I read on the news New York State intends to ban the sale of all the
ecigarette products. Australia already did. I've been vaping and
researching ecigarettes for almost one year now so I'd like to send a message
to who wants to ban the ecig sales.
I'm not an heavy vaper, but I think the ecigarette is doing good for
my health, as I had very big trouble to avoid smoking and I always
returned smoking eventually. I have absolutely no economic interest in
the ecigs nor in tobacco production. I am just an user, and I'm not
interested about the price of ecigs or the taxes or economic
conseguencies of people switching from tobacco smoke to ecig vaopur.
I also prefer real cigarettes, but after smoking an ecig for some
time, real cigarette smoke starts to feel real unhelthy. But the only
single reason I use ecigs is because I am optimistic that they are
obviously safer than real cigarettes.
First and foremost I support the ban of all ecig sales but only if
they first ban real cigarettes and drive all big tobacco companies
bankrupt. If New York and Australia will go ahead and ban the sales of
all tobacco products in addition to ecig sales they will have my full
support. I'd love to live in a place where tobacco cigarettes are
outright illegal.
But as far as I can buy real tobacco cigarettes at every corner in the
city, it's unethical to ban the sale of ecigs, and I
intend to demonstrate this with scientifica data.
First of all the ecig sales currently are the wild west. Just to make
an obvious example there is no warning whatsoever in very good and
trustable ecig shops that sells PEG400. I read on some random forum
that some newbye that bought his first ecig, choosen liquids based on
PEG400, I did not much reserach on PEG400 but I doubt it's safer than
PG and VG. But for sure it's less tested so there is no reason for a
newbye to use PEG400 when everybody else uses PG or VG or both. There
was no warning it is the least used base for eliquids. To make a
second example:
YouTube - Katherine Heigl uses an Electronic Cigarette with David Letterman
Katherine thinks she's humidifying the space with water vapour and
liquid nicotin. There's probably no water or not more than 15% of
water in what she's inhaling. We can't pretend even the well educated
and health consciuous people to understand the implications of the
molecules that they're inhaling. What feels good isn't necessarly
good, for example radioactivity can't be felt but it's clearly not
good for the human body.
Clearly the Governament at some point would better step in to provide
guidelines of what is considered safe by using rational and scientific
stuides. Banning ecigarettes as a whole is absolutely the wrong thing
to do. Providing guidelines to ecig shops of what exactly should be
sold is the way to go.
I am sure if Katherine would had an option to select "eliquids
recommended by the governament safety guidelines" she would have
choosen that option to be able to vape as safe as possible.
We can vape well, while still limiting our exposure to max 4
molecules:
1) proyplene glycol
2) vegetable glycerin
3) water
4) nicotine
For these 4 molecules it's not too to hard to demonstrate that they
are safer to inhale than tobacco smoke. Furthermore none of these 4
molecules should be cancerous. Propylene glycol has low toxicity but
it's not cancerous.
1) proylene glycol (abbreviated as PG)
http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/evals/egpg/propylene/PG_Monograph.pdf
======
5.2 Summary of Human Exposure
In 1999, 1,083 million pounds of propylene glycol were produced in the
U.S. with apparent consumption of 854 million pounds (5). Of the
apparent amount consumed, uses included, in million pounds and
percentages: unsaturated polyester resins (228, 26.7%); cosmetics and
personal care products; pharmaceuticals, and human food (170, 19.9%);
liquid detergents (135, 15.8%); deicing fluids (85, 10%);
antifreeze/engine coolant (55, 6.4%); paints and coatings (40, 4.7%);
tobacco humectant (25, 2.9%); other fluids (32, 3.8%); and other
applications (84, 9.8%) (5). The general population is exposed to
propylene glycol by oral intake, dermal contact, and inhalation. The
average daily intake of propylene glycol from food products in the
United States has been estimated at 2,400 mg/day [34 mg/kg bw/day for
a 70 kg person] (13). Propylene glycol is an inert ingredient in some
pharmaceutical preparations. Propylene glycol is also found in many
pharmaceuticals that are administered intravenously, which represents
a unique exposure route for certain subpopulations.
5.3 Overall Conclusions
No human data on reproductive or developmental toxicity are
available. Although the serum half- life of propylene glycol is
greater in infants and children than in adults, the concern for
postnatal developmental toxicity in infants and children younger than
5 years of age is diminished by low levels
of alcohol dehydrogenase. Furthermore, published data documenting high
blood levels of propylene glycol during continuous therapeutic
infusion in pediatric intensive care patients 15 months of age and
younger were not associated with any acute toxicity (66). The
knowledge that human metabolism of propylene glycol saturates at an
8–10 times lower dose than in rats or rabbits provides further
confidence that human developmental or reproductive risks are of
negligible concern.
There are no major differences in general toxicity between humans and
animals (except the cat), and toxicity only occurs at very high doses
(LD50 values of 8 –46 g/kg in rats, and is estimated to be >15 g/kg bw
in humans). Based on these findings, the Panel concludes that current
estimated exposures to propylene glycol are of negligible concern for
reproductive or developmental toxicity in humans.
======
An normal ecigarette user using 100% PG based eliquid, would vaporize
between 0.5ml to 2ml of PG. But lots of it will not be absorbed by the
body and it will exit the body as "vapour".
Even assuming 100% of the vaporized PG would be absorbed by the body,
2ml would amount to 2 grams (specific gravity is near 1). For a 70kg
vaping normally that means 28.5mg per kilogram. (the recommended limit
is 34 mg/kg for a 70 kg person). So even if no vapour would exit the
mouth and all vaporized PG would be absored by the body, it'd be still
under the recommended limit to avoid any side effect.
PG is also vaporized and inhaled as additive with some medication.
The PG molecue is guaranteed not to degrade when vaporized, no matter
what high temperature reached by the coil of the atomizer. So it's
very safe to vaporize to be sure not to inhale byproducts of the
vaporization.
PG is also present in lots of mouthwash (it's included in mine I
checked). PG is absolutely unsafe to drink and there must be warnings
about it.
2) Vegetable Glyerin (abbreviated as VG)
A small percentage of people is allergic to PG. VG is also used in
addition (or replacement to PG) often to create more vapour. VG is
normally diluted with 15%-20% of deonized/distilled water. Diluting it
also lowers its boiling (vaporization) point. Pure (not diluted)
glycerin boiling point is 290C. However physics says that at 280C a
cancerous molecule called acrolein is generated. We don't know how
much acrolein if at all can be generated by the ecigarette. Studies of
mist made by ecig vendors that choosen to sell no PG based eliquids,
shows no acrolein is generated. In any case, glycern is added to the
tobacco cigarettes as well (even if in lower amounts) but considering
the temperature at which glycerin is vaporized in tobacco cigarettes,
we can safely assume the risk of inhaling acrolein molecules is higher
with regular tobacco cigarettes.
There is agreement that none of the atomizer coils of the ecigarettes
heats over 280C. It would be good if this could be demonstrated with a
labortory test. For example there are molecules that vaporize only at
temperatures below 270C, for example:
Boiling Points of some common Fluids and Gases
Dowtherm won't generate vapor unless the coil reaches temperature
above 258C. So if you would put Dowtherm (not to inhale!!! most
certainly it would be hazardous if inhaled) you could verify if your
coil is safe from the acrolein risk (acrolein can be generated above
280C).
If Dowtherm won't generate vapor when put into the atomizer, we'll be
entirely safe to smoke e-liquid with glycerin inside.
It would be nice if various model of ecigarettes would be tested and
declared safe to use with VG based liquids. If some ecigarette won't
pass the "dowtherm" test, it would be still be entirely safe to use
with 100% PG based liquids.
VG molecule in liquid form (before vaporizaton) is very safe, probably it's not even dangerous to
drink some of it.
VG is not normally inhaled though. In some ways PG because it is already administered intravenously in hospitals, and inhaled by other medications, it may be better tested to use in an ecig.
I don't have an opinion myself what is safer between PG and VG, this is unknown.
However I think it would be good if people would only use 100% PG or only 100% (VG+H2O) based liquids, so over a very long time we can track if there's any side effect to each group.
3) water
Clearly safe.
4) nicotine
It's unclear how safe nicotine is to inhale. Clearly the max
percentage of nicotine used in the liquid to use should be around
3.5%. Clearly drinking even a small amount of eliquid with nicotine
could kill. But drinking the fluids we use to clean toilets sold at
every market could kill as well (even if in higher amounts). I usually
use 1% of nicotine or less and I used 0% nicotine at times to try if I
can stay without nicotine.
Who wants to quit has the option to lower his nicotine intake over
time. After using an ecig for 3 months I managed to totally quit both
real cigarettes and ecigarettes for one month. I doubt I could have
managed even that single month without ecig and without real cig
without the ecigarette but this is an opinion, it may be unrelated to
ecigs and it's not a scientific fact. I mention this just for
curiosity. Interestingly I returned smoking after 1 month of no smoke,
because of seeing people around using real cigarettes (which is why I
support a total ban of all cigarettes but only if including the
tobacco cigarettes too!) and then I used the ecig again to limit damage.
Some test has been done to show that ecig users may not be able to
detect the difference between nicotine and no nicotine, but this test
was done in a few hours time, over a period of days or better weeks, I
would have expected people with less nicotine would have returned to
real tobacco cigarettes. The excitement of a new device surely
generates a counter-placebo effect. But on a longer period, lack of
nicotine I think would become visible and more people would return to
regular cigarettes without nicotine added to the eliquid. So I'm
skeptical of the below result.
http://www.theelectroniccigarette.co.uk/images/pictures/pdf-reports/ecig_poster.pdf
Nicotine is clearly inhaled with tobacco smoke as well and it's not
considered a cancerous molecule.
I add two more reports from Boston University School of Public Health
(who also comments in detail some of the complains of the FDA) and the
New Zeland report on PG based liquids.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/centers-institutes/population-development/files/article.jphp.pdf
http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf
I searched on google "new york ecigarette" to understand the status, and the
second result is the below link.
New York Moves Towards Total E-Cigarette Ban | Tobacco Facts.
It says New Zeland banned the ecig. That's not true as far as I know.
E-cigarette seller hit with warning - National - NZ Herald News
"distributors would have to do is strictly refrain from making
therapeutic claims, and abide by current and future regulations of the
... act."
That is not a ban of sales. In fact this is the right direction:
guidelines that the ecig shops should follow.
My main concern in this whole ecigarette wild west of dozen of shops
selling on the internet, are the hundred of different flavours that
people is adding to the eqliuid. Nobody did any study on the toxicity
and health hazard of the flavours as far as I know.
I think the Governament should provide guidelines to ecig shops on the
wording they should use when they advertize their products. The ecig
is clearly not a medicine and it's not a smoking cessation device. In
addition to that I believe there should be guidelines on the
liquids. I'd like if the ecig websites selling liquids would have an
option "eliquids following governament guidelines" that people can
select and that they will only include the above 4 molecules that are
considered safer by rational and scientific data avaiable. This way the
users buying will have the option to use something that really should
be hundred times safer to smoke than a real tobacco cigarette with
some scientific backing. Similar
guidelines could be provided for the ecigs, especially for the users
including VG in their eliquids (a list of governament tested
ecigarettes that are safe to use with VG would be more than
enough). Then it'd be up to the shops to differentiate what is
consdered safe (for example to use with VG based liquids)
and what isn't considered safe and warn the users if
they are purchasing anything that isn't following the guidelines of
esmoking.
Banning ecigs is wrong, providing guidelines to the shops so that
health conscious users will have an option to easly buy a safe product
is the way to go. The way I smoke the ecig (with max 4 molecules
above) I believe that is certainly safer than smoking a real cigarette.
Of course I support banning sales to all people that can't buy real tobacco cigarettes.
Last but not the least, I also support not smoking ecig in
any place where a real cigarette cannot be smoked.
Ecigarettes must not be used to smoke more or workaround any of the bans on real tobacco cigarettes.
I can support anything but the ban of ecigarettes, as long as I'm still allowed to buy real tobacco cigarettes anywhere.
ecigarette products. Australia already did. I've been vaping and
researching ecigarettes for almost one year now so I'd like to send a message
to who wants to ban the ecig sales.
I'm not an heavy vaper, but I think the ecigarette is doing good for
my health, as I had very big trouble to avoid smoking and I always
returned smoking eventually. I have absolutely no economic interest in
the ecigs nor in tobacco production. I am just an user, and I'm not
interested about the price of ecigs or the taxes or economic
conseguencies of people switching from tobacco smoke to ecig vaopur.
I also prefer real cigarettes, but after smoking an ecig for some
time, real cigarette smoke starts to feel real unhelthy. But the only
single reason I use ecigs is because I am optimistic that they are
obviously safer than real cigarettes.
First and foremost I support the ban of all ecig sales but only if
they first ban real cigarettes and drive all big tobacco companies
bankrupt. If New York and Australia will go ahead and ban the sales of
all tobacco products in addition to ecig sales they will have my full
support. I'd love to live in a place where tobacco cigarettes are
outright illegal.
But as far as I can buy real tobacco cigarettes at every corner in the
city, it's unethical to ban the sale of ecigs, and I
intend to demonstrate this with scientifica data.
First of all the ecig sales currently are the wild west. Just to make
an obvious example there is no warning whatsoever in very good and
trustable ecig shops that sells PEG400. I read on some random forum
that some newbye that bought his first ecig, choosen liquids based on
PEG400, I did not much reserach on PEG400 but I doubt it's safer than
PG and VG. But for sure it's less tested so there is no reason for a
newbye to use PEG400 when everybody else uses PG or VG or both. There
was no warning it is the least used base for eliquids. To make a
second example:
YouTube - Katherine Heigl uses an Electronic Cigarette with David Letterman
Katherine thinks she's humidifying the space with water vapour and
liquid nicotin. There's probably no water or not more than 15% of
water in what she's inhaling. We can't pretend even the well educated
and health consciuous people to understand the implications of the
molecules that they're inhaling. What feels good isn't necessarly
good, for example radioactivity can't be felt but it's clearly not
good for the human body.
Clearly the Governament at some point would better step in to provide
guidelines of what is considered safe by using rational and scientific
stuides. Banning ecigarettes as a whole is absolutely the wrong thing
to do. Providing guidelines to ecig shops of what exactly should be
sold is the way to go.
I am sure if Katherine would had an option to select "eliquids
recommended by the governament safety guidelines" she would have
choosen that option to be able to vape as safe as possible.
We can vape well, while still limiting our exposure to max 4
molecules:
1) proyplene glycol
2) vegetable glycerin
3) water
4) nicotine
For these 4 molecules it's not too to hard to demonstrate that they
are safer to inhale than tobacco smoke. Furthermore none of these 4
molecules should be cancerous. Propylene glycol has low toxicity but
it's not cancerous.
1) proylene glycol (abbreviated as PG)
http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/evals/egpg/propylene/PG_Monograph.pdf
======
5.2 Summary of Human Exposure
In 1999, 1,083 million pounds of propylene glycol were produced in the
U.S. with apparent consumption of 854 million pounds (5). Of the
apparent amount consumed, uses included, in million pounds and
percentages: unsaturated polyester resins (228, 26.7%); cosmetics and
personal care products; pharmaceuticals, and human food (170, 19.9%);
liquid detergents (135, 15.8%); deicing fluids (85, 10%);
antifreeze/engine coolant (55, 6.4%); paints and coatings (40, 4.7%);
tobacco humectant (25, 2.9%); other fluids (32, 3.8%); and other
applications (84, 9.8%) (5). The general population is exposed to
propylene glycol by oral intake, dermal contact, and inhalation. The
average daily intake of propylene glycol from food products in the
United States has been estimated at 2,400 mg/day [34 mg/kg bw/day for
a 70 kg person] (13). Propylene glycol is an inert ingredient in some
pharmaceutical preparations. Propylene glycol is also found in many
pharmaceuticals that are administered intravenously, which represents
a unique exposure route for certain subpopulations.
5.3 Overall Conclusions
No human data on reproductive or developmental toxicity are
available. Although the serum half- life of propylene glycol is
greater in infants and children than in adults, the concern for
postnatal developmental toxicity in infants and children younger than
5 years of age is diminished by low levels
of alcohol dehydrogenase. Furthermore, published data documenting high
blood levels of propylene glycol during continuous therapeutic
infusion in pediatric intensive care patients 15 months of age and
younger were not associated with any acute toxicity (66). The
knowledge that human metabolism of propylene glycol saturates at an
8–10 times lower dose than in rats or rabbits provides further
confidence that human developmental or reproductive risks are of
negligible concern.
There are no major differences in general toxicity between humans and
animals (except the cat), and toxicity only occurs at very high doses
(LD50 values of 8 –46 g/kg in rats, and is estimated to be >15 g/kg bw
in humans). Based on these findings, the Panel concludes that current
estimated exposures to propylene glycol are of negligible concern for
reproductive or developmental toxicity in humans.
======
An normal ecigarette user using 100% PG based eliquid, would vaporize
between 0.5ml to 2ml of PG. But lots of it will not be absorbed by the
body and it will exit the body as "vapour".
Even assuming 100% of the vaporized PG would be absorbed by the body,
2ml would amount to 2 grams (specific gravity is near 1). For a 70kg
vaping normally that means 28.5mg per kilogram. (the recommended limit
is 34 mg/kg for a 70 kg person). So even if no vapour would exit the
mouth and all vaporized PG would be absored by the body, it'd be still
under the recommended limit to avoid any side effect.
PG is also vaporized and inhaled as additive with some medication.
The PG molecue is guaranteed not to degrade when vaporized, no matter
what high temperature reached by the coil of the atomizer. So it's
very safe to vaporize to be sure not to inhale byproducts of the
vaporization.
PG is also present in lots of mouthwash (it's included in mine I
checked). PG is absolutely unsafe to drink and there must be warnings
about it.
2) Vegetable Glyerin (abbreviated as VG)
A small percentage of people is allergic to PG. VG is also used in
addition (or replacement to PG) often to create more vapour. VG is
normally diluted with 15%-20% of deonized/distilled water. Diluting it
also lowers its boiling (vaporization) point. Pure (not diluted)
glycerin boiling point is 290C. However physics says that at 280C a
cancerous molecule called acrolein is generated. We don't know how
much acrolein if at all can be generated by the ecigarette. Studies of
mist made by ecig vendors that choosen to sell no PG based eliquids,
shows no acrolein is generated. In any case, glycern is added to the
tobacco cigarettes as well (even if in lower amounts) but considering
the temperature at which glycerin is vaporized in tobacco cigarettes,
we can safely assume the risk of inhaling acrolein molecules is higher
with regular tobacco cigarettes.
There is agreement that none of the atomizer coils of the ecigarettes
heats over 280C. It would be good if this could be demonstrated with a
labortory test. For example there are molecules that vaporize only at
temperatures below 270C, for example:
Boiling Points of some common Fluids and Gases
Dowtherm won't generate vapor unless the coil reaches temperature
above 258C. So if you would put Dowtherm (not to inhale!!! most
certainly it would be hazardous if inhaled) you could verify if your
coil is safe from the acrolein risk (acrolein can be generated above
280C).
If Dowtherm won't generate vapor when put into the atomizer, we'll be
entirely safe to smoke e-liquid with glycerin inside.
It would be nice if various model of ecigarettes would be tested and
declared safe to use with VG based liquids. If some ecigarette won't
pass the "dowtherm" test, it would be still be entirely safe to use
with 100% PG based liquids.
VG molecule in liquid form (before vaporizaton) is very safe, probably it's not even dangerous to
drink some of it.
VG is not normally inhaled though. In some ways PG because it is already administered intravenously in hospitals, and inhaled by other medications, it may be better tested to use in an ecig.
I don't have an opinion myself what is safer between PG and VG, this is unknown.
However I think it would be good if people would only use 100% PG or only 100% (VG+H2O) based liquids, so over a very long time we can track if there's any side effect to each group.
3) water
Clearly safe.
4) nicotine
It's unclear how safe nicotine is to inhale. Clearly the max
percentage of nicotine used in the liquid to use should be around
3.5%. Clearly drinking even a small amount of eliquid with nicotine
could kill. But drinking the fluids we use to clean toilets sold at
every market could kill as well (even if in higher amounts). I usually
use 1% of nicotine or less and I used 0% nicotine at times to try if I
can stay without nicotine.
Who wants to quit has the option to lower his nicotine intake over
time. After using an ecig for 3 months I managed to totally quit both
real cigarettes and ecigarettes for one month. I doubt I could have
managed even that single month without ecig and without real cig
without the ecigarette but this is an opinion, it may be unrelated to
ecigs and it's not a scientific fact. I mention this just for
curiosity. Interestingly I returned smoking after 1 month of no smoke,
because of seeing people around using real cigarettes (which is why I
support a total ban of all cigarettes but only if including the
tobacco cigarettes too!) and then I used the ecig again to limit damage.
Some test has been done to show that ecig users may not be able to
detect the difference between nicotine and no nicotine, but this test
was done in a few hours time, over a period of days or better weeks, I
would have expected people with less nicotine would have returned to
real tobacco cigarettes. The excitement of a new device surely
generates a counter-placebo effect. But on a longer period, lack of
nicotine I think would become visible and more people would return to
regular cigarettes without nicotine added to the eliquid. So I'm
skeptical of the below result.
http://www.theelectroniccigarette.co.uk/images/pictures/pdf-reports/ecig_poster.pdf
Nicotine is clearly inhaled with tobacco smoke as well and it's not
considered a cancerous molecule.
I add two more reports from Boston University School of Public Health
(who also comments in detail some of the complains of the FDA) and the
New Zeland report on PG based liquids.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/centers-institutes/population-development/files/article.jphp.pdf
http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf
I searched on google "new york ecigarette" to understand the status, and the
second result is the below link.
New York Moves Towards Total E-Cigarette Ban | Tobacco Facts.
It says New Zeland banned the ecig. That's not true as far as I know.
E-cigarette seller hit with warning - National - NZ Herald News
"distributors would have to do is strictly refrain from making
therapeutic claims, and abide by current and future regulations of the
... act."
That is not a ban of sales. In fact this is the right direction:
guidelines that the ecig shops should follow.
My main concern in this whole ecigarette wild west of dozen of shops
selling on the internet, are the hundred of different flavours that
people is adding to the eqliuid. Nobody did any study on the toxicity
and health hazard of the flavours as far as I know.
I think the Governament should provide guidelines to ecig shops on the
wording they should use when they advertize their products. The ecig
is clearly not a medicine and it's not a smoking cessation device. In
addition to that I believe there should be guidelines on the
liquids. I'd like if the ecig websites selling liquids would have an
option "eliquids following governament guidelines" that people can
select and that they will only include the above 4 molecules that are
considered safer by rational and scientific data avaiable. This way the
users buying will have the option to use something that really should
be hundred times safer to smoke than a real tobacco cigarette with
some scientific backing. Similar
guidelines could be provided for the ecigs, especially for the users
including VG in their eliquids (a list of governament tested
ecigarettes that are safe to use with VG would be more than
enough). Then it'd be up to the shops to differentiate what is
consdered safe (for example to use with VG based liquids)
and what isn't considered safe and warn the users if
they are purchasing anything that isn't following the guidelines of
esmoking.
Banning ecigs is wrong, providing guidelines to the shops so that
health conscious users will have an option to easly buy a safe product
is the way to go. The way I smoke the ecig (with max 4 molecules
above) I believe that is certainly safer than smoking a real cigarette.
Of course I support banning sales to all people that can't buy real tobacco cigarettes.
Last but not the least, I also support not smoking ecig in
any place where a real cigarette cannot be smoked.
Ecigarettes must not be used to smoke more or workaround any of the bans on real tobacco cigarettes.
I can support anything but the ban of ecigarettes, as long as I'm still allowed to buy real tobacco cigarettes anywhere.
Last edited:
