A Glantzing Blow to Science

[sonicdsl]

Elaine - there are more responses now on this blog, including one from an "adjunct professor", copied below.

It should be noted that infants and children do not work in industrial plants and the occupational standards do not take into account sensitivities of early life
exposures. The occupational standards are set in consideration of technological feasibility and cost, not just health effects. Neither USEPA nor CalEPA use
occupational standards for setting acceptable levels of environmental chemical exposure to the general public.


Melanie Marty, Ph.D.

Adjunct Associate Professor

UC Davis

 

[DC2]

I have made a number of comments, some of which I KNOW have no chance of being posted.
But there were a couple that I hope might get posted provided I maintained my civility well enough.

These people should be tried for crimes against humanity.
And I'm not the least bit kidding.

 

[DC2]

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."

From the information posted by Elaine it appears that his very breath satisfies the same conditions.
Therefore his breath would also be completely avoidable, and should be banned as well.

 

[zoiDman]

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?

...

I know that at around 280C that Glycerol decomposes into Acrolein.

And that there is a Relationship between the Chemicals you mentioned. I just Don't have enough knowable of Chemistry to understand it.

BTW - I notice that this Document is offen referred to regarding tobacco and VG & PG

http://tobaccodocuments.org/product_design/2022176985-7022.html

 

[Vocalek]

Well, we will just have to wait and see whether he posts my riposte:

All right. Let’s ignore the “inappropriate” OSHA PEL standards. Let’s talk about the idea that there is no safe level of exposure to carcinogens. Even the state of California recognizes that there is a dose-response relationship between cancer and certain chemical compounds.

Under Proposition 65, California has specified safe harbor levels -- no significant risk levels (NSRLs) for carcinogens and maximum allowable daily levels (MADLs) for chemicals that cause reproductive toxicity. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000, assuming lifetime exposure at the level in question. The MADL is the highest level at which the chemical would have no observable adverse reproductive effect assuming exposure at 1,000 times that level. http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safedoc.pdf

It is important to consider that it is not possible to avoid all exposure to even one molecule of some compounds that are suspected of being human carcinogens.

FORMALDEHYDE: “Humans are exposed to formaldehyde in the environment and in the workplace. Formaldehyde concentrations in the environment generally are reported in parts per billion, but exposure levels are much higher in the workplace, occurring in the range of parts per million. Formaldehyde is also produced endogenously in humans and animals. Formaldehyde concentrations in outdoor air generally range from 0 to 100 ppb (0 to 0.1 ppm) and usually are less than 10 ppb (0.01 ppm); daily exposure from outdoor air has been estimated at 0.1 mg or less (HSDB 2009).” http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/formaldehyde.pdf

The National Institutes of Health also recognizes that there is a dose-response relationship applicable to carcinogens. “Studies of workers exposed to high levels of formaldehyde, such as industrial workers and embalmers, found that formaldehyde causes myeloid leukemia, and rare cancers including sinonasal and nasopharyngeal cancer.” http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/materials/formaldehyde_508.pdf

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developments has determined, “All plywood and particleboard materials bonded with a resin system or coated with a surface finish containing formaldehyde shall not exceed the following emission levels when installed in manufactured homes: 0.2 ppm for plywood and 0.3 ppm for particleboard.” http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/Formaldehyde.pdf

In the stainless steel chamber experiment, German researchers measured the formaldehyde concentration in vapor at 16 mcg/m3, which works out to 0.01286 ppm—about equivalent to the “involuntary” exposure by breathing outdoor air and well below the HUD emission standards.

ACETALDEHYDE: “In ambient air, concentrations of acetaldehyde generally averaged 5 μg/m3. Indoor air concentrations were higher than ambient concentrations in all locations where acetaldehyde air concentrations were measured, both in the United States and in other countries.” http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/Acetaldehyde.pdf

“Low to moderate air concentrations (25 ppm to 200 ppm) cause eye and upper respiratory tract irritation.” http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/pdf/AcetaldehydePR.pdf

The acetaldehyde concentration was 3 mcg/m3 in the German researchers’ stainless steel chamber experiment—below the average ambient air concentration. At 0.00164434 ppm, this concentration is way below the “low to moderate” concentration that would cause irritation of the eye and upper respiratory tract.

ISOPRENE: 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). Concentrations in human blood range from 1.0 to 4.8 μg/L (Cailleux et al. 1992). Isoprene is produced at higher rates in males than females… In a study of 30 adult volunteers, the mean isoprene concentration measured in alveolar breath was 118 ppb, with a range of 0 to 474 ppb (Turner et al. 2006). After 20 to 30 minutes of exercise, isoprene concentration in exhaled air decreased to a range of 0 to 40 ppb (Senthilmohan et al. 2000).” http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/isoprene.pdf

The Germans measured 0.00354 ppm of isoprene in the stainless steel chamber test of exhaled vapor, which converts to 3.54 ppb.

For the above three potential carcinogens, there is no way to avoid all exposure. Each of these chemicals is formed endogenously in our own bodies. All are present in the ambient air. The other three compounds the German researchers detected in exhaled vapor, ACETIC ACID (0.00563 ppm), ACETONE (0.01039 ppm), and 2-BUTANONE (0.00067 ppm) are not considered carcinogenic.

The major point to keep in mind is that the quantities of all compounds found in exhaled vapor are so miniscule that they don’t even meet the average exposure levels from the air we breathe on a daily basis, or in many cases the quantities being produced by our own bodies. It should be obvious that the chemicals in exhaled vapor present no significant risk level.

Dr. John Hughes has observed that fewer than 10% of nicotine users experience euphoria. Nicotine improves memory, attention, and concentration, and helps to ward off depression and anxiety. Those with underlying conditions that impair their cognitive abilities and mood find relief in continued use of nicotine. It should not be considered shameful to want to remain a productive member of society. Thus the pejorative term "addiction" is misplaced, and should not be used as an excuse for banishing former smokers to an area filled with high concentrations of toxins and carcinogens.

Note: μg is the same thing as mcg. Where I copied from published documents, most used the "micro" symbol (μ) instead of the abbreviation used by the German researchers, "mcg."

 

[sonicdsl]

Well, we will just have to wait and see whether he posts my riposte:

(Quote above)

Note: μg is the same thing as mcg. Where I copied from published documents, most used the "micro" symbol (μ) instead of the abbreviation used by the German researchers, "mcg."

Elaine you continuously amaze me with your writing & research skills & knowledge. Thank the maker you are on our side! Bill Godshall and you & the CASAA team are just awesome!

Thanks to you all for all of your efforts!!

 

[TennDave]

Awesome Job Elaine- I too responded to support your post but we'll see if it gets posted.
Did anyone reply to the post where the guy claimed that no one should be guinea pigs to our addiction and "toxic" vapor?

 

[Vocalek]

Yup. Actually I left two.

This one deals with the issue of addiction:

While many of Dr. Glantz's fans would like to believe that using an e-cigarette is more harmful than not using it, and apparently believe that nicotine “addiction” is nothing more than hedonistic pleasure-seeking, akin to getting drunk or getting high on illicit drugs, consider these facts:

1. Nicotine does not impair logical thinking, good judgment, or physical reflexes. Driving under the influence of nicotine is not a crime, but perhaps for some people, driving while not under the influence of nicotine is just as dangerous as drunk driving.

2. Nicotine improves visual memory, concentration, attention, and mood. (Search PubMed if you disbelieve this.)

3. It has been said that “Success is neurologically determined by one’s ability to stay focused on a task.” Smokers with underlying conditions such as attention deficits, depression, anxiety, memory impairments, and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are able to remain free of their symptoms as long as they do not stop using nicotine. When they quit, their symptoms kick in with a vengeance, which impairs their ability to remain productive members of society. How many years, months, days, (or even hours) would any of you be willing to watch your work productivity and quality go down the tubes, or your relationships fall apart, or your ability to safely operate a car or other machinery deteriorate, hoping that your disabilities will magically disappear all by themselves?

4. There are some BP products that can be used to treat these disabilities, but many of those products would not be prescribed for one reason or another. For example, most doctors would not prescribe methylphenidate for adults that did not have a childhood history of ADHD or for adults with hypertension. Many doctors are reluctant to prescribe drugs for memory loss until the diagnosis reaches full-blown dementia and the disease is irreversible. Most of the products used to treat these disorders also can have serious side effects. Nicotine works as well as many of the prescriptions and the side effect profile is much more benign. Nicotine temporarily increases BP and heart rate--for about 20 minutes--but so does exercise. Nicotine should not be used while pregnant--but neither should methylphenidate or Prozac be used while pregnant.

5. Despite all the hoopla about infinitesimally small quantities of possible toxins in vapor (so small, in fact, as to be essentially non-toxic), the fact is that people who manage to stop inhaling smoke by switching to vapor are reporting health improvements such as improved breathing, lower BP, lower cholesterol, and reduction in the need for asthma medications. I don’t believe this proves that vapor has magical healing properties. I believe it proves that quitting smoking is beneficial, regardless of how one manages to do so. I also believe that it is quite implausible that indirect exposure to vapor could cause health impairments in never smokers when direct exposure to vapor results in health improvements for former smokers.

 

[Vocalek]

And I could not resist addressing this:

"At this point, e-cigs look like just another another tobacco industry lie designed to placate people into accepting unnecessary risks that they owe no one simply so that the addicts from which it makes its money are not inconvenienced in accessing their next fix."

I find it ironic that both sides--former smokers who finally escaped from the clutches of smoke by switching to e-cigarettes, as well as the Anti-tobacco Industry—tend to believe that electronic cigarettes are some kind of evil plot by tobacco companies.

The Anti-tobacco Industry is spear-headed by pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the approved "smoking cessation" products that either a) fail to work for up to 97% of smokers, as in the case of Nicotine Reduction Therapy products or b) that are slightly more effective (Zyban/Wellbutrin and Chantix) but which can trigger suicidal thoughts, completed suicides, and violent behavior, not to mention cardiovascular incidents. As long as smokers continue smoking, pharmaceutical companies also profit from the sale of products that treat smoking-related heart attacks, strokes, lung disease, and cancer.

The Anti-tobacco Industry also includes two types of NGOs: a) health-related NGOs such as the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, and American Lung Association that receive financial support from the aforesaid pharmaceutical companies, and b) anti-smoking NGOs such as the American Legacy Foundation that receives Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) funds and redistributes these funds to other anti-smoking NGOs such as Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids.

Smokers are caught on a wheel of misfortune. They smoke, giving their hard-earned money to Big Tobacco. Then they decide to quit and give FDA-approved products a try. Their hard-earned money stops supporting Big Tobacco and then goes to the Anti-tobacco Industry, directly supporting Big Pharma and indirectly the health-related NGOs. When BP's products fail to work, they relapse back to smoking, at which point their money goes back to directly supporting Big Tobacco, and indirectly support anti-smoking NGOs.

Then something convinces them that they need to stop smoking, so they switch back to paying their money to Big Pharma and the health-related NGOs. When the treatment fails them again (and again, and again), they are back to paying the Big Tobacco and the anti-smoking NGOs.

Everybody wins....except for the hapless smoker. However, the hapless smoker has a lot more to lose than just his hard-earned money.

A much higher percent of smokers that switch to a smoke-free alternative such as e-cigarettes are able to achieve complete and lasting smoking abstinence.* But as soon as they find out that there is an organized group actively fighting to outlaw the sale and use of e-cigarettes, they jump to the false conclusion that Big Tobacco must be behind this campaign. After all, those health-related NGOs and anti-smoking NGOs have been hounding them for years to quit, right? Surely the Anti-tobacco Industry would not be part of a nefarious plot to banish the one product that finally allowed them to achieve abstinence from smoking and got off the wheel of misfortune, right? Wrong.

The wheel of misfortune is profitable. Why support a product that gives smokers a way to escape from it?

The tobacco companies did not invent electronic cigarettes. It doesn't take days of research to track down the history of this product. A Chinese pharmacist named Hon Lik was unable to stop smoking, even after watching his father die a painful death from lung cancer caused by smoking. He was bright enough to figure out that the nicotine abstinence-only approach wasn't working--not just for him but for hundreds of millions of smokers world-wide.

He also did his homework and discovered that nicotine was not the ingredient in smoke that causes smoking-related diseases. It's the smoke! He reasoned that if he could invent a way to deliver the nicotine smokers crave without the tar, carbon monoxide, particulates, and thousands of harmful chemicals of combustion, he might be able to permanently stop smoking.

He came up with the brilliant idea of delivering the nicotine on a vapor created by non-toxic ingredients already being used in artificial fog machines, asthma inhalers, and hospital air sanitizers. When it worked for him, he went to his employer with the invention and they changed the name of the company to Ruyan. The electronic cigarette industry was born.

The tobacco industry had nothing to do with the invention of e-cigarettes, but their leaders are not stupid. They figured out that the combustible cigarette is a dying (pun intended) product line. Lorillard bought out one of the largest e-cigarette companies in the U.S. some months ago, and other tobacco companies are discussing either acquiring or starting an e-cigarette product line.

* A pilot study to measure whether e-cigarettes could help smokers unwilling to quit to at least reduce the number of cigarettes smoked resulted not only in smoking reduction, but also 22% of the unwilling-to-quit smokers actually spontaneously quit. (Polosa 2011) Surveys of e-cigarette consumers that wanted to quit found a 41% cessation rate among first time buyers of a particular brand of e-cigarettes. (Siegel 2011) In internet-based surveys, success rates of 70 to 80% were found among e-cigarette consumers that wanted to quit. (Heavner 2010, Etter 2010) These would-be quitters kept trying different equipment and liquids and sought advice from more experienced users until they found a combination of hardware and liquid that worked.

 

[Territoo]

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?

Actually, Elaine, it is theorized that eventually everyone would get cancer eventually if he/she lived long enough. Most of us die of something else first. Perhaps, cardiovascular disease from smoking, perhaps????

<<<<<She's BACKKKKK>>>>

 

[Vocalek]

Heeey, Doc! Good to see you! I hope everything is going well for you. These are some exciting times.

 

[Territoo]

Justa workin' and a vapin'.

 

[sonicdsl]

Another excellent article from Carl Phillips on his blog yesterday, with some background on this story.

Should | Anti-THR Lie of the Day

 

[sherid]

I added this, You state that "WE" have "every right" to ban the use of e cigarettes. Who is the "we" that has this right, and where did you gain that power? Tobacco control has become an industry that is out of control, infringing on the rights of others to simply make choices about how they live and enjoy their lives. The Puritanical iron fist of these zealots has created a society of fear, as evidenced by Dr. Phillipe Even, "Professor Philippe Even, World-renowned pulmonologist, and once
president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker [now retired]"

The purpose of the ban on smoking in public places, however, was to protect non-smokers. It was thus based on nothing?

Absolutely nothing! The psychosis began with the publication of a
report by the IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, which
depends on the WHO [World Health Organisation]. The report released in
2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health
risks, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was
the methodology? It’s everything but a scientific approach. It was
creating fear that is not based on anything.

Philippe Even « Smoking out the Truth Now, the movement has cast its tentacles to include e cigarettes and the vapor that it emits simply because it LOOKS like smoking. Will you now ban fog machines? I am all for creating a new society divided into two camps: those who wish to be controlled by the "we" referenced in this reply; the other for the rest of us who choose to live life on our own terms. The dystopian society that your industry has created was first noted by George Orwell as a warning to future societies. I say it is time to heed that warning.

 

[pianoguy]

I see they're conveniently suppressing responses - they probably don't want to engage in a match of wits unarmed.

 

[Petrodus]

I added this, You state that "WE" have "every right" to ban the use of e cigarettes.
Who is the "we" that has this right, and where did you gain that power? ....

I'll stick around waiting for someone there to answer that question

 

[zoiDman]

...

The purpose of the ban on smoking in public places, however, was to protect non-smokers. It was thus based on nothing?
...

Is this the Only Reason you can think of for having a Ban on something like using an e-Cigarette?

 

[sherid]

Is this the Only Reason you can think of for having a Ban on something like using an e-Cigarette?

Sorry, but that was not my quote. It was a question asked of Dr. Phillipe Even in the interview cited.

 

[zoiDman]

Sorry, but that was not my quote. It was a question asked of Dr. Phillipe Even in the interview cited.

Gotcha...

Sometimes there is More Below the Mud. Sometimes there is Just More Mud.

In the Case of e-Cigarettes and e-Liquids, there is So Much Money at Stake. And anytime there is Big Money involved, there are Always Many Reasons why People, Companies and Governments do things.

But Seldom are they the Same Reason. And many times the Reason they Tell You for Doing Something is Not the Reason they are doing it. Or Perhaps, not the Primary Reason.

 

[sherid]

I included another response to the doctor in his reply to a poster.
Glantz's response was
You micharacterize my comment

Because e-cigarettes put measurable levels of toxins into the air I am recommending that their use not be permitted indoors where use of other pollutingnicotine delivery devices (conventional cigarettes) is not allowed.

They should also not be marketed or sold to children, since they are delivering an addictive drug.

They should also not be allowed to be marketed with claims that they assist in smoking cessation until there is actual good independent evidence that such claims are true.

My response is below.

E cigarette companies are not marketing to children. What evidence do you have to support that? I do know that children can easily buy Nicorette gum and/or lozenges in cool flavors that have an instant appeal to kids like Cinnamon Surge and White Ice Mint. In some countries, there is no age restriction for buying Nicorette gum. E cigarette companies state the age of 18 as a condition of buying an e cig. Why should it matter if one gets the same nicotine from an ecig as he/she gets from a piece of gum? I know several former smokers who have been addicted to Nicorette for over five years. E cigarette companies are also not marketing their products as smoking cessation products. That's what drug companies do when they sell Nicotrol inhalers. E cigarette companies are marketing e cigarettes as an alternative to tobacco cigarettes. Why should you or anyone else object to a product that offers the same benefits as a piece of gum?