Doubts over the safety of NET E-liquids

[kristin]

PERSPECTIVE: The study concludes that the cytotoxicity of NET vapor is 3 times less than in cigarette smoke. That probably puts it in the health risks range of breathing in typical indoor and outdoor urban air. (The risk of dying from lung disease associated with ozone exposure is three times higher in large cities compared to smaller urban areas, where pollution concentrations are lower. Air pollution research found that exposure to air pollution in larger cities can reduce life expectancy up to 2 years.)

Remember that we don't live in purified bubbles and these tests are always measured against "pure, fresh air without contaminants" that few humans in the U.S. breathe. Dying from a disease due to exposure to NET vapor is probably as likely as dying in a car crash vs. continuing to smoke.

Consider this: a male pack-a-day smoker has a 6 to 10 year lower life expectancy than a non-smoker. An unmarried male has a 6 year lower life expectancy than a married male. If the cytotoxicity of NET vapor equally corresponded to life expectancy (ie. 3 times less cytotoxicity equals 3 times less the years lost compared to smoking) then vaping NET liquids would be safer for a man (possible 2 to 3.3 years lost) than being unmarried (6 years lost) or comparable to living in a large city (2 years lost)!

Also, obesity reduces life expectancy by 3 years (moderate obesity/BMI of 30 to 35 or 50 to 60 pounds overweight) to 10 years (severe obesity/BMI of 40 to 50). So, if you are overweight and worrying about NET liquids lowering your life expectancy, you may be focused on the wrong health risk!

 

[Mr.Mann]

PERSPECTIVE: The study concludes that the cytotoxicity of NET vapor is 3 times less than in cigarette smoke. That probably puts it in the health risks range of breathing in typical indoor and outdoor urban air. (The risk of dying from lung disease associated with ozone exposure is three times higher in large cities compared to smaller urban areas, where pollution concentrations are lower. Air pollution research found that exposure to air pollution in larger cities can reduce life expectancy up to 2 years.)

Remember that we don't live in purified bubbles and these tests are always measured against "pure, fresh air without contaminants" that few humans in the U.S. breathe. Dying from a disease due to exposure to NET vapor is probably as likely as dying in a car crash vs. continuing to smoke.

Consider this: a male pack-a-day smoker has a 6 to 10 year lower life expectancy than a non-smoker. An unmarried male has a 6 year lower life expectancy than a married male. If the cytotoxicity of NET vapor equally corresponded to life expectancy (ie. 3 times less cytotoxicity equals 3 times less the years lost compared to smoking) then vaping NET liquids would be safer for a man (possible 2 to 3.3 years lost) than being unmarried (6 years lost) or comparable to living in a large city (2 years lost)!

Also, obesity reduces life expectancy by 3 years (moderate obesity/BMI of 30 to 35 or 50 to 60 pounds overweight) to 10 years (severe obesity/BMI of 40 to 50). So, if you are overweight and worrying about NET liquids lowering your life expectancy, you may be focused on the wrong health risk!

That last line was too funny!

 

[Gerick]

I undertand your point ,but really, it's not necessary .


We changed the labeling of food contents so we know what we are eating ,therefore helping us make wiser choices of what we eat to avoid increasing any health risks.

We are also cleaning up the air we breath .


Nothing wrong with wanting to know what we are vaping and to continue to improve on it for health and safety reasons as mentioned in the above (obese/air) scenarios.

If we can lower any possible health risks for anything ,we should do it if we want, regardless of where they land on the danger scale.

I'm in great shape and workout 5 days a week for over 20 years at 5ft7" 145lbs with low body fat %. Great resting heart beat and low blood pressure ect . I smoked for many years and I'm one of the lucky ones where smoking never harmed me . Had many tests to try and scare myself so I would stop smoking ( because I couldn't do it on my own),but the tests always came back great. I didn't want to push my luck and wanted to quit ,plus family always harping on me about smoking.

Vaping has helping me quit ,but it doesn't mean I will let down my guard of what I put into my body. I rather vape the safest way possible and I need information to make an informed decision and this thread is helpful to me and other's. I'm not going to ignore it because cigs/air/obesity or being umarried are worst than vaping.

