A germ-killing vapor - Page 4 - E-Cigarette Forum

Nazareth · 08-07-2008, 04:07 PM

Mamba, I'm not sure, but I vaguely rememeberr readign that bacterai can find a way to beat even colloidal silver- I could be wrong on that, as it was years ago when I was into natural alternatives to try to heal myself, and I was investigating claims made by naturalists concenring certain herbs and liquids- It might have been somethign else, but for some reason the colloidal silver coems to mind

TropicalBob · 08-07-2008, 07:16 PM

Naz, this is going a bit off-course. Just because bacteria might adapt to something is not a reason to stop work on ways to kill or control them. We can't say 'It's no use, they'll just adapt.' Adaptation is not within our control, so it's not worthy of concern. We work to kill germs; they work to evolve a way to survive. That's nature. We find something new and the cycle starts again.

We can never give up, obviously.

It appears the discovery of propylene glycol's germicidal effects has not been refuted, and, indeed, was confirmed in further studies in England. It works. But it has never been practical and no one could get rich, so nothing further was done with the discovery. Now we find ourselves with personal propylene glycol vaporizers. We just might have a high-tech germ killer that Dr. Robertson never could have imagined.

katink · 08-07-2008, 07:47 PM

Is this actually a worry? Right now we are excited about exactly this way of using it... but PG has been around for 60 years or more now, in hundreds, thousands of different products, and with usage in all the possible ways, from part of (semi-)solids through liquid through vapour and mist...
So surely there is nothing new at all about using PG in e-cigs in this respect, as to sudden danger for superbugs or anything of the sort? If they would grow, being confronted with PG... then they would be here for a looong time allready, wouldn't they?
(And I most certainly agree with you btw Naz on the fact that making the environment too clean is just bad, in the end; no misunderstanding there... maybe this is part of thát... but I think superbugs would be here in rows and colums allready, if they would come from usage of PG, thats all)

Nazareth · 08-07-2008, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Naz, this is going a bit off-course. Just because bacteria might adapt to something is not a reason to stop work on ways to kill or control them. We can't say 'It's no use, they'll just adapt.' Adaptation is not within our control, so it's not worthy of concern.

Off topic? How so? We're talking abotu killing bacteria, and I brought up that they might adapt to hte PG- As well, when I speak abotu bacterai becoming super bacteria, I must dissagree that this is an irrelevent concern because thanks to our comulsions to zap everythign with antibiotics and antibacterials, we are seeign soem very very serious problems arise

Occasional use of antibacterials and antibiotics would not of course produce superbacteria and viruses- however, constant use of either or, will as the bacteria have a chance to mutate and pass alogn hteir mutaitons in numbers that will overwhelm the previousxs bacteria, and, it's quite obvious that we will be inhaling PG constantly, all day long, and I think it's not unreasonable to htink that this could result in soemthign we won't be able to control

Quote:

We work to kill germs; they work to evolve a way to survive. That's nature. We find something new and the cycle starts again.

Correct, and I'm not disputing that- however, we had succeeded agaisnt Bactarias and viruses until we started overeactign to htem and tryign to live in 'sterile' environments by constantly washign with antibacterials, wiping everythign down with antibacterials, germicidals etc, giving out antibiotics liek htey were chewable one a day vitimins etc- Now, wer'e faced with very serious medical problems as new superbacteria and viruses emerge. Before, new strains would crop up, and because we only occassionally used antibiotics, we were able to zap them with another antibiotic, but now, since hte onslaught of 'sterilize everything everyday' thinking, it's becoem a huge issue.

Germicidals are fine for occassional use, but I fear that it's constant use, such as we would be doing by esmoking, it could produce soemthign we can't control- not sure how you think this is goign off topic?

Katink:

Quote:

And I most certainly agree with you btw Naz on the fact that making the environment too clean is just bad, in the end; no misunderstanding there... maybe this is part of thát... but I think superbugs would be here in rows and colums allready, if they would come from usage of PG, thats all)

Yeah, I'm not saying it will cause htis, as I just don't know, but think it's an important concideration that we should maybe just keep an eye out for some info on htis if available

TropicalBob · 08-08-2008, 04:04 AM

Last January, while writing an article on e-smoking, I corresponded several times with the world's leading e-smoking researcher, Dr. Murray Laugesen of New Zealand. Thursday, I again emailed the doctor, asking if the studies spelled out in the first post in this thread could be as important as I think they are. I provided a link to this thread on our forum. He visited our forum and read the posts.

Dr. Laugesen replied within hours. He wrote that he is authoring a report for the World Health Organization on e-smoking and he promptly drew up an addition to the WHO report. In his emailed reply, he included a first draft of the addendum and asked if I'd like to post it. Yes, yes I would.

