I'll just refer to my post above.
I'll probably continue to use the term "water vapor" in ways that are not technically accurate, but I'll stick to the technical definition of steam, since it's what I learned back in grade school.
Cell harm seen in lab tests of e-cigarettes...
- Thread starter guyvelella
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I'll probably continue to use the term "water vapor" in ways that are not technically accurate, but I'll stick to the technical definition of steam, since it's what I learned back in grade school.
yeah, like many things, not the true technical definition. In any case, it doesn't matter in regards to the original post that brought up steam. Inhaling steam would not lead to drowning. Inhaling water, in large amounts leads to drowning. Inhaling true steam at boiling temperatures would scar the throat and lungs. Inhaling water vapor, like one does in a sauna, or in fog, is not harmful.
The transitional stage between liquid and gas. When heating water visible evaporation
of the water starts around 184 degrees F and increases to boiling point when it turns
to gas. watch a boiling pot of water. The bubbles are the gas, invisible. The mist you see
is water in the transitional stage. Going from liquid to gas or gas to liquid.
Mist and vapor have become more or less interchangeable terms in the common
vernacular though the have specific meanings in certain disciplines.
Regards
Mike
Is there any difference between mist and aerosol?
I don't believe any studies that come from the United States anymore. After reading the United kingdom's stance on vaping, everything else just sounds like bad information. The difference being the US is more worried about losing money from people switching and the U.K. Is more concerned with getting their residents to stop smoking. I'll be happy to read any studies coming out from unbiased sources.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Don't ask me to back this up with proof, but I think there are at least some good studies done in the U.S., once in a while, but it might not be worth browsing any on the slim chance it isn't trash.
Technically visible vapor with particles of 10 microns or less is a mist.
Larger an aerosol.
Regards
Mike
Ergo, Distillation once it collects and cools down, if memory serves.
Still, it's not rocket science, breathing steam (like in the shower or sauna) never killed anyone that I know of. Driving, flying (safest form of travel), age, disease..... if you're gonna go - go vaping. it tastes WAY better than tar
Quick replies:
E-Cigarettes Could Actually Cause Cancer, Study Finds - as do so many things
Shocking cancer claims could put you off using e-cigarettes - No claim put me out off cigarettes
Cell harm seen in lab tests of e-cigarettes - inconsistent with many other studies
E-Cigarettes Could Actually Cause Cancer, Study Finds - as do so many things
Shocking cancer claims could put you off using e-cigarettes - No claim put me out off cigarettes
Cell harm seen in lab tests of e-cigarettes - inconsistent with many other studies
I looked at the detail of the study... The quality of the results is horrible, the method used to culture the cells, the duration of cell culture, the type of cells they used, the lack of details in the method of extract preparation make me wonder if this paper worth commenting... I read the paper, so lets do it anyway.
The authors... Ms. Wang-Rodriquez position in the list shows that she is not the principal investigator of that study, and probably did not touch a tube in the whole experimentation. 13 authors for such a limited investigation, the first author who's suppose to perform most of the experiments is a graduate student at best, and what a bad first publication as a first author...
Few key details:
- All cells used are cell lines, in other word transformed cells or cancer cells... They are cancer cells before exposure.
- Method: "Because of the high toxicity of cigarette smoke extract, cigarette-treated samples of each cell line could only be treated for 24 h." In some assays cells were treated up to 8-weeks after e-cig extract exposure... What about the control cells?
- "Treatment media was replaced every three days with 1% e-cigarette extract..." For up to 8 weeks? Transformed cells proliferate rapidly in culture, and when the tissue culture flask is overcrowded, cells die spontaneously. During 8 weeks, or even 1 week is madness. Fig 4, the control cells look too healthy for 1 week in culture (I'm very familiar with this assay, from start to finish)... Add to that, the original number of cells seeded, the type of flask used, the number of samples used for statistical analysis are not indicated...
- In many instances, the differences a less than 2-folds...
- Finally, the viability results are inconsistent with previous reports
Obviously, nobody reads these papers no more... No even the reviewers, if this paper has even be reviewed. The only compiling fact in this study is the list of scientific flaws...
Really poor quality research from my stand point... I'm just going to shut-up now.
The authors... Ms. Wang-Rodriquez position in the list shows that she is not the principal investigator of that study, and probably did not touch a tube in the whole experimentation. 13 authors for such a limited investigation, the first author who's suppose to perform most of the experiments is a graduate student at best, and what a bad first publication as a first author...
Few key details:
- All cells used are cell lines, in other word transformed cells or cancer cells... They are cancer cells before exposure.
- Method: "Because of the high toxicity of cigarette smoke extract, cigarette-treated samples of each cell line could only be treated for 24 h." In some assays cells were treated up to 8-weeks after e-cig extract exposure... What about the control cells?
- "Treatment media was replaced every three days with 1% e-cigarette extract..." For up to 8 weeks? Transformed cells proliferate rapidly in culture, and when the tissue culture flask is overcrowded, cells die spontaneously. During 8 weeks, or even 1 week is madness. Fig 4, the control cells look too healthy for 1 week in culture (I'm very familiar with this assay, from start to finish)... Add to that, the original number of cells seeded, the type of flask used, the number of samples used for statistical analysis are not indicated...
- In many instances, the differences a less than 2-folds...
- Finally, the viability results are inconsistent with previous reports
Obviously, nobody reads these papers no more... No even the reviewers, if this paper has even be reviewed. The only compiling fact in this study is the list of scientific flaws...
Really poor quality research from my stand point... I'm just going to shut-up now.
Last edited:
We could really use some one like you Nimaz to help us decipher most of these studies that keep popping up. Thanks for taking look at this one and for explaining what went on with it. Much appreciated!
Someone wrote something around these lines: "E-cigarettes have been on the market for years, millions of people use them, none of them have died as a result and there is no evidence that they could lead to serious harm. On the contrary, people are avoiding serious harm by quitting cigarettes. The burden of proof falls on the accusers."
The kind of study discussed here shows that the accusers are performing a very poor job... The internet illusion of factual heath hazards in vaping is nevertheless overwhelming. Only careful readers can foresee the redundancy.
The kind of study discussed here shows that the accusers are performing a very poor job... The internet illusion of factual heath hazards in vaping is nevertheless overwhelming. Only careful readers can foresee the redundancy.
I'm honored! I've been commenting on few studies in here and keep looking regularly to what's coming up. The set of peer-reviewed publications available is increasing exponentially, and many of them are not necessarily sicking mass media coverage. Many are very informative, very encouraging for the community and approach the issue with an apparent unbiased standpoint.
This is an example of a valuable recently published paper. Constructive and rigorous in its design, such studies provide really useful information and suggestions for users and manufacturers.
Correlation of volatile carbonyl yields emitted by e-cigarettes with the temperature of the heating coil and the perceived sensorial quality of the generated vapours
Correlation of volatile carbonyl yields emitted by e-cigarettes with the temperature of the heating coil and the perceived sensorial quality of the generated vapours
Here is a link to the study Nimaz mentions:
Correlation of volatile carbonyl yields emitted by e-cigarettes with the temperature of the heating coil and the perceived sensorial quality of the generated vapours
At the upper left on that page is a download button, if a person wishes to see the PDF.
Correlation of volatile carbonyl yields emitted by e-cigarettes with the temperature of the heating coil and the perceived sensorial quality of the generated vapours
At the upper left on that page is a download button, if a person wishes to see the PDF.
I wish I knew what 50% aperture for the airflow meant. Also, 11 wraps to reach 1.6ohm in a kayfun, sounds like a really hot vape. This one did seem to be better designed though.
Vapers would be adjusting airflow as needed when upping wattage, so this doesn't seem 'real world' realistic:
Does the following refer to the volume of air inhaled?:
I think so, although 50ml of air over 3 seconds seems like not very much, but I don't know average breath volumes. I also don't draw for 3 seconds, but I know some people do, or draw even longer.
I'm really wondering how you get 11 wraps of nichrome to hit 1.6ohm unless it's a fairly small micro coil, at which point you have to wonder how well the wicking held up, etc.
Kayfuns are really hot to me period, especially over 10w, it's why I never really got into using them.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
