A study, dangers of vaping

[Robert Cromwell]

I disagree, respectfully. Dr Farsalinos has done some great studies, and his work is very much appreciated around here, even though they aren't all positive about vaping. But they are scientifically sound, and done with good background knowledge of vaping and vaping gear.

Unlike the idiots who light some e-liquid on fire and then write it up as their doctoral thesis.

A few in either side are interested in valid studies and not just validating their beliefs, but the vast majority on both sides are just interested in validating their studies. ON here all the negative studies just get well cars kill people too so ban them, etc.

We need real world type of studies by disinterested third parties with no dog in the fight.
Just in another thread where it said only dry hits produce formaldehyde. However the highest wattage they used was 10 watts, that is not a realistic study considering todays vaping equipment and useage by many vapers. Valid for cigalikes and evods and such but not subohming.

 

[twgbonehead]

A few in either side are interested in valid studies and not just validating their beliefs, but the vast majority on both sides are just interested in validating their studies. ON here all the negative studies just get well cars kill people too so ban them, etc.

We need real world type of studies by disinterested third parties with no dog in the fight.
Just in another thread where it said only dry hits produce formaldehyde. However the highest wattage they used was 10 watts, that is not a realistic study considering todays vaping equipment and useage by many vapers. Valid for cigalikes and evods and such but not subohming.

But that study DID acknowledge its limitations. More important, it correllated user experience (i.e. at what threshold, for that particular head and wick did the vapor become unvapeable) with an analysis of the threshold where formaldehyde started getting produced. And while it's not guaranteed, there is a high degree of confidence that this change in taste and vapability would hold true regardless of the equipment - if you're creating formaldehyde, you're creating an extremely unpleasant vapor.

 

[skoony]

A few in either side are interested in valid studies and not just validating their beliefs, but the vast majority on both sides are just interested in validating their studies. ON here all the negative studies just get well cars kill people too so ban them, etc.

We need real world type of studies by disinterested third parties with no dog in the fight.
Just in another thread where it said only dry hits produce formaldehyde. However the highest wattage they used was 10 watts, that is not a realistic study considering todays vaping equipment and useage by many vapers. Valid for cigalikes and evods and such but not subohming.

there is no indication that the study would not scale up.
a properly wicked sub ohm just produces more vapor if
done correctly.
there is not a single piece of equipment in the world that
can't be abused. we have to make our own choices about
that.
there are more than enough studies from disinterested parties.
Dr. F researched the negative effects of tobacco long before
e-cigarettes came about.
mike

 

[Robert Cromwell]

there is no indication that the study would not scale up.
a properly wicked sub ohm just produces more vapor if
done correctly.
there is not a single piece of equipment in the world that
can't be abused. we have to make our own choices about
that.
there are more than enough studies from disinterested parties.
Dr. F researched the negative effects of tobacco long before
e-cigarettes came about.
mike

There is no indication that the study would scale up either.

 

[Robert Cromwell]

But that study DID acknowledge its limitations. More important, it correllated user experience (i.e. at what threshold, for that particular head and wick did the vapor become unvapeable) with an analysis of the threshold where formaldehyde started getting produced. And while it's not guaranteed, there is a high degree of confidence that this change in taste and vapability would hold true regardless of the equipment - if you're creating formaldehyde, you're creating an extremely unpleasant vapor.

If you create enough vapor it dilutes the formaldehyde enough to be tolerable?
Maybe I dunno. But tests need to be done at higher wattages. Assumptions do not get it, they are not data.

Also testing needs to be done on not just new coils but well used ones. The buildup on coils may increase formaldehyde production? When you start getting a burned taste from a gunked up coil are you getting formaldehyde? I dunno but testing needs to be done for the entire spectrum of vaping habits/useages.

Testing vaping is much more difficult than testing a burning cigarette, MANY more variables.

 

[skoony]

There is no indication that the study would scale up either.

why wouldn't it?
it scaled up from clearomizers to dual wick carto's.
i think it perfectly reasonable to expect if your not
boiling all the moisture out of the mix and getting
dry hits your good.
more and more studies to validate studies that
by all rights indicate what will happen anyway
has to end at some point.
mike

 

[Robert Cromwell]

Mike, I just take a critical view of the studies, it is the way I am. I do not try and use results to justify my vaping. I was the same with smoking or pretty much anything I do. I am pretty much a pessimistic realist. I am personally convinced that reasonable vaping at low to moderate wattages is FAR safer than smoking and that is good enough for me. I am also convinced that vaping is NOT safer than not vaping. Time will tell about any health complications from vaping.
I do not support it's ban. I do support reasonable regulations about ejuice safety of contents, etc. Not selling vaping hardware or wetware to minors and support mandatory safety testing of mods over lets say 20 watts. And I do not think vaping should be put into he same classification as tobacco. I also do not think DIY for personal use should be regulated except maybe nic sale to minors.