E-CIGARETTE USE - COULD IT PROTECT US ALL FROM THE NEXT PANDEMIC?
Murray Laugesen
Public health physician www.healthnz.co.nz

Bob Bowden, Florida contributor to e-cigarette-forum.com, raises the question whether e-cigarettes, apart from avoiding smoking and future lung cancer risk, actually confers immediate short term positive benefits, by reducing the risk of its users inhaling live viruses and bacteria from room air. This is mind-blowing enough, but could its possible benefits also protect others close by? Is the e-cigarette more than a tool for reducing harm? Is it also potentially a talisman to ward off infection?

History
That propylene glycol (PG) may protect users of the e-cigarette from airborne bacterial and viruses dates back to World War II. ‘Air Germicide’, a story in Time magazine Nov 16, 1942, reported the research of Dr. Oswald Hope Robertson at Chicago's BillingsHospital. He showed that half a part per million of PG in air could kill bacteria and viruses in that air within seconds. He found PG could protect mice from influenza virus, and that monkeys could well tolerate living in air containing PG. On the face of it, e-cigarette users might indeed be better off.

Second hand PG
For e-cigarette mist to have any chance of protecting non-users of e-cigarettes depends on whether e-cigarette users exhale sufficient PG, and this is doubtful. While the mouth smoke inhaled contains PG at 300 parts per million, in the next breath the exhaled mist is invisible and PG is only about 5 ppm. Several PG users, however, might exhale enough to maintain a viricidal concentration of PG. PG is mostly absorbed, and broken down to carbon dioxide and pyruvate, which is burnt for energy. And so PG mainly benefits the user, not the surrounding air space.

Protecting air travelers
Air travel is a weak point in defending ourselves internationally from fatal respiratory infections. Bird flu and pandemic influenza can spread globally at the speed of jet travel, as one infected person can infect many others through air-conditioned, re-circulated air. Governments are spending millions on how to contain or just even slow the spread of such epidemics. Perhaps PG should be seriously considered.

Even the tuberculosis bacillus can infect passengers seated some distance from the infected passenger on a flight between San Francisco and Hawaii, as CDC (US Centers for Disease Control) has reported.

PG is not used to sterilise aircraft air, and airlines medicating cabin air via air-conditioners could incur unwanted legal claims. Permitting the use, however, of e-cigarettes on passenger flights might at least help protect the e-cigarette user, and just possibly, those in the adjacent seat. Airlines would not need to do a thing, apart from inform in-flight staff that e-cigarette use is permissible.

E-cigarettes, being flameless, and not producing harmful gases, are not banned by laws against second-hand smoke or use in flight. Their use in the aircraft toilet will not activate the smoke alarms. And until research confirms or denies it, the PG in e-cigarette mist just might have health protection benefits for other passengers. Non-smokers desiring enhanced personal protection could use e-cigarettes containing zero nicotine.

Further research
We already know there is no way e-cigarettes can cause lung cancer. Equally, they do not cause fires. E-users would also like to know whether switching to e-cigarettes reduces coughs, colds and flu compared with smokers who have simply quit nicotine altogether. Everyone would like to know whether permitting e-cigarette use on long haul flights reduces respiratory infection risk for passengers.

CaSHMeRe · 08-08-2008, 04:16 AM

WOW TB !!! Speechless ... This is invaluable! The contacts you have in the esmoking world are great!

2 statements really stick out ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Murray Laugesen

And until research confirms or denies it, the PG in e-cigarette mist just might have health protection benefits for other passengers.

2nd hand ECig vapor is healthy for people ?!?!?! insane!

and

Quote:

Originally Posted by Murray Laugesen

We already know there is no way e-cigarettes can cause lung cancer.

WE DO ???? Didn't think we were at a point with enough research to be 100% absolutely sure ...

Thanks for posting this TB

Threshold · 08-08-2008, 11:28 AM

just did a quick search on google and found some links. thought i should post here if someone missed it.

propylene glycol as germicide - Google Search

thanks TropicalBob

Mamba · 08-08-2008, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TropicalBob

Further research
We already know there is no way e-cigarettes can cause lung cancer. Equally, they do not cause fires. E-users would also like to know whether switching to e-cigarettes reduces coughs, colds and flu compared with smokers who have simply quit nicotine altogether. Everyone would like to know whether permitting e-cigarette use on long haul flights reduces respiratory infection risk for passengers.

Overall nicely written addendum. However, the last paragraph makes some statements that are a bit strong considering the current status of e-smoking. I don't think that we can say definitively that e-smoking will not cause any incidence of lung cancer with 100% certainty because we simply don't have long-term studies to prove such an assertion. If they don't cause fires then what about the occasional battery that catches on fire? One such case has already been reported on this board. No device is risk free. Cell phones probably cause more cancer than e-cigs ever will and are freely used.

