Mann is a nice guy, he's just serious about his juice.
Mann is a nice guy, he's just serious about his juice.
Last edited by snork; 10-03-2012 at 01:32 AM. Reason: UNannounced
I don't think that, other than jokingly, was ever implied.
Okay, moving on . . . Thanks Snork again for providing us with the first hand account -- it really was the epitome of what this thread is about. Also, your article was on point and anyone that wasn't around here when it was posted can find it here: snork's Excellent Adventure.
That was type of proactive investigation (although I am sure it was as much fun as it was simple curiosity) that benefits us all.
Too many MCs, not enough mics!
This thread has run its course. If there is anything of any relevance that anyone has to say, please do while the thread is still open. It seems as if the repeated attempts at keeping this thread on topic is being ignored.
Too many MCs, not enough mics!
Nevertheless there are some issues with your itemised list of preferences, and it might be an idea to look at this list from a technical point of view, in order to ensure it is rational and could be applied without reservation.
Item 1. This topic needs to be explained so that there is a better understanding of the issues. In fact everything everywhere is toxic to a greater or lesser degree, the issue is "How toxic?" and not whether or not contaminants are present. The dose makes the poison, since the only difference between a medicine or a dietary nutrient and a poison is the dose. Something of benefit in small amounts can be toxic in larger amounts. Something that is harmless in small amounts can be toxic in larger amounts.
This relates to e-liquid specifically because it is impossible to produce it without toxins and especially without tobacco carcinogens. The reason for this is that they come through with the nicotine, which cannot be purified sufficiently to completely remove them. It's why all nicotine-containing products contain carcinogens - and yes, that's all of them. The majority of e-liquid tests of this specific issue (including the FDA's tests) clearly show that carcinogens are present in e-liquid at the same level or below that also present in NRTs such as nicotine skin patches. In case you may be interested in the tech side of it, this is at approximately 8ng/ml (eight nanogrammes per millilitre). A professor of medicine commented on this specific issue and described the levels of carcinogens (which are the same in NRTs and most e-liquid tested) as, "...millions of times lower than conceivably harmful to health".
This is basically a non-issue and, as we have come to expect from materials issuing from the FDA, any description of such levels as being of any concern whatsoever is a blatant lie. It is such a clear lie (by misrepresentation) that Prof Phillips has simply described the FDA as liars. When some medical professionals are prepared to go in print and describe an agency as liars, and other medical professionals openly dismiss the agency as perpetrators of risible nonsense, it's worth taking note. We're not talking about your average doctor here, but the world's most renowned professors of epidemiology in the tobacco disease area.
The reason is simple: the FDA are owned by the pharmaceutical industry, who are desperate to kill off ecigs by any method possible. Any materials issuing from them - and especially press releases that have no relation to the real meaning of lab tests they are supposed to be based on - can be ignored, as such materials are likely to be paid-for propaganda.
Scientists who have examined the FDA's 2009 lab test results have concluded that, in complete contrast to the message conveyed in the accompanying press release, the test actually give ecigs a clean bill of health. Discussion of this could run for several pages but a distillation is:
a. The levels of carcinogens found show that ecigs are not harmful to health in that regard - the levels are the same as those in NRTs and are millions of times lower than conceivably harmful to health. There is no point in trying to make the levels lower since such minute amounts cannot harm in any way. As a comparison, the carcinogen levels in Swedish Snus are considerably higher at around (for example ) 2,000ng/ml, and are not just shown by hundreds of clinical studies to be harmless (since Snus is clearly demonstrated not to elevate risk for any disease, and that includes any cancer, including oral cancer), but proven so by decades of national health statistics, such as the fact that Sweden has the lowest level of male oral cancer in the EU.
b. Toxins (such as the DEG found at 1% in 1 sample out of 18) were not detected in the vapor, which shows that (a) not everything in the liquid is transferred to the vapor, and (b) analysis of the vapor is a different matter to analysis of the liquid before conversion. Discussion of the liquid contents is interesting but may be as relevant as discussion of raw tobacco constituents before combustion. The ingredients and the amounts of ingredients are different afterward.