Just because other things are bad for you (weight/air/food) doesn't mean we should stop being informed
on other things (vaping) regardless if they are less dangerous.

Plus anyone who says "well people didn't care when they smoked" , yes that's true for many ,but many are on the right path now and it shouldn't mean because they didn't care then that they shouldn't care now.

Your reasoning has no bearing on what this thread is about. It's about information in the vaping world ( not to compare to people who have weight problems , married or not or the air we breathe ..etc..) and to help people make the best choice possible for them and we need information to make the best choices.

If we ignore or show no concern about the info that's coming out regarding vaping the goverment
will blast to the world their own findings and who knows if the tobacco companies might have a hand in it. We need to be one step ahead of them.

This vaping thingy is fast becoming a huge money maker and we need to keep them on their toes and honest with us customers ,unlike the tobacco companies who lied to us for decades. We need this type of info so we can be informed when fighing the goverment and keeping them from making all kind of crazy regulations.

Analogies of your kind doesn't help keep vaping suppliers honest or help our battle with politicians and has no place here in this thread. All it does is tell an unmarried person or obese person you have worst problems, so shut your trap about vaping. We need to bring people into the fold and help us fight the goverment and to keep vaping suppliers honest and up front with us.

Also..Think about it..would you repeat your last paragraph to an obese person to their face ..I don't think so. It just breeds resentment. Try saying that to an obese politician while fighting for vaping rights and see where that gets you. It doesn't help .

Vaping suppliers of any kind shouldn't get a pass just because it's less dangerous than smoking and that we don't live in purified bubbles or may have other health issues that could be worse than vaping. I for one, don't feel suppliers should be let off the hook from divulging what is it exactly that we are vaping and how it was processed.


I'm not arguing with you and appreciate the work you do (CASSA) but bringing up people's other health issues and comparing it to this study doesn't help the bigger issue with goverment (which is our real fight) or wanting to know exactly what we are vaping. Ignoring it will just give the goverment more ammunition .

PERSPECTIVE: The study concludes that the cytotoxicity of NET vapor is 3 times less than in cigarette smoke. That probably puts it in the health risks range of breathing in typical indoor and outdoor urban air. (The risk of dying from lung disease associated with ozone exposure is three times higher in large cities compared to smaller urban areas, where pollution concentrations are lower. Air pollution research found that exposure to air pollution in larger cities can reduce life expectancy up to 2 years.)

Remember that we don't live in purified bubbles and these tests are always measured against "pure, fresh air without contaminants" that few humans in the U.S. breathe. Dying from a disease due to exposure to NET vapor is probably as likely as dying in a car crash vs. continuing to smoke.

Consider this: a male pack-a-day smoker has a 6 to 10 year lower life expectancy than a non-smoker. An unmarried male has a 6 year lower life expectancy than a married male. If the cytotoxicity of NET vapor equally corresponded to life expectancy (ie. 3 times less cytotoxicity equals 3 times less the years lost compared to smoking) then vaping NET liquids would be safer for a man (possible 2 to 3.3 years lost) than being unmarried (6 years lost) or comparable to living in a large city (2 years lost)!

Also, obesity reduces life expectancy by 3 years (moderate obesity/BMI of 30 to 35 or 50 to 60 pounds overweight) to 10 years (severe obesity/BMI of 40 to 50). So, if you are overweight and worrying about NET liquids lowering your life expectancy, you may be focused on the wrong health risk!

 

[AttyPops]

So basically...."worry about everything!" Already doing too much of that!

Your post is 'liked' however, because your base logic is correct...not because I agree with all the assertions.

I think perspective is good too. Kristin's post adds perspective. Hence the big "PERSPECTIVE" on the front. And I took it as such. I think multiple views and opinions are why we have this thread. I 'liked' her post too. And her views are welcome and I read them regardless of my agreement or disagreement.

Yet, since I switched to vaping for my health, it makes sense to me to do a good job of it. That's why I'm in the "fewer chemicals" camp. But I can't stand unflavored. So I do add flavorings. Like I said before, it's a crap-shoot.

 

[Dave_in_OK]

What's that old saying "if it tastes good it's bad for you"

 

[Jerms]

Your post is 'liked' however, because you're base logic is correct...not because I agree with all the assertions.

Haha yes. Sometimes I "like" if something's interesting, makes me think, or contains an valid point; not necessarily that I agree. Though sometimes it does mean, I agree. And sometimes I just like you. And on the rare occasion, I accidently bumped the "like" button.

 

[deltadiva]

Very informative for those of us who are new on the organic journey. Thank you.

 

[Mr.Mann]

Very informative for those of us who are new on the organic journey. Thank you.

Just curious, "Delta" as in DST? If that makes no sense, then don't worry about it.

 

[kristin]

I undertand your point ,but really, it's not necessary .

I'm not arguing with you and appreciate the work you do (CASSA) but bringing up people's other health issues and comparing it to this study doesn't help the bigger issue with goverment (which is our real fight) or wanting to know exactly what we are vaping. Ignoring it will just give the goverment more ammunition .

A) I qualify as "moderately obese." So yes - I'd feel comfortable using that analogy with another "obese" person.

B) Yes, some of us want to know "exactly" what we are vaping, but we need to keep the actual health risks in perspective. How many of us break down (like we do with vaping) everything else we consume and breathe to cellular level effects and an expectation of "absolutely no unnecessary risks" regardless of the unlikelihood of adverse effects? Freaking out about such low health risks that we wouldn't otherwise consider it a "real" risk - comparable to things such as being unmarried, driving or overweight - is exactly the kind of thing the ANTZ want us and the non-vaping public to do (ie. overreact to scary-sounding things that may actually be considered "safe.") We use the same kind of perspective when we argue "Yes, they may contain TSNAs, but they are at a level considered safe enough for nicotine patches."

All I was trying to say was that the risks of NETs described in this study appear to be comparable to a lot of other "risks" that most people would describe as relatively SAFE. There is no such thing as "safe," just "acceptable risk" and "unacceptable risk" and it's perspective that helps us determine which is which.

 

[firephly]

If anyone's interested Epic Vapors says on their site that:

"The liquid nicotine that we use is also organic and free from pesticides and other processes."
- See more at: About Us

 

[Ramjet]

The NET's are what I'm after where ever I can find it. I vape only because they have made it unreasonable to smoke. When vaping becomes unreasonable, I will most likely start drinking...thanks CASAA and thanks big government.

 

[Kurt]

The results of Dr. Farsalinos imply that SOME NETs have SOME cytotoxicity. Not as much as smoking, but more than other flavors in general. Where exactly that toxicity comes from, as in what compounds or combinations, we do not know. It would be very expensive and time consuming to figure that out. We do not know if it is pesticides, or if there can be similar toxicity with NETs derived from organic pesticide-free tobacco. It might be intrinsic to the tobacco itself. We do not know, and I don't think we will find out soon to a level that would allow us to make worry-free NETs. I personally think it is some compounds natural to tobacco itself, but that is just my gut, nothing based on chemical facts.

Toxic does not necessarily equate to cancer causing. And carcinogenic does not mean it kills cells. Indeed, cancer is the lack of cell death. Some toxins kill cells immediately and also disrupt the genetic mechanisms, and so can cause cancer down the line.

If you want a black and white statement to either vape NETs or do not vape NETs, it won't come from me. If you want to be let off the hook by vaping NETs from only organic pesticide-free tobacco, I am not the one that will do this. I simply do not have the data, nor does anyone else that I am aware of. Yes, we ingest many potential toxins these days, from preservatives to artificial colorings to high-fructose corn sweetener to aspartame, with varying effects and results. Do I still vape my delicious Melange pipe tobacco essence after hearing this? No, but then I was pretty wary of that flavoring from the beginning. I used a method to make it that I felt minimized plant materials and possible bad chemicals contained therein, but I had no data to support that assumption, just a thick brown liquid that remained quite stable over many months.

For me, if there is a doubt of the safety of a liquid, it kills much of the pleasure of using it in a juice. Vaping for me has always been about minimizing risk, not ignoring it, which is what my mindset was while smoking. But I am also not at all trying to dictate what others should vape. I just try to point out data and let people decide themselves. Right now the data says that for the NETs tested there seems to be some toxicity. Where exactly it is coming from, we don't know. Rationalizing how to remove this toxicity and still use NETs without data is conjecture at best. There are 1000s of flavors out there. I had no problem moving on to others. Plenty to keep me happy.

As I think about it, however, the toxicity could be from simple thermal decomposition of biomolecules. As I said, this is conjecture at this point, but as a chemist it makes considerable sense to me. Natural extracts WILL have some plant molecules in them, and they would likely be unstable with coil heat, creating free radicals as well as other potentially toxic substances. This would be independent of organic growing. Not saying this is happening, but it is not unreasonable, and I wanted to throw out a scenario that could be present with any tobacco leaf, organic or not. It could happen with apple extract or any whole food extract. Decomposed sugars can have toxicity, not because it was sugar, but because the decomp products are not good on cells in general. I am very sure my NETs decomposed over time on the coil. They tended to gunk them up, and a carto would take on an almost smoky nature, which is decomposition.

Perhaps this is the source of toxicity, and it has nothing to do with how the tobacco was grown. I have no real answers here, just thoughts based on what I know in chemistry, and the data that Dr. Farsalinos has currently.

 

[RT88]

if smoking is like russian roulette with 1 bullet in 6 chambers, vaping NETs and WTA is like 1 bullet in a chamber with 300 empty chambers or something. it gotta be on the order of 300X or more less harmful just by the reason it is not burned to produce PAHs and nitrosamines, the true carcinogenic component.

If people say WTA has nitrosamines, i must remind them that the hot dogs we all ate until about 5 years ago also contain nitrites that can turn into nitrosamines. and Bacon and Ham still do! Smoked salmon? oh yeah, smoked marlin definitely. Home-smoked anything....oh yes. i had some lovely hickory smoked bacon yesterday. i looked at the blackness on the edges and thought, oh well, just a little. i only eat bacon on sat or sun but not both.

then theres BBQ. all that smoke coming off the fire and embedding right into your meat. the black lines... LOADED with carcinogenic PAHs. The body has mechanisms to detoxify even these hazardous chemicals like benzo(a)pyrene. It's when you overload your body with it by smoking or eating BBQ multiple times per week (like my neighbor)...that's when your body is overwhelmed.

in NETs and WTA? come on

 

[Kurt]

if smoking is like russian roulette with 1 bullet in 6 chambers, vaping NETs and WTA is like 1 bullet in a chamber with 300 empty chambers or something. it gotta be on the order of 300X or more less harmful just by the reason it is not burned to produce PAHs and nitrosamines, the true carcinogenic component.

If people say WTA has nitrosamines, i must remind them that the hot dogs we all ate until about 5 years ago also contain nitrites that can turn into nitrosamines. and Bacon and Ham still do! Smoked salmon? oh yeah, smoked marlin definitely. Home-smoked anything....oh yes. i had some lovely hickory smoked bacon yesterday. i looked at the blackness on the edges and thought, oh well, just a little. i only eat bacon on sat or sun but not both.

then theres BBQ. all that smoke coming off the fire and embedding right into your meat. the black lines... LOADED with carcinogenic PAHs. The body has mechanisms to detoxify even these hazardous chemicals like benzo(a)pyrene. It's when you overload your body with it by smoking or eating BBQ multiple times per week (like my neighbor)...that's when your body is overwhelmed.

in NETs and WTA? come on

Again, we are talking about toxins, not necessarily carcinogens. They are very different. Carcinogens do not cause immediate cell death. In fact, just the opposite. What was measured was toxicity, not ability to disrupt the genetic mechanisms that allow natural cell death.

And WTAs were not tested, just a small number of juices flavored with in-house-made tobacco extracts. That said, at least one of the naturally occurring non-nicotine tobacco alkaloids have been shown to be carcinogenic. But that is an ENTIRELY different discussion. THIS discussion is about toxicity, not cancer-causing.

 

[AttyPops]

Again, we are talking about toxins, not necessarily carcinogens. They are very different. Carcinogens do not cause immediate cell death. In fact, just the opposite. What was measured was toxicity, not ability to disrupt the genetic mechanisms that allow natural cell death.

And WTAs were not tested, just a small number of juices flavored with in-house-made tobacco extracts. That said, at least one of the naturally occurring non-nicotine tobacco alkaloids have been shown to be carcinogenic. But that is an ENTIRELY different discussion. THIS discussion is about toxicity, not cancer-causing.

I agree with everything except the last sentence. I considered the title to include cancer-causing concerns too although the specific info was for the toxicity study. In other words...the broader topic and a specific example. If the OP said otherwise, I missed it. Although I'm aware that's a can of worms when we consider that even our non-NET nic base is not pure (and can't be in practicality as far as I know.)

So the reason I'm in the "fewer chemicals = better" camp, is because I include a wide range of concerns.

That doesn't mean I'll give up BBQ either...but I only eat it a few times a year anyway. Vaping, I do all day long. So I'm concerned about all areas.

I know you were disucssing his examples in his post.

However, I point out to him that we vape everyday (not necessarily NETs but many probably do vape them everyday.) So his 300:1 ratio...fictitious example anyway...would have to take into account the daily vs occasional aspect that he's arguing about! So basically, he defeated his own argument for someone that uses NETs daily vs occasional BBQ eating.

So basically, RT88, your last question " in NETs and WTA? come on" I'd answer that your own examples indicate that people using these things daily have to weigh the possible risks in their own mind precisely because they use them daily.

if smoking is like russian roulette with 1 bullet in 6 chambers, vaping NETs and WTA is like 1 bullet in a chamber with 300 empty chambers or something. it gotta be on the order of 300X or more less harmful just by the reason it is not burned to produce PAHs and nitrosamines, the true carcinogenic component.

If people say WTA has nitrosamines, i must remind them that the hot dogs we all ate until about 5 years ago also contain nitrites that can turn into nitrosamines. and Bacon and Ham still do! Smoked salmon? oh yeah, smoked marlin definitely. Home-smoked anything....oh yes. i had some lovely hickory smoked bacon yesterday. i looked at the blackness on the edges and thought, oh well, just a little. i only eat bacon on sat or sun but not both.

then theres BBQ. all that smoke coming off the fire and embedding right into your meat. the black lines... LOADED with carcinogenic PAHs. The body has mechanisms to detoxify even these hazardous chemicals like benzo(a)pyrene. It's when you overload your body with it by smoking or eating BBQ multiple times per week (like my neighbor)...that's when your body is overwhelmed.

in NETs and WTA? come on

 

[RT88]

Kurt and Atty, you're both right. i was off the cuff, now that i read it again i feel i've done some disservice and some good service. the 1:300 is fictitious, i think it's actually much higher. We all know there are 4,000 chems in cig smoke and how many in vape?

And it's true there are people who vape nothing but NET and WTA and they should consider a lot more than my post. Since vapes are designed to heat the carrier fluids to vaporize at well short of the temperature of combustion, there should be much less PAHs and nitrosamines than smoking, or none. This is what i hypothesize for non-tobacco vapes. its one of the reasons i dont vape at high voltage/wattage

the major problem we are facing here is the lack of long term data. with smoking and even swedish SNUS they have decades of user data. It will be some time before any problems with vaping are incontrovertible. Animal studies can be done, live tissue studies like this one can be done, but the latter is not for carcinogencity and the former would require doses magnitudes higher than we are exposed to because they need results in 2 to 6 months, not 10 years.

Yet, a creative researcher could analyze a range of popular juices and isolate known carcinogens and toxins. Known meaning research on acute and chronic human studies and animal studies have already been done. That would be more valuable. then we could see the range of compounds in the vape and compare to known tox and carco data.

 

[crank]

What I would like to know where do these NET suppliers get their tobacco leaves and
if they were treated with pesticides.

i live in ky being raised around and growing tobacco all my life. all tobacco i have ever seen is sprayed with chemicles and pesticides. i would think that after the leaves are cured out there should be no remains of that left. tobacco beds used to be sprayed with furadan. thats some real bad stuff. had there been any left i think people would have fallen over dead after one cig.