Regarding research conducted to date:
The link above that Yvilla provided will take you to a page that contains numerous lab tests on the liquid, and one on the vapor.
Health New Zealand has also studied the vapor and pronounced it "harmless, inhaled or exhaled." Ecigarette mist harmless, inhaled or exhaled
After the FDA came out with its accusations of carcinogens (TSNAs), NJOY had tests conducted on the vapor (because after all, folks don't drink the liquid). That testing determined that only one of the TSNAs that FDA found in the liquid can be found in the vapor, and that particular type of TSNA is not carcinogenic! You can read a copy of the test here. http://www.casaa.org/files/Study_TSN...NJOY_Vapor.pdf
So all the toxicology testing that we have to date shows no toxins and no carcinogens in the vapor.
Only brief tests have been conducted on human subjects. Keep in mind that testing that involves humans tends to be quite expensive, and the longer the study, the more expensive. But more pertinent is the fact that any testing that involves humans must be approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) to ensure the safety of the subjects. That doesn't preclude a researcher from conducting such tests, but his results would never be approved for publication in a peer-reviewed medical journal.
Health New Zealand randomized crossover trial: http://www.healthnz.co.nz/2010%20Bullen%20ECig.pdf
Virginia Commonwealth University, T. Eissenberg: Electronic nicotine delivery devices: ineffective nicotine delivery and craving suppression after acute administration -- Eissenberg 19 (1): 87 -- Tobacco Control
Comment to the VCU-Eissenberg article: Replies to Electronic nicotine delivery devices: ineffective nicotine delivery and craving suppression after acute administration
Another type of research is surveys. To date, two surveys of electronic cigarette users have been published.
This University of Alberta survey report was orginally published as a working paper on the Tobacco Harm Reduction web site: http://tobaccoharmreduction.org/wpapers/011v1.pdf
It was added to this book as Chapter 19: THR2010. (tobaccoharmreduction.org)
Jean-Franxois Etter's survey: BioMed Central | Full text | Electronic cigarettes: a survey of users
Etter is in the process of compiling responses to a survey that had 1500 participants as the goal. We have a link to Etter's new survey posted here on ECF, along with a link to a survey that Kristin put together for CASAA. If most folks responded to both surveys, then judging from the number of CASAA responses Etter had more than 2,000 responses to his new survey.
to be honest, from what research i have done, there have been plenty of tests done on e-cigs and e-liquid, most of which show no problems at all, and the only other way to know exactly how safe e cigs are are human trials, which have been going on in nearly every user of this forums home for a long time, years in some cases, and no-one has dropped dead yet right?
but it is difficult to say, since how many smokers die within the first few years of smoking? not many. but the facts speak for themselves, vapers feel healthier than smokers.
will a vaper live as long as a non-smoker? possibly not.
will a vaper live longer than a smoker? its extremely likely.
DEG has shown up in cheap VG. I would bet (if, in fact, it was really there at all) that the Chinese used non-USP grade Glycerin, and that was the source of the DEG.
Originally Posted by Vocalek
Just my $.02 ...
You should all be aware at this point that the Vapers Coalition is raising funds for the IVAQS study too. This study will use smoke machines to access air quality issues pertaining to e-cigarettes. That is to say, second-hand vaper. We would all do well to donate as much as possible to this cause. This study will give us the ammunition we need when talking with legislators about the indoor vaping bans are sure to be heading our way.
It's also important to know that the NVC has previously submitted two different studies for Internal Review Board (IRB) consideration (necessary for all human subject studies), but both of those were quashed by the FDA before the IRB even had a chance to review them, claiming that that FDA considers nicotine to be a drug and therefore we cannot test it. That would be one of the reasons there are no human tests available. The FDA has put us in a 'damned if you do and damned if you don't' position.
My 2 cents - why should human tests be necessary? Eliquid is NOT a drug. Except for the nicotine - all ingredients are over the counter - food or USP grade. Nicotine in larger quantities than eliquid is also over the counter, already tested and approved.
I'd have to agree with Dr. C. Phillips (tobacco harm reduction) - this is a purely political issue. Until the Canadian and US governments make plans for alternative streams of revenue to replace tobacco taxes - this political giant will roar and growl and make everyone afraid.
You have to keep in mind that many of the ingredients are not tested and approved for the use of vaping and, in fact, there are a couple ingredients that would probably raise a red flag on their own. I think the PG and the nicotine are the only two that have any extensive testing as far as inhalation goes. With that in mind, though, you would think that it would be simple enough for the FDA to treat them a base liquid of PG and nicotine as a tobacco product and tax it as they see fit without it having to go through prolonged clinical trials.
Originally Posted by kanadiankat