Anything the FDA says about e-cigarettes or e-liquid can probably be ignored as it is produced from a standpoint of extreme bias, with the object of twisting the facts so much that reality is left far behind.
#2. Pthalates are a non-issue because they have only been found on rare occasions when tested for by competent laboratories. In fact, the finding of pthalates is one of the best indications of an incompetent laboratory, which is confirmed if they claim to have found pthalates in multiple samples. The reasoning behind this is: these materials are plasticizers used in non food-grade plastic containers. Virtually all manufacturers and vendors know about this issue and changed to food-grade bottles long ago (or use glass, which avoids the issue). On the other hand, labs that have an extremely poor level of technical competency often use cheap plastic containers to hold their test solvents and/or samples being tested. In other words, instead of using laboratory glassware, they use cheap plastic containers during testing programmes.
A chemist who has tested hundreds of e-liquid samples from dozens of manufacturers told me that pthalates were only found once, from a new vendor who had not yet realised this issue existed, and who immediately changed their bottles to food grade.
A testing laboratory such as the government lab in Korea that found pthalates in most samples (including the most frequently-tested e-liquid in the world, which has never shown pthalate contamination despite multiple government and private lab tests globally) is clearly grossly incompetent.
Pthalates are certainly a contaminant that should be tested for, especially in new vendors' products - but essentially this is a non-issue as finding such contaminants is not just rare, it is extremely rare, despite what you might hear from incompetent government agencies. It's interesting to see just how incompetent government testing labs can be; and now that I have personally seen two major examples of gross incompetence (widescale contamination of test samples, and zero checking of the results despite their unique nature; and a factor-10 miscalculation of ingredient levels that produced ridiculous results, followed by zero checking of those results), it is more than a little worrying.
#3. It can be agreed that an analysis should be provided - that is irrefutable. And we are talking about a full analysis of the finished retail product of course; not a batch test of one or two of the ingredients, which is essentially irrelevant.
However, it needs to be recognised that the carcinogen issue is a non-starter unless the manufacturer has a completely new and untested source of nicotine base. In that case, there might be some justification for an examination of the carcinogen content. Otherwise, it is a non-issue. NRTs are licensed as acceptably safe / GRAS, and we know in any case that their carcinogen content, although it does exist, is meaningless (and is the same as that in e-liquids).
The rationale behind e-liquid tests
Basically, what you have suggested - some form of testing / analysis / certification - is hard to argue against. In fact it sounds eminently reasonable. There are some issues with the exact methodology and content, though.
The best advice that can be offered here is that anything promulgated by the FDA in the ecig arena can be safely ignored, since in terms of the science it is likely to be risible rubbish or outright lies. That does not, however, excuse the trade from doing a lot better in terms of testing and transparency.
I keep repeating that, although there are significant costs involved, the first e-liquid vendor to fully test and publish the results of current full tests will have a tremendous marketing advantage. The only niggling worry I have is: why hasn't someone done that yet? Commercial secrecy or privacy is a non-argument - believe me, everyone in the trade knows exactly what is in the liquid. There aren't any 'secrets'. The most complex liquids with 20 ingredients have had all those precise ingredients published. In fact we can get a good idea of who made a liquid by the exact ingredient profile - despite whatever it may say on the label. Perhaps that's where the problem lies.
Last edited by rolygate; 10-03-2012 at 10:52 PM.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, Rolygate.
I have been struggling with how/weather to clear up some vapers' complete incomprehension of Toxicology 101, the ANTZ-bias and Ministry of Propaganda agendas (all of which are dead set against actual science), etc. It is a Herculean task, and you have a done a nice job of it.
Some may still demand citations to Tox 101 and other fundamentals; I do hope they avoid ALL sunshine, as sunshine has been irrefutably proven to be carcinogenic!
Last edited by EleanorR; 10-03-2012 at 10:34 PM.
"To be a Virginian, either by Birth, Marriage, Adoption, or even on one's mother's side, is an Introduction to any State in the Union, a Passport to any Foreign Country, and a Benediction from Almighty God."
Exactly. Sunshine is a proven carcinogen but normally required for synthesis of vitamin D. The issue is the quantity of it - not that it is carcinogenic, or even that it is both vital and carcinogenic at the same time. Good point.