Quite. Could you explain what the dangers of non-pharmaceutical grade PG are, Mamba?
Presumably we are talking about contaminants, but are there compounds specific to the production of PG that pose a particular danger?
A germ-killing vapor
- Thread starter TropicalBob
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- propylene glycol
- Status
Quite. Could you explain what the dangers of non-pharmaceutical grade PG are, Mamba?
Presumably we are talking about contaminants, but are there compounds specific to the production of PG that pose a particular danger?
anyone know why on page 2 the time article on PG as an air germicide, it said after many months' exposure to the vapor, the monkeys are happy and fatter than ever. do you think that it was suggesting PG makes you fatter or was it just becase the monkies were in a unnatural environment?
Last edited:
A popular saying of that day was "fat and happy." The two words were often used together in a cliched expression of joy. I regret to say I've used cliches in my writings over the years.
If the monkeys gained weight, it no doubt had nothing to do with inhaling PG and everything to do with a healthy, confined environment.
If the monkeys gained weight, it no doubt had nothing to do with inhaling PG and everything to do with a healthy, confined environment.
Yes, that's what I think too (about 3 posts are main-part; plus Time-article probably). Thanks; and looking forward to still coming bits then.
Hi all
Hugely encouraging news. Bob, you're a treasure. This has slowed the pendulum swing towards Vegetable Glycerin for me. Back to scratching my head again. Ah hell, try 'em both.
I will be laminating that Time article though, for display to the unbeliever. And I would give much, even unto half my kingdom, to sit next to a fervent anti protecting their personal air with a zero nic e-cig...
Emp
Hugely encouraging news. Bob, you're a treasure. This has slowed the pendulum swing towards Vegetable Glycerin for me. Back to scratching my head again. Ah hell, try 'em both.
I will be laminating that Time article though, for display to the unbeliever. And I would give much, even unto half my kingdom, to sit next to a fervent anti protecting their personal air with a zero nic e-cig...
Emp
I've received further encouraging news from Dr. Murray Laugesen, leader of the world's only large-scale clinical trial of e-smoking in New Zealand. I asked him, "In your followup research, did you find anything to refute or reduce the impact of the original PG research findings? And, secondly, wouldn't the combination of PG, alcohol and nicotine (all found in our cartridges) be a powerful germicidal concoction?"
Dr. Laugesen jumped even beyond my thinking on the usefulness of the World War II research that showed the amazing germicidal capabilities of propylene glycol, the main ingredient in our liquid that makes our vapor. Here's how he answered my question, and, below that, how I answered him.
"Alcohol is usually used at 70% concentration for antisepsis but the small amounts in the cartridge should at least inhibit growth in the cartridge, and bacteriological study of a used cartridge showed no such growth. This of course was probably ensured by PG.
"PG would not necessarily prevent saliva spread via the mouthpiece and so the sharing of e-cigarettes which is likely to be a common occurrence is not recommended between strangers. Again this is a detail that deserves further study.
"PG may or may not be exhaled in sufficient quantity for one e-smoker to sterilize room air or aircraft cabin. However in one e-smoker, 300 ppm of PG was found in the visible mist, and by the next breath, when the mist was not seen, the concentration was only 5 ppm. The power of e-smoking to reduce airborne transmission of pathogens certainly merits further research. In Robertson's 1942 experiments reported in the Journal of Experimental Medicine from New York, 0.5 ppm was enough to kill bacteria within seconds. Lower PG concentrations took longer. The possibility, once raised, is sufficient to act as a brake on those who would uncritically seek to ban e-cigarette mist as if it were tobacco smoke.
"With current risks of SARS and bird flu and pandemic influenza, PG from e-smokers could be unwittingly helpful in helping to prevent spread on short or long distance aircraft flights. A 2005 review of airborne infections in the Lancet by Mangili did not mention PG at all, but masks remain important for combating airborne spread.
