Aspire official statement on Atlantis coils material

Status
Not open for further replies.

Oliver

ECF Founder, formerly SmokeyJoe
Admin
Verified Member
Do you still care if you are inhaling fiberglass? If you said YES, then you need to pay to test Aspire BVC coils.

In addition to the onus being on the manufacturer, another serious question is what you mean by "tested"?

If, for instance, you mean: "take an atty, put it on a device, run it and measure what's in the vapor", then fine, but you're missing out a whole range of "real-world variables" that will impact on what actually comes out when people use the devices. The company would, however, then have data which it could use to justify the safety of your product, even though this data is more-or-less irrelevant in real-world use (see some of the pics in this thread).

It's really, seriously, not clear what "testing" means unless rigorous protocols are created and adopted as standard. This doesn't currently happen.

So, absent of a widely-accepted testing protocol, what can be done?

Probably the only thing that can be done is for manufacturers to avoid using materials that have a risk profile that is uncertain, or that could in some circumstances (whatever these are) be dangerous.
 

Oliver

ECF Founder, formerly SmokeyJoe
Admin
Verified Member
It's worth also adding that Chinese manufacturers have recently set up an industry association: Sevia.org , and Aspire (Shenzhen Eigate Technology Co., Ltd) are vice-presidents.

I have a great photo of me addressing the inaugural meeting via videoconference. I may one day post it ;)
 
Last edited:

chargingcharlie

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 14, 2014
431
546
MA
I got whammied with a virus and my brain wasn't working so well, and then you guys somehow double the post count while I was nursing my wounds so I had to catch up. This gets a little lengthy, but these links got posted as saying cotton caused cancer, and while I am not an expert, I wanted to help break these down so people can understand them and make up their own mind.



It's even more than a carcinogen in how it acts, though in fairness the research lately seems to be pointing at the scarring permanently messing with lung function -- but good we have more common ground!

I pull away from the cancer stuff in general, even with smoking, where you're really talking about ~10% of smokers dying from cancer. But ~10% is not the number when you start talking about permanent chronic bronchitis or COPD, etc.



What evidence or reasoning do you have that it is? It's an honest question. I've simply seen no evidence -- even the design itself -- that would suggest it makes fiberglass or ceramic fibers safe to use when used as designed.

I think I covered this before: the burden of proof is not on the users, it's on the 4 year old manufacturing company Shenzen Eigate/Aspire selling coils out of fiberglass/ceramic paper. A 4-year-old company that has been shown to be misleading at best in it's marketing (fraud at worst) in the past, and in some cases is saying nonsensical things -- "even if xyz, we have the metal screen."



This is kind of an apples to pears thing, and I see from your latest posts you consider yourself a skeptic, as do I -- and we have to be careful we aren't falling into the false equivalency fallacy. This happens to all of us depending on our current biases.

While cotton lung from long-term huge amounts of cotton dust is real, and black lung from working in a coal mine is real, and any form of smoke inhallation is bad for you (as I said earlier, even campfires), they are not equivalents to what we're talking about.

Being OK with the risk of cotton being singed now and again doesn't mean you have to be OK with fiberglass being burned, and being OK being around a campfire now and again or walking down the street around cars doesn't mean you have to be OK with smoking cigarettes. The fact that you smoked while addicted to nicotine doesn't mean you have to be OK with fiberglass wicks.



I actually found this to be really interesting, thanks for passing it on. For those too busy to read, I'm going to take the time to break this down and hopefully others can fill in the gaps. This isn't a scientific paper as you'd normally think of it, and it doesn't say that cotton fibers cause cancer -- but we'll get to that.

This is a medical writeup -- if you are a doctor and something unusual happens, like you come across a third eye or or you do an unusual treatment that works or doesn't work, you can document it and publish it, etc. I'm simplifying, but the point is that it is not a control-study or such.

There's something called pneumoconiosis, where your lungs don't work as they should, and is caused by inhaling large amounts of particulates/dust over time. Depending on what causes it (cotton, iron, silica, etc.) it can have different names. Byssinosis, or brown lung (black lung is lotsa coal dust) -- it basically only exists in those working in cotton/hemp/flax factories in the South or overseas. It is thought to either be from the fibers themselves coating the lungs over time, or from types of bacteria that grow on the cotton that elicit a bad immune response when the body tries to deal with them in the lungs.

If you're exposed to inhaling massive amounts of it dust/fibers carrying it, like in a cotton factory over decades, your lungs can get coated, the immune system can go nuts, and you end up with lung scarring. Generally it's thought your body just absorbs or expels the stuff, which is isn't able to do with the other types. To be clear: completely coating your lungs with types of dust seems to be a bad idea for obvious reasons, but in general smaller amounts of organic fibers (and a few non-organic) are considered safe.

In this case, doctors found a tumor-esque growth in the lungs of a guy, who was showing no symptoms of byssinosis (decreased lung function, etc.) and his lung function tests were fine. The man worked in a futon factory for *50 years*, constantly being exposed to cotton dust with zero protection. You might expect to see byssinosis based on what we've discussed, but there were none, so they biopsied the granuloma and found some fibers.

They then heated the fiber to a high temp, and since it didn't melt they concluded it was probably organic. They don't actually know that it is cotton fibers, but since he and his lungs are covered in the stuff and due to where he works, it makes sense. More importantly, they don't really know that it even caused the granuloma, just that some fibers got incorporated into it while it was growing.

They documented and put it out there. They say themselves that this "may" be the first piece of evidence found showing that some cotton fibers may have started a cancer reaction, and then they back away from it really quickly, because there isn't much evidence for it except that some cotton fibers were there -- but they were also all over his lungs for 50 years, and it could easily be that he developed a tumor that grew around some fibers kind of like how a tree will grow around a tool left in it.

There's been ~50 years of science studying organic fibers, and little to nothing showing cancer -- including this, honestly.

They all show that inhaling massive amounts of any just about any fibers/debris will put the hurt on your lungs, and even cause permanent damage -- but you inhale cotton fibers when you put on your shirt and you're OK.

Why I'm grateful: As was pointed out by yourself, organic does not always mean safer, and I hadn't had possible carriers (like bacteria) on non-sterile organic cotton in my head.



I'm not fully sure about the point you were trying to make about this, but since you said it backs up that cotton causes cancer I read through.

Some scientists were studying smoke-inhalation, and how it affects cardio-vasucular stuff. They took some sheep and knocked them out, cut a bunch of holes and implanted gadgets in their hearts and such. They modified a bee-smoker hooked up to some bellows that had a bit of ignited cotton towel in it.

They knocked the animals out, put them on a ventilator, and then pushed sixteen breaths of smoke into their lungs to intentionally simulate smoke-inhalation damage. They'd go back to the ventilator for 3 minutes, then another sixteen of pure smoke. They did this four times, for 64 breaths of pure cotton-smoke dreaminess. As a control, they did the whole ventilator setup for two more groups: one with just O2 and with with carbon monoxide (CO).

CO is what will put you to sleep before the fire kills you in the house, or how people die from running cars in the garage, and you get high levels of it in your blood when you smoke cigarettes. The main difference here between CO-poisonined & the smoke-inhalation group (which also got CO) was that the smoke group had some pretty nasty damage done to their lungs.

The only role cotton plays here is that it's a common way to generate smoke for a beesmoker. Again, we've known even sitting around a campfire isn't great for you and it's why some asthmatics have issues with it. But equating "well if you singe the cotton on your RDA, that's not good for you so how can you complain about fiberglass" is falling into a fallacy.

Great post. I'm not saying that you shouldn't complain about fiberglass because cotton can be harmful. I'm just saying that, without knowing exactly what is going on with these BVCs, that we shouldn't be saying that cotton is a safer alternative. It's potentially safer...but we just don't know if it actually is safer. Who knows...we could find out that this material is, in fact, safer than cotton. I just don't like demonizing something without data to back it up.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

chargingcharlie

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 14, 2014
431
546
MA
Yeah. That's why they apologized, with the whole thing that "There was no intention to give wrong information, and when we did our marketing, we did not think about the "bell-housing" [or chimney] when the Atlantis was marketed as Stainless Steel" And then said the plated brass was safe, but then said they were going to make it all-stainless in the future.

Aspire - Further inform about our Atlantis and future changes

It's pretty clear it was a cost-saving measure, just like happens in some of the gazillions of tanks you see on fasttech. Then they simply marketed as stainless and ignored it until they got called on it. I'm all about questioning aspects of a story, but at some point it starts to look like you're grasping...



You're smart enough to know that company websites aren't chiseled in stone. And again, they themselves admitted they did this and it's still all over the web.

Yeah, I didn't see the initial statements. I agree that it was bad for them to do that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

supermarket

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 2, 2010
1,401
1,852
Near Atlanta, Georgia, US of A
So it is using cotton as well as ceramic, I find nothing wrong with this at all. I find it funny that after 30 years of smoking I spend so much time reading every little small detail about this new found love we call vaping. I also find it a bit ......ed as well that we are so into this nitpicking thing that we blow things out of context. We are also giving the anti vaping folks things to chew on. Now I know health is not a matter to play around with and we do indeed need to keep our eyes on this stuff, but really we are our own worst enemy at times. All we are doing is giving one more thing for people to pick up and roll with in the anti vaping crusade.

What I find disturbing is the fact that for 30 years APD smoker I never even batted an eyelash as to what I was doing, and neither did most of you. Now all of us are all over the place nit picking, while the enemy is at the gates.


I don't agree with that argument. Your argument of "Well, since we all smoked CIGARETTES beforehand, why are we going to worry about our health NOW?" is often used in defense of the yet-to-answered health risks of vaping.

First of all, being a cigarette smoker doesn't instantly make one unconcerned about their own health, well-being, or safety. Many of us were health conscious individuals, who nonetheless had unhealthy vices, habits, or environments we were working to rectify or cease.

Secondly, many of us switched from cigarettes to vaping BECAUSE we are health conscious, or concerned about our health. Brushing the health risks of vaping under the rug because we were once cigarette smokers is the exact OPPOSITE of what we should be doing. We can NOT rely on e-cig vendors and businesses to create healthy and safe e-liquids and hardware. This is an UNREGULATED industry, so we have to rely on ourselves, and the community, to help us make the most educated and positive decisions we can make.

Sharing our health concerns regarding e-cig products is exactly what we should be doing. While I agree that it is important NOT to jump to conclusions, and NOT to nitpick, it IS important for us to share our own experiences and health concerns. That is how we grow, how we learn, and ultimately a proactive step towards taking our health into our OWN hands.



Please note, I'm not trying to pick apart your stance here.....I just notice your stance is a common one, and I feel it is just as important to present an alternate view here.

I don't know about YOU guys, but health is my number one concern here. I personally am grateful that others take it upon themselves to post their health concerns regarding vaping and vaping related products.


I do want to STRESS again though that it is HIGHLY important we don't rush to conclusions, and start panicking, or attacking a company. I can GUARANTEE you, aspire has lost a lot of profit from this issue, especially since the kanger subtank came out (perhaps conveniently) RIGHT as the moment this issue was brought to light.

It IS possible that , on kanger's behalf, this issue was brought to light to curb sales and lead consumers to kanger. The timing definitely is suspicious. I for one was going to order an Aspire Atlantis tank for christmas, and when this issue was brought up, I cancelled my order. I know for a fact a LARGE number of people went with the kanger subtank instead of the atlantis specifically due to this issue.


The smartest thing Aspire could have done here, was to re-design the coils, using only cotton, regardless of whether or not the ceramic wick material is hazardous or dangerous. Once that fear is out there, I think its impossible to convince most people the ceramic in the coils is safe. I wish them the best.
 

Vermiform

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Apr 18, 2014
530
1,615
Louisiana
Rondo, I don't want to be impolite, but did you read the thread? It's all been covered before. We all keep saying that we don't know but we need to know, that's why we keep asking. At least some of us would like to know because of potential dangers associated with inhaling crystalline fiberglass particles.

I really don't want to post and repost the same stuff over and over.

I have pretty much said everything I had to say on the subject.


What? Is someone saying there may be something wrong or unsafe about aspire coils?





























Just kidding :rickroll:
 

Firecrow

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 16, 2014
359
402
Toronto, Ontario
Thats a lot of good discussion but I will circle back on one very important point in my original post.

For me, under the conditions I vape, which may apply to others as well, the atomizer fails in a particular manner. Thermal decomposition of the cotton layer, exposing the ceramic wick to the coil. The evidence has been shown by me and others. Its not in question.

They key point is the photos I posted show the evidence of the failure. I did my part, I presented evidence of what I perceived to be a normal use case showing failure of the product to perform to what is considered "normal". It is generally accepted that evidence of combustion is not part of the normal performance envelope of an atomizer. Request for information on exposure to the ceramic wick is a result of this failure. That is clearly the manufacturers responsibility.

Inhaling any product of combustion is bad - period, full stop, go no further, no need to argue that point, its proven. It's more of a question of the exposure to those toxins that may be present that's another issue. HCN, CO, H2S, gases, particulates and aerosols.

But because the cotton is used as a protective barrier to this other substance, we are now exposed to it in an unintended side effect of using the product. That's the question I am asking them that I feel is their responsibility to research and disclose.
 

KGB7

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 23, 2014
1,334
1,274
Rockville, MD
In addition to the onus being on the manufacturer, another serious question is what you mean by "tested"?

If, for instance, you mean: "take an atty, put it on a device, run it and measure what's in the vapor", then fine, but you're missing out a whole range of "real-world variables" that will impact on what actually comes out when people use the devices. The company would, however, then have data which it could use to justify the safety of your product, even though this data is more-or-less irrelevant in real-world use (see some of the pics in this thread).

It's really, seriously, not clear what "testing" means unless rigorous protocols are created and adopted as standard. This doesn't currently happen.

So, absent of a widely-accepted testing protocol, what can be done?

Probably the only thing that can be done is for manufacturers to avoid using materials that have a risk profile that is uncertain, or that could in some circumstances (whatever these are) be dangerous.

What is the exact material being used in bvc coils and is it harmful to humans in anyway?
 

Rondo9

Super Member
Aug 30, 2014
321
98
Canada
Thats a lot of good discussion but I will circle back on one very important point in my original post.

For me, under the conditions I vape, which may apply to others as well, the atomizer fails in a particular manner. Thermal decomposition of the cotton layer, exposing the ceramic wick to the coil. The evidence has been shown by me and others. Its not in question.

They key point is the photos I posted show the evidence of the failure. I did my part, I presented evidence of what I perceived to be a normal use case showing failure of the product to perform to what is considered "normal". It is generally accepted that evidence of combustion is not part of the normal performance envelope of an atomizer. Request for information on exposure to the ceramic wick is a result of this failure. That is clearly the manufacturers responsibility.

Inhaling any product of combustion is bad - period, full stop, go no further, no need to argue that point, its proven. It's more of a question of the exposure to those toxins that may be present that's another issue. HCN, CO, H2S, gases, particulates and aerosols.

But because the cotton is used as a protective barrier to this other substance, we are now exposed to it in an unintended side effect of using the product. That's the question I am asking them that I feel is their responsibility to research and disclose.
It is not aspires intention for ppl to vape on their ceramic paper. If it was what is the point of the cotton on the edge.

I think the problem they might have presented is that people can use it for 2 weeks even if its for casual use. Like car companies stating your car go so far without needing to refill on gas but it has to be in super ideal conditions.

Let me ask you , at what wattage and how long did you use your atlantis coil before opening it up??

A good experiment someone could do for the team is open a new coil, take out the outer layer cotton and see how this ceramic paper wicks, tastes on its own. (I would totally do it but dont know how to rebuild or try to put it back without destroying it)
I bet under recommended wattage it wont taste too great, vapor production is much less. All signals you need a new coil anyways.
 
Last edited:

dr g

Moved On
ECF Veteran
Mar 12, 2012
3,554
2,406
Paradise
Probably the only thing that can be done is for manufacturers to avoid using materials that have a risk profile that is uncertain, or that could in some circumstances (whatever these are) be dangerous.

That would cover almost all materials as none of it has a known risk profile for inhalational use and you can always clock someone upside the head with a PV. Vaping simply has not ever been proven harmful, any of it.

This smacks of the overapplication of the precautionary principle we advocates rail against, which drives tobacco control.

I think that is my overarching problem with this whole "issue."
 

drunkenbatman

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 26, 2014
1,340
1,271
It's windy, USA
That would cover almost all materials as none of it has a known risk profile for inhalational use and you can always clock someone upside the head with a PV. Vaping simply has not ever been proven harmful, any of it.

To be fair, some research has been done showing some aspects of it more harmful than others -- flavorings would be a good example (cinnamon, NETs, types of oils, etc.) which I try to pass on when it seems appropriate.

This smacks of the overapplication of the precautionary principle we advocates rail against, which drives tobacco control.

I'm pretty sensitive to this, and while I entirely respect the caution I don't think that's the case. e.g., no one has done a 30yr controlled study looking at the exact amounts of diacetyl inhallation over time that cause issues, yet we know the stuff is not good for inhaling. I don't think it's overly-cautious to push vendors to disclose if they are including it in their flavor mix nor, if the vendor claimed it was safe, exactly why they felt they could say that given all that is known about it.
 

chargingcharlie

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 14, 2014
431
546
MA
To be fair, some research has been done showing some aspects of it more harmful than others -- flavorings would be a good example (cinnamon, NETs, types of oils, etc.) which I try to pass on when it seems appropriate.



I'm pretty sensitive to this, and while I entirely respect the caution I don't think that's the case. e.g., no one has done a 30yr controlled study looking at the exact amounts of diacetyl inhallation over time that cause issues, yet we know the stuff is not good for inhaling. I don't think it's overly-cautious to push vendors to disclose if they are including it in their flavor mix nor, if the vendor claimed it was safe, exactly why they felt they could say that given all that is known about it.

But, in the same way that you pointed out in your post about the guy in the cotton factory...the people with popcorn lung got it from breathing in excessive amounts of dikeytones in a factory. Or do I have that wrong? Is there any solid evidence that suggests that small amounts of diacetyl in eJuice is actually going to cause long term health issues? This isn't meant to be a snarky comment, I'm really curious.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Firecrow

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 16, 2014
359
402
Toronto, Ontario
Is there any solid evidence that suggests that small amounts of diacetyl in eJuice is actually going to cause long term health issues? This isn't meant to be a snarky comment, I'm really curious

I think that's precisely the question everyone is looking to have an answer to. Right now we are using industrial OSHA/NIOSH levels as guides for exposure levels as those are the only ones we really have for these materials - