280 Degrees Celsuis

[ashdaburned]

Ok, asked it before in a thread and didn't really get a direct answer i think. So i will ask it here.
FDA report says that at normal opperating temp of 60 C there were no carcinogens present. However when they used a diffrent machine at 280 C then it showed carcinogens.
So, my question is, does this make sense to make the claims that there are carcinogens and they shouldn't be vaped?

EDIT* correction in NJoy's carts β-nicotyrine was found at 60 C

[happily]

I am not sure of your question................. but if you look at parts per billion which nothing is ever compared as(usually ppm). smelling your own shoes is probably more toxic

[Elendil]

280C = 536F. These things don't get nearly that hot...............

[ashdaburned]

280C = 536F. These things don't get nearly that hot...............

That's my point. Why would the FDA run tests at this temp?

* Presence of tobacco specific impurities cotinine, nicotine-N-oxide, nornicotine, anabasine and myosmine was negative at 60 deg C.

Simulated Use: Nicotine and tobacco Specific Impurities by Head Space GC-MS (HSGC-MS) and sparging apparatus
HSGC is likely to be less sensitive than the GC-MS technique that takes advantage of injecting all of the soluble components and then volatilizing them at 280 °C; however, the head space analyzer can be set to a specific temperature to mimic what may be volatilized during use of the products.

Table 1 shows results from using the GC-MS technique, which is the table that looks bad. table 2 uses the HSGC-MS method and doesn't look anywhere near as bad.

[sniffles]

The FDA ran these tests at the temp TO PRODUCE Carcinogens. All organics Nicotine and Solvents included like PG, are all Carbon and Nitrogen based. When they reach a certain temp, for example Nitrogen burn temp is around 500 F. They produce chemical reactions and break from their bonding molecules. This inturn create new ones in many cases they are carcinogens. They ran the temp up to produce this reaction, just so they could go "OOOHHHH LOOOOK, CARCINOGENS"!

[BullyBoy]

So, my question is, does this make sense to make the claims that there are carcinogens and they shouldn't be vaped?

What, exactly, is your question? Do you want temperature thresholds or justification for inhaling certain chemicals?

[ashdaburned]

My question EXACTLY is this.
Why did the FDA test the E-CIG at 4x the normal operating temp?
Why is it that they claim there are carcinogens in them, when they had to use 280C to cause them?
I'm asking a science question.
Is there a valid reason to use those temps and make those claims?

I just simply noticed this, and no one else has asked. So, either NO ONE else noticed, or i don't understand and am the only one to ask this. I would hope its the latter, being i would like to trust the FDA.

[gashin]

If there's carcinogen in the liq it doesn't matter what temp they're heated at. Also take the FDA's findings with a grain of salt - the amount of tobacco carcinogens in ecigs is hunredths even thousandths of what's in analogs and chewing tobacco.

My question EXACTLY is this.
Why did the FDA test the E-CIG at 4x the normal operating temp?
Why is it that they claim there are carcinogens in them, when they had to use 280C to cause them?
I'm asking a science question.
Is there a valid reason to use those temps and make those claims?

I just simply noticed this, and no one else has asked. So, either NO ONE else noticed, or i don't understand and am the only one to ask this. I would hope its the latter, being i would like to trust the FDA.

[DC2]

My question EXACTLY is this.
Why did the FDA test the E-CIG at 4x the normal operating temp?
Why is it that they claim there are carcinogens in them, when they had to use 280C to cause them?
I'm asking a science question.
Is there a valid reason to use those temps and make those claims?

I just simply noticed this, and no one else has asked. So, either NO ONE else noticed, or i don't understand and am the only one to ask this. I would hope its the latter, being i would like to trust the FDA.

It's a damn good question, and either nobody noticed it or nobody has an answer.
I know I didn't notice it at all when I read the test results.

But if you're right, that would pretty much invalidate the results of the FDA testing.
And I can't believe that if you're right nobody else is jumping on this.

[ashdaburned]

Recent studies have further evaluated the relationship associated with methods of cooking meat and the development of specific types of cancer. One study conducted by researchers from NCI's Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics found a link between individuals with stomach cancer and the consumption of cooked meats. The researchers assessed the diets and cooking habits of 176 people diagnosed with stomach cancer and 503 people without cancer. The researchers found that those who ate their beef medium-well or well-done had more than three times the risk of stomach cancer than those who ate their beef rare or medium-rare. They also found that people who ate beef four or more times a week had more than twice the risk of stomach cancer than those consuming beef less frequently. Additional studies have shown that an increased risk of developing colorectal, pancreatic, and breast cancer is associated with high intakes of well-done, fried, or barbequed meats.

Heterocyclic Amines in Cooked Meats - National Cancer Institute
From the national cancer institute.

From the way this reads. When food is cooked (heated) can then be found in meat. The higher the temp, the more likely you get cancer IE the more carcinogens.
That makes me think that carcinogens are created by the high temps. How vapor would be more of a medium-rare i would think, with cigarette smoke being well done. as its temps are about 700 C when taking a puff.

BTW I do take that report with a grain of salt. I looked over it more than once. and found some issues with it.. just everything else had been brought up.. this hadn't. so i decided to ask.