Harvard Eliquid Study Today
- Thread starter WharfRat1976
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
@Rossum, a couple of things to ponder. You are suggesting that while smokers, as a group, inhale deeply enough to eventually give an inordinate number of them COPD and even emphazema, they somehow do not inhale deeply enough for the diacetyl to do it's work? That to me is a grasping at straws that goes beyond reasonable speculation. Unless, of course, you have any science at all to back that up.
It has always been my understanding that it is generally believed here that cigarette smoke is a much finer particulate size than our vapor. For example, this post by Rolygate says the following:
"We also know that cigarette smoke has an extremely small particulate size of about 1 micron, that this means the smoke passes into the finest air passages of the lungs, and that the nic hit from smoking can occur in as little as seven seconds, which is very fast (much faster than by injecting the nicotine, for example, which may take up to 30 seconds to have an effect)."
Emphasis mine. That flies in the face of your assertion that somehow smokers just didn't inhale as efficiently as vapers do.
As to your assertion that I may, singlehandedly, die of vaping related lung disease and ruin it for everyone else, I'll save that for my next post here where I'll argue that diketones are safer than the replacement compounds, based strictly on what is and isn't known, and a rational basis for dealing with that...
Darn it. Now I am really confused. Why do we call it popcorn lung or OB?
"Pneumoconiosis is one of a group of interstitial lung disease caused by breathing in certain kinds of dust particles that damage your lungs.
Because you are likely to encounter these dusts only in the workplace, pneumoconiosis is called an occupational lung disease.
The disease appears in different forms, depending on the type of dust you inhale. One of the most common forms is black lung disease, also known as miner's lung. It’s caused by breathing in coal dust. Another is brown lung, which comes from working around dust from cotton or other fibers. Other types of dusts that can cause pneumoconiosis include silica and asbestos. Diacetyl, the compound used to give movie popcorn its buttery flavor, also can lead to the disease. This is known as popcorn lung. "
Pneumoconiosis | Johns Hopkins Medicine Health Library
"Pneumoconiosis is one of a group of interstitial lung diseases caused by breathing in certain kinds of dust particles that damage your lungs.
Pneumoconiosis usually take years to develop. Because your lungs can't get rid of all these dust particles, they cause inflammation in your lungs that can eventually lead to scar tissue.
The disease appears in different forms, depending on the type of dust you inhale. One of the most common forms is black lung disease, also known as miner's lung. It’s caused by breathing in coal dust. Another is brown lung, which comes from working around dust from cotton or other fibers. Other types of dusts that can cause pneumoconiosis include silica and asbestos. Diacetyl, the compound used to give movie popcorn its buttery flavor, also can lead to the disease. This is known as popcorn lung. "
Pneumoconiosis - Online Medical Encyclopedia - University of Rochester Medical Center
Mike
"Pneumoconiosis is one of a group of interstitial lung disease caused by breathing in certain kinds of dust particles that damage your lungs.
Because you are likely to encounter these dusts only in the workplace, pneumoconiosis is called an occupational lung disease.
The disease appears in different forms, depending on the type of dust you inhale. One of the most common forms is black lung disease, also known as miner's lung. It’s caused by breathing in coal dust. Another is brown lung, which comes from working around dust from cotton or other fibers. Other types of dusts that can cause pneumoconiosis include silica and asbestos. Diacetyl, the compound used to give movie popcorn its buttery flavor, also can lead to the disease. This is known as popcorn lung. "
Pneumoconiosis | Johns Hopkins Medicine Health Library
"Pneumoconiosis is one of a group of interstitial lung diseases caused by breathing in certain kinds of dust particles that damage your lungs.
Pneumoconiosis usually take years to develop. Because your lungs can't get rid of all these dust particles, they cause inflammation in your lungs that can eventually lead to scar tissue.
The disease appears in different forms, depending on the type of dust you inhale. One of the most common forms is black lung disease, also known as miner's lung. It’s caused by breathing in coal dust. Another is brown lung, which comes from working around dust from cotton or other fibers. Other types of dusts that can cause pneumoconiosis include silica and asbestos. Diacetyl, the compound used to give movie popcorn its buttery flavor, also can lead to the disease. This is known as popcorn lung. "
Pneumoconiosis - Online Medical Encyclopedia - University of Rochester Medical Center
Mike
Now, why I think Diketones are safer than the replacement...
It is my understanding that most or all diketones are being replaced with Butyric Acid (BA). It is also my understanding that BA has not been traditionally used in eJuice, the diketones they replaced having been previously considered superior, at least from a taste perspective.
Let's review what we know about each. Just facts, no speculation or junk science.
Butyric Acid
Previously had little use in eJuice
No known inhalation studies that have vetted it's use in a vaping context
In other words, BA is the compound of choice based solely on the idea that "Ignorance is Bliss". There is no known harm, nor is there any known "certification" of it. For that matter there is little real world experience with it as an intentionally inhaled product, at least anywhere near something modeling vaping
Diketones
Lots of previous use in eJuice, WITH NO KNOWN ADVERSE EFFECTS TO VAPISTS
The 50 Ton Elephant
One billion smokers, worldwide, have vetted diketones by inhaling it for decades, in quantities vastly exceeding all but the most diketone laden eJuices. No known adverse effects.
You can believe what you want about that 50 Ton Elephant. You can try to speculate it out of existence, but the FACTS are that with a billion smokers worldwide engaging in long term tests, NOT ONE OF THEM has been diagnosed with BA (except those unfortunate popcorn workers).
You cannot, as far as I know, come up with a single FACT that indicates there is any known experience at all with BA as a vape juice, or any equivalent inhalation model. You can only ascribe to Ignorance Is Bliss.
This is not only the reason I personally have not switched to "diketone free" flavorings but the reason I often suggest that if the diketones worries you, then all flavorings should worry you, and all the hundreds of compounds used in those flavorings, and not just the Poster Boy propaganda tool De Jure. If you fear diketones, your only rational alternative is unflavored. That based solely on the known facts, and ignoring all the propaganda and speculation.
This is not some hysterical plea for people to stop vaping flavorings. This is just the most reasoned decision I found I could make in the case where someone was concerned enough with diketones to avoid them.
ETA: Just to be clear in case it isn't perfectly clear in the above, I am NOT, repeat NOT claiming anything at all related to diketone safety. I am simply saying they are logically and rationally a safER choice, verses a relatively unknown and untested substitute.
It is my understanding that most or all diketones are being replaced with Butyric Acid (BA). It is also my understanding that BA has not been traditionally used in eJuice, the diketones they replaced having been previously considered superior, at least from a taste perspective.
Let's review what we know about each. Just facts, no speculation or junk science.
Butyric Acid
Previously had little use in eJuice
No known inhalation studies that have vetted it's use in a vaping context
In other words, BA is the compound of choice based solely on the idea that "Ignorance is Bliss". There is no known harm, nor is there any known "certification" of it. For that matter there is little real world experience with it as an intentionally inhaled product, at least anywhere near something modeling vaping
Diketones
Lots of previous use in eJuice, WITH NO KNOWN ADVERSE EFFECTS TO VAPISTS
The 50 Ton Elephant
One billion smokers, worldwide, have vetted diketones by inhaling it for decades, in quantities vastly exceeding all but the most diketone laden eJuices. No known adverse effects.
You can believe what you want about that 50 Ton Elephant. You can try to speculate it out of existence, but the FACTS are that with a billion smokers worldwide engaging in long term tests, NOT ONE OF THEM has been diagnosed with BA (except those unfortunate popcorn workers).
You cannot, as far as I know, come up with a single FACT that indicates there is any known experience at all with BA as a vape juice, or any equivalent inhalation model. You can only ascribe to Ignorance Is Bliss.
This is not only the reason I personally have not switched to "diketone free" flavorings but the reason I often suggest that if the diketones worries you, then all flavorings should worry you, and all the hundreds of compounds used in those flavorings, and not just the Poster Boy propaganda tool De Jure. If you fear diketones, your only rational alternative is unflavored. That based solely on the known facts, and ignoring all the propaganda and speculation.
This is not some hysterical plea for people to stop vaping flavorings. This is just the most reasoned decision I found I could make in the case where someone was concerned enough with diketones to avoid them.
ETA: Just to be clear in case it isn't perfectly clear in the above, I am NOT, repeat NOT claiming anything at all related to diketone safety. I am simply saying they are logically and rationally a safER choice, verses a relatively unknown and untested substitute.
Last edited:
I just do not need any worst case scenario in smoking. I am not on smoking forum. It's enough for me that with wrong juice a vaper can consume as much (and even a bit more) of diacetyl as an average one pack/day smoker.I do. I am a firm believer in looking at the data for myself. I'm a numbers guy.
So if you are going to compare worst case ejuice numbers, you should be fair and compare it to worst case cigarette smoke numbers, which Siegel DID provide:
"Even if one looks at the maximum detected level of diacetyl in the electronic cigarettes vs. real cigarettes tested, the exposure of a smoker is much higher than that of a vaper.
Table 2. Maximum inhaled daily diacetyl dose associated with smoking vs. vaping
Vaping: 239 micrograms
Smoking: 20340 micrograms (see Pierce et al., 2014)"
But I just showed you numbers that dispute your claimI just do not need any worst case scenario in smoking. I am not on smoking forum. It's enough for me that with wrong juice a vaper can consume as much (and even a bit more) of diacetylas an average one pack/day smoker.
Show me da data!
Let me repeat: I am not interested in "worst case smoking scenario"But I just showed you numbers that dispute your claim
Show me da data!
And I already showed data somewhere earlier.
It's not clear to me why you insist on ignoring the billion smokers out there that have done long term (lifetime) testing of the compounds under question.
You are talking on different topic. It's not what I am talking about. Right now I am not interested in discussion whether diacetyl is big or not so big danger.
Then please explain what you are interested in discussing. I thought this was a thread about diketone safety/dangers???
I do hope we can all agree at least that vaping low DAP juices is far safer than smoking. If not I have no idea why you vape.
About quantity of diacetyl which is available to vapers to consume, compared to smokers.
?
Not to smoke.
And I am not talking about my fears (I vape almost unflavored). I am talking about research, its interpretation, lies of rabid anti- and pro-vapers. About correct information for vapers (if somebody wants it).
Out of curiosity, have you read the NIOSH studies pointing to diacetyl as a culprit, and do you have a specific critique of their methodologies and/or reasoning, or are you basing your doubt solely on cigarette comparisons ?
Also on the question of cigarette smoke penetration deep into the lungs vs, ecig aerosol, there is this :
DA_PD_monograph.pdf
The report you linked reported 100 toxic compounds in the popcorn factory. According to the first source reports I read, the authors that originally pointed to diacetyl expressed considerable reservations, simply due to the overwhelming number of other possible candidates. And as Skoony has tried to suggest, the original reports specifically discussed heavy concentrations of powdered diacetyl "dust" in the air. And in the form of dust, it is truly a different agent.
I threw out the idea of diacetyl being improperly targeted in the popcorn cases. I only did it to make a point that none of this, as a whole, adds up. You are all making too much of my mere suggestion.
The linked report throws out the Misdiagnosis Card. Sorry, I do not buy that. There are a billion smokers worldwide. At an average lifespan of 70 years, there are at least 15 million of them dying every year, providing 15 million potential lungs to autopsy. Do you seriously believe that none of those 15 million lungs per year, many of which surely would have had BO, in the last 30 or so years of INTENSIVE research into cigarette related illness, were ever autopsied to determine if something other than COPD was involved? I'm sorry, I cannot buy that. It is too Orwellian.
There are a billion living lab rats proving diacetyl does not cause BO in smokers. Plus, science in general has determined that smoking is not a causative agent. How much more do you need?
If you are interested in what I believe to be the most likely case, it is that diacetyl in powdered form may well have caused the popcorn worker's lung issues, and the science there is quite possibly right. It is actually quite irrelevant to vaping what caused popcorn lung in those popcorn workers. I think it virtually impossible that diacetyl in vaporized/smoke form, as in cigarette smoke, surely does not cause BO, exactly as the current science suggests. And as the experience of 1 billion smoking lab rats concur.
The linkage to vaping is purely propaganda, and the report you link is a secondary study, a mere review of the literature, and I suspect one of the objectives of the funders was to get the idea of the "silent smoker's BO epidemic" into the literature so future studies can quote it as now some fact. I wouldn't respect any conclusions in that report any more than this Harvard Study, for all the same reasons it is being discredited here. It's paid for propaganda.
One more time, it is hard to argue in the face of the largest inhalation experiment in history. To ignore that is totally Orwellian.
Wow, that was a very long response, but unfortunately you did not answer my question, so let me repeat it, have you personally read the NIOSH reports ( not Skoonys interpretation of it ) and do you have a specific critique of their methodologies and conclusions. Also, any links to suggest that the diacetyl or AP molecule behaves differently in powdered form as opposed to liquid form ?
The link i provided was solely for comparisons of aerosol penetration into the lungs as compared to cigarette smoke, and was completely unrelated to the question i posed. My apologies, i should have linked it to one of your other posts ( too lazy ). You may not buy the " mis-diagnosis card " as you call it, but that wasn't the reason i linked the report.
Btw, if i am not mistaken the report was prepared for AEMSA when they were trying to fine-tune their position on diketones and set guidance fot their member vendors, and at least according to Dr. Kistler, every single one of the toxicologists they consulted were of the belief that diketones should not be in e-liquid.
edit : sorry, i read your response too fast, it seems you now believe that powdered diacetyl may have been the culprit in factories ( as opposed to your post which i quoted )
Last edited:
There have been many polls over the years on this subject here on the forum...
And the results are very clear...
The vast majority of people on this forum did not direct lung inhale cigarettes.
And a large percentage of them were shocked to find out that some people actually did that.
I always direct lung inhaled my cigarettes, and thought everyone did as well.
And personally, I was shocked to find out I was part of a very small minority in that respect.
Don't want to derail the thread, but did want to point it out.
you are cherry picking from an article trying to prove a point that is not true... that the main diacetyl exposure to popcorn workers was from diacetyl mixed in with a powdered form... even your own cherry pick proves that, it was the dust particles themselves that could pose it's own respiratory hazard
Abstract
In microwave popcorn workers, exposure to butter flavorings has been associated with fixed obstructive lung disease resembling bronchiolitis obliterans. Inhalation toxicology studies have shown severe respiratory effects in rats exposed to vapors from a paste butter flavoring, and to diacetyl, a diketone found in most butter flavorings. To gain a better understanding of worker exposures, we assessed diacetyl emissions and airborne dust levels from butter flavorings used by several microwave popcorn manufacturing companies. We heated bulk samples of 40 different butter flavorings (liquids, pastes, and powders) to approximately 50 degrees C and used gas chromatography, with a mass selective detector, to measure the relative abundance of volatile organic compounds emitted. Air sampling was conducted for diacetyl and for total and respirable dust during the mixing of powder, liquid, or paste flavorings with heated soybean oil at a microwave popcorn plant. To further examine the potential for respiratory exposures to powders, we measured dust generated during different simulated methods of manual handling of several powder butter flavorings. Powder flavorings were found to give off much lower diacetyl emissions than pastes or liquids. The mean diacetyl emissions from liquids and pastes were 64 and 26 times larger, respectively, than the mean of diacetyl emissions from powders. The median diacetyl emissions from liquids and pastes were 364 and 72 times larger, respectively, than the median of diacetyl emissions from powders. Fourteen of 16 powders had diacetyl emissions that were lower than the diacetyl emissions from any liquid flavoring and from most paste flavorings. However, simulated handling of powder flavorings showed that a substantial amount of the airborne dust generated was of respirable size and could thus pose its own respiratory hazard. Companies that use butter flavorings should consider substituting flavorings with lower diacetyl emissions and the use of ventilation and enclosure engineering controls to minimize exposures. Until controls are fully implemented, companies should institute mandatory respiratory protection for all exposed workers.
Last edited:
1. yes you are. It's kinda the point of this site.
2. Make your mind up. Either you're not interested or you have something to say.
Tapatyped
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
