E-Cigarette Vapor—Even when Nicotine-Free—Found to Damage Lung Cells

[granolaboy]

www . the-aps . org/mm/hp/Audiences/Public-Press/2015/25.html']American Physiological Society > E-Cigarette Vapor—Even when Nicotine-Free—Found to Damage Lung Cells

Not sure I'm buying this one. Quote:

"Interestingly, nicotine-free e-cig solutions were also found to include lung-harming substances, such as acrolein. This substance, which is present in both e-cig solution and vapor, has been shown to damage the lungs by attacking the molecules that hold endothelial cells together."

Looks like another study where they torched their juice. I wonder when the so-called professionals will realize nobody burns their juice, nobody is going to tolerate acrolein in their vape, and their studies fail to consider real-world vaping practices, and as a result are skewed, misleading, and often downright false.

thoughts?

 

[DaveSignal]

I think it was just some cells in a petri dish that got e-juice dumped on them. Not really like vapor at all. So it is a faulted study. But there might be trace elements that are possible. Don't fool yourself into thinking that you are inhaling clean oxygen all day. I'm not saying vaping is bad (I love vaping). And its certainly healthier than tobacco smoke. But its definitely not going to add health benefits over not vaping at all.

 

[AndriaD]

Yeah, pretty sure acrolein is NOT *in* the ejuice... it's what results from burning PG. And as you say, no actual human is going to tolerate that.

Idiots. Who think we're ALL idiots, just because THEY are!

Andria

 

[xtwosm0kesx]

Not sure I'm buying this one. Quote:

"Interestingly, nicotine-free e-cig solutions were also found to include lung-harming substances, such as acrolein. This substance, which is present in both e-cig solution and vapor, has been shown to damage the lungs by attacking the molecules that hold endothelial cells together."

Looks like another study where they torched their juice. I wonder when the so-called professionals will realize nobody burns their juice, nobody is going to tolerate acrolein in their vape, and their studies fail to consider real-world vaping practices, and as a result are skewed, misleading, and often downright false.

thoughts?

Like you say, its not about the actual science, its not about the real world, its about who wrote them the check and which direction they want the bias to be.

They know humans can't regularly inhale any sizable quantities of acrolein, they know humans can't regularly inhale any sizable quantities of formaldehyde.

Obviously most people don't know acrolein is same as what you get when you burn a pan of cooking oil, and they see formaldehyde and say "Well they embalm people with that!!!", while not realizing that anything above 5ppm in the air causes airway inflammation.

They want sheeple to read headlines and form an instant opinion based on little to no facts or just blatant misrepresentation of the facts, and its seems to be working quite well for them.

Also break the link to junk science so google-fu doesn't propagate it.

 

[Robino1]

Broke the link

PLEASE READ! Breaking Links to Junk Science and Other Rubbish Posts | E-Cigarette Forum

Thanks!

 

[r77r7r]

A New Use for Statins: Asthma


This is another report from the APS. Makes me wonder about everything I see and hear...
A New Use for Statins: Asthma

 

[twgbonehead]

The bizarre thing about this article is that I don't believe nicotine has ever been implicated in lung damage?

So the "even without nicotine" would be scientific gibberish. The fact that it's in the title says a lot IMHO.

 

[granolaboy]

Thank you for breaking the link. I had not considered the implications of adding google hits to junk science links. I will remember this in the future.

"Don't fool yourself into thinking that you are inhaling clean oxygen all day."

Don't worry, I'm not. I commute every day into Vancouver's downtown core on my electric scooter. I wear a Respro air filter mask to help in not inhaling the river of airborne pollutants, but even still, just being downtown every day I'm sure submits me to much more toxins than my vape could ever hope to deliver.

 

[caramel]

Bwahahaha. Look at the pie charts here to find the worst offender (and no it's not even smoking).

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol95/mono95-7A.pdf

 

[DC2]

But its definitely not going to add health benefits over not vaping at all.

I would consider that you might not be correct in the above statement...
--Nicotine may have many health benefits
--The relaxing ritual of vaping may have some health benefits
--Exposure to PG may have some health benefits

In other words, I'm not sure things are quite as simple as you imply.

 

[AndriaD]

I would consider that you might not be correct in the above statement...
--Nicotine may have many health benefits
--The relaxing ritual of vaping may have some health benefits
--Exposure to PG may have some health benefits

My thoughts exactly. It definitely has marital benefits; I get more hugs and kisses, since I don't stink like an ashtray, and my husband doesn't have to endure the angst and tears and screaming of all the other methods of quitting.

Andria

 

[DC2]

My thoughts exactly. It definitely has marital benefits; I get more hugs and kisses, since I don't stink like an ashtray, and my husband doesn't have to endure the angst and tears and screaming of all the other methods of quitting.

Good points.


My wife hasn't nagged me about how I smell after a cigarette in almost six years.
That has some kind of health value/benefit I'm sure.

 

[AndriaD]

Good points.


My wife hasn't nagged me about how I smell after a cigarette in almost six years.
That has some kind of health value/benefit I'm sure.

There's a "new nag," though: when the wick is gunked in my strawberry & cream, my husband says it smells like "burnt crap" (except he uses the S word!), so now I get nagged to go re-wick. At one point I silenced him with "but it smells better than cigarettes, right?" but he's apparently forgotten just how bad those really smell. He needs to hang out with some smokers, so he can recall it. Very, very doubtful I'll be offering that reminder myself.

Andria

 

[DrMA]

Complete and utter bollocks
Cell studies on e-cigarettes: don’t waste your time reading (at least most of) them

Please note that Dr. F's annotations should correct the experimental concentrations units as ng/mL, not mg/mL. The nicotine blood concentration to the best of my knowledge is in the range of 4-72 ng/mL (average of 33 ng/mL) immediately after smoking 1 cigarette. This means the "study" exposed the cells to nicotine concentrations up to 48 times greater (on average) than the physiological range.

Also would like to add that the 2 concentrations reasonably within physiological possibility (labeled 0.1mM and 0.5 mM) did not appear to have deleterious effects, in fact, they show increased TER compared to controls.

 

[BigEgo]

Complete and utter bollocks
Cell studies on e-cigarettes: don’t waste your time reading (at least most of) them

Please note that Dr. F's annotations should correct the experimental concentrations units as ng/mL, not mg/mL. The nicotine blood concentration to the best of my knowledge is in the range of 4-72 ng/mL (average of 33 ng/mL) immediately after smoking 1 cigarette. This means the "study" exposed the cells to nicotine concentrations up to 48 times greater (on average) than the physiological range.

Also would like to add that the 2 concentrations reasonably within physiological possibility (labeled 0.1mM and 0.5 mM) did not appear to have deleterious effects, in fact, they show increased TER compared to controls.

I think Dr. F's calculations are wrong. How is it possible to have 1600mg/mL of nicotine when the density of pure nicotine is 1010mg/mL? Pretty sure he messed up the g/L to mg/mL conversion and moved the decimal 3 places to the right when he shouldn't have. Remember that 0.016g/L = 0.016mg/mL. Because 1L = 1000ml and 1g = 1000mg. They cancel.

 

[KattMamma]

Bwahahaha. Look at the pie charts here to find the worst offender (and no it's not even smoking).

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol95/mono95-7A.pdf

Reminds me of one of the studies used to demonize second hand smoke when the smoking bans started. I can't find it now, but it still enrages me all these years later. They compared lung cancer rates of non-smokers in workplaces that allowed smoking (which was mostly bars and restaurants) to those in workplaces that banned smoking (offices, etc.) The study failed to mention that those non-smokers working in bars and restaurants were routinely exposed to carcinogenic smoke from grilled meat.

 

[DrMA]

I think Dr. F's calculations are wrong. How is it possible to have 1600mg/mL of nicotine when the density of pure nicotine is 1010mg/mL? Pretty sure he messed up the g/L to mg/mL conversion and moved the decimal 3 places to the right when he shouldn't have. Remember that 0.016g/L = 0.016mg/mL. Because 1L = 1000ml and 1g = 1000mg. They cancel.

see my notes at the bottom of the post about the unit corrections needed.

 

[nopatch]

I think it was just some cells in a petri dish that got e-juice dumped on them. Not really like vapor at all. So it is a faulted study. But there might be trace elements that are possible. Don't fool yourself into thinking that you are inhaling clean oxygen all day. I'm not saying vaping is bad (I love vaping). And its certainly healthier than tobacco smoke. But its definitely not going to add health benefits over not vaping at all.

I just read the full report (pdf). They used nebulized ecig vapor for inhalation.

The condensed ecig vapor was analysed in a separate experiment.

Acrolein was detected in e-Cig vapor condensate.Acrolein apparently was generated during vaporization.

The moderator appears to be highly skilled scientist who can detect a scientific study as junk by reading commentary.

 

[TheDaughterOfTyr]

I'm a massive science nerd, and I just have to say I can't freaking wait until these studies get peer reviewed and we end up with some legitimate ones in scientific journals instead of what is potentially random garbage floating around on the internet.
Until then, screw it... hah.

 

[sofarsogood]

I like to read and sometimes comment on ecig news. Reports will often say "ban" when the better choice of words would be "restricted". In this case, is the word damaged used when it would be more descriptive to say irritated? Is the "damage" permanent or temporary? Lots of things are irritating but do little or no permanent harm. When I vape too much there is some irritation but how much permanent harm is done compared to smoking or breathing polluted city air? Regardless of the real conclusions this science seems propagandized. I don't trust the conclusions reported because we can't distinguish between minor irritation and significant permanent harm. If cigarette sales collapse a lot of scientists will be looking for other work because funding will be reduced because taxes will be down. Follow the money.