"In 1942, the original research on PG was conducted in the US, just after the USA entered World War II. In 2008, bioterrorism and fears of pandemics could be stimulus to fund research on PG again. E-smokers could play a useful role in any such research.
"Nicotine does not have any bactericidal effect I know of, though it is an insecticide in strong concentration. It has a low vapour pressure and in any case is virtually absent from exhaled air as absorption is 99% efficient on inhalation."
I replied to him:
"Wonderfully complete answer, and you've jumped ahead to possibilities I didn't envision at first. My thought was that e-smokers might enjoy protection from viruses spread in close quarters, such as long-distance airline flights. I really hadn't thought that their exhalations might protect fellow passengers, but that's a fascinating possibility.
"And I thought the combination of PG, alcohol and nicotine might hold special promise of protection against airborne bacterial and viral infectious agents. It's good to know the alcohol provides some protection against agents growing inside the cartridge, should it become contaminated. I share your fears of shared mouthpiece usage. Not a good practice.
"I thank you for your comments and look forward to you running with this information in future research reports. We now have not just a way to help nicotine addicts break from tobacco smoking, but a way to potentially protect them from damaging lung diseases. That's an incredible possibility that deserves further research."
Imagine it.
Dr. Laugesen jumped even beyond my thinking on the usefulness of the World War II research that showed the amazing germicidal capabilities of propylene glycol, the main ingredient in our liquid that makes our vapor. Here's how he answered my question, and, below that, how I answered him.
"Alcohol is usually used at 70% concentration for antisepsis but the small amounts in the cartridge should at least inhibit growth in the cartridge, and bacteriological study of a used cartridge showed no such growth. This of course was probably ensured by PG.
"PG would not necessarily prevent saliva spread via the mouthpiece and so the sharing of e-cigarettes which is likely to be a common occurrence is not recommended between strangers. Again this is a detail that deserves further study.
"PG may or may not be exhaled in sufficient quantity for one e-smoker to sterilize room air or aircraft cabin. However in one e-smoker, 300 ppm of PG was found in the visible mist, and by the next breath, when the mist was not seen, the concentration was only 5 ppm. The power of e-smoking to reduce airborne transmission of pathogens certainly merits further research. In Robertson's 1942 experiments reported in the Journal of Experimental Medicine from New York, 0.5 ppm was enough to kill bacteria within seconds. Lower PG concentrations took longer. The possibility, once raised, is sufficient to act as a brake on those who would uncritically seek to ban e-cigarette mist as if it were tobacco smoke.
"With current risks of SARS and bird flu and pandemic influenza, PG from e-smokers could be unwittingly helpful in helping to prevent spread on short or long distance aircraft flights. A 2005 review of airborne infections in the Lancet by Mangili did not mention PG at all, but masks remain important for combating airborne spread.
"In 1942, the original research on PG was conducted in the US, just after the USA entered World War II. In 2008, bioterrorism and fears of pandemics could be stimulus to fund research on PG again. E-smokers could play a useful role in any such research.
"Nicotine does not have any bactericidal effect I know of, though it is an insecticide in strong concentration. It has a low vapour pressure and in any case is virtually absent from exhaled air as absorption is 99% efficient on inhalation."
I replied to him:
"Wonderfully complete answer, and you've jumped ahead to possibilities I didn't envision at first. My thought was that e-smokers might enjoy protection from viruses spread in close quarters, such as long-distance airline flights. I really hadn't thought that their exhalations might protect fellow passengers, but that's a fascinating possibility.
"And I thought the combination of PG, alcohol and nicotine might hold special promise of protection against airborne bacterial and viral infectious agents. It's good to know the alcohol provides some protection against agents growing inside the cartridge, should it become contaminated. I share your fears of shared mouthpiece usage. Not a good practice.
"I thank you for your comments and look forward to you running with this information in future research reports. We now have not just a way to help nicotine addicts break from tobacco smoking, but a way to potentially protect them from damaging lung diseases. That's an incredible possibility that deserves further research."
Imagine it.
First of all, I'd like to say, amazing research TB. I think that suppliers and manufacturers of e-cigs should hire you as their spokesman... 
I do like to re-raise some questions about possible negative effects:
1. I don't mean to offend, but what do we know about the Dr.? Are we sure that he is free of interest in the subject?
2. Could you please ask him about the dangers of PG as a germicide killing also possibly needed friendly bacteria?
3. In his research, does he use certain e-cig brand and model?
4. It's been 65 years from that study. We've learned a lot during that time. Are we sure we can trust a study made at that time?
I do like to re-raise some questions about possible negative effects:
1. I don't mean to offend, but what do we know about the Dr.? Are we sure that he is free of interest in the subject?
2. Could you please ask him about the dangers of PG as a germicide killing also possibly needed friendly bacteria?
3. In his research, does he use certain e-cig brand and model?
4. It's been 65 years from that study. We've learned a lot during that time. Are we sure we can trust a study made at that time?
Kramerica2: Older forum members know the details, but I keep forgetting that newer members might not be aware of Dr. Laugesen. We've linked to his research papers many times and I don't have the links on hand as I write this, but here's the story in a nutshell.
Dr. Murray Laugesen is a leader of Health New Zealand. He's anti-tobacco and wants his country free of all tobacco products in 10 years.
Health New Zealand was commissioned by Ruyan to do a thorough clinical study and trial of the Ruyan e-cigarette and cartridges. Ruyan pays for the study -- but that does not mean a respected researcher will roll over and write whatever Ruyan wants. Far from it. His credibility is on the line and he will report his findings.
The study has already produced two interim reports, both without alarms for e-smokers. One was presented at a conference in America in late January. The entire trial might not conclude before the end of this year. So far, so good.
As far as government approvals are concerned, only Ruyan and its products are assured favorable consideration by this research. After all, this research cannot vouch for the safety of, say, E-Cig, which is not being tested.
Nothing has changed about PG -- PG is PG; so nothing will change about the research findings made 65 years ago. PG either does or does not do what was concluded. No one has refuted the findings. PG does as was stated in that research. There are photographs with the scientific paper Dr. Robertson produced, showing the results. They are simply stunning. If further tests are made on PG as a germicide, they need to be against new viruses like H5N1, bird flu. We already know the effectiveness against a variety of more common viruses and bacteria.
The "friendly" bacteria your body needs most are located in your lower intestine. PG won't bother them. PG is selective in what it kills, however, so more research is needed to create a full list.
Dr. Murray Laugesen is a leader of Health New Zealand. He's anti-tobacco and wants his country free of all tobacco products in 10 years.
Health New Zealand was commissioned by Ruyan to do a thorough clinical study and trial of the Ruyan e-cigarette and cartridges. Ruyan pays for the study -- but that does not mean a respected researcher will roll over and write whatever Ruyan wants. Far from it. His credibility is on the line and he will report his findings.
The study has already produced two interim reports, both without alarms for e-smokers. One was presented at a conference in America in late January. The entire trial might not conclude before the end of this year. So far, so good.
As far as government approvals are concerned, only Ruyan and its products are assured favorable consideration by this research. After all, this research cannot vouch for the safety of, say, E-Cig, which is not being tested.
Nothing has changed about PG -- PG is PG; so nothing will change about the research findings made 65 years ago. PG either does or does not do what was concluded. No one has refuted the findings. PG does as was stated in that research. There are photographs with the scientific paper Dr. Robertson produced, showing the results. They are simply stunning. If further tests are made on PG as a germicide, they need to be against new viruses like H5N1, bird flu. We already know the effectiveness against a variety of more common viruses and bacteria.
The "friendly" bacteria your body needs most are located in your lower intestine. PG won't bother them. PG is selective in what it kills, however, so more research is needed to create a full list.
TB, this is AMAZING!!! Fantastic work. I would like you to ask the good Doc one more thing; his current tests are done with Ruyan e-liquid, which we all know does not produce visible exhalation. Could Dr. Laugesen test another brand of e-liquid for PG content in the exhalation? I think the result would be much higher, based on the visible vapor.
Oh, Naz, I don't think we would have to worry about adaptation. First of all, the cause of the superbugs is not household use of antibacterial products, but overprescription by doctors, on the one hand, and people not finishing their courses of treatment, leaving live bacteria to adapt, on the other. But more importantly, I don't think the PG is acting as an anti-agent, because it's affecting both bacteria and viruses. I think it's the humifectant properties of PG at work, drying up the little buggers, or denying them the moisture they need to survive.
And, I can think of one more reason why the original research didn't go anywhere. Penicillin. It came on the market during WWII. Just like colloidal silver, sulfa drugs, and chlora- phenicol(?) (Chlora-something anyway), penicillin was superior, and knocked them out of the market.
Oh, Naz, I don't think we would have to worry about adaptation. First of all, the cause of the superbugs is not household use of antibacterial products, but overprescription by doctors, on the one hand, and people not finishing their courses of treatment, leaving live bacteria to adapt, on the other. But more importantly, I don't think the PG is acting as an anti-agent, because it's affecting both bacteria and viruses. I think it's the humifectant properties of PG at work, drying up the little buggers, or denying them the moisture they need to survive.
And, I can think of one more reason why the original research didn't go anywhere. Penicillin. It came on the market during WWII. Just like colloidal silver, sulfa drugs, and chlora- phenicol(?) (Chlora-something anyway), penicillin was superior, and knocked them out of the market.
Last edited:
Or these drugs weren't so much superior; but could be patented with a lot of money to be made out of those, other then out of using PG...
But whatever the reason: good find, this might indeed be a good part of the story why this PG-research went lost...
TB, again a great addendum to your first posts... this is becoming a truly fascinating story! Hehe, you feeling like the Indiana Jones of e-smoking now?
Last edited:
Covenant of the Lost PG Research?
Actually, the wartime research was on the issue of sterilizing rooms and the battle became one between propylene glycol and ultraviolet light. UV won. And it's UV lights you see today in places that handle food. There are many reasons why this happened, but just know that PG-filled rooms were impractical then and remain impractical today.
As e-smokers, we alone have a method to make use of the PG findings.
Almost all science is based on the discoveries of others. Scientists stand on the tall shoulders of earlier researchers. I simply came across this old research and connected some dots that technology has given me. Now it's up to researchers like Dr. Loi and Dr. Laugesen to see if this old discovery finally has new practical application.
Actually, the wartime research was on the issue of sterilizing rooms and the battle became one between propylene glycol and ultraviolet light. UV won. And it's UV lights you see today in places that handle food. There are many reasons why this happened, but just know that PG-filled rooms were impractical then and remain impractical today.
As e-smokers, we alone have a method to make use of the PG findings.
Almost all science is based on the discoveries of others. Scientists stand on the tall shoulders of earlier researchers. I simply came across this old research and connected some dots that technology has given me. Now it's up to researchers like Dr. Loi and Dr. Laugesen to see if this old discovery finally has new practical application.
Im not sure if this article has been posted, but its pretty good and interesting..
http://theruyanmedia.com/uploads/REC-NZInterim_Report.pdf
The last couple of pages have the results of the study on PG.
Phil
http://theruyanmedia.com/uploads/REC-NZInterim_Report.pdf
The last couple of pages have the results of the study on PG.
Phil
Last edited:
phew thats a long one, gonna have to make the time to digest all of this. he has been busy. thanks for the link phylo!
That is a very old document, his first interim report. He has issued a second interim report since then, also linked from this forum, but now has information on PG that should dramatically change his final report.
Just out of curiosity I emailed Dr. Laugesen about potential virus adaption to PG after long or constant exposures, and basically got hte rply that 'not enough is known about it' and 'no studies have been performed to determine this to date'. Here is part of hte response "I guess it is theoretically possible for low levels of PG in air over a period of days to lead to bacteria or viruses becoming PG resistant. This has not been reported so far." Not trying ot belabour this point, just thought it might be noted, and added to the short list of 'unkowns' about PG.
Of interest htough, in his response, he said even small amounts of PG can kill Bacteria and viruses in seconds, and htat it is reported that there are small amounts present in the U.S air- not sure what he meant by that, as he went from talking abotu esmoking in a room to air in the U.S- not sure if he meant small levels of PG have been found after a room gets PG'd. Kinda hard to follow what he said. I wonder if he perhaps meant that there's small amounts in U.S air due to the by products being produced by large factories that release PG into air-
Can you imagien htough the implications if PG is found to cure or prevent certain diseases and perhaps prolong life lol? The nati-everythingers will be sunk if htey try to oppose Esmoking lol
Of interest htough, in his response, he said even small amounts of PG can kill Bacteria and viruses in seconds, and htat it is reported that there are small amounts present in the U.S air- not sure what he meant by that, as he went from talking abotu esmoking in a room to air in the U.S- not sure if he meant small levels of PG have been found after a room gets PG'd. Kinda hard to follow what he said. I wonder if he perhaps meant that there's small amounts in U.S air due to the by products being produced by large factories that release PG into air-
Can you imagien htough the implications if PG is found to cure or prevent certain diseases and perhaps prolong life lol? The nati-everythingers will be sunk if htey try to oppose Esmoking lol
Last edited:
Well, we certainly got his attention.
You can tell he's a "public health" specialist by the way he's trying to see if PG exhaled into the air might kill germs. That never crossed my mind. My interest was and is oriented to the individual. Let's use an "I" example: If I attend a party and some in a crowded room are sick and cough out germs, which I inhale, will I be protected from illness by e-smoking PG at that party?
I think so, based on the 1942 research. But Dr. Laugesen immediately wants to know if exhalations from e-smokers will contain enough PG to protect others at the party. Heck, I say let 'em become e-smokers and inhale their own PG!
You can tell he's a "public health" specialist by the way he's trying to see if PG exhaled into the air might kill germs. That never crossed my mind. My interest was and is oriented to the individual. Let's use an "I" example: If I attend a party and some in a crowded room are sick and cough out germs, which I inhale, will I be protected from illness by e-smoking PG at that party?
I think so, based on the 1942 research. But Dr. Laugesen immediately wants to know if exhalations from e-smokers will contain enough PG to protect others at the party. Heck, I say let 'em become e-smokers and inhale their own PG!
That reminds me of my old retort to second hand smoke whiners:
"I paid for that, .....! Hold your breath..."
"I paid for that, .....! Hold your breath..."
http://www.healthnz.co.nz/2ndSafetyReport_9Apr08.pdf
for the sake of continuity i am linking to the second of DR. L's interim reports here also
for the sake of continuity i am linking to the second of DR. L's interim reports here also
Thanks for that link dc- it appears 13 years are added to our life expectancy if we switch completely to esmoking, Although I've not seen anythign yet in the report abotu those of us who only partially switch over while cutting down on reg smokin
it appears that those studies on nicotine show that we pretty significantly cut down our risk of cancer caused by nicotine making us more suceptible if we switch from regular smoking and go to gettign our nic through other means- even esmoking.
TB here's an interesting statement fro mthe report- soemthign you and I have wondered about:
Looks liek hte nic does remain until dry- I wonder if htere is somethign in the carts that protects the nic from evaporation by air?
it appears that those studies on nicotine show that we pretty significantly cut down our risk of cancer caused by nicotine making us more suceptible if we switch from regular smoking and go to gettign our nic through other means- even esmoking.
TB here's an interesting statement fro mthe report- soemthign you and I have wondered about:
Looks liek hte nic does remain until dry- I wonder if htere is somethign in the carts that protects the nic from evaporation by air?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
