Mouth Cancer from ecigs?

[just-cass]

Hi there,

Ive ordered my first ecig and discussed it with family and friends and a few more want to try...Yesterday my mum was totally put off as my bro said ecigs cause mouth cancer(he has never tried them nor does he REALLY know anything about them)....I want to know where i can find the best info...not opinions but facts on ecigs to show him and others any possible negatives to ecigs and info to disprove the mouth cancer thing...what studies have been done?and what ones havent? Is there a "worst that can happen" article? and who exactly tests ecigs? are they pro or anti ecigs?

I would say i will come across alot of people who make outrageous negative claims on these based on the "too good to be true if your a smoker" idea.

I am totally converted to the ecig way of life and can see its potential for me and others but i dont want to advertise it to others without having the proper backup info.

 

[hifistud]

Check out anything by Dr Murray Laugesen - of Health New Zealand. He's the authority.

 

[just-cass]

Thankyou for that...will look into it and print it out....is the info on here already or would any summarys be of use in the new members forum?

 

[Silence]

There aren't alot of studies done yet and most are done by independant labs. They do not project the e-liquid in any light, dark or white. they just tell you what is in the product. I am no chemist by profession so I cannot identify everything that was listed but from what I could tell everything was classified as GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) the links to the reports I will look for.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/health-safety-e-smoking/2716-e-liquid-lab-toxicology-reports.html

 

[316lvm]

As been stated, there isn't that much pros or cons on the e-cig.

Why not do a comparison of cigs/analogs and it's toxins and health risks versus e-cigs? Point out the fact that analogs can/does cause cancer lung and mouth.

Print out the information and show it to them. That might give you enough ammo to have them back down.

Just a thought.

 

[HzG8rGrl]

Add throat cancer to the last one.

 

[Vocalek]

You might want to print this article. Be sure to click the Digg button, too.

E-cigarettes reduce cancer risk

Also, cancer tends to be caused by tobacco-specific nitrosamines. One milliter (two of the cartridges that come with the NJOY NPRO) cotribute 0.8 nanograms per gram of nitrosamines. 20 Marlboro cigarettes give you 132,000 nanograms of nitrosamines. Which one sounds more dangerous for a daily intake--0.8 versus 132,000?

You can print out the table found here:
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: Comparison of Carcinogen Levels Shows that Electronic Cigarettes are Much Safer Than Conventional Ones

 

[kristin]

There have been studies on inhaling propylene glycol that show that it is GRAS (Generally Regarded As Safe) by the EPA. It is a known "irritant" for some sensitive people, when inhaled, but not a carcinogen.

It is also GRAS for ingestion, as it's used in NUMEROUS food & hygene products, like toothpaste.

Nicotine is also regarded as not being a carcinogen.

The danger in smoking is the SMOKE, not the nicotine.

If it caused mouth/throat cancer, would the FDA approve nicotine gum or toothpaste?

 

[me144]

If nicotine would be the worry, it is found in many foods naturally ie; tomatoes.

If you look at the back of a toothpaste tube some brands say if swallowed call the poison control center ... I'm sure that is becuase of the floride.

It seems we have become obsessed in this society with what is bad for you, yet we allow floride in our water, glutens in our foods and high fructose corn sweetner in our drinks that is causing diabetes to rise like a rocket to the moon.

For more great information, I suggest investigating the works of Dr. Rima Laibow

Health Freedom Threats: Codex, FDA, Vaccinations, GMOs :: HealthFreedomUSA.org

The truth is out there!

 

[NanoVapor]

If your REALLY paranoid about this, stay away from ANY of the tobacco flavors (unless its a fully synthetic tobacco flavor).

The flavor extraction process from REAL tobacco used to make these flavors is never going to give a 100% pure flavor/aromatic product. There will virtually ALWAYS be (albeit in incredibly tiny quantities) the SAME carcinogens found in tobacco in these flavorings.

This is one of the FDA's little tricks for spinning E-cigs in a bad light. They run their laboratory testing on TOBACCO flavors of E-liquid which are using NATURALLY derived tobacco flavors which thusly means the FDA KNOWS they will find trace amounts of tobacco carcinogens in these types of e-liquids and can point it out as PROOF they give cancer (as these tobacco compounds are known carcinogens). Ask the FDA what carcinogen levels they found in NON-tobacco flavored E-liquids.....

 

[Angela]

If your REALLY paranoid about this, stay away from ANY of the tobacco flavors (unless its a fully synthetic tobacco flavor).

If you're going to give advice, at least make sure it's CORRECT!

Nicotine extraction can leave trace tobacco specific nitrosamines.... so it is possible to have traces in all flavours, not just tobacco ones.

As a comparison though, (taken from Health New Zealand Reports):-

 

[Angela]

I actually meant to post the chart showing the different levels of nitrosamines in different products in my last post, so here it is now:-

 

[NanoVapor]

^

You should know that wether the nicotine contains impurities or not is a totally controllable element by the producer. If whats feeding into the primary community of vapers is a poorly produced or extracted nicotine product, then sure. But any responsible supplier should seek out pure nicotine, and id hope if thats not the way it is yet, that it will be that way soon.


