Angela, I cannot post URL's yet because I haven't made 15 posts yet, but I will do my best:
http colon slash slash www dot theelectroniccigarette dot co dot uk slash shop slash TotallyWickedLabReport dot pdf
E-liquid lab/toxicology reports
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- eliquid reports research toxicology
- Status
Angela, I cannot post URL's yet because I haven't made 15 posts yet, but I will do my best:
http colon slash slash www dot theelectroniccigarette dot co dot uk slash shop slash TotallyWickedLabReport dot pdf
Hi yall ... I can't make a new thread yet but when I can I'd like to say that everyone should look up eucalyptus and the lungs ... as it appears to be good for the lungs ... healing. That would be nice if there was a formula with eucalyptus in it. A nutritionist friend of mine said he reccommends it for emphasyma.
Wouldn't it be nice to come up with a e-cig that had some health benifits to conteract some of the potentially harmful ones?
Also in reference to oil in the lungs ... I heard that analogs leave an oily residue everywhere any way ... sticks to the walls and clothes etc. And why it's hard to get rid of the smell.
Take care.
Wouldn't it be nice to come up with a e-cig that had some health benifits to conteract some of the potentially harmful ones?
Also in reference to oil in the lungs ... I heard that analogs leave an oily residue everywhere any way ... sticks to the walls and clothes etc. And why it's hard to get rid of the smell.
Take care.
Hello everyone
I am new here. I orded the 901 and it came with carts and I ordered a bottle of liquid with it . there is no brand name on the liquid or carts. Just wondering what i am smoking, Who makes this generic liguid and carts?
Thanks
I am new here. I orded the 901 and it came with carts and I ordered a bottle of liquid with it . there is no brand name on the liquid or carts. Just wondering what i am smoking, Who makes this generic liguid and carts?
Thanks
Welcome to the "we're operating on faith" club. There is no way for you to know who made those carts, when they were made, under what conditions, what's in them and how they might affect you 10 years from now .. or even tomorrow.
The uncertainties and unknowns are reasons some, myself included, see regulatory oversight as essential. All we can say with certainty is "So far, so good." Is that good enough?
The uncertainties and unknowns are reasons some, myself included, see regulatory oversight as essential. All we can say with certainty is "So far, so good." Is that good enough?
The FDA has posted their findings as of today July 22nd I would post the link but im too new and am restricted.
I corresponded through email with Dr. Laugesen. I was given permission to share it here.
Nicotine by e-cigarette as a possible cause of cancer
Question
Is the nicotine delivered via the e-cigarette going to promote already existing pre-cancerous cells?
Answer
A smoker switching today from cigarettes to e-cigarettes, is safe from excess cancers appearing in the next 10 years. Beyond that we are not sure. Meantime in the next ten years, the e-smoker will have almost lowered their risks to that of a non-smoker, just like any smoker who stops smoking lit tobacco cigarettes today.
The provisos are
1) Any routine screen tests for cancers or pre-cancerous cells should be continued as usual. (eg breast, cervix)
2) The switch must be total. Even one lit cigarette per day increases death risks by 40-60%.
3) Excess cancer risks due to past smoking will remain but will wane towards zero over the next 15 years.
4) Everyone is different. Some people have increased genetic risk of cancer.
The dose is low
Causing cancer depends on the dose. Heavy smokers are at greater risk. By the same token, if nicotine is a risk for cancer, the dose is low - about one tenth of the amount per puff as obtained from a tobacco cigarette.
Length of exposure
To cause cancer in precancerous cells or any other cell, takes many years. The evidence from the Lung Study below, shows a person switching to e-cigarettes in 2009, is safe from extra risk until about 2019. By that time we will have 10 more years data from the Lung Cancer Study.
Human population studies.
From studies of human populations of prolonged use of nicotine-only products, we have no evidence to suggest this is the case. See Lung Study below.
Laboratory studies
Some researchers, based on laboratory chemistry, believe nicotine might increase this risk. The evidence is not clear cut. For example, the nicotine in cigarette smoke may actually protect smokers from lung cancer, because it competes with the powerful cancer causing nitrosamine called NNK. Very tiny amounts of NNK are found in nicotine patches, gum and e-cigarettes, but the nicotine concentrations are much much higher.
Evidence from smoke chemistry
Nicotine is not needed to explain why cigarettes cause cancer. Cigarette smoke contains both solids (tar) and invisibles - gases such as 1,3 butadiene - used in the rubber industry where it also causes cancer. This is the main cancer causing agent in cigarette smoke, but there are many other substances known to cause cancer such as benzene, acrylonitrile, arsenic etc. Cigarette smoke also contains cancer causing nitrosamines such as NNK in much higher quantity than in nicotine only products such as nicotine patch gum and lozenge or e-cigarette.
Evidence from smokeless tobacco
Nicotine absorption from snus and smokeless tobacco is greater than from cigarettes, but the cancer risks are low. Smokeless tobacco contains more NNK than e-cigarettes. Use of snus for many many years does not cause lung cancer. The risk of pancreatic cancer from using snus, the only cancer which snus has been proved to cause, is less than the risks of pancreatic cancer from smoking.
Some previous cancer risk persists due to past smoking
As soon as the smoking stops the cancer-promoting effect of smoke gases is gone, and the risk of lung cancer returns almost to that of a nonsmoker within 15 years.
During those 15 years, stopping smoking cannot halt cells which have already become cancerous to the point they are already invasive. Smokers who switch to e-cigarettes are no different, remaining at the same risk from past smoking causing lung, or other cancers, as yet undetected.
No cancer risk yet seen in nicotine only users.
a) The Lung Study in the United States involved thousands of lung-damaged smokers taking nicotine gum for five years, compared with thousands of smokers not using nicotine gum, and after that participants have been followed up for 7.5 years average. Add on time since they started using the gum, these people have had 10 years to show up any increase in new cancers.
The study now reports no increase in heart or stroke hospitalisation or total mortality or total cancer incidence or deaths. Thus for the first 10 years after regularly using nicotine only, no increase of cancer will be seen. In ten years time, we will have 10 more years results from the Lung Study to point the way.
b) Nicotine medications - no cancer risk found
The nicotine in nicotine gum, nicotine patch and e-cigarettes is the same molecule.
Nicotine gum has been used to help millions of smokers world wide quit smoking since 1984, and about 10% of these are known to go on to use nicotine long term (6 to 12 months). Over 20,000 have been followed in research studies for 6 to 12 months, in some cases up to 20 years. In all this time, no extra cancer risk was sought, found or reported in long term nicotine gum users. Any marked increase in risk would have been noticed and reported by some one by now - the compensation to be claimed would be massive.
This response has also been added to the website
I told her my plan for going from analogs to e-cigs exclusively
This was the response I received, hope it helps others....
Heather
The cancer risk answer is now available at
Thanks for sharing your game plan. I would like to make the following comments. But do keep in touch as to how it goes for you.
Because ecigs contain less nicotine per puff, you will need more puffs not less to get sufficient nicotine and to damp down desire for a cigarette. The ecigarette, not requiring to be lit, can be conveniently used every five minutes if that is what you need to damp down the desire for a cigarette. Some people need one refill every day, some need more or less than this.
There is no risk of overdosing on nicotine. The first sign of excess nicotine is nausea, and that is a signal to eliminate one more cigarette from that point onwards.
If you can make sure you are no longer smoking even one cigarette a day you have protected your health. Complete abstinence from smoked tobacco is essential. This is Stage 1.
Stage 2. Quitting nicotine may take longer and it doesnt matter so much because now your health is not under threat from your smoking. Once you have quit smoking tobacco, it doesnt matter so much if you cant cut down to 0 mg. Without nicotine you may be more vulnerable to start smoking a cigarette again each day just for the nicotine.
Continuing the smoke a nicotine e-cigarette ensures you always have nicotine on hand should you ever be tempted to smoke cigarettes again.
I strongly advise anyone who quits and who owns a ecig to keep an ecig in their purse or pocket at all times for at least one year. And you may find an emergency nicotine refill cartridge for the e-cigarette in the purse is useful.
This is all meantime.
Murray
Nicotine by e-cigarette as a possible cause of cancer
Question
Is the nicotine delivered via the e-cigarette going to promote already existing pre-cancerous cells?
Answer
A smoker switching today from cigarettes to e-cigarettes, is safe from excess cancers appearing in the next 10 years. Beyond that we are not sure. Meantime in the next ten years, the e-smoker will have almost lowered their risks to that of a non-smoker, just like any smoker who stops smoking lit tobacco cigarettes today.
The provisos are
1) Any routine screen tests for cancers or pre-cancerous cells should be continued as usual. (eg breast, cervix)
2) The switch must be total. Even one lit cigarette per day increases death risks by 40-60%.
3) Excess cancer risks due to past smoking will remain but will wane towards zero over the next 15 years.
4) Everyone is different. Some people have increased genetic risk of cancer.
The dose is low
Causing cancer depends on the dose. Heavy smokers are at greater risk. By the same token, if nicotine is a risk for cancer, the dose is low - about one tenth of the amount per puff as obtained from a tobacco cigarette.
Length of exposure
To cause cancer in precancerous cells or any other cell, takes many years. The evidence from the Lung Study below, shows a person switching to e-cigarettes in 2009, is safe from extra risk until about 2019. By that time we will have 10 more years data from the Lung Cancer Study.
Human population studies.
From studies of human populations of prolonged use of nicotine-only products, we have no evidence to suggest this is the case. See Lung Study below.
Laboratory studies
Some researchers, based on laboratory chemistry, believe nicotine might increase this risk. The evidence is not clear cut. For example, the nicotine in cigarette smoke may actually protect smokers from lung cancer, because it competes with the powerful cancer causing nitrosamine called NNK. Very tiny amounts of NNK are found in nicotine patches, gum and e-cigarettes, but the nicotine concentrations are much much higher.
Evidence from smoke chemistry
Nicotine is not needed to explain why cigarettes cause cancer. Cigarette smoke contains both solids (tar) and invisibles - gases such as 1,3 butadiene - used in the rubber industry where it also causes cancer. This is the main cancer causing agent in cigarette smoke, but there are many other substances known to cause cancer such as benzene, acrylonitrile, arsenic etc. Cigarette smoke also contains cancer causing nitrosamines such as NNK in much higher quantity than in nicotine only products such as nicotine patch gum and lozenge or e-cigarette.
Evidence from smokeless tobacco
Nicotine absorption from snus and smokeless tobacco is greater than from cigarettes, but the cancer risks are low. Smokeless tobacco contains more NNK than e-cigarettes. Use of snus for many many years does not cause lung cancer. The risk of pancreatic cancer from using snus, the only cancer which snus has been proved to cause, is less than the risks of pancreatic cancer from smoking.
Some previous cancer risk persists due to past smoking
As soon as the smoking stops the cancer-promoting effect of smoke gases is gone, and the risk of lung cancer returns almost to that of a nonsmoker within 15 years.
During those 15 years, stopping smoking cannot halt cells which have already become cancerous to the point they are already invasive. Smokers who switch to e-cigarettes are no different, remaining at the same risk from past smoking causing lung, or other cancers, as yet undetected.
No cancer risk yet seen in nicotine only users.
a) The Lung Study in the United States involved thousands of lung-damaged smokers taking nicotine gum for five years, compared with thousands of smokers not using nicotine gum, and after that participants have been followed up for 7.5 years average. Add on time since they started using the gum, these people have had 10 years to show up any increase in new cancers.
The study now reports no increase in heart or stroke hospitalisation or total mortality or total cancer incidence or deaths. Thus for the first 10 years after regularly using nicotine only, no increase of cancer will be seen. In ten years time, we will have 10 more years results from the Lung Study to point the way.
b) Nicotine medications - no cancer risk found
The nicotine in nicotine gum, nicotine patch and e-cigarettes is the same molecule.
Nicotine gum has been used to help millions of smokers world wide quit smoking since 1984, and about 10% of these are known to go on to use nicotine long term (6 to 12 months). Over 20,000 have been followed in research studies for 6 to 12 months, in some cases up to 20 years. In all this time, no extra cancer risk was sought, found or reported in long term nicotine gum users. Any marked increase in risk would have been noticed and reported by some one by now - the compensation to be claimed would be massive.
This response has also been added to the website
I told her my plan for going from analogs to e-cigs exclusively
This was the response I received, hope it helps others....
Heather
The cancer risk answer is now available at
Thanks for sharing your game plan. I would like to make the following comments. But do keep in touch as to how it goes for you.
Because ecigs contain less nicotine per puff, you will need more puffs not less to get sufficient nicotine and to damp down desire for a cigarette. The ecigarette, not requiring to be lit, can be conveniently used every five minutes if that is what you need to damp down the desire for a cigarette. Some people need one refill every day, some need more or less than this.
There is no risk of overdosing on nicotine. The first sign of excess nicotine is nausea, and that is a signal to eliminate one more cigarette from that point onwards.
If you can make sure you are no longer smoking even one cigarette a day you have protected your health. Complete abstinence from smoked tobacco is essential. This is Stage 1.
Stage 2. Quitting nicotine may take longer and it doesnt matter so much because now your health is not under threat from your smoking. Once you have quit smoking tobacco, it doesnt matter so much if you cant cut down to 0 mg. Without nicotine you may be more vulnerable to start smoking a cigarette again each day just for the nicotine.
Continuing the smoke a nicotine e-cigarette ensures you always have nicotine on hand should you ever be tempted to smoke cigarettes again.
I strongly advise anyone who quits and who owns a ecig to keep an ecig in their purse or pocket at all times for at least one year. And you may find an emergency nicotine refill cartridge for the e-cigarette in the purse is useful.
This is all meantime.
Murray
Angela, while my response here is months late, you have provided the information I needed to be able to trust vaping VG-based juices. Ecopure's report indicates no acrolein present in any analysis with MS. The injection port was 300 C, probably higher in temp than an atty, and no peaks commensurate with propenal (acrolein) are present at all.
The only uncertainty for us is the heating element (NiCr) in an atty, which will not oxidize glycerol to acrolein (requires oxidizer to form)...indeed metals do not oxidize, and any metal cations of Ni or Cr formed will not either.
Additionally, I think we would actually know if acrolein was produced, as it is a strong lacromator, and would cause eye-tearing and runny nose in ng quantities. I detect nothing of the sort in vaping VG juices, and I have a nose that is very prone to being runny in general. I get none of that with VG juices.
So I for one am convinced that vaping VG juices, at least in terms of possible acrolein formation, is fine.
Thanks so much for this post!!
Kurt
You're welcome 
(although the real 'Thanks' should go to intellicig for doing the tests and publishing them LOL!)
(although the real 'Thanks' should go to intellicig for doing the tests and publishing them LOL!) 
Hello there, just joined the forum after reading it for a while and searching for all info available on PG and VG. I do not smoke e-liquids from any companies as I have no control over what's in the cartridges, I just prepare my own with nothing more than Glycerin (purchased on supermarkets for food purposes) and water (usually 50-50) - Works just fine...loads of smoke... which is what my brain needs to be fooled..
From all I'd read so far, seemed to me that Glycerin was considerably safer than PG until I came across the MSDS from jtbaker on PG and Glycerin.
I can't post URLs yet here, but just google up:
"jtbaker propylene glycol" and "jtbaker glycerin" you will find their MSDS as the 1st link.
Summing it up:
Propylene CAUTION! MAY CAUSE IRRITATION TO SKIN AND EYES.
Inhalation:
No adverse health effects via inhalation.
Glycerin CAUTION! MAY CAUSE IRRITATION TO SKIN, EYES, AND RESPIRATORY TRACT. MAY AFFECT KIDNEYS.
Inhalation:
Due to the low vapor pressure, inhalation of the vapors at room temperatures is unlikely. Inhalation of mist may cause irritation of respiratory tract
Both from the same company (Mallinckrodt). As I actually live in Brazil and have no concept of such company, wondered if anyone in the US who is familiarized with it could just confirm whether it's a well-known company... It sure made me wonder whether PG isn't the best option for those who have no allergies to it...
Tks in advance for any enlightments or other MSDS, I get exhausted of searching everywhere, wish the Reg/y Agencies in all countries would do their job faster... Cheers
From all I'd read so far, seemed to me that Glycerin was considerably safer than PG until I came across the MSDS from jtbaker on PG and Glycerin.
I can't post URLs yet here, but just google up:
"jtbaker propylene glycol" and "jtbaker glycerin" you will find their MSDS as the 1st link.
Summing it up:
Propylene CAUTION! MAY CAUSE IRRITATION TO SKIN AND EYES.
Inhalation:
No adverse health effects via inhalation.
Glycerin CAUTION! MAY CAUSE IRRITATION TO SKIN, EYES, AND RESPIRATORY TRACT. MAY AFFECT KIDNEYS.
Inhalation:
Due to the low vapor pressure, inhalation of the vapors at room temperatures is unlikely. Inhalation of mist may cause irritation of respiratory tract
Both from the same company (Mallinckrodt). As I actually live in Brazil and have no concept of such company, wondered if anyone in the US who is familiarized with it could just confirm whether it's a well-known company... It sure made me wonder whether PG isn't the best option for those who have no allergies to it...
Tks in advance for any enlightments or other MSDS, I get exhausted of searching everywhere, wish the Reg/y Agencies in all countries would do their job faster... Cheers
AACN79 -
Funny you should ask. I used to work for JTBaker, as an analytical chemist, safety coordinator and QA Manager over a period of eight years. That's been over 16 years ago, before they were bought out by Mallinckrodt. Mallinckrodt is also a reputable, long-standing chemical manufacturer and distributor. So, yes, you can trust their MSDS information.
Funny you should ask. I used to work for JTBaker, as an analytical chemist, safety coordinator and QA Manager over a period of eight years. That's been over 16 years ago, before they were bought out by Mallinckrodt. Mallinckrodt is also a reputable, long-standing chemical manufacturer and distributor. So, yes, you can trust their MSDS information.
- Status
Similar threads
