Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by gwbas1c 6 days ago
At this point, I wouldn't assume that any nicotine delivery system is safe.

IE, e-cigarettes used to be promoted as safe, until the popcorn lung incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronchiolitis_obliterans#E-cig... (TLDR, some e-cigarettes used diacetyl as a flavoring, which is safe to eat but very toxic to inhale.)

(Kinda stinks because nicotine is a cool drug.)

1 comments

The lipid pneumonia outbreak was a thing exclusively associated with THC vapes, which are an illegal but widespread cottage (garage) industry where one summer, one of the thousands of manufacturer-enthusiasts made a forum post about the innovation of maybe using vitamin E acetate as a thickener. Experiments were performed, positive results were obtained, and products went out to distributors. The hazard to heavy users (perhaps for manufacturers with poor blending practices, we don't know) who showed up in the ER, was recognized within a month or two, and everybody immediately stopped using vitamin E acetate as a thickener. It took most of a year of panic for the last of that summer's merchandise to percolate through the supply chain.

The outbreak was initially hard for users to trace in particular because of how brands worked in that (again, moderately illegal) industry - a "brand" was basically a paper label/bag production line shipped in the clear from a printer, to hundreds of individual manufacturers, who negotiated their own distribution. Conclusions like "Mellow Mallow Blurple is a safe brand, I tested it" ended up being invalid.

> The lipid pneumonia outbreak was a thing exclusively associated with THC vapes

Not true, see the above link.

There was a lot of fog of war at the time, and a lot of things were reported in the media that were inaccurate (or reported to doctors that were inaccurate, this being documentation of illegal drug use). This is my conclusion about what actually went on, aides by a number of articles in the tech, health, and especially cannabis media. Eg:

https://www.inverse.com/science/59207-vitamin-e-acetate-thc-...

https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/58581-dank-vapes

All you need to defend a Wikipedia claim staying in the article is a journalist writing something, and journalists with zero idea of what they were talking about outnumbered informed writers a thousand to one.