First off nicotine can be synthesised from widely available precursors using common reagents and chemical reactions known in the literature. With an understanding of the vast array of quantum structure activity relationship data on the nicotine molecule one can even develop designer nicotine derivatives to elicit whatever pharmacological tweakings are desired. QSAR data shows you can remove nicotines addictive properties (but thusly its "recreationally" desired psychopharmacologic profile of ultimate dopaminergic activity) whilst retaining other elements of the pharmacologic profile. All sorts of pharmacokinetic profile modulations can also be achieved through manipulation and restructuring of the nicotine molecule as well as exploration with stereoisomeric synthesis methods of all said derivatives including the creation of supra-isomeric structure derivatives.

Second, as you've pointed out it can also be extracted. Any plant extract can be isolated down to three components; the desired molecule, molecular ash (formed during energy expenditure and molecular burn up in solvent extractions, flash chromotography purifications, and general atomic kinetics.), and atmospheric moisture (humidity, its an impurity constituent in everything except in-vacuo 0% humidity environments, this is why you'll never see 100% pure anything in any everyday environment).

Side note: Atmospheric moisture itself is a reactant in chemical processes, take diacetylmorphine (......) for example, hydrolysis from atmospheric moisture breaks one of the acetyls ester bonds creating two molecules; 6-monoacetylmorphine and acetic acid (vinegar - originally used to perform acetylation on the morphine molecule to make the diacetylmorphine molecule), thusly giving ...... powder the smell of vinegar which is actually an impurity reaction product of atmospheric moisture. So too does in-vivo hydrolysis (when you administer diacetylmorphine part of the molecule cleaves off via deacetylation into a vinegar molecule in your bloodstream). Atmospheric moisture has long been a huge battle being waged against pharmaceutical engineers and chemists alike. Its hydrolytic decomposition activity can wreak havoc on certain pharmaceuticals molecular structures and also on chemists chemical reaction process (hence in-vacuo chemistry developments among many other benefits and uses to them).


Ive been looking at nicotine freebase and precipated salts thereof (for @home freebase reversion in my lab) from various suppliers worldwide. The stuffs definetly available and dirt cheap. Just make sure you ask them for the HPLC/LCMS/1HNMR spectral analysis data for confirmation of molecular authenticity and absence of impurities with quantification as well.


If the FDA is using the e-liquids "commonly" available and theyre using inferior nicotine sources then thats just another trick, im young and if I know this xxxx I find it hard to believe the FDA's chemists dont... its more a way for them to cast the technology in a bad light by rigging the study protocols to give desired outcomes.

Every damn chemist knows you can achieve next to molecular purity. Column and flash chromotography rocks my nuts!!

 

[Angela]

First off nicotine can be synthesised from widely available precursors using common reagents and chemical reactions known in the literature.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...nthetic-nicotine-there-really-such-thing.html

No-one uses 'synthetic nicotine' (not NRTs or e-liquid), and 'trace' amounts of nitrosamines does not mean that it's poor quality. Yes, the better the purification, the fewer nitrosamines there will be, but there is a point where comercial viability comes into play. (Did you actually look at the table I posted showing the quantites of nitrosamines in the e-cigs tested compared to other products?)

 

[just-cass]

I didnt mean to start a debate on the intricate details...im sure theyre super important but there are only possibly one or two people i know who i would have to go into these kinda details with and they dont smoke! My bro and mum are just ignorant in an inoffensive way....they just dont know bout ecigs but not being ones to sit on the fence they make a split second decision to dislike them...i just want to give them some plain english info on why ecigs are not as bad as the real thing...in bullet point form if i can...haha

im intrigued by the posts though and personally would love to know(i studied medicinal chemistry in college...part of this is developing new drugs from natural sources...always wanted to invent something!!!...perhaps now itll be a new liquid...


one final note....had a thought this morning that for certain ailments you are recommended to breathe in steam to help your lungs....think ecigs have any positive in them in theis respect???!!!

 

[Angela]

I didnt mean to start a debate on the intricate details...im sure theyre super important but there are only possibly one or two people i know who i would have to go into these kinda details with and they dont smoke!

OK... you could point them to this article: e-cigarettes reduce cancer risk

or (using the figures in the table I posted earlier which is from the same site as the link above), according to the FDA's own testing, a Marlborough Red contains almost 1,400 times the known carcinogenic nitrosamines.... plus cigarettes contain numerous other carcinogens.

 

[NanoVapor]

Angela im definetly pro-electronic cigarettes. I understand the fact theyre much lower in carcinogens, and the comparative to other nicotine supplementation products carcinogen levels is just further proof of the hypocrisy of the FDA. If the FDA really did its job it would first off force these companies (including big pharma) to use truly pure nicotine regardless of commercial viability, and in regards to commercial viability; I have quotes from custom synthesis companies in China for synthetically produced pure nicotine and arrays of precipated salts quoted by the litre/KG, and the cost difference verse extracted nicotine prices of equipotent quantities is only a ten-fold or so increase, which is nothing considering the markups involved. So id say its definetly commercially viable.

 

[Angela]

I think that pharmaceutical grade nicotine is plenty good enough (the same stuff used in NRTs) - after all, you'd get as many nitrosamines cooking a hearty meal... possibly more, or buring an insense stick in your front room. The fact that a Marlborough smoker would have to vape 1,400 carts of e-liquid to get the equivalent of 1 cigarette is enough 'harm reduction' in my books. Nothing in this world is 100% without risk. Plus my reading on synthetc nicotine has obviousoly been VERY different to yours, so we'll agree to disagree on this one.