Symptoms of Chemical poisoning- propylene glycol

[JoeSmog]

LOL.. but we are not getting lung transplants every day, all day.

This link shows that NASA has an interest in the question, and as of 2008 had not gotten anything conclusive, though there is nothing negative there.

books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12529&page=314

Please provide us with a link to testing of this caliber with more current data than this which is not a test sponsored by suppliers.

Another thing that might help reduce worry about propylene glycol is that it's used to administer medication to lung transplant patients (so it's considered safe enough for medics to use on very vulnerable people) -

 

[Kate]

... Please provide us with a link to testing of this caliber with more current data than this which is not a test sponsored by suppliers.

I've heard of the testing in the 1940s that showed germ killing properties. I've heard of testing over two years on children in hospital wards. I've heard of the lung transplant patients being considered not at risk from pg. I've heard of NASA doing something with pg.

Haven't heard of anything else that I can recall. Is there something specific that has given you reason to worry?

 

[surbitonPete]

I guess it's good for people to discuss their doubts and worries about anything......but perhaps we need some sort of ...'How much does this concern really compare to the concerns of smoking tobacco ?' ...type of meter....

 

[Kate]

Well that's right, nothing is 100% safe, just sometimes considered so in moderation. Some idea of the magnitude/scale of risk would be handy but since we're the guinea pigs that doesn't look likely for a generation or so.

 

[TropicalBob]

Don't you just love uninformed opinion masquerading as "concern" for us all?

No, that's not good ... not even for "discussion" purposes. BS doesn't deserve discussion. Just dismissal. And dismiss him I do, starting with this post.

Ignorance is not anything but ignorance. Go read Leaford's thread on critical thinking. And try to apply what is taught there.

 

[paladinx]

not sure if that post was aimed towards me or not, but

anyway, my post was more of a question. I couldnt find the link of the long term study. If anyone has it, would be interesting to read. and also to know who conducted the test and for what reason.

I hear leafords name mentioned a lot in here. I have seen some of his videos. I guess he is considered the guru here.

I have one more question. How come there is so much talk about PG alternatives all over this entire forum if PG is considered so safe? I thought at first it was for people who might be allergic or something, but its just discussed way too much. Like why do people want VG instead?

 

[LaceyUnderall]

not sure if that post was aimed towards me or not, but

anyway, my post was more of a question. I couldnt find the link of the long term study. If anyone has it, would be interesting to read. and also to know who conducted the test and for what reason.

I hear leafords name mentioned a lot in here. I have seen some of his videos. I guess he is considered the guru here.

I have one more question. How come there is so much talk about PG alternatives all over this entire forum if PG is considered so safe? I thought at first it was for people who might be allergic or something, but its just discussed way too much. Like why do people want VG instead?

Paladinx - I prefer VG because I think it produces kick as* vapor. But that's just me. Some people don't like it and some people do.

As for a link to a study on PG, I have this one: www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/36/4/390.pdf It was done in the 40's in a Childrens hospital with seriously ill children. They pumped PG vapor into one ward and not into the other. The findings were that children in the PG Vapor ward were less likely to get infections than those in the non PG ward. Quite interesting. It is an old study... but it does have merit and it was performed on Children.

 

[TropicalBob]

Wasn't aimed at you, Paladinx. Questions are an indication of a bright mind. Questions are fine and warrant science-based answers, not speculation or sham quotes from pseudo-science sites and blogs.

Shooting off without knowledge is ignorant opinion. Stupidity, we can all understand. Ignorance is inexcusable. That's what I find so pathetic about some "discussions" here. The information is known; the information is linked. Anyone can read it and resolve concerns.

Thanks for that link, Lacey. I added the paper to a massive folder I have stored on my computer on the complete safety of inhaled PG.

P.S. Yes, Leaford is one of our oldest, most knowledgeable and most valuable members of ECF. He's a no-nonsense poster!

 

[Kitabz]

Like why do people want VG instead?

Just an opinion (sorry TBob) but I'd guess that a large part of it is because propylene glycol (PG) sounds like a chemical and vegetable glycerine (VG) sounds like something natural (and most people have heard the word glycerine before). Irrational/illogical perhaps but that's human nature for you...

[Disclaimer: I prefer VG myself but that's because it's sweeter and PG seems to cause me unexplained skin problems. Not badly enough to stop using it mind you, but enough to use VG more often if available.]

 

[paladinx]

Interesting study. thats terrible though, experimenting on children lol. I wish they gave a reason why the mist killed bacteria. Maybe they stopped the spread of bacteria because of the way PG traps bacteria? I could have missed that part.

They also talk about how there was experimentation of using Triethylene glycol, and maybe I am wrong, but i thought that chemical was harmful. One thought that popped into my head is the time of the study, and also the time PG was starting to be used by factories etc.

Im not sure that study reassured me completely, but it was interesting thank you. One thing about studies or statistics that I have learned. I never really take any of them at face value. A majority of the times these studies are conducted by those who are being paid to convey a certain message.

Nothing to do with this report, just a general observation.

Statistics is more like an artform then a science. Its picking and choosing and manipulating the science, or even how you present the science in order to convey the idea you are getting paid for. I learned in statistics class in college one of the most important things to know before reading any statistic or study, is the possible bias of those conducting the study, and who is fully or partially funding the study.

 

[TropicalBob]

Then by all means read the studies from the early 1940s (never refuted, later replicated, so no need to talk about "old" studies). The researchers attempt to explain how the PG killed the bacteria. The explanation is in the germ-killing vapor thread, but it's heavy reading of medical material.

All most people really need to know is (1) it works; (2) there are no harmful side effects.

While you're looking at that old science paper, done with military use as the objective, take a look at the drawings of the PG vaporizing device. Now shrink that a hundred times and you've got an e-cig.

 

[paladinx]

Well the great thing about that study is that the chimps did not drop dead. So at least we can conclude the toxicity is mild if at all. and also t he benefits of killing germs. I wonder if it also kills good bacteria as well?

Thanks for that. Do I find it to be a positive report on the matter, definitely. Do I believe its 100 percent conclusive. for e-smokers determining the long-term safety, no. but then again what is ever 100 percent! But its good enough. I dont plan on e-smoking for 20 years anyway, just a means to quit smoking. and from what i have gathered on this forum is that if i e-smoke for a few months i shouldnt have to worry about PG. so thats good enough for me. long-term, 10, 20, 30 plus years. who knows.

 

[pigelty]

anything you put into your body can have side effects.

other products on the market like the patch, gum, and a pill which side effects include "vivid dreams" (eek, now that is quite scary) are legal and on the market. Today, the ecig. All of these products have a side effect, but it is far less toxic than tobacco smoke.

Everything in moderation.

 

[paladinx]

great point. I agree.

 

[TropicalBob]

This is getting verrrry old. Multiple threads of multiple "concerns" over something not worthy of concern by the best science with have. Enough! Answers have been given in every single thread where "doubts" are expressed. Good answers. The only ones anyone has.

Yeh, I'm sick of this silliness.

We have real concerns -- legal ones -- that need your attention.

Go make a contribution to our cause there.

 

[exogenesis]

Surprising reply,
surely all concerns about e-cig use effect on physiology/biochemistry
(even psychology) are worthy of investigation and discussion.

Just cos it's old to you doesn't mean it is to everyone else,
the post rate here pretty much guarantees informative posts get buried
pretty quick unless it's a sticky (& then there's sticky-blindness).

The only thing keeping some good info near the first page is constant
additions to 'old' threads.

Maybe the forum needs to organised better somehow,
or a better list of search key-word suggestions somewhere?

 

[paladinx]

I agree with Exo. I mean in all fairness, for the people who are new here with less then 200 posts, the amount of threads and info can be overwhelming. This discussion is brand new for me, but probably old for many other people. I got into this discussion by reading the newest threads on this board. It is difficult to take it all in and know exactly everything that has already been discussed on here. Cause if u search PG, you see good and bad, So its really hard to blame beginners for asking the common questions that I am sure you asked yourself when you first started this e-smoking gadgetry.

 

[JoeSmog]

Only one even mentioned the NASA link and apparently did not read it. Just reinvented what I posted so say " I heard NASA was using it". This is the problem with you folks. You have your filter on and recite others misinformed droppings or just plain synthesize yer own BS... you can't / won't even entertain the possibility that in a few years you'll be looking death in the eyes and wishing you'd never quit smoking. To summarize the NASA research, it was just background information gathering of previous clinical research.. and guess what - THERE WAS NO CONCLUSION GOOD, BAD OR INDIFFERENT. They are still studying it ... This question is unanswered and I think it highly irresponsible of much of you misleading other folks who have legitimate concerns. Let it be on your collective consciences..

 

[taz3cat]

Only one even mentioned the NASA link and apparently did not read it. Just reinvented what I posted so say " I heard NASA was using it". This is the problem with you folks. You have your filter on and recite others misinformed droppings or just plain synthesize year own BS... you can't / won't even entertain the possibility that in a few years you'll be looking death in the eyes and wishing you'd never quit smoking. To summarize the NASA research, it was just background information gathering of previous clinical research.. and guess what - THERE WAS NO CONCLUSION GOOD, BAD OR INDIFFERENT. They are still studying it ... This question is unanswered and I think it highly irresponsible of much of you misleading other folks who have legitimate concerns. Let it be on your collective consciences..

All Big tobacco's Cigarettes have PG in them. So I would not suggest someone return to smoking cigarettes to escape dying from pg. Also, please read all the ingredients in all the stuff you buy and bring home from the store. We eat, drink, smell, bath and everything with pg. They began studies on PG in 1942 and found it was a germ/virus killer.

 

[paladinx]

Maybe if it can kill viruses and bacteria, it can kill you as well! Just a little joke. Any of you guys ever worry about the battery itself? like inhaling something that has a battery power and atomizer? Its like we are sucking down electrons with our pg hah