I think that pretty much sums up my stance on vaping safety and regulation.

 

[yuseffuhler]

Mike, I just take a critical view of the studies, it is the way I am. I do not try and use results to justify my vaping. I was the same with smoking or pretty much anything I do. I am pretty much a pessimistic realist. I am personally convinced that reasonable vaping at low to moderate wattages is FAR safer than smoking and that is good enough for me. I am also convinced that vaping is NOT safer than not vaping. Time will tell about any health complications from vaping.
I do not support it's ban. I do support reasonable regulations about ejuice safety of contents, etc. Not selling vaping hardware or wetware to minors and support mandatory safety testing of mods over lets say 20 watts. And I do not think vaping should be put into he same classification as tobacco. I also do not think DIY for personal use should be regulated except maybe nic sale to minors.

I think that pretty much sums up my stance on vaping safety and regulation.

I agree with you on all counts. I do worry that there will be over regulation (iif all we had were cigalikes, I'd quit vaping), but I'm hopeful that it won't come to that.

 

[Robert Cromwell]

I agree with you on all counts. I do worry that there will be over regulation (iif all we had were cigalikes, I'd quit vaping), but I'm hopeful that it won't come to that.

I would likely keep vaping cigalikes if I could refill them. It would keep me off of cigs. However I would not like it at all I have become spoiled on tanks and such. But one thing we can count on is that there will be LOTS of unreasonable regulations and taxing. Such is the world we live in with messed up people running it.

 

[skoony]

Mike, I just take a critical view of the studies, it is the way I am. I do not try and use results to justify my vaping. I was the same with smoking or pretty much anything I do. I am pretty much a pessimistic realist. I am personally convinced that reasonable vaping at low to moderate wattages is FAR safer than smoking and that is good enough for me. I am also convinced that vaping is NOT safer than not vaping. Time will tell about any health complications from vaping.
I do not support it's ban. I do support reasonable regulations about ejuice safety of contents, etc. Not selling vaping hardware or wetware to minors and support mandatory safety testing of mods over lets say 20 watts. And I do not think vaping should be put into he same classification as tobacco. I also do not think DIY for personal use should be regulated except maybe nic sale to minors.

I think that pretty much sums up my stance on vaping safety and regulation.

fair enough. i believe anything that can be said to 99% safer than smoking
means in the real world vaping is as safe as not vaping. it lowers the risk
so low as to be statistically irrelevant. the 99% of us that do not feel the
need for high volume vapor should not be held back by what ifs.
mike

 

[twgbonehead]

Robert,

Where the study is useful is that it creates a baseline. Not a completely accurate picture, but a starting point.

I think it might have been better structured if the study had been done as follows:

With each of the 2 heads, run them at different power levels, and measure the amount of formaldehyde-related compounds produced. This would provide the "knee" of the curve, plus give an indication of how sharp this curve is (i.e. is the transition sudden, or do the level of aldehydes increase slowly over a wider range). The original study looked basically at "all or none" scenarios, which are only a part of the picture.

After the correlation between power and aldehydes was known, pick a few relevant points on the curve (no aldehydes, some aldehydes, cigarette-equivalent, and higher). Then have the subjects test the vapor in each of these conditions.

Your scepticism is justified; it may be that small amounts of these compounds might be produced at certain temperatures, that small amounts might not be detectable or objectionable to the vapers, and that large cloud-producing systems might better be able to hide larger amounts of these compounds. These are all valid theories which should be subjected to scientific tests. And yes, there are lots of folks here who will look at this one study and say "There! No formaldehyde in anything vapable!" And they would not be justified in making that claim, based on this one study.

But the study does have serious and real value, and shouldn't just be dismissed (which is kind of how you come across as saying). Researchers have limited time and budgets, and must focus on the lowest-hanging fruit or be buried in the sea of "what if's". Research happens one step at a time.

This was a GOOD step in the right direction. Hopefully it will lead to more.

 

[GinnyTx]

(my quote's not working)
Robert ..it's like everyone forgot the scientific method with these "studies" or what?

or say the rules to proper reseach...unbiased, the conclusion is based soley on findings it may or may not support your hypothesis, etc.

Yousef I'm pretty sure that's what happened to Ed's Vapor Flask *lol* it's got a short in it somewhere or more than likely the chip's toast.

(and he's using my cheapy clone one he gave me..and it's working great) *lol*

 

[Robert Cromwell]

Robert,

Where the study is useful is that it creates a baseline. Not a completely accurate picture, but a starting point.

I think it might have been better structured if the study had been done as follows:

With each of the 2 heads, run them at different power levels, and measure the amount of formaldehyde-related compounds produced. This would provide the "knee" of the curve, plus give an indication of how sharp this curve is (i.e. is the transition sudden, or do the level of aldehydes increase slowly over a wider range). The original study looked basically at "all or none" scenarios, which are only a part of the picture.

After the correlation between power and aldehydes was known, pick a few relevant points on the curve (no aldehydes, some aldehydes, cigarette-equivalent, and higher). Then have the subjects test the vapor in each of these conditions.

Your scepticism is justified; it may be that small amounts of these compounds might be produced at certain temperatures, that small amounts might not be detectable or objectionable to the vapers, and that large cloud-producing systems might better be able to hide larger amounts of these compounds. These are all valid theories which should be subjected to scientific tests. And yes, there are lots of folks here who will look at this one study and say "There! No formaldehyde in anything vapable!" And they would not be justified in making that claim, based on this one study.

But the study does have serious and real value, and shouldn't just be dismissed (which is kind of how you come across as saying). Researchers have limited time and budgets, and must focus on the lowest-hanging fruit or be buried in the sea of "what if's". Research happens one step at a time.

This was a GOOD step in the right direction. Hopefully it will lead to more.

Yes it was a good first step, but only a first step and does in no way mean that ALL vaping styles are safe. That seems to be what the ones eager to justify their vaping get out of this baseline study. Me I will just keep tootle puffing away because I do believe it to be safer than smoking cigs.
I look forward to more comprehensive scientific studies in the future and want to believe that most all vaping is safe. However I will not jump to conclusions just to justify my chosen lifestyle.

ps I do notice a bias among the mods here as to which studies links get broken. Just an observation not complaining at all. I love this place and consider it very well run. My hat is off to the mods, they have a difficult job.

 

[twgbonehead]

ps I do notice a bias among the mods here as to which studies links get broken. Just an observation not complaining at all. I love this place and consider it very well run. My hat is off to the mods, they have a difficult job.

Well, this is a vaping forum, after all! And yes, the mods do a great job.

I'm not sure I've seen links to junk studies that are pro-vaping (although there certainly have been some crappy media articles which are pro-vaping - I think that's a different category, though).

 

[skoony]

Yes it was a good first step, but only a first step and does in no way mean that ALL vaping styles are safe. That seems to be what the ones eager to justify their vaping get out of this baseline study. Me I will just keep tootle puffing away because I do believe it to be safer than smoking cigs.
I look forward to more comprehensive scientific studies in the future and want to believe that most all vaping is safe. However I will not jump to conclusions just to justify my chosen lifestyle.

ps I do notice a bias among the mods here as to which studies links get broken. Just an observation not complaining at all. I love this place and consider it very well run. My hat is off to the mods, they have a difficult job.

this not the first step.many studies have already shown that harmful substances
if any were of no health concern. it wasn't until they burnt the snot
out of a atomizer producing a vape no one would inhale before they
could find something harmful.
as far as i am concerned this new study buries it.
mike

 

[KFarsalinos]

If you create enough vapor it dilutes the formaldehyde enough to be tolerable?
Maybe I dunno. But tests need to be done at higher wattages. Assumptions do not get it, they are not data.

Also testing needs to be done on not just new coils but well used ones. The buildup on coils may increase formaldehyde production? When you start getting a burned taste from a gunked up coil are you getting formaldehyde? I dunno but testing needs to be done for the entire spectrum of vaping habits/useages.

Testing vaping is much more difficult than testing a burning cigarette, MANY more variables.

You probably don't get the issue with direct lung-inhalation or higher vapor production in general.
Formaldehyde (and other aldehydes) is mainly produced from heat degradation of liquid components (mainly glycols). If we assume the best case scenario, that the thermal degradation rate will not change with higher power and higher vapor production, the concentration of aldehydes will be the same but the amounts per puff will be higher because of higher liquid consumption. Now, usually vapers measure their consumption in mL per day, and usually they do not elevate consumption when they upgrade equipment and use higher levels, UNLESS they transition from conventional to direct lung inhalation type of vaping. In that case, i have observed that users tend to at least triple their liquid consumption. That means that, even if we consider the thermal degradation as similar to conventional vaping, you will get multiple amounts of aldehydes per puff (due to huge elevation in liqud consumption per puff) and your daily exposure will be elevated as much as your liquid consumption is elevated.

Some people believe that direct lung inhalation is as safe as conventional vaping. Perhaps it is, but when you go from an average of 4mL liquid consumption per day to 15 or 20 mL per day it is naive to think that your exposure to toxins will be the same as previously. Of course, everyone decides for himself what to do and how to vape, but this does not mean that it is better not to know what is happening....

 

[Robert Cromwell]

this not the first step.many studies have already shown that harmful substances
if any were of no health concern. it wasn't until they burnt the snot
out of a atomizer producing a vape no one would inhale before they
could find something harmful.
as far as i am concerned this new study buries it.
mike

yes for vaping at 10 watts or less. But we can just agree to disagree I hope on this study proving the overall safety aspect of vaping.

 

[Robert Cromwell]

You probably don't get the issue with direct lung-inhalation or higher vapor production in general.
Formaldehyde (and other aldehydes) is mainly produced from heat degradation of liquid components (mainly glycols). If we assume the best case scenario, that the thermal degradation rate will not change with higher power and higher vapor production, the concentration of aldehydes will be the same but the amounts per puff will be higher because of higher liquid consumption. Now, usually vapers measure their consumption in mL per day, and usually they do not elevate consumption when they upgrade equipment and use higher levels, UNLESS they transition from conventional to direct lung inhalation type of vaping. In that case, i have observed that users tend to at least triple their liquid consumption. That means that, even if we consider the thermal degradation as similar to conventional vaping, you will get multiple amounts of aldehydes per puff (due to huge elevation in liqud consumption per puff) and your daily exposure will be elevated as much as your liquid consumption is elevated.

Some people believe that direct lung inhalation is as safe as conventional vaping. Perhaps it is, but when you go from an average of 4mL liquid consumption per day to 15 or 20 mL per day it is naive to think that your exposure to toxins will be the same as previously. Of course, everyone decides for himself what to do and how to vape, but this does not mean that it is better not to know what is happening....

Good post. I do lung inhales at lower wattages. It works you just inhale slower and do not have to rush your inhale to keep up with the vapor production as with higher wattage vaping.

And many BIG thanks for all the work that you are doing in your research of vaping. You are a voice of reason in the madness that currently surrounds vaping.

 

[KFarsalinos]

Concerning the "realistic studies", as far as i know the vast majority of vapers (who are not members of e-cigarette forums) vape at low wattage levels. Subohm vaping and direct lung inhalation is still a minority. However, this means nothing and such patterns should be studied. Easy to say, difficult to do. We were working for 1 week with one of the most experienced and equipped labs in the word, and we could not collect the vapor from 1000ml puff volume that direct lung inhalation vapers take.
I could easily post and publish the results that minimal aldehydes were found, however, the truth is that we were loosing a lot of vapor behind the impingers, making the findings inaccurate. We are working on developing a method which could work.

 

[twgbonehead]

You probably don't get the issue with direct lung-inhalation or higher vapor production in general.
Formaldehyde (and other aldehydes) is mainly produced from heat degradation of liquid components (mainly glycols). If we assume the best case scenario, that the thermal degradation rate will not change with higher power and higher vapor production, the concentration of aldehydes will be the same but the amounts per puff will be higher because of higher liquid consumption. Now, usually vapers measure their consumption in mL per day, and usually they do not elevate consumption when they upgrade equipment and use higher levels, UNLESS they transition from conventional to direct lung inhalation type of vaping. In that case, i have observed that users tend to at least triple their liquid consumption. That means that, even if we consider the thermal degradation as similar to conventional vaping, you will get multiple amounts of aldehydes per puff (due to huge elevation in liqud consumption per puff) and your daily exposure will be elevated as much as your liquid consumption is elevated.

Some people believe that direct lung inhalation is as safe as conventional vaping. Perhaps it is, but when you go from an average of 4mL liquid consumption per day to 15 or 20 mL per day it is naive to think that your exposure to toxins will be the same as previously. Of course, everyone decides for himself what to do and how to vape, but this does not mean that it is better not to know what is happening....

Dr. Farsalinos,

I would just like to say thanks for all the work you are doing! Please keep it up! Do you have other studies in mind? Would you appreciate suggestions?

Again, many thanks for all your work.