Propylene glycol inhaling?

[Nazareth]

well I do take hteir motive into concideration, but on the other hand- there may be soem truth to what they say as well, and the fact is that noone really knows what long-term effects consistent exposure ot htis might have, and it may justy turn out quite bad, but then again, it could turn out just fine- there doesn't seem to be any long term human trials or observances done scientifically- I'm just always learey of new stuff that hasn't been thoproughly tested- as much as I want for htis to be a safe product, I still am a bit nervous since it hasn't been tested enough I guess. I take all info thgat isn't scientifically gained with a grain of salt, and weigh it all- good or bad- objectively- just gotta sift htrough the obvious 'incentives' and rhetoric of special interest groups, and get to the straight facts and claims, but I don't think we can dismiss whqat is said just because they might have interests in saying so if their facts are sound enough though.

[Mamba]

I don't know if a link to this study has been posted on this board yet but it is certainly relevant to this thread. It implies that PG is considered safe as a vapor carrier in medical applications. Does anyone know if PG is actually used for inhaled medicine in humans. Granted, it's an animal study but it was used in lung transplantation and transplanted lungs are pretty sensitive. Not to mention that if you give a rat anything it gets cancer.

Here is the quote from the abstract:

There were no respiratory or systemic effects of high doses of propylene glycol relative to air controls. These preclinical studies demonstrate the safety of aerosolized cyclosporine in propylene glycol and support its continued clinical investigation in patients undergoing allogeneic lung transplantation.

Here is the link to the abstract:

Preclinical safety evaluation of inhaled cyclosporine in propylene glycol.

[NerdyCinderella]

Here is the link to the abstract: Preclinical safety evaluation of inhaled cyclosporine in propylene glycol. Mamba

Not to mention that if you give a rat anything it gets cancer - lol

[TropicalBob]

There were no respiratory or systemic effects of high doses of propylene glycol relative to air controls.

That's a home run quote for anyone, me included, concerned about any effects of inhaling propylene glycol probably 300 times a day for the rest of my life.

Now, we have only to worry about the nicotine. No small matter ... Find Science Daily http://www.sciencedaily.com/, search "nicotine" and start some very depressing reading on our favorite drug.

[Nazareth]

how depressing is it Bob? Don't even want ot look at hte link= Any evidence that nicotine causes cancer? I thought I'd read soemwhere that there was no known link? Perhaps I'm wrong.

[toekuttr]

Nazareth asks:

Any evidence that nicotine causes cancer? I thought I'd read soemwhere that there was no known link? Perhaps I'm wrong.

I thought this was common knowledge: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... id=1987356

[Nazareth]

uggh- anyhtign less technical? I can make it out, but only if I really put my mind to figuring it all out- Is the study talkign abotu burned nicotine being carcinogetic? Or any for of nicotine regardless of delivery methods? I guess it woudl be all methods as it looks liek htey might be talking abotu all forms of NNK- even food based NNK- gotta read throgu it more tomorow.

The development of the NNK-induced tumors was prevented by green tea or theophylline.

That was oen of my asthma drugs at oen time- but then they switched me to a newer one- prbably shoudla stayed on the Theophyllin.

I've read in a couple of places that nicotine doesn't by itself cause cancer- here's one such claim

Nicotine by itself does not cause cancer, heart disease or other major health problems linked to smoking; other chemicals in tobacco smoke are to blame. Nicotine replacement can be used alone or with prescription medications or, for best results, combined with counseling. Recent evidence suggests that using two forms simultaneously, like the patch and gum together, works better than either alone.

http://health.nytimes.com/ref/health...oking-ess.html wikipedia (not a real reliable source for sure) has the same claim as well- though not real sure how recent their info is.

[toekuttr]

What they are referring to are the TSN's (tobacco specific nitrosamines) which got a lot of press several years ago. These are supposedly derived from nicotine both in the processing of the tobacco and in the users body. The low/no nicotine tobaccos were designed with this in mind to create a less carcinogenic tobacco.

Some researchers indicate that nicotine is the highest risk factor in developing smoking related cancers. Concentrated levels of nitrosamines are found in small cell lung cancer tumors. Nicotine is purported to have a stimulus effect on existing cancer cells. These findings cast doubt on the health benefits of a high nicotine/low tar tobacco.

What gets me is that this seems to be the best evidence of the dangers of smoking and the anti's seem to be ignoring it.

[Klaue]

What they are referring to are the TSN's (tobacco specific nitrosamines) which got a lot of press several years ago. These are supposedly derived from nicotine both in the processing of the tobacco and in the users body. The low/no nicotine tobaccos were designed with this in mind to create a less carcinogenic tobacco.

well.. from http://www.healthnz.co.nz/Portland2008ECIG.pdf:

Tobacco -specific Nitrosamines: 8 ppb (ng/g) => as I understand it, this is meant for the whole eliquid, not the nicotine alone
For comparison:
NRT gum: 8 ng/g)
Unburnt cig. Tobacco: 1200 ng/g )]
Cigarette smoke: to 500 ng /cigarette

As far as I remember, a cartridge holds about 1 ml and consists mainly of PG, which has a density of 1,04 g/cm^3, so a normal cartridge has about 8 ng. A cig weights about 1.14 g. so you can say that a single cigarette has about 62.5 times more nitrosamines than a whole cartridge of e-liquid. I don't really think that this is a concern for e-smokers

[toekuttr]

Klaue says:

I don't really think that this is a concern for e-smokers

Well thats great news! I do agree that theres likely a much reduced risk when compared to cigarettes and other forms of tobacco in general. I was just responding to the notion of nicotine itself being the "harmless" component in tobacco. Keep in mind though, that only the TSN's developed in the tobacco prior to metabolism are being measured.