A Glantzing Blow to Science

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vocalek

CASAA Activist
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/e-cigarettes-release-toxic-chemicals-indoors-should-be-included-clean-indoor-air-laws-and-policies#comment-179
e-cigarettes release toxic chemicals indoors, should be included in clean indoor air laws and policies

Submitted by sglantz on Wed, 2012-09-19 17:59

A study published in Indoor Air from the Fraunhofer Wilhelm-Klauditz-Institut in Germany examined secondhand emissions from several e-cigarettes in a human exposure chamber. Each e-cigarette was puffed 6 times and data were collected for a conventional cigarette, also puffed 6 timed.

While the e-cigarette produced lower levels of toxins in the air for nonsmokers to breathe than the conventional, there were still elevated levels of acetic acid, acetone, isoprene, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, averaging around 20% of what the conventional cigarette put into the air.

Thus, while not as polluting as a conventional cigarette, the e-cigarettes are putting detectable levels of several significant carcinogens and toxins in the air.

No one should have to breathe these chemicals, whether they come out of a conventional or e-cigarette. No one should smoke e-cigarettes indoors that are free of other forms of tobacco smoke pollution.

If you are considered a scientist, is it worse to be thought incompetent, or to be a liar?

I submitted the following comment, but I suspect it has as much chance of being approved and posted as I have of winning the Miss America pageant.

Diskin, et al. conducted a study of the concentrations of the common breath metabolites ammonia, acetone, isoprene, ethanol and acetaldehyde in the breath of five subjects over a period of 30 days. “Breath samples were taken and analysed in the early morning on arrival at the laboratory.” Time variation of ammonia, acetone, isoprene and ethanol in breath: a quantitative SIFT-MS study over 30 days | Health & Environmental Research Online (HERO) | US EPA

It is enlightening to compare their results for the three compounds that correspond to three of the six e-cigarette exhaled vapor compounds in the Indoor Air study.

The Indoor Air study measured a concentration of 25 mcg/m3 of Acetone, which converts to 10.39 PPB. In Diskin’s study, Acetone ranged from 293-870 PPB.
The Indoor Air study found 10 mcg/m3 of Isoprene, which converts to 3.54 PPB. Compare to 55-171 PPB in Diskin’s study.
The Indoor Air study found 3 mcg/m3 of Acetaldehyde, which converts to 1.64 PPB, compared with 2-5 PPB in Diskin’s study.

Therefore for these three compounds, bystanders would be in greater danger if exposed to exhaled breath of ordinary non-smoking, non-vaping citizens.

Three additional compounds were noted in the Indoor Air study. The quantities were reported as micrograms per cubic meter by the German researchers. OSHA Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) are expressed as milligrams per cubic meter. To convert to mg/m3, divide the mcg value by 1000.

2-Butanone (MEK) = 0.002 mg/m3 (OSHA PEL = 590 mg/m3)
Acetic acid = 0.014 mg/m3 (OSHA PEL = 25 mg/m3)
Formaldehyde = 0.016 mg/m3 (OSHA PEL = 0.661 mg/m3)

When all the scientific data are considered, we must conclude that bystanders are in no danger whatsoever from exhaled vapor, as the highest concentration measured represents a mere 2.4% of the OSHA PEL, and the remaining 5 compounds represent a fraction of 1% of the OSHA PEL.

BTW: I am not a scientist by training or profession. But from all appearances, I'm a better scientist than Dr. Glantz.
 

Hulamoon

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
May 6, 2012
8,636
43,384
65
Waikiki Hawaii
Thank you as always Vocalek. That's a great scientific response, and I do hope it goes somewhere. Like you mention above however, where's the standard against which all else is tested? Where are the test results for the average gingivitis loaded, fast food, cola swilling, alcohol imbibing member of the public to compare these against?
 

NorthOfAtlanta

Ultra Member
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Mar 27, 2011
1,616
3,582
Canton, GA
https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/e-cigarettes-release-toxic-chemicals-indoors-should-be-included-clean-indoor-air-laws-and-policies#comment-179



I submitted the following comment, but I suspect it has as much chance of being approved and posted as I have of winning the Miss America pageant.

Just checked, no comment from you but they cleared the one about Brazil banning them a couple of years ago. Echo chamber anyone?
 

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,974
San Diego
They posted your comment Elaine, along with a reply from Stanton Glantz.

I believe his hatred for nicotine addicts is quite obvious in his reply.
I wonder if he drinks coffee.

If they had not posted your comment that would have been an outrage.
A public university suppressing scientific knowledge and open debate would be a big deal.
 

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,974
San Diego
Oh, and I forgot to mention it earlier, but did you see this logical fallacy in his reply?
Cigarette companies made similar arguments against restrictions on use of conventional cigarettes indoors years ago.

Like Ellen Hahn, this guy is an expert at what he does.
I hope some day he screws up as bad as she did, because he needs to be eliminated.

Wait, did I say eliminated?
I think I meant to say eviscerated.
 

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,974
San Diego
I just posted a reply to Stan's reply on PELs, but I'll be very surprised if he posts it (as I thoroughly discredited his zero tolerance standard and arguments).
If he doesn't post it, then he is perpetrating an act of suppression of scientific knowledge and open debate.
These are certainly not things that a respectable PUBLIC university would approve of if you ask me.

Just saying...

If he doesn't post such replies, perhaps we can go all "Ellen Hahn" on him.
There is no one I can think of who deserves it more.
 

Vocalek

CASAA Activist
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
DC2 asked whether Glantz drinks coffee. A more pertinent question is if he ever takes a drink of an alcoholic beverage.

The main source of exposure of the general population is through consumption of alcoholic beverages and the subsequent metabolism of alcohol to form acetaldehyde (HSDB 2009).
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/Acetaldehyde.pdf

According to Glantz logic, anyone who has ever had a drop of alcohol go past his/her lips is about to break out in tumors any minute now.

Hopefully Glatz lives alone and never comes near enough to another human being to inhale any portion of their exhaled breath.

Isoprene is formed endogenously in humans at a rate of 0.15 μmol/kg of body weight per hour, equivalent to approximately 2 to 4 mg/kg per day, and is the major hydrocarbon in human breath (accounting for up to 70% of exhaled hydrocarbons) (Gelmont et al. 1981).
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/Isoprene.pdf
 
Last edited:

Vocalek

CASAA Activist
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
I'm confused though. Where the hell does acetic acid, acetone, isoprene, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde come into play? How does VG and/or PG and Nicotine convert to any of those chemicals when vaped and exhaled? WTF?

Incompetent and a liar are an understatement.

Glantz isn't lying about those chemicals. They were measured by the German scientists who captured exhaled breaths in an empty chamber, in a chamber where a subject was vaping, and in a chamber where a subject was smoking.

What he's lying about is that "there is no safe level of exposure to a carcinogen." That statement doesn't even pass the common sense smell test. If our bodies naturally produce Isoprene, Formaldehyde, and other "known carcinogens", and there is zero safe level, why don't 100% of the people have cancer?
 

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,974
San Diego
Hopefully Glatz lives alone and never comes near enough to another human being to inhale any portion of their exhaled breath.
Given his proclivity for grandiose proclamations that have no scientific bearing...
I would think nobody could possibly live with such an egomaniacal liar for an extended period.

So my conclusion, based on my evaluation of his personality, is that he is single.
And probably most bitter.

If he has a wife, then God bless her.

And yes, I am gladly attacking his character.
Because he is gladly trying to kill every single one of us.
 

PepNYC

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Dec 16, 2010
824
541
55
Charlotte, NC
Glantz isn't lying about those chemicals. They were measured by the German scientists who captured exhaled breaths in an empty chamber, in a chamber where a subject was vaping, and in a chamber where a subject was smoking.

What he's lying about is that "there is no safe level of exposure to a carcinogen." That statement doesn't even pass the common sense smell test. If our bodies naturally produce Isoprene, Formaldehyde, and other "known carcinogens", and there is zero safe level, why don't 100% of the people have cancer?


Ah. True. Quite a contradiction there huh?
 

Vocalek

CASAA Activist
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
It would appear that the government of California does not buy into the Glantz theory of "no safe level."

http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/law/pdf_zip/FumonisinRegs100909.pdf

Section 25705. Specific Regulatory Levels Posing No Significant Risk.
Amend Section 25705(d) as follows:
(d) Unless a specific regulatory level has been established for a chemical known to the state to cause cancer in subsection (b) or (c), levels of exposure deemed to pose no significant risk may be determined by the lead agency using an expedited method consistent with the procedures specified in Section 25703.
 

sonicdsl

Wandering life's highway
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Aug 11, 2011
17,744
19,245

JollyRogers

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Dec 30, 2009
2,537
1,070
Virginia
Hey Elaine, Not sure if you remember me or not. We talked a little at Vaporcon last year in Richmond, and I was pointing out how things were noticeably different the the Vaporcon the previous year in Fredericksburg. Most noticeable to me was the crowd was much larger and much younger. Will be there again, and if I see you, of course will say my hellos.

Anyways, I posted a comment. This person totally missed your point and he is spouting a lot of hot air - that is lethal according to his train of thought ;)
 

jtpjc

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Jun 8, 2010
1,521
2,291
Netherlands
Hey, you non scientific commenters got it all wrong. How could you have missed the all important point?

"The important point is that the emissions of these toxic chemicals is not zero and there are no safe levels of exposure to carcinogens.

More important, indoor exposure to toxic e-cigarette emissions is completely avoidable by simply not allowing use of e-cigarettes indoors. As with conventional cigarettes, people should not be forced to breathe toxic chemicals to support someone else's nicotine addiction."
 

Vocalek

CASAA Activist
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Hey Elaine, Not sure if you remember me or not. We talked a little at Vaporcon last year in Richmond, and I was pointing out how things were noticeably different the the Vaporcon the previous year in Fredericksburg. Most noticeable to me was the crowd was much larger and much younger. Will be there again, and if I see you, of course will say my hellos.

Anyways, I posted a comment. This person totally missed your point and he is spouting a lot of hot air - that is lethal according to his train of thought ;)

I'll be back, this time with all of the other CASAA directors. Looking forward to seeing everyone again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread