276
Vaping likely to cause lung and oral cancer, Australian researchers find in new review of evidence
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2026
276 points (93.7% liked)
World News
55154 readers
3161 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you think that was the only fake study you are wrong. There was also a study where they measured the formaldehyde using a test person, in a closed room.
Lo and behold they found formaldehyde, and the press spread the news like rabid dogs.
The problem was that we exhale formaldehyde naturally, and the level of formaldehyde measured was consistent with a person NOT vaping.
Most probably, because as I state there have been numerous studies that show no formaldehyde. These fake studies are made to push an agenda.
Good for you, I also stopped about 5 years ago, something I was unable to without the e-cig.
Not complete, they are used in professional kitchens and industries, where people have been exposed for many decades. The chemical nature is also known and is deemed safe.
You can also vape without flavor, which I did for about a year before quitting, the taste is actually quite nice IMO even without flavor.
But I must admit I can still miss the taste of a good RY4 despite I'm 100% off the nicotine.
Can you not see how biased and untrustworthy you sound? You effectively admitted to not even reading this study.
There is no source to the study, the link doesn't work.
Also even if I read the study, it is not a sure thing that their mistake is obvious, and I've seen dozens of studies that were done correctly that show there are no known carcinogens in the vapor of e-cigs.
Or rather the ones that are detected are way less than 1% of a cigarette, which means vaping similar to smoking 20 cigarettes per day, will expose you to the equivalent of 0.2 cigarette. The biggest number being the formaldehyde we exhale naturally.
So please just piss off with you knee jerk ignorance.
I've studied the issue plenty, I don't need to read yet another flawed study, I've seen plenty of those already.
Here's the link in the article, that you said you couldn't find.
Look i see what you are doing. You half read a few studies 10 years ago now recent science is beneath you. Its obvious, and I want you to know its obvious.
Weird since no major carcinogens are present, why do you think this image with no source and no reference to the actual findings is worth more than the plethora of studies that showed no carcinogens both before e-cigs was a thing, and in the early days of e-cig.?
What exactly are those early signs? Being alive maybe? This is not a link to an actual research paper, this is just bullshit, come back when you have a link to the actual study.
I've read dozens of actual studies, and I have (mostly) learned how to read them, and acknowledge when there are things that are beyond the scope of my knowledge because I don't have a 5-7 year education on the issue. And then I search for info on those issues.
Really Ḯve spend hundreds of hours investigating this thoroughly, and I am an educated guy, the snippet you show is only evidence to me of low info reaction.
The part about inflammation is especially weird since PG, a common basis of e-juice is PROVEN to be anti inflammatory. DNA damage begin to happen from the day we are born, so without qualification that statement while obviously true, is equally obviously worthless.
I wonder if you have any actual knowledge on the subject whatsoever, because you act like one of the unknowing sheep this may very well be supposed to target.
Are you actually reading my messages or just getting a vibe and running with it or what? That picture wasn't meant to be scientific evidence it was simply to demonstrate the falseness of your point about the actual scientific paper not being linked in the article.
I can tell you are defensive about being treated as stupid which isnt what time trying to do. Actually read what my comments say please.
OK so where is the actual scientific paper?
I don̈́t really care that much about journalistic interpretation, because their knowledge is generally sub par, and their reporting sometimes even decidedly misrepresentative.
I'd much rather read the actual paper. I have even seen papers where the conclusion is contradictory to their own results in their research!!! Which to me indicate a paid for conclusion.
Go to the guardian article from the OP. Find the link that was in the image I posted. Its pretty close to the top.
No skin in the argument, I just came to the comments trying to find the study because that link is broken for me. If it's working for you, would you mind linking it here? I can't find the specific one being referenced thru the miasma of google being absolute garbage and it being a recent enough publication that the academic DBs I have access to seemingly don't have that issue yet.
(splash screen at the broken link)
The link is now broken for me too. I happened to have it bookmarked after having a very similar conversation about it when it was posted to reddit from gizmodo.
https://academic.oup.com/carcin/article-abstract/47/1/bgag015/8555982?login=false