Hmm, the link to the study in the article doesn't work, so I can't read it (or check who paid for it), but it sounds like it only says that there's a chance it might cause lung cancer, it doesn't say the rate. Also:

“We’ve always assumed that vapes are safer than cigarettes, but you know, what we’re showing is that they might not be safe after all. We have no conclusive way in which to get people off the vapes.

“So in smoking, we’ve got ways in nicotine gum, various drugs that we can give people to stop them from smoking. The evidence regarding people stopping vaping is very inconclusive.”

But nicotine gums and the like also work for vaping, it's still nicotine in the end

[–] rowinxavier@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

I will add that this study looked at biological markers of inflammation and so on with cells exposed to vape vapor. If you are looking at it and saying "looks like there is activity, so maybe there is harm, more likely than not" but not saying anything about how much harm then it is not very useful for making choices. Sure, it is not without some risk, but a quantified risk assessment would say that based on the current best evidence it is likely not anywhere near as bad as smoking and it is easier to taper nicotine out if you want to do that.

From a public health/harm reduction perspective vapes may be a useful tool if used correctly, or a terrible additional harm with increased addictiveness and known dangerous chemicals, such as the popcorn lung issues. We need rational science and appropriate regulation, not panic and bizarre policies.