Confused about Diacetyl? You should be - read now
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
You have me intrigued sir ! Is there a chance that "one day" is Thursday ? lolActually, there's a much more interesting story here. I'll perhaps tell it one day
Sorry, SHS has been so disproven by so many other studies that I don't care to read another one, esp. from a colleague of Stanton Glantz at the UCSF.
This isn't about philosphy. It's about established organizational structure. That's all. It's pointless to look any further into it because we aren't going to change the world.
I didn't say it was philosophy. I said it is politics and it is. Politics can change.
Another pdf on second hand smoke:
http://tctactics.org/images/f/f4/ETS4Dummies.pdf
"That’s a pretty big change over a short period of time," Eisner said. Although the number of people studies is relatively small, the results are considered statistically significant…
In an editorial in the same issue of the journal, Dr. Ronald M. Davis of the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit called for further smoking bans across the country.
Milloy’s comments:
But of the study’s 53 bartenders, 24 smoked – and smoking is a risk factor for lung illness. And what the Times didn’t report was a key information describing when the data was collected:
From December 1 to 31, 1997, we interviewed and performed spirometry on participating bartenders in their workplaces (bar or tavern). Follow-up interviews and spirometry were performed from Fabruary 1 to 28, 1998, to evaluate changes in symptoms or lung function following the institutions of smoke-free bars.
Notice anything? Bartenders were interviewed about their respiratory health in the middle of flu season and then re-interviewed when the flu season was over. Perhaps this is why the study authors were compelled to note at the and of the study. "Confounding by personal smoking and upper respiratory infections could potentially explain the observed improvement in respiratory health."
But the Times apparently wasn’t interested in the headline, "Bartenders Get Flu and Recover, Study Says." Such a headline would also not go far in justifying a smoking ban.
http://tctactics.org/images/f/f4/ETS4Dummies.pdf
"That’s a pretty big change over a short period of time," Eisner said. Although the number of people studies is relatively small, the results are considered statistically significant…
In an editorial in the same issue of the journal, Dr. Ronald M. Davis of the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit called for further smoking bans across the country.
Milloy’s comments:
But of the study’s 53 bartenders, 24 smoked – and smoking is a risk factor for lung illness. And what the Times didn’t report was a key information describing when the data was collected:
From December 1 to 31, 1997, we interviewed and performed spirometry on participating bartenders in their workplaces (bar or tavern). Follow-up interviews and spirometry were performed from Fabruary 1 to 28, 1998, to evaluate changes in symptoms or lung function following the institutions of smoke-free bars.
Notice anything? Bartenders were interviewed about their respiratory health in the middle of flu season and then re-interviewed when the flu season was over. Perhaps this is why the study authors were compelled to note at the and of the study. "Confounding by personal smoking and upper respiratory infections could potentially explain the observed improvement in respiratory health."
But the Times apparently wasn’t interested in the headline, "Bartenders Get Flu and Recover, Study Says." Such a headline would also not go far in justifying a smoking ban.
Actually, there's a much more interesting story here. I'll perhaps tell it one day
Does it have anything to do with the 'right people' being formerly on the other side of the fence?
I think the question posed in the title of the thread has been answered! Confused about Diacetyl?
No! Many have absolute certainty on it's dangers.
I'm outta here.
No! Many have absolute certainty on it's dangers.
I'm outta here.
Scroll downto the next article. It's the one about diacetyl.
Thanks, Smokey Joe, for the information.
It's not just vaping e-liquid makers that have to be concerned.
Small beer breweries are concerned, too. If you are around the process of making a product you have to know what you are breathing these days.
Diacetyl Test
It's not just vaping e-liquid makers that have to be concerned.
Small beer breweries are concerned, too. If you are around the process of making a product you have to know what you are breathing these days.
Diacetyl Test
I'm not sure which companies have the highest DA, due to the fact that most keep the exact composition of the ingredients as a proprietary secret.
What we do know is that Flavor Art has been in the forefront of these concerns and claim to have NO diketones in their specially blended Ecig flavors, with a few exceptions in-which an inhalation warning is posted on that flavor's webpage at FA. So they are IMO taking a very responsible approach. We've come to the conclusion in our household that FA is the safest overall brand for flavorings.
The Flavor Apprentice has also taken a proactive approach to diketones and has removed/reformulated alot of their recipes. TFA offers a 'spec sheet' for most of it's flavors showing the general make up of the flavors contents, but only shows the diketone concentrations at either <.5%, <1.0%, >= 1% and < 10%, >= 10%. So it is there for us to see if it has diketones or not, which is a responsible practice, but the exact amounts still kept proprietary. This TFA spec sheet is a work in progress with some flavors still not listing the specs, but I understand it is their intention to complete it.
Diacetyl is not the only diketone causing concerns, Acetoin and Acetylpropionyl stand to have equal potential for risks and some are suggesting that some flavor companies are removing the Big Bad Wolf Diacetyl, but then reformulating the flavor with Acetoin and Acetylpropionyl, allowing themselves to make a no diacetyl claim!! Butyric acid is also keying up for its time in the notorious lime-light.
It should be noted that the only governing body (in the USA) that has taken an authority on diketones is the OSHA and they do so as an occupational guideline. The OSHA allows a company to call their product diketone free as long as the percentages of Diacetyl, Acetoin and Acetylpropionyl do not exceed 1% each. So a flavor could be labelled legally as diketone free, but still contain 2.97% overall diketones !!
Hope this helps
GL
Vape onnn...
From Indigo Vapor in answer to my email:
Quote:
Thanks so much for reaching out to us regarding DA and AP in our e liquds.
The short answer is no. We've always taken great pride in the fact that we've been making 'clean' liquid since the day we started in 2012. We're as careful as we can be when it comes to sourcing our ingredients. It's one of the reasons we were one of the last vendors on the planet to create a custard flavor! We needed a clean base flavor to create them with.
The longer answer is that we're in the process of reaching a deal on bulk pricing to have each and every one of our finished flavors tested. And we should be sending out the first batch this week. While we've been assured by all of our suppliers that the particular flavors we use are 'clean' the fact is that we've decided we can't be 100% sure unless we test.
Thanks so much.
Tony
End quote
Quote:
Thanks so much for reaching out to us regarding DA and AP in our e liquds.
The short answer is no. We've always taken great pride in the fact that we've been making 'clean' liquid since the day we started in 2012. We're as careful as we can be when it comes to sourcing our ingredients. It's one of the reasons we were one of the last vendors on the planet to create a custard flavor!
We needed a clean base flavor to create them with.The longer answer is that we're in the process of reaching a deal on bulk pricing to have each and every one of our finished flavors tested. And we should be sending out the first batch this week. While we've been assured by all of our suppliers that the particular flavors we use are 'clean' the fact is that we've decided we can't be 100% sure unless we test.
Thanks so much.
Tony
End quote
And what would possibly make you trust their findings? Particularly in light of the Dr.'s recent findings on companies that did testing and still came dirty. If you want to truly be safe, the only way would be to DIY and do the testing yourself. But, again, this would put the cost on YOU and mean that YOU would have to do the work.
It's easy to sit in a computer chair and say that someone else should spend their time, effort and money so you will feel better. It's a whole different story if you have to bear that burden yourself.
From Indigo Vapor in answer to my email:
Quote:
Thanks so much for reaching out to us regarding DA and AP in our e liquds.
The short answer is no. We've always taken great pride in the fact that we've been making 'clean' liquid since the day we started in 2012. We're as careful as we can be when it comes to sourcing our ingredients. It's one of the reasons we were one of the last vendors on the planet to create a custard flavor!
The longer answer is that we're in the process of reaching a deal on bulk pricing to have each and every one of our finished flavors tested. And we should be sending out the first batch this week. While we've been assured by all of our suppliers that the particular flavors we use are 'clean' the fact is that we've decided we can't be 100% sure unless we test.
Thanks so much.
Tony
End quote
So here we have a juice company adamantly stating that there juice is clean but they have never tested it. ?????
It all makes me want to grab a Marlboro
Actually, there's a much more interesting story here. I'll perhaps tell it one day
There are Quite a Few Dynamics to all this Aren't there?
And Some are Less Obvious than Others.
The article was an interesting read, but I am somewhat confused and concerned about the total absence of the results of DA/AP testing on animals, which are frequently used to determine potential threat to humans. It's all well and good to say "A number of cases of “Bronchiolitis Obliterans” in popcorn factory workers exposed to DA led authorities to create very strict limits to the amount of DA that workers may be exposed to. It has since been discovered in workers in other manufacturing plants." but that's only part of the story. Those limits weren't based on a handful of workers alone, there were significant medical studies behind the limits as well.
Since this discovery there has in fact been some rather extensive testing of DA and AP exposure to animals, particularly mice, and the results should be made known.
In mice, Diacetyl was tested by vaporizing the diacetyl with an atomizer (sound familiar?) and maintaining a set level within the container the mice were kept in. The mice were exposed to 200ppm to 400ppm (0.02%-0.04%) for 5 days. 5 days of exposure for 24hr/day resulted in necrotizing rhinitis, necrotizing laryngitis and bronchitis, and some deaths. Reducing the exposure to 1 h/day (100, 200, 400 ppm) for 4 weeks resulted in less nasal and laryngeal toxicity, but led to peribronchial and peribronchiolar lymphocytic inflammation. A similar pattern was observed with intermittent high-dose exposures at 1200 ppm (0.12%) for 15 min, twice a day, for 4 weeks. Subchronic exposures to 100 ppm (0.01%) for 6 h/day, 12 weeks, caused moderate nasal injury, and peribronchial lymphocytic inflammation accompanied by epithelial atrophy, denudation, and regeneration. Treatment with 400 mg/kg by oropharyngeal aspiration to bypass the nose caused foci of fibrohistiocytic proliferation with little or no inflammation at the junction of the terminal bronchiole and alveolar duct. Depending on the route and duration of exposure, diacetyl causes significant epithelial injury, peribronchial lymphocytic inflammation, or fibrohistiocytic lesions in the terminal bronchioles.
Similar results were obtained by doing inhalation studies of Acetyl Propionyl in rats. An ongoing two week exposure study caused proliferation of fibrous connective tissue in the walls of airways and projections of fibrous connective tissue sometimes extended into the air passageways. Preliminary data suggests that repeated exposures to either acetyl propionyl or diacetyl can cause airway fibrosis in rats. In the acute inhalation study, changes in gene expression were noted in the brain. Preliminary data suggests that diacetyl can cause changes in the central nervous system. These studies were used as the basis of the CDC's article about flavoring related lung disease.
So it's a bit misleading to only mention the workplace human cases and not include the peer reviewed medical studies when discussing the inhalation safety of these additives. And this was just a small sample of the more than 2 dozen medical studies of this nature done world-wide. It should also be noted that NONE of these studies related to ecigs or vaping, they were studies done based on the safety of the people who worked with these additives and were likely to have significant inhalation exposure. To try to dismiss the results by citing second hand smoking studies is disingenuous at best, If you want to be deliberately misleading, do it to yourself, but do not do it with the safety of others. Otherwise you're no better than the tobacco quacks who tried to prove that smoking tobacco had no ill effects on health whatsoever.
Since this discovery there has in fact been some rather extensive testing of DA and AP exposure to animals, particularly mice, and the results should be made known.
In mice, Diacetyl was tested by vaporizing the diacetyl with an atomizer (sound familiar?) and maintaining a set level within the container the mice were kept in. The mice were exposed to 200ppm to 400ppm (0.02%-0.04%) for 5 days. 5 days of exposure for 24hr/day resulted in necrotizing rhinitis, necrotizing laryngitis and bronchitis, and some deaths. Reducing the exposure to 1 h/day (100, 200, 400 ppm) for 4 weeks resulted in less nasal and laryngeal toxicity, but led to peribronchial and peribronchiolar lymphocytic inflammation. A similar pattern was observed with intermittent high-dose exposures at 1200 ppm (0.12%) for 15 min, twice a day, for 4 weeks. Subchronic exposures to 100 ppm (0.01%) for 6 h/day, 12 weeks, caused moderate nasal injury, and peribronchial lymphocytic inflammation accompanied by epithelial atrophy, denudation, and regeneration. Treatment with 400 mg/kg by oropharyngeal aspiration to bypass the nose caused foci of fibrohistiocytic proliferation with little or no inflammation at the junction of the terminal bronchiole and alveolar duct. Depending on the route and duration of exposure, diacetyl causes significant epithelial injury, peribronchial lymphocytic inflammation, or fibrohistiocytic lesions in the terminal bronchioles.
Similar results were obtained by doing inhalation studies of Acetyl Propionyl in rats. An ongoing two week exposure study caused proliferation of fibrous connective tissue in the walls of airways and projections of fibrous connective tissue sometimes extended into the air passageways. Preliminary data suggests that repeated exposures to either acetyl propionyl or diacetyl can cause airway fibrosis in rats. In the acute inhalation study, changes in gene expression were noted in the brain. Preliminary data suggests that diacetyl can cause changes in the central nervous system. These studies were used as the basis of the CDC's article about flavoring related lung disease.
So it's a bit misleading to only mention the workplace human cases and not include the peer reviewed medical studies when discussing the inhalation safety of these additives. And this was just a small sample of the more than 2 dozen medical studies of this nature done world-wide. It should also be noted that NONE of these studies related to ecigs or vaping, they were studies done based on the safety of the people who worked with these additives and were likely to have significant inhalation exposure. To try to dismiss the results by citing second hand smoking studies is disingenuous at best, If you want to be deliberately misleading, do it to yourself, but do not do it with the safety of others. Otherwise you're no better than the tobacco quacks who tried to prove that smoking tobacco had no ill effects on health whatsoever.
Look - as pointed out by nicnik - I addressed the wrong piece on the link from SJ. I saw Mark D. Eisner's name at the top - I knew about his junk science on second-hand smoke before I started vaping 6 years ago, and dismissed it out of hand without even scrolling down. And if there was a junk science piece as the first article, that doesn't say much for the second.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