I hate to sound like a broken record but none of the positive arguments about PG are valid unless we are certain that we are actually getting pharmaceutical grade PG in our cartridges and liquid. I'm amazed the e-cig has stayed under the radar this long. It is only a matter of time before government agencies take a closer look and then the regulating/banning will begin.

katink · 08-08-2008, 06:47 PM

So lets hope it stays under the radar until it might be clear that it not only does no harm, but even helps to ward off other harm... whether just for the user, or even for those around him...

I must say I love the idea, the wild thought, of schools, conferences, pubs, public places actualy welcoming e-smokers, asking them in

Who knows it might come true

(Bob, do you mind me translating your writing into dutch for the boards there? Not all speak english)

TropicalBob · 08-08-2008, 09:16 PM

Please do translate and post. Dr. Laugesen is "The Man" for the New Zealand e-smoking trials and he gave permission to distribute his emailed reply to me. In fact, he's emailed me more info but asked that I hold off a day or two before posting.

There are perhaps three critical posts that contain the researched information and Dr. Laugesen's response. Have at it.

08-07-2008, 07:47 PM	#33
katink Ultra Member ECF Veteran Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: the Netherlands Posts: 1,221 Tweet this post!	Is this actually a worry? Right now we are excited about exactly this way of using it... but PG has been around for 60 years or more now, in hundreds, thousands of different products, and with usage in all the possible ways, from part of (semi-)solids through liquid through vapour and mist... So surely there is nothing new at all about using PG in e-cigs in this respect, as to sudden danger for superbugs or anything of the sort? If they would grow, being confronted with PG... then they would be here for a looong time allready, wouldn't they? (And I most certainly agree with you btw Naz on the fact that making the environment too clean is just bad, in the end; no misunderstanding there... maybe this is part of thát... but I think superbugs would be here in rows and colums allready, if they would come from usage of PG, thats all) Last edited by katink; 08-07-2008 at 08:31 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/health-safety-e-smoking/1734-germ-killing-vapor.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
What do we need to prove?	This thread	Refback	04-05-2009 10:56 PM
E-cigaret E-Cigarettes NyCigaret E-SMOKE ECIGARETTER elektroniske smøger e cigaret	This thread	Refback	04-02-2009 08:52 AM
Î•Î¹ÏƒÏ€Î½Î¿Î® Î±Ï„Î¼Î¿Ï - Î˜ÎÎ¼Î±Ï„Î± Ï…Î³ÎµÎ¯Î±Ï‚ / Î¹Î±Ï„ÏÎ¹ÎºÎ¬ Î¸ÎÎ¼Î±Ï„Î± - e-kapnisma	This thread	Refback	03-15-2009 04:17 AM
E-cig forum • Vis emne - Interresant læsning om propylen glycol	This thread	Refback	10-09-2008 06:24 AM
E-cigaret E-Cigarettes NyCigaret E-SMOKE ECIGARETTER elektroniske smøger e cigaret	This thread	Refback	09-24-2008 05:06 PM
E-cig forum • Vis emne - Interresant læsning om propylen glycol	This thread	Refback	09-03-2008 08:17 AM

08-07-2008, 04:07 PM	#31
Nazareth Ultra Member ECF Veteran Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: USA Posts: 1,302	Mamba, I'm not sure, but I vaguely rememeberr readign that bacterai can find a way to beat even colloidal silver- I could be wrong on that, as it was years ago when I was into natural alternatives to try to heal myself, and I was investigating claims made by naturalists concenring certain herbs and liquids- It might have been somethign else, but for some reason the colloidal silver coems to mind

08-07-2008, 07:16 PM	#32
TropicalBob PV Master ECF Veteran Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Port Charlotte, FL USA Posts: 5,614	Naz, this is going a bit off-course. Just because bacteria might adapt to something is not a reason to stop work on ways to kill or control them. We can't say 'It's no use, they'll just adapt.' Adaptation is not within our control, so it's not worthy of concern. We work to kill germs; they work to evolve a way to survive. That's nature. We find something new and the cycle starts again. We can never give up, obviously. It appears the discovery of propylene glycol's germicidal effects has not been refuted, and, indeed, was confirmed in further studies in England. It works. But it has never been practical and no one could get rich, so nothing further was done with the discovery. Now we find ourselves with personal propylene glycol vaporizers. We just might have a high-tech germ killer that Dr. Robertson never could have imagined.

08-08-2008, 04:04 AM	#35
TropicalBob PV Master ECF Veteran Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Port Charlotte, FL USA Posts: 5,614	Last January, while writing an article on e-smoking, I corresponded several times with the world's leading e-smoking researcher, Dr. Murray Laugesen of New Zealand. Thursday, I again emailed the doctor, asking if the studies spelled out in the first post in this thread could be as important as I think they are. I provided a link to this thread on our forum. He visited our forum and read the posts. Dr. Laugesen replied within hours. He wrote that he is authoring a report for the World Health Organization on e-smoking and he promptly drew up an addition to the WHO report. In his emailed reply, he included a first draft of the addendum and asked if I'd like to post it. Yes, yes I would. E-CIGARETTE USE - COULD IT PROTECT US ALL FROM THE NEXT PANDEMIC? Murray Laugesen Public health physician www.healthnz.co.nz Bob Bowden, Florida contributor to e-cigarette-forum.com, raises the question whether e-cigarettes, apart from avoiding smoking and future lung cancer risk, actually confers immediate short term positive benefits, by reducing the risk of its users inhaling live viruses and bacteria from room air. This is mind-blowing enough, but could its possible benefits also protect others close by? Is the e-cigarette more than a tool for reducing harm? Is it also potentially a talisman to ward off infection? History That propylene glycol (PG) may protect users of the e-cigarette from airborne bacterial and viruses dates back to World War II. ‘Air Germicide’, a story in Time magazine Nov 16, 1942, reported the research of Dr. Oswald Hope Robertson at Chicago's BillingsHospital. He showed that half a part per million of PG in air could kill bacteria and viruses in that air within seconds. He found PG could protect mice from influenza virus, and that monkeys could well tolerate living in air containing PG. On the face of it, e-cigarette users might indeed be better off. Second hand PG For e-cigarette mist to have any chance of protecting non-users of e-cigarettes depends on whether e-cigarette users exhale sufficient PG, and this is doubtful. While the mouth smoke inhaled contains PG at 300 parts per million, in the next breath the exhaled mist is invisible and PG is only about 5 ppm. Several PG users, however, might exhale enough to maintain a viricidal concentration of PG. PG is mostly absorbed, and broken down to carbon dioxide and pyruvate, which is burnt for energy. And so PG mainly benefits the user, not the surrounding air space. Protecting air travelers Air travel is a weak point in defending ourselves internationally from fatal respiratory infections. Bird flu and pandemic influenza can spread globally at the speed of jet travel, as one infected person can infect many others through air-conditioned, re-circulated air. Governments are spending millions on how to contain or just even slow the spread of such epidemics. Perhaps PG should be seriously considered. Even the tuberculosis bacillus can infect passengers seated some distance from the infected passenger on a flight between San Francisco and Hawaii, as CDC (US Centers for Disease Control) has reported. PG is not used to sterilise aircraft air, and airlines medicating cabin air via air-conditioners could incur unwanted legal claims. Permitting the use, however, of e-cigarettes on passenger flights might at least help protect the e-cigarette user, and just possibly, those in the adjacent seat. Airlines would not need to do a thing, apart from inform in-flight staff that e-cigarette use is permissible. E-cigarettes, being flameless, and not producing harmful gases, are not banned by laws against second-hand smoke or use in flight. Their use in the aircraft toilet will not activate the smoke alarms. And until research confirms or denies it, the PG in e-cigarette mist just might have health protection benefits for other passengers. Non-smokers desiring enhanced personal protection could use e-cigarettes containing zero nicotine. Further research We already know there is no way e-cigarettes can cause lung cancer. Equally, they do not cause fires. E-users would also like to know whether switching to e-cigarettes reduces coughs, colds and flu compared with smokers who have simply quit nicotine altogether. Everyone would like to know whether permitting e-cigarette use on long haul flights reduces respiratory infection risk for passengers.

08-08-2008, 11:28 AM	#37
Threshold Full Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 41	just did a quick search on google and found some links. thought i should post here if someone missed it. propylene glycol as germicide - Google Search thanks TropicalBob

08-08-2008, 06:47 PM	#39
katink Ultra Member ECF Veteran Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: the Netherlands Posts: 1,221 Tweet this post!	So lets hope it stays under the radar until it might be clear that it not only does no harm, but even helps to ward off other harm... whether just for the user, or even for those around him... I must say I love the idea, the wild thought, of schools, conferences, pubs, public places actualy welcoming e-smokers, asking them in Who knows it might come true (Bob, do you mind me translating your writing into dutch for the boards there? Not all speak english)

08-08-2008, 09:16 PM	#40
TropicalBob PV Master ECF Veteran Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Port Charlotte, FL USA Posts: 5,614	Please do translate and post. Dr. Laugesen is "The Man" for the New Zealand e-smoking trials and he gave permission to distribute his emailed reply to me. In fact, he's emailed me more info but asked that I hold off a day or two before posting. There are perhaps three critical posts that contain the researched information and Dr. Laugesen's response. Have at it.