{"id":88455,"date":"2017-02-08T04:54:42","date_gmt":"2017-02-08T09:54:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=88455"},"modified":"2017-02-08T04:54:42","modified_gmt":"2017-02-08T09:54:42","slug":"long-term-study-shows-e-cigarettes-less-toxic-than-smoking","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2017\/02\/08\/long-term-study-shows-e-cigarettes-less-toxic-than-smoking\/","title":{"rendered":"Long-term study shows e-cigarettes less toxic than smoking"},"content":{"rendered":"<figure id=\"attachment_88462\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-88462\" style=\"width: 1920px\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\"><a href=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/pexels-photo-25082.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-88462\" src=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/pexels-photo-25082.jpg\" alt=\"The team also noted that those who used e-cigarettes or NRT while continuing to smoke, did not show the same marked differences. (Pexels photo)\" width=\"1920\" height=\"1280\" srcset=\"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/pexels-photo-25082.jpg 1920w, https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/pexels-photo-25082-300x200.jpg 300w, https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/pexels-photo-25082-768x512.jpg 768w, https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/pexels-photo-25082-1024x683.jpg 1024w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px\" \/><\/a><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-88462\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">The team also noted that those who used e-cigarettes or NRT while continuing to smoke, did not show the same marked differences. (Pexels photo)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>LONDON\u2014Researchers have found new evidence that e-cigarettes are less toxic and safer to use compared to conventional cigarettes, according to a study released Tuesday by the University College London (UCL).<\/p>\n<p>In the study, saliva and urine of long-term e-cigarette and NRT (nicotine replacement therapy) users as well as smokers were analyzed, and their body-level exposure to key chemicals were compared.<\/p>\n<p>The results showed that people who switched from smoking conventional cigarettes to e-cigarettes or NRT for at least six months, had much lower levels of toxic and cancer causing substances in their body than people who continued to use conventional cigarettes.<\/p>\n<p>However, the team also noted that those who used e-cigarettes or NRT while continuing to smoke, did not show the same marked differences, meaning that a complete switch is needed when it comes to toxins exposure reduction.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;We&#8217;ve shown that the levels of toxic chemicals in the body from e-cigarettes are considerably lower than suggested in previous studies using simulated experiments.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;This means some doubts about the safety of e-cigarettes may be wrong,&#8221; said lead author Dr. Lion Shahab.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Our results also suggest that while e-cigarettes are not only safer, the amount of nicotine they provide is not noticeably different to conventional cigarettes,&#8221; Shahab said.<\/p>\n<p>This can help people stop smoking altogether by dealing with their cravings in a safer way, said Shahab.<\/p>\n<p>The study has been published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>LONDON\u2014Researchers have found new evidence that e-cigarettes are less toxic and safer to use compared to conventional cigarettes, according to &hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":88462,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[37],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-88455","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-health","mauthors-xinhua-news-agency-via-philippines-news-agency"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88455","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=88455"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88455\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/88462"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=88455"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=88455"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=88455"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}