, Shajing Town Shenzhen city China.

    Mob: 0086159894654490

    Tell: 0086-0755-33253098

    Fax: 0086-0755-33253097

    Msg: michealwilliams75@yahoo.com

    Skype: micheal195696

    Website: http://www.ele-cigarette.com

    http://www.vfast.net.cn

  39. [...] Posted by smokingeveryplace on April 17, 2012 in Smoker Friendly Electronic Cigarette · 0 Comments Cigarettes vs. e-Cigarettes: Which Is Less Environmentally Harmful? Many are advertised as helping smokers wean themselves off their habit. Most electronic cigarettes are reusable, meaning only a tiny amount of vapor needs to be refilled for each use. This means they are potentially more eco-friendly than going through … Read more on National Geographic [...]

  40. - Green Smokeless Cigarettes
    April 17, 2012, 4:01 am

    [...] Cigarettes vs. e-Cigarettes: Which Is Less Environmentally Harmful? This piece by the National Geographic takes a look at the environmental impact of traditional cigarettes. For instance, did you know that a single butt from a tobacco cigarette can take anywhere from 18 months to 10 years to decompose? Compare this to electronic cigarettes, which for the most part use recyclable flavor cartridges. [...]

  41. Bumstead68
    kansas
    April 17, 2012, 3:17 am

    For Jon – who says “You completely ignore getting to a smokefree society” – and –
    Lisa who says – “Why should bystanders have to choose “the lesser of two evils” when we can have “no evil at all”?

    WHAT DREAMERS!!

    Until we get to a completely electrical society, furnished entirely by clean alternative energy sources – this Utopia that you describe, can NEVER be realized!

    Every breath that a person takes, contains the VERY SAME toxic chemicals that are found in cigarette smoke – This material is pumped – in some instances, BY THE TONS – into the air, every day.

    http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/matesIII/Final/Appendices/h-MATESIIIAppendixVIIIFinal92008.pdf
    http://www.colorado.gov/airquality/documents/2009AnnualDataReport.pdf

    The Goverment and “so call HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS” would better spend their resources, trying to combat this isssue, but – it can’t be stopped because the world runs on “Combustable energy”

    For electricman – who posted this link http://www.medicaldaily.com/news/20120223/9169/cigarette-smoke-nicotine-cardiovascular-disease-benefits-smoke-free-products.htm

    This article is a farce – it says absolutely nothing – only a lot of maybe’s, possibly’s, could be’s, and other nothingness – it appears to be published by the American Lung Association, who gets MAJOR funding from the pharmaceutical companies – who make the “Stop Smoking” products – that they tout on their website – as the Only “Approved” way to quit smoking. – See any conflicts of interest here????
    They give NO LINK or information for the so called “Study” – and it goes against YEARS of studies – that show NO HARM from nicotine

    For all who quote the worn out figures of “19% of the population dies from smoking” or “440,000 a year, die from smoking” (this figture equals approx. 18% of the population) – Have you ever stopped to think that – approx. 21 percent of the population (from around 2000 til now) smoke??? – Let’s see – 21 percent of the population smokes and 18% to 19% of the population die from smoking – sounds almost proportional to me – I say almost, but in detail, it means that the smoking population actually slightly outlives their non smoking counterparts.

    For all who would say “well OK but smokers die miserable deaths” or “smokers have more chronic problems befor they die” – this Surgeon Generals report, says differently – http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_034acc.pdf – looking at the figures, you will see that those who smoke a half pack or less a day – actually have LESS chronic problems than non smokers do – and those who smoke a pack a day have about the same (in some cases only SLIGHTLY MORE) chronic problems than non smokers do. It is only when you get above a pack a day, that th problems start – No wonder it’s not published with all the rest of the Surgeon Generals’ reports!!!

    We have been “hoodwinked” on the whole “Smoking/SHS” issue – and this is the ONLY reason that electronic cigaretts exist.

    With that said – E-Cigs have been instrumental in getting “Litterally” Millions of people to quit smoking, world wide – because of that – these people have become healthier and happier people – aqnd have been able to move from the “Sub Class – Smoker” to the position of “Normalcy” that they once held. They now don’t have to pay twice the taxes that “Normal” people do – They now can get insurance, at the same price “Normal” people do, They now don’t have to live with the threat of children taken away, They can socialize like “Normal” people, Etc., Etc.

    Whether they are better for the invironment, than cigarettes – I can’t say for sure – But for people – thay are a “Win/Win”

  42. [...] Cigarettes vs. e-Cigarettes: Which Is Less Environmentally Harmful? This piece by the National Geographic takes a look at the environmental impact of traditional cigarettes. For instance, did you know that a single butt from a tobacco cigarette can take anywhere from 18 months to 10 years to decompose? Compare this to electronic cigarettes, which for the most part use recyclable flavor cartridges. [...]

  43. [...] Cigarettes vs. e-Cigarettes: Which Is Less Environmentally Harmful? An e-cigarette. The health effects of the devices are unknown, but might they provide some environmental benefits over traditional smokes? Photo: Jakemaheu, Wikimedia Commons By Allen Tellis and Brian Clark Howard For years environmentalists have been … Read more on National Geographic [...]

  44. [...] Cigarettes vs. e-Cigarettes: Which Is Much less Environmentally Dangerous? Many are advertised as assisting people who smoke wean their selves off their practice. Most digital cigarettes are reusable, which means only a tiny quantity of vapor requirements to be refilled for every single use. This signifies they are probably a lot more eco-welcoming than heading through … Go through much more on Nationwide Geographic [...]

  45. [...] Posted by electriccigarettesforsale on April 16, 2012 in Electronic Cigarettes Work · 0 Comments Cigarettes vs. e-Cigarettes: Which Is Less Environmentally Harmful? Today you can go to work, shop, or go out to eat in many places without being inundated with toxic haze from smokers. However, there is still a problem with cigarette butts left behind by smokers. We all see this litter on our sidewalks, roads, … Read more on National Geographic [...]

  46. [...] Posted by electroniccigarettelocations on April 15, 2012 in Health Electronic Cigarette · 0 Comments Cigarettes vs. e-Cigarettes: Which Is Less Environmentally Harmful? An e-cigarette. The health effects of the devices are unknown, but might they provide some environmental benefits over traditional smokes? Photo: Jakemaheu, Wikimedia Commons By Allen Tellis and Brian Clark Howard For years environmentalists have been … Read more on National Geographic [...]

  47. kwalka
    April 14, 2012, 9:14 am

    I went from smoking 2+ packs a day to striclky “vaping” 90 days ago. I have 4 doctors who couldnt be happier. I have regained my sense of taste and smell, and I’m breathing like I used to when I was younger. E-cigs saved my life, or at least added on to the end! Those who oppose just dont have the facts, or are afraid of the unknown. Until there is intense research done, take the input from those of us who have been successfull. There are 3 ingredients in the juice, liquid nicotine, food grade flavorings, and propylene glycol which is the main stabilizing agent in asthma inhalers. Any Questions?

  48. [...] to e-cigarettes can actually make a positive difference for the environment, according to National Geographic. Have you ever thrown a used cigarette out of your car window, or stubbed a butt out on the [...]

  49. Smokefree
    April 14, 2012, 12:20 am

    Many are advertised as helping smokers wean themselves off their HABIT. Let’s call it what it is – an addiction to nicotine.

  50. MattZuke
    April 13, 2012, 3:30 pm

    “E-cigs are the tobacco industry’s equivalent of the “dropping the toy instead of throwing it” ploy. Smokers want to see how much they can convince us to put up with from them. The only way to put an end to this boundary struggle is to send addicts a clear and emphatic “zero tolerance” message”

    E-cigarettes are not part of the tobacco industry any more than NRPs are. Both get their nicotine from tobacco, but e-cigarettes are made by small sub 200 companies in China with no dollars going to the cigarette industry. Virtually all equipment sales go toward Chinese industry. Juice sales varies from large companies like Johnson’s Creek to single man operations.

    19% of the population smokes until death. “No Tolerance” is just another way of saying wait for smokers to kill themselves and HOPE it reduces the number of smokers. It hasn’t.

    “Whether e-cigs are safer for bystanders than second-hand smoke is irrelevant. The only standard that matters is: if e-cigs are used as anticipated, by large numbers of people in enclosed indoor spaces, all the time, is that as safe as or safer than not being exposed? And if so, to what extent, with what caveats or limitations?”

    We can say with absolute certainty that e-cigarette vapor directly exposed by bystanders without the user absorbing any nicotine is safer than Glade Plugins, or paraffin candle. This is backed up by research by HealthNZ, the FDA report itself, and the IVAQS study (pending release). E-cigarettes have been observed to meet standards set forth by the US Health Service and OSHA as minimal risk. Candles and Glade Plugins don’t meet these standards.

    You’re setting forth a strawman, as it presumes only no impact products can be used indoors. We allow candles, we allow cleaners, pesticides, stoves, and we allow people who exhale thousands of chemicals depending on what they ingest, and sweat. But more importantly, we allow fog machines that pump gallons of propylene glycol with no observable negative affect, and nicotine at 40% concentration as an organic pesticide. You propose we change the rules because it looks like a cigarette?

    I date someone with asthma and she can say she’d rather spend hours in a bar with 200 people using e-cigarettes than have to deal with 2 smokers outside the door. No tolerance is just another way of saying ignore reason and science, and the most logical approach would be what would have the best affect on public health. All objective evidence would indicate that e-cigarettes will save lives, not just smokers, but cigarette related fires, and reduce the risk to bystanders BELOW that what we already consider to be safe.

    “Snus and dissolvable tobacco products also carry less risk than smoking, without having the slightest impact on bystanders and being even better for the environment than e-cigs”

    I’m actually for smoking cessation by any means possible. This statement is full of win. We measure the safety of NRPs based on the objective research of the low risks of smokeless tobacco. The ONLY thing smokeless tobacco lacks of the hand to mouth habit that e-cigarettes replicate.

  51. RomperStomper
    April 13, 2012, 1:40 pm

    The e cigarette has helped me with my journey of quitting cigarettes. I approve of the no tar, no ash, and no odor policy! :) If your looking to kick the habit i suggest the electronic cigarette. The best brands are The Safe Cig, Blu Cigs, Halo Cigs, Madvapes, and of course http://appealingsmokes.com

  52. MattZuke
    April 13, 2012, 12:51 pm

    “See Youtube: “you don´t always die from tobacco”

    But it’s a little bit misleading. Your citation asserts risks from SMOKING but presents it as tobacco risk. Given the objective fact that SMOKING fatalities are virtually unchanged, this propaganda only serves to keep smokers smoking.

    Switching would save lives, and as National Geographic asserts, reduce waste.

  53. Lisa
    April 13, 2012, 12:44 pm

    Why should bystanders have to choose “the lesser of two evils” when we can have “no evil at all”? Nothing in drug regulation supercedes protection of non-users, followed in importance by prevention of addiction uptake, and then by assisting addicts with cessation. Harm reduction is the lowest priority, the last-ditch approach when nothing else has worked, yet proponents wish it to supercede everything else.

    The tobacco lobby continues to behave like a toddler who, having been told not to throw its toy, drops it instead, watching carefully to see how much it can get away with. The only solution in such a case is to take the toy away and put the toddler into a much-needed time-out.

    E-cigs are the tobacco industry’s equivalent of the “dropping the toy instead of throwing it” ploy. Smokers want to see how much they can convince us to put up with from them. The only way to put an end to this boundary struggle is to send addicts a clear and emphatic “zero tolerance” message.

    Whether e-cigs are safer for bystanders than second-hand smoke is irrelevant. The only standard that matters is: if e-cigs are used as anticipated, by large numbers of people in enclosed indoor spaces, all the time, is that as safe as or safer than not being exposed? And if so, to what extent, with what caveats or limitations?

    It is not for addicts to decide what is good enough for the rest of us. We do not owe them convenience. They owe us common sense and courtesy in how they exercise the unilateral choice they made to use an addictive nonessential. They owe it to us to conclusively prove that being exposed to what they want to impose on us is as safe as or safer than not being exposed before demanding rights or accommodation at our risk and expense.

    Snus and dissolvable tobacco products also carry less risk than smoking, without having the slightest impact on bystanders and being even better for the environment than e-cigs, being cheaper and less damaging to both produce and dispose of. Proper regulation of flavours can help prevent addiction uptake. And the government can tax and regulate them the same way as cigarettes.

  54. Latest Where To Find E Cigarettes News
    April 13, 2012, 12:36 pm

    [...] Cigarettes vs. e-Cigarettes: Which Is Less Environmentally Harmful? An e-cigarette. The health effects of the devices are unknown, but might they provide some environmental benefits over traditional smokes? Photo: Jakemaheu, Wikimedia Commons By Allen Tellis and Brian Clark Howard For years environmentalists have been … Read more on National Geographic [...]

  55. Jacob Finn
    Scandinavia
    April 13, 2012, 11:55 am

    Marlboro kills, Newport kills, Camel kills. Philip Morris kills. BAT kills. Mass murder by tobacco industry.

    See Youtube: “you don´t always die from tobacco”.

    Message is clear.

  56. Welcome to WeVape.net | WeVape.net
    April 13, 2012, 11:13 am

    [...] Cigarettes vs. e-Cigarettes: Which Is Less Environmentally Harmful? [...]

  57. [...] Cigarettes vs E-Cigarettes: Which is Less Environmentally Harmful? National Geographic, 4/11/12 For years environmentalists have been pressuring cigarette makers to cut back on synthetic chemicals in their products, to reduce their harm to both smokers and non-smokers. Regulators have been worried about second hand smoke for years. Share this:EmailPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted in Tobacco by healthycommunities. Bookmark the permalink. [...]

  58. CountSmackula
    Louisiana, USA
    April 13, 2012, 8:00 am

    E-cigarettes/personal vaporizers (PVs) are just the thing to break the nasty tobacco habit. Since the day I started vaporizing my nicotine, I haven’t had a stinky stick. They helped me kick a 25+yr pack-a-day habit. I can smell & taste better than ever before. I don’t wheeze or “cough a lung” in the morning any more. And, I smell better to my wife. :-D

  59. otrpu
    CO
    April 13, 2012, 7:32 am

    I Smoked cigarettes for more than 52 years. Since discovering the vaporizer I haven’t smoked any tobacco cigarettes. And, for the last 6 months I’ve been leaving the nicotine out of my DIY eLiquid. Instead of the FDA trying to stop the use of these things. . .the world would be better served if they gave one to every smoker. Course then. . .the government wouldn’t get the tobacco taxes, and the medical industry would be in deep ca ca for someone to cure. JMHO

  60. martinc
    Montreal
    April 13, 2012, 7:28 am

    The argument of the known vs unknown effects is an odd one;
    We all KNOW cigarettes are BAD and since nobody wants to pay for the e-cigs studies,we DO NOT know.
    I would rather use a product that is NOT yet proven harmfull (I choose this formula as its the aim,and we all know that when its proven not to be ,they will tax it to the moon and flood the market and let manufs advertise to no end)then a product that IS proved harmfull!

    electriman,you seem to know a lot about e-cigs and discussions forums,wassup?

  61. [...] of all the places I’ve seen articles about e-cigarettes, I never really expected to see one in Nat Geo.  But, at least online, that’s exactly what they did.  The article looked mostly at the [...]

  62. alex
    lagos
    April 13, 2012, 5:01 am

    The production all sort of cigarettes be stop due to health reasons not only to smokers but the general public..

  63. Andrew
    April 13, 2012, 12:55 am

    Though the FDA has not approved e-Cigs as “safe”, it is intuitively obvious that this is safe(r). With an e-Cig, you would inhale a carefully prepared combination of glycerine, food flavors and medical-grade nicotine…each ingredient is added for a reason, and has been individually tested. Whereas smoking a cigarette is like inhaling an uncontrollable mix of noxious burning gases…it’s a no-brainer!

  64. Tom
    uk
    April 12, 2012, 5:30 pm

    electricman/ezman here, talking nonsense again. It must get boring.

  65. STEVEN KONOWE
    NY
    April 12, 2012, 4:27 pm

    I love e cigs. I love them so much that We have devised a website dedicated to them. It is very informative with out bias. I have helped many people quit with this site and the best part is you van lower the Nicotine levels as you go on, The health and cost savings would be enough for me..
    http://www.papa-ricks.com

  66. [...] Cigarettes vs. e-Cigarettes: Which Is Less Environmentally Harmful? Although it is also a controversial product, electronic cigarettes, or e-cigarettes, could help reduce this toxic burden. The devices use a small amount of power to vaporize nicotine, which is then inhaled. Some are marketed as entirely nicotine free, … Read more on National Geographic [...]

  67. Karen
    April 12, 2012, 12:47 pm

    For centuries humans have smoked tobacco to gain the positive effects of nicotine. Now modern technology has given us a better method of delivery. Atomizers can be cleaned and re-used. This innovation eliminates smoke, eliminates litter from butts and discarded empty packs, eliminates the risk of fire from the careless disposal of smoking materials, and it eliminates the need for a smoker to take a 10 minute work break to walk outside to smoke an entire cigarette. Electronic cigarettes are exponentially safer than tobacco cigarettes, for the user, for bystanders and for the environment. The biggest drawback is that Big Tobacco and Big Pharma are losing many of their best customers, the die-hard smokers who repeatedly tried to quit and failed. I was able to quit smoking virtually overnight, which was no small feat considering I started smoking when I was barely 13, I smoked for 36 years and had given up on quitting after countless failed attempts. The success I have had, compounded by the nonsensical rants of anti-tobacco groups (who constantly confuse the dangers of tobacco SMOKE with innocuous nicotine use) has helped to shape me into an advocate of harm reduction. I know that electronic cigarettes can help smokers to quit, and I know that President Obama’s Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act explicitly PROHIBITS vendors from saying that e-cigs are a safer product. Until this type of wrong is righted, I will work tirelessly to ensure that the truth isn’t hidden by the government, wich should be more concerned about my health than tobacco tax revenue.

  68. MattZuke
    April 12, 2012, 11:39 am

    “In the absence of any regulations, e-cigarette manufacturers casaa/ecf (with their dirty bathtub made e – juice) and misinformation are not subject to any of the rigorous standards as the manufacturers of approved cessation products”

    However it’s been observed by the FDA, HealthNZ, and every test performed that e-cigarettes exceed the standards set forth by the FDA for “approved cessation products”.

    “E-cigarettes serve as a “bridge product” that smokers use at times and in places where traditional tobacco smoking is prohibited.”

    Actually you’ll find that e-cigarettes tend to be banned where smoking is banned, so your assertion defies reality. If it WERE true, we’ve observed over the past 50 years nicotine is a self-regulating addiction, as dual users are observed to smoke less. E-cigarette users either smoke less, or abandon smoking, sometimes by accident. The same holds true for dual NRP users, or dual smokeless tobacco users.

    “Nicotine -one of the most toxic and addicting of all drugs and it is toxic by all routes of exposure including the intact skin. ….also used as a contact insecticidal.”

    Yes, at 40% concentration it’s used as an insecticide, and has a VERY good safety record for the past 200 years. For something so deadly, so common, and without restrictions you’d expect a pile of bodies. But you don’t. E-cigarettes in contrast use a concentration under 3%, in volumes under a tablespoon per day. If 1 gallon at 40% concentration is used ON PRODUCE without fatalities, then surely you must accept a 1.8% concentration must be as safe or safer.

    Safety is measured in terms of mortality and morbidity.

    “How much trash is produced making this drug device ?battery, cartos,the steel and misc parts, and the nicotine.”

    As I already stated, for a 900mAh/day habit, roughly 16g in batteries, roughly 50 cartridges each of which has at most .05ml of fluid. This would represent 10 super mini batteries, 5 510/KR8 batteries, 1 900mAh ego battery, or 1 14500 li-ion battery the size of a AA. All this can be recycled.

    In terms of nicotine waste, under 45mg/year. Compare to real cigarettes where tobacco contains over a factor of 10 more nicotine than delivered to the user, so .1g of tobacco would be more than 1mg/nicotine. The filter alone represents at least 1.8mg per 20 full flavored cigarettes (presuming a reduction of 16mg per 20 cigarettes), so 657mg/year, plus waste tobacco that would more than double this figure per .1g of tobacco wasted per cigarette. So at least a 99.9625% reduction in waste nicotine.

  69. [...] Posted by isthebestelectroniccigarette on April 12, 2012 in E Cigarette Help · 0 Comments Cigarettes vs. e-Cigarettes: Which Is Less Environmentally Harmful? Although it is also a controversial product, electronic cigarettes, or e-cigarettes, could help reduce this toxic burden. The devices use a small amount of power to vaporize nicotine, which is then inhaled. Some are marketed as entirely nicotine free, … Read more on National Geographic [...]

  70. Geoff Hammond
    Valdosta Georgia
    April 12, 2012, 8:32 am

    eCigs are great. I got mine from http://www.ecigmods.com and it looks like a small box… but works better than any other ecig i’ve tried. 2 1/2 years smoke free, and the doctor says its the best thing I could have done after smoking for 16 years.

  71. [...] Cigarettes vs. e-Cigarettes: Which Is Less Environmentally Harmful? The health effects of the devices are unknown, but might they provide some environmental benefits over traditional smokes? Photo: Jakemaheu, Wikimedia Commons By Allen Tellis and Brian Clark Howard For years environmentalists have been pressuring … Read more on National Geographic [...]

  72. Thad
    April 12, 2012, 7:24 am

    Jon, about 90% of current smokers intend to quit and most have made multiple attempts to quit with or without FDA approved cessation products. Anti-tobacco media campaigns (ie. Truth, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, etc.) have reached a fever pitch and smoking bans have been introduced and extended all over the country…Yet the number of smokers remains virtually unchanged in the past 10 years. One out of five smokers suffers from a chronic disease that is caused or worsened by lighting tobacco on fire and inhaling the smoke 100’s of times a day, yet they remain unable or unwilling to quit smoking. Exactly what serious diseases could possibly be caused by SmokefreE-cigarettes that would amount to even 1% of the risks, hazards, and byproducts of lighting tobacco on fire and inhaling smoke?

  73. electricman
    n/a
    April 12, 2012, 6:28 am

    In the absence of any regulations, e-cigarette manufacturers casaa/ecf (with their dirty bathtub made e – juice) and misinformation are not subject to any of the rigorous standards as the manufacturers of approved cessation products. Approved nicotine patches, gum and inhalers all had to be proved safe and effective; e-cigarettes have never been shown to be either safe or effective .

    E-cigarettes serve as a “bridge product” that smokers use at times and in places where traditional tobacco smoking is prohibited. Furthermore, e-cigarettes may be used by young people considering smoking as a”starter” product. Cartridges can be purchased over the Internet with youth-focused flavoring like grape and chocolate.

    Nicotine -one of the most toxic and addicting of all drugs and it is toxic by all routes of exposure including the intact skin. ….also used as a contact insecticidal.

    Cigarette smoke has long overshadowed nicotine as the main culprit for heart disease, but a new study suggests that nicotine itself may stimulate the disease process by altering cell structures and promoting fatty plaque deposits, the hallmark of cardiovascular disease, to accumulate in vessels.
    http://www.medicaldaily.com/news/20120223/9169/cigarette-smoke-nicotine-cardiovascular-disease-benefits-smoke-free-products.htm
    How much trash is produced making this drug device ?battery, cartos,the steel and misc parts, and the nicotine.
    Not to forget about these dangerous devices blowing up ripping half your face off …or burning your house down

  74. [...] Geographic’s Brian Clark Howard has posted an article discussing the potential positive benefit that electronic cigarettes could [...]

  75. electronic cigarettes debated again
    April 12, 2012, 4:37 am

    [...] were interested to see a blog post about electronic cigarettes on National Geographic of all places. That’s right, they don’t just opine on animals and air crash [...]

  76. dada olusola
    oyo state
    April 12, 2012, 2:34 am

    Government are making lot of money 4rm cigarattes company.

  77. luisa taylor
    April 12, 2012, 2:15 am

    Of course,smokefreEcigarettes are safer for the environment,the user,and bystanders. That is a no-brainer. Even the infamous FDA report shows no harm to bystanders and smokefrEcigarettes have the same amount of TSNAs as FDA approved Pharma products such as gum and patches,but you have to read the scientific report in its” entirety. They just left that out when they reported on smokefrEcigarettes.

  78. lance
    philippines
    April 12, 2012, 1:06 am

    e-cigs are less harmful for the environment… simply think about the cigarette butts.. let’s just say a thousand people would smoke real cigars at the same time, we might even build a house of cigarette butts .. haha

  79. scott
    U.S.
    April 11, 2012, 11:20 pm

    The e cigarette has helped me with my journey of quitting cigarettes. I approve of the no tar, no ash, and no odor policy! :) If your looking to kick the habit i suggest the electronic cigarette. The best brands are The Safe Cig, Blu Cigs, Halo Cigs, Madvapes, and of course http://appealingsmokes.com

  80. RJ
    USA
    April 11, 2012, 9:37 pm

    The article has makes some valid points but is somewhat less than forthcoming about the real environmental impact of e-cigarettes. Firstly, one doesn’t refill the cartridge of the atomizer with “vapor” one refills the cartridge with little bottles of 0, low, moderate, or high nicotine preparations set in propylene glycol. Once the cartridge fails or gets dirty and the plastic refill bottle is empty the items become refuse that could expose the environment to nicotine and tobacco specific nitrosamines. The wadding inside the cartridge is essentially the same as in regular cigarettes except the housing is metal or plastic instead of paper. Secondly, once we add in the metal parts of out-lived rechargeable batteries and metal atomizers the refuse pile grows larger and so does the degradation time.

    There are many benefits that could be derived from the use of e-cigarettes but the environmental impact argument isn’t one of them.

  81. [...] Posted by Freeecigarettestarterkits on April 12, 2012 in E Cigarette Vapor · 0 Comments Cigarettes vs. e-Cigarettes: Which Is Less Environmentally Harmful? Most electronic cigarettes are reusable, meaning only a tiny amount of vapor needs to be refilled for each use. This means they are potentially more eco-friendly than going through mountains of single-use products, which take resources to produce. Read more on National Geographic [...]

  82. MattZuke
    April 11, 2012, 8:11 pm

    “Making a debate where there is NONE. A ten year old Non-biased) could tell you which is better/worse.”

    For the environment? That isn’t an easy calculation.

    A pack/day habit represents 7.3kg/year of tobacco, burnt, maybe another 1.46kg for cellulose filters (presuming .2g each).

    E-cigarettes at 900mAh/day represents roughly 10CC of battery, or ~16g, (1,5,10 units depending on size). Another 50 cartridges and 1.095 liters of fluid of a 3ml/day user (heavy). Power consumption based on DoE figures in terms of coal would be 1.524kg (presuming 70% eff batteries, and 7% loss in delivery). 1.6kWh/year or 4.5Wh/day.

    In terms of waste, e-cigs are the clear winner. The bulk, which is battery and steel, can be recycled. Not sure on burning 1.5kg of coal vs 7.3kg of tobacco. Not sure on the impact of 1 AA sized li-ion battery/year, or 5 smaller ones. Not sure on the tobacco, as tobacco packs a lot more nicotine/gram yield with extraction over burning it. As in e-cigarettes are likely to use less source tobacco over cigarettes.

    But until I hear otherwise, I’m going to presume e-cigarettes. Less landfill waste, presuming coal power less pollution. Less organic waste from tobacco.

  83. Jimi
    Enola
    April 11, 2012, 8:10 pm

    Look… Won’t even try to sound like an overly educated weeny… Plain and simple… If you do not smoke combustible materials you’re probably less likely to blow up- i.e. less likely to die. I recently switched e-cigs as an NRP, and damned glad I did. Quite frankly it creates the opportunity and hope for me to clean the clock on NICOTINE ADDICTION. Is it the stinking smell, the gazillion harmful chemicals, the cost that I am addicted to??? Nope! Ya see Forrest, it is the nicotine that frags my ass. Come on folks; see this as it is intended to be consumed. Christ, we all suck on a tail pipe of hydrocarbons every day. Isn’t there a more rewarding inquisition that could be a more effective use of your time? If I wish to consume a less harmful alternative to smoking tobacco as a NRP- and the crusaders are no longer affected by second-hand smoke- what the hell is YOUR beef? You have all this brain power… Solve the damned 17 trillion dollar deficit. PLEASE!

  84. Paul Karn
    England
    April 11, 2012, 6:24 pm

    Government don’t want to lose the money they make from cigarettes any wise electronic cigarettes would be the biggest thing ever but i do agree with the fact tat kids would get onto these, E Cigs are great and i can honestly say you actually feel better when using them, your breathing improves, and i can run a lot more and i am much more active. Why hasn’t there been enough research ? because the government do not want the research to be heard by smokers following good information about e cigs that would be produced. This world could be a much better place if everything didn’t revolve around money, think about how much they make from tobacco a year, that’s how much they will lose except the stubborn people that would stick to tobacco.

    E Cigarettes are one fine piece of technology and i think if you like it or not one day they will be more popular than tobacco.

  85. [...] Cigarettes vs. e-Cigarettes: Which Is Less Environmentally Harmful?National GeographicAn e-cigarette. The health effects of the devices are unknown, but might they provide some environmental benefits over traditional smokes? Photo: Jakemaheu, Wikimedia Commons By Allen Tellis and Brian Clark Howard For years environmentalists have been …BuyECigs.com Discusses Why You Need E-CigarettesSBWire (press release)all 28 news articles » [...]

  86. MattZuke
    April 11, 2012, 4:52 pm

    Edit:

    Smokeless tobacco represents a 98% reduction in harm, meaning if 25% of the population smokes representing a 500,000 death count/year, and we banned cigarettes, and the entire population picked up smokeless tobacco, we’d save 460,000 lives, 490,000 if we didn’t see a net increase in smokeless tobacco use to 100% of the population.

    E-cigarettes are estimated at 99-99.9% less harmful than cigarettes, but using the worst estimate, that would be a net saving of life by 480,000. If just the smokers dropped cigarettes, using the worst estimate 495,000 lives would be saved.

    Denormalization serves only to cost lives to promote a better world that is not obtainable.

  87. MattZuke
    April 11, 2012, 4:40 pm

    “You completely ignore getting to a smokefree society.”

    Which would be prohibition, and prohibition has been shown to be a poor health policy. How do we ban a weed from growing?

    “You never even mention the most effective way of getting there: policy change. Denormalizing smoking.”

    Which has been shown to be a statistical failure over the last decade. Based on the CDC stats, roughly 19% of the population smoked until death in 2002, and in 2012 roughly 19% smoke until death.

    “We have a LONG way to go to implement the policy change”

    So you concede that your philosophy does little good in the here and now where harm reduction does. Letting smokers kill themselves at best represents a net neutral of public health.

    “Talk of harm reduction that assumes “people who can’t or won’t quit” and never even mentions what helps people quit is like talk of fighting malaria that never even mentions the fly that spreads malaria.”

    It’s not an assumption, it’s an observation. 19% of the population dies with a cigarette in their hand, unwilling, or unable to quit. Roughly 1% of smokers die every year, or 420,000 making it a close second to non-tobacco related heart disease. It’s typical for smokers to relapse 8-11 times (TFF), NRPs are not even 3% effective over 20 months in 12 week programs. Based on AAPHP estimates, 1 year of SMOKING is equal to 98 years of smokeless tobacco use. No ethical physician would support a relapse to cigarettes after 3 failed attempts at cessation.

    Smoking represents 98% of the harm that comes to tobacco, meaning if 500,000 die each year from smoking, and we ban cigarettes, and the ENTIRE population uses smokeless tobacco their entire lives, you’ve saved 490,000 lives.

    All objective evidence suggests e-cigarettes represent a 99-99.9% reduction in harm. The hypothetical risk is in the area of reproduction, and a SLIGHT elevated risk of stroke or stroke survivability. Given these risks are greater with CIGARETTES.

    Denormalizing is just another way of saying quit or die, and if you’d rather someone die than run the risk of someone pretending to smoke, that’s between you and you. In the mean time harm reduction gets as many people off cigarettes as possible, as quickly as possible, for as little cost as possible.

  88. Ellen Loney
    United States
    April 11, 2012, 4:22 pm

    Really? Making a debate where there is NONE. A ten year old Non-biased) could tell you which is better/worse.

  89. Mark
    New York
    April 11, 2012, 4:08 pm

    From an environmental impact aspect personal vaporizers (PV) should be a huge positive. A typical user might consume one cartomizer, the thing that holds the liquid, about the size of a single cigarette filter, to the point where it needs to be cleaned or replaced every week, compared to the 140 cigarette butts generated from a pack a day habit. Due to the relative longevity of PV cartomizers, and equivalent alternate eliquid storage and vaporizing elements, people tend to be good about proper disposal, you would not see parts randomly discarded outdoors. No wrappers or empty cigarette packs contributing to trash, either.

    As to nicotine absorption by users, the studies are ongoing. Unfortunately the FDA doesn’t seem interested in properly funding long-term unbiased studies, so results are slow in coming, multiple individual smaller efforts. Recent data has indicated that experienced PV users, vaping with their own equipment and preferred eliquids, have cotinine levels equivalent to smokers, neither drastically higher nor lower; this is consistent with subjective user experience, that PVs work, providing the desired level of nicotine to stave off cravings, in an effective manner. Many, though not all, users will consciously choose to reduce their nicotine levels over time, a relatively simple process since the liquids are produced with different nicotine levels, and can be readily mixed to achieve intermediate levels.

    PVs as some kind of “gateway” don’t make sense. A single disposable PV costs approximately as much as a pack of cigarettes, and those units, sold in places like drug stores or convenience markets, in the cigarette area, don’t come in any kind of candy or similar flavors — just plain tobacco or menthol. Higher end PVs, reusable, generally cost anywhere from $50 – $200+ by the time a full kit is set up, with eliquid; these are not items that a typical child or teenager would be likely to seek out as a whim, they are purchased by people who already have a recognized addiction, as a replacement for the known harm and costs associated with cigarettes (and other tobacco products).

  90. [...] Cigarettes vs. e-Cigarettes: Which Is Less Environmentally Harmful?National GeographicAn e-cigarette. The health effects of the devices are unknown, but might they provide some environmental benefits over traditional smokes? Photo: Jakemaheu, Wikimedia Commons By Allen Tellis and Brian Clark Howard For years environmentalists have been … [...]

  91. [...] Cigarettes vs. e-Cigarettes: Which Is Less Environmentally Harmful? An e-cigarette. The health effects of the devices are unknown, but might they provide some environmental benefits over traditional smokes? Photo: Jakemaheu, Wikimedia Commons By Allen Tellis and Brian Clark Howard For years environmentalists have been … Read more on National Geographic [...]

  92. C
    Fort Wayne
    April 11, 2012, 3:30 pm

    As a former 40 yr, 2 pack a day smoker I can attest to the benefits of E-Cigs. I picked one up last fall and never looked back. While I would concur that not smoking anything is the healthiest, environmentally friendliest action, e-cigs are certainly far better than the ‘real’ ones all around. Since our government is in bed with both Big Pharma and Big Tobacco, the FDA has not done any truly unbiased studies of the e-cig and are taking actions to destroy this healthier technology. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to compare inhaling a combusting smoke with 4000 chemicals or a mist with nicotine.

  93. [...] Post By Google News National Geographic Review Electronic Smokeless [...]

  94. Bill Godshall
    Pittsburgh, PA
    April 11, 2012, 2:51 pm

    Mounting evidence consistently confirms that smokefree e-cigarettes are 99% (+/- 1%) less hazardous than combustible cigarettes, and that they pose no risks to nonusers (simply because e-cigarettes emit no smoke, which causes 99% of all tobacco attributable disease, disability and death). While at least a million smokers have quit smoking by switching to e-cigs, the WHO, FDA, CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA, Legacy and other abstinence-only anti-tobacco extremists have protected cigarette markets by demonizing e-cigarettes and repeating many false and misleading claims to scare smokers and the public about these life saving products.

  95. e-Cigarettes in... National Geographic?
    April 11, 2012, 2:45 pm

    [...] all the places I’ve seen articles about e-cigarettes, I never really expected to see one in Nat Geo.  But, at least online, that’s exactly what they did.  The article looked mostly at the [...]

  96. [...] Cigarettes vs. e-Cigarettes: Which Is Less Environmentally Harmful? An e-cigarette. The health effects of the devices are unknown, but might they provide some environmental benefits over traditional smokes? Photo: Jakemaheu, Wikimedia Commons By Allen Tellis and Brian Clark Howard For years environmentalists have been … Read more on National Geographic [...]

  97. Jon
    United States
    April 11, 2012, 1:14 pm

    You completely ignore getting to a smokefree society.

    You never even mention the most effective way of getting there: policy change. Denormalizing smoking. Hard-hitting counter-advertising campaigns that expose tobacco industry deception and manipulation. Protecting people from exposure to secondhand smoke. Smokefree movies. Getting to a nonsmoking norm.

    We have a LONG way to go to implement the policy change that we know works, that has proven to dramatically and effectively reduce smoking. When was the last time you saw a smoking prevention media campaign that took on the industry? Years ago? Decades? Probably never. When was the last day you had zero exposure to secondhand smoke? For millions of Americans, that would be never.

    Talk of harm reduction that assumes “people who can’t or won’t quit” and never even mentions what helps people quit is like talk of fighting malaria that never even mentions the fly that spreads malaria.

  98. [...] Cigarettes vs. e-Cigarettes: Which Is Less Environmentally Harmful? The health effects of the devices are unknown, but might they provide some environmental benefits over traditional smokes? Photo: Jakemaheu, Wikimedia Commons By Allen Tellis and Brian Clark Howard For years environmentalists have been pressuring … Read more on National Geographic [...]

  99. [...] Posted by Dave on April 11, 2012 in Smoke Free Electronic Cigarette · 0 Comments Cigarettes vs. e-Cigarettes: Which Is Less Environmentally Harmful? Some are marketed as entirely nicotine free, and many have flavorings added. Many are advertised as helping smokers wean themselves off their habit. Most electronic cigarettes are reusable, meaning only a tiny amount of vapor needs to be refilled for … Read more on National Geographic [...]

  100. [...] Posted by electroniccigarettefreestarterkit on April 11, 2012 in Electric Cigarette Starter · 0 Comments Cigarettes vs. e-Cigarettes: Which Is Less Environmentally Harmful? An e-cigarette. The health effects of the devices are unknown, but might they provide some environmental benefits over traditional smokes? Photo: Jakemaheu, Wikimedia Commons By Allen Tellis and Brian Clark Howard For years environmentalists have been … Read more on National Geographic [...]

  101. [...] Cigarettes vs. e-Cigarettes: Which Is Less Environmentally Harmful?National GeographicAn e-cigarette. The health effects of the devices are unknown, but might they provide some environmental benefits over traditional smokes? Photo: Jakemaheu, Wikimedia Commons By Allen Tellis and Brian Clark Howard For years environmentalists have been … [...]