I don't know Mike but I often enjoy his posts. I wasn't sticking up for him so much as calling it like I see it - one person doing exactly what they are chastising another for doing.
The Muffin Man and The Milk Man - Company's response to Diacetyl, Acetoin or Acetyl Propionyl
- Thread starter emolinare
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I don't have a problem at all with differing opinions with Dr. F's position. My post was not about that. It's just that Skoony has attributed this statement to him in the past and was corrected, and keeps on repeating it. It is not fair to Dr. f to imply he has put a numerical value on vapers chances of acquiring serious lung disease, because he hasn't.
Well fine then, if you think i distorted the nature of our exchange, there is nothing i can do about that
wrong,wrong wrong
here is the exact quote from the good doctor.
"The cut-off level of risk calculated by NIOSH for the safety limit is for 1 in 1000 chance of suffering reduced lung function associated with lifelong diacetyl exposure, which is a very conservative estimation. However, many samples contained levels much higher than safety limits. Moreover, unlike tobacco cigarettes where these chemicals are produced during the combustion process, in e-cigarettes they are used as ingredients. Thus, this represents an avoidable risk, which should be removed."
this is from the good doctors own sight here.
A new study verifies the lower risk-potential of e-cigarettes but identifies an avoidable risk
in other interviews from other sources he has stated along the lines of either a 30,35 0r 40 year exposure.
i am not exactly certain so forgive my paraphrasing.
in the end it means squat to you and i.
regards
mike
Thank you for finding the exact quote. Now i leave it up to you and others to determine if the above is the same as saying :
his own estimates indicated less than one in a thousand cases
of serious lung illness over a 30 to 40 year exposure.
I honestly don't have an issue whether Dr. F's statement " means squat " to you or not, but please don't tell me whether it " means squat " to me.
That's not being "blunt", that's more like massaging the facts to get the interpretation you want. The issue here is that Dr F's viewpoint is pretty clear and should not be distorted to suit anyone's particular needs.
I can't remember if this was posted, so I'll go ahead and post it.
Of course this won't matter to those who want to avoid diketones altogether, and that's fine. They share Dr. F's view that it is an avoidable risk, which it is for most.
For those who would still like to enjoy the flavor that diketones bring, levels of "safety" are a bit higher.
Of course there still isn't any conclusive evidence that diketones ARE harmful in our context, just like there isn't any conclusive evidence that any of our flavorings are "safe" or "harmful."
This was after a NIOSH letter regarding the initial study. NIOSH submits letter to the editor concerning our diacetyl study
Of course this won't matter to those who want to avoid diketones altogether, and that's fine. They share Dr. F's view that it is an avoidable risk, which it is for most.
For those who would still like to enjoy the flavor that diketones bring, levels of "safety" are a bit higher.
Of course there still isn't any conclusive evidence that diketones ARE harmful in our context, just like there isn't any conclusive evidence that any of our flavorings are "safe" or "harmful."
here is another reference from the good Doctor.
Allow me to strongly object to the conclusion drawn in this sentence, which is not associated with the findings of my study. Most probably you refer to the recent analysis of e-cigarette liquids, in which we detected diacetyl and acetyl propionyl. The study was presented as a poster in GFN 2014 Conference (http://gfn.net.co/downloads/2014/posters/122 Farsalinos - DA_AP.pdf). However, the poster (as well as the manuscript which has already been submitted for publication in a medical journal) specifically mentions that: "[They [diacetyl and acetyl propionyl] were 2-times higher than the strict NIOSH-defined safety limits] (Figure 4) but 100 and 10 times lower compared to smoking respectively".
[They [diacetyl and acetyl propionyl] were 2-times higher than the strict NIOSH-defined safety limits]
if the Niosh safety limit is less than 1 per thousand per life time exposure and the good Doctor says here what they found
is two times the safety limit the life time exposure limit increases to less than 2 per thousand.
i have another reference from the good Doctor where he refers to Niosh's exposure limit at less
than one per 45 year exposure not,lifetime exposure.(is 45 years = to a lifetime for these calculations?)
i haven't found the specific reference but i posted it before when asked. either way the figures i cited
here seem to bare out my basic premise.
sorry for the font style.this happens when i copy and paste. how does one
correct this before posting?
as always regards
mike
please ignor my attempt at editing.
Last edited:
These were based on the mean numbers across all samples tested. In the same study he goes on to say that the sample with the highest amount was 490 times higher than the strict NIOSH safety limits for diacetyl and 22 times higher for AP. It should also be noted that these samples were tested in late 2013 when there was way more diacetyl in eliquid and a lot less AP, the exact opposite of what's in e-liquids today.
Dr. F is a pro vape scientist and he went out of his way to state that the mean levels across all samples tested ( positive and negative ) were still lower than the strictest NIOSH safety limits and much lower than what is in cigarettes ( based on 3ml average consumption, which is quite conservative). The reason he extrapolated the NIOSH numbers (for which he gets grief from by both sides of this argument btw ! ) was for purposes of comparison and to give the raw numbers some sort of perspective.
My objection to your earlier post was that Dr. F has never put a numerical value on the chances of vapers developing lung disease through diketones, ( imo that would be irresponsible based on the absence of longitudinal studies ). His position however is very clear and should not be distorted :
" Manufacturers and flavouring suppliers should take the necessary steps to make sure that these chemicals are not present in EC liquid products, by regularly testing their products and changing formulations, without the need to limit the availability of sweet flavours in the market. "
This is a position i disagree with btw, i would rather see voluntary disclosure so that consumers could make an informed decision.
This is the complete text of the study for those interested :
Evaluation of Electronic Cigarette Liquids and Aerosol for the Presence of Selected Inhalation Toxins (PDF Download Available)
well then could you tell me what this means.
In our response, we used the NIOSH arguments to further support the appropriateness of our approach. In particular, we mentioned that the targeted population for e-cigarette use is the smoking population. Whether sensitive or not, these people are exposed to a large number of toxicants on a daily basis for many years. Additionally, we emphasized that a risk level of 1 in 1000 developing lung dysfunction represents a tremendous benefit for smokers who have a 1 in 3-4 risk of developing chronic obstructive lung disease in their lifetime.
NIOSH submits letter to the editor concerning our diacetyl study
who's 1 in 1000 is he referring to here?
NIOSH's or his?
regards
mike
i found it. i misquoted again.
see my post 468 in this thread.this what i was referencing.
interestingly enough you were the one who ask me in the past
for a source and i mia culpa'd back then too.
even so using a baseline of 45 years of NIOSH' safety limit
less than 1 in 1000 serious lung issues per 22.5 years doesn't
sound bad at all. considering its estimated that 76-78 per
1000 smokers will get lung cancer.
regards
mike
It means exactly what it seems to. Dr. F commenting on the NIOSH numbers i.e. playing their own game. The 1 in 1000 he is referring is the numbers NIOSH has estimated if their strict guidelines are met. NIOSH disagrees with Dr. F extrapolating the numbers in their study ( for seemingly different reasons some ECF members do ) to apply to vaping. If you want to guess which way NIOSH is leaning, you can watch the following video of Dr. Hubbs presenting to the FDA :
Again, these are NIOSH estimates based on 5 parts per billion in ambient air for workers, not numbers Dr. F has estimated for vapers.The amount of diketones vapers are exposed to are all over the place depending on what liquid they use and how much. It could range between zero, and conceivably as high as 27000 ( taking an extreme example of 15 ml's of the liquid with the highest amount in VS testing.
Dr. F has not estimated the chances of a vaper developing lung disease.
I don't think i can be any clearer than that Skoony
and this means what?
are you assuming all the vapers using the juices
over the safety limit were all using the two juices
with the highest amount?
regards
mike
Honestly, i give up Skoony. I wanted to correct you on the comment you mistakenly attributed to Dr. F, which in a roundabout way you seem to have acknowledged in post number 472. You just wear me out by the constant shifting of the goal post.
I will stop before this exchange gets more bizarre than it already is.
I will stop before this exchange gets more bizarre than it already is.
Last edited:
don't use that shifting the goal post argument on me.Honestly, i give up Skoony. I wanted to correct you on the comment you mistakenly attributed to Dr. F, which in a roundabout way you seem to have acknowledged in post number 472. You just wear me out by the constant shifting of the goal post.
I will stop before this exchange gets more bizarre than it already is.
my views although not 100% clinically accurate still tend
to reflect my opinions are not off base at all.
2 times NIOSH's safety standard still means less than 2 per 1000
cases for 45 years exposure. remember we are talking about
serious lung issues not OB specificcly.
regards
mike
E-cigarette vapour has NO toxic effect and is as safe as AIR, shock study claims - Mirror Online
I would settle with this research, done by a tobacco company. I assume they tried the cheapest liquid ever, or several of them just to prove them wrong. Or they didn't, in an attempt to make their aerosol device Voke to be approved? But since that device does not produce heat, this research sits in its own ballpark really. Thanks for the assist, BAT.
I would settle with this research, done by a tobacco company. I assume they tried the cheapest liquid ever, or several of them just to prove them wrong. Or they didn't, in an attempt to make their aerosol device Voke to be approved? But since that device does not produce heat, this research sits in its own ballpark really. Thanks for the assist, BAT.
- Status
