Links to e-cig related legal/medical information. - Page 2 - e-cigarette-forum.com • The place for electronic cigarette reviews, news and chat

Kate · 10-09-2008, 09:22 PM

No problem Pillbox, I'll post the link on the Wicked thread where the questions were asked.

TropicalBob · 10-09-2008, 09:25 PM

Okay, read it over. Love the "test results are for this sample only" disclaimer. So much for quality assurance (need random regulatory testing for that).

If you remember from the germ-killing vapor papers, the lungs in mice are not comparable to human lungs. Only tests on primates would be comparable. (Thats' what set off little miss-what's-her-face). Those primate tests were done in 1941 and there's no reason on earth to believe they are not applicable today. The monkeys were fine. They did fine. Mice did fine, too. Well, they should.

This proves to me .. that I should not use exhaled e-cig vapor as a mouse killer.

TropicalBob · 10-09-2008, 09:26 PM

Pillbox, you're doing more than anyone could expect. I admire your efforts. Keep it up.

Kate · 10-09-2008, 09:27 PM

They didn't test the eliquid as a vapour and they tested for food safe standards.

TropicalBob · 10-09-2008, 09:31 PM

Yes, I did see the intragastric test procedure, which really doesn't address how we use it. I guess this tells me this liquid is not poisonous if I drink it in the quantity used in the test. Not sure how much that is in human amounts. But I don't drink it. I inhale it after vaporization. We need a different test.

Again, it's been done. PG is not a problem. Nicotine we know about. So what else is there to worry about beyond production protections? This kind of test doesn't really concern me ....

Kate · 10-09-2008, 09:37 PM

From what I've read I'm not concerned about propylene glycol, nor low doses of nicotine. I suppose there are all the additives like flavourings to think about. Methanol was found in an old batch of Pillbox juice which had to be withdrawn and exchanged for ethanol. I'd be concerned about methanol being used in other brands.

Jack-Flash · 10-18-2008, 08:50 PM

To be absolutely honest. The lack of testing on these devices is the only thing that concerns me somewhat. I am reasonably happy that they are less harmful than cigarettes, but then most things are. lol

i will be happier when these have been tested and classified. Then they can havelabels on the e-liquid that classifies them in regard to their hazard level. They are neve going to be 0 hazard because of the nicotine. But at least we might then have an idea.

Kate · 10-23-2008, 10:23 PM

Here's a link to the latest Ruyan tests from New Zealand - http://healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport21-Oct-08.pdf

It looks pretty promising.

bobbertonIND · 03-04-2009, 03:58 AM

i know im bringing up a thread that has long since dropped out of public view, but as a note on the ruyan article, it was financed by ruyan itself.

not that the findings are not promising, but the whole reason for independent research documentation is to avoid influence from benefactors. researchers will often skew results simply because they feel they owe something to the financier of their research. so i feel this research, though promising looking, should be taken with a grain of salt.

i would love to see an independent firm conduct a study on PG, VG, and efluid intake as a whole based on vaporization at temperatures relevant to the use. i have seen other articles referencing vaporization at 80 deg C. but from what i have seen, this has not happened, and wont happen without significant interest in the product.

the simple fact that i want to know is whether significant amounts of PG, VG or the other ingredients in e-liquid alter their chemical composition at the temperature of vaporization at the atomiser. or if they are not altered, if they are broken down quickly and whether they pose a threat to the body or its organs of operation.

as i would assume currently, the main ingredients apart from the nicotine, being VG or PG would not cause the body harm if chemical alterations do not occur. albeit, PG being a suspected toxicant and irritant if inhaled.

TropicalBob · 03-04-2009, 04:06 AM

It's a sad scientific fact of life that most research today is financed by the company hoping to make a profit from marketing an end product. Big Pharma does this all the time.

Our reason to trust? A researcher's professional reputation is on the line with every report issued for peer review. If facts are twisted or misstated, you can bet peers with opposing views will tear that researcher apart. I think you can trust the Ruyan-funded research to be truthful in what is publicly presented -- but that might not be everything uncovered in the research.

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

10-09-2008, 09:22 PM	#11
Kate Moved On Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: UK Posts: 7,355	No problem Pillbox, I'll post the link on the Wicked thread where the questions were asked.

10-09-2008, 09:25 PM	#12
TropicalBob ECF Veteran Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Port Charlotte, FL USA Posts: 5,076	Okay, read it over. Love the "test results are for this sample only" disclaimer. So much for quality assurance (need random regulatory testing for that). If you remember from the germ-killing vapor papers, the lungs in mice are not comparable to human lungs. Only tests on primates would be comparable. (Thats' what set off little miss-what's-her-face). Those primate tests were done in 1941 and there's no reason on earth to believe they are not applicable today. The monkeys were fine. They did fine. Mice did fine, too. Well, they should. This proves to me .. that I should not use exhaled e-cig vapor as a mouse killer.

10-09-2008, 09:26 PM	#13
TropicalBob ECF Veteran Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Port Charlotte, FL USA Posts: 5,076	Pillbox, you're doing more than anyone could expect. I admire your efforts. Keep it up.

10-09-2008, 09:27 PM	#14
Kate Moved On Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: UK Posts: 7,355	They didn't test the eliquid as a vapour and they tested for food safe standards.

10-09-2008, 09:31 PM	#15
TropicalBob ECF Veteran Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Port Charlotte, FL USA Posts: 5,076	Yes, I did see the intragastric test procedure, which really doesn't address how we use it. I guess this tells me this liquid is not poisonous if I drink it in the quantity used in the test. Not sure how much that is in human amounts. But I don't drink it. I inhale it after vaporization. We need a different test. Again, it's been done. PG is not a problem. Nicotine we know about. So what else is there to worry about beyond production protections? This kind of test doesn't really concern me ....

10-09-2008, 09:37 PM	#16
Kate Moved On Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: UK Posts: 7,355	From what I've read I'm not concerned about propylene glycol, nor low doses of nicotine. I suppose there are all the additives like flavourings to think about. Methanol was found in an old batch of Pillbox juice which had to be withdrawn and exchanged for ethanol. I'd be concerned about methanol being used in other brands.

10-18-2008, 08:50 PM	#17
Jack-Flash Full Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Sheffield, England Posts: 20	To be absolutely honest. The lack of testing on these devices is the only thing that concerns me somewhat. I am reasonably happy that they are less harmful than cigarettes, but then most things are. lol i will be happier when these have been tested and classified. Then they can havelabels on the e-liquid that classifies them in regard to their hazard level. They are neve going to be 0 hazard because of the nicotine. But at least we might then have an idea.

10-23-2008, 10:23 PM	#18
Kate Moved On Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: UK Posts: 7,355	Here's a link to the latest Ruyan tests from New Zealand - http://healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport21-Oct-08.pdf It looks pretty promising.

03-04-2009, 03:58 AM	#19
bobbertonIND Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 8	i know im bringing up a thread that has long since dropped out of public view, but as a note on the ruyan article, it was financed by ruyan itself. not that the findings are not promising, but the whole reason for independent research documentation is to avoid influence from benefactors. researchers will often skew results simply because they feel they owe something to the financier of their research. so i feel this research, though promising looking, should be taken with a grain of salt. i would love to see an independent firm conduct a study on PG, VG, and efluid intake as a whole based on vaporization at temperatures relevant to the use. i have seen other articles referencing vaporization at 80 deg C. but from what i have seen, this has not happened, and wont happen without significant interest in the product. the simple fact that i want to know is whether significant amounts of PG, VG or the other ingredients in e-liquid alter their chemical composition at the temperature of vaporization at the atomiser. or if they are not altered, if they are broken down quickly and whether they pose a threat to the body or its organs of operation. as i would assume currently, the main ingredients apart from the nicotine, being VG or PG would not cause the body harm if chemical alterations do not occur. albeit, PG being a suspected toxicant and irritant if inhaled.

03-04-2009, 04:06 AM	#20
TropicalBob ECF Veteran Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Port Charlotte, FL USA Posts: 5,076	It's a sad scientific fact of life that most research today is financed by the company hoping to make a profit from marketing an end product. Big Pharma does this all the time. Our reason to trust? A researcher's professional reputation is on the line with every report issued for peer review. If facts are twisted or misstated, you can bet peers with opposing views will tear that researcher apart. I think you can trust the Ruyan-funded research to be truthful in what is publicly presented -- but that might not be everything uncovered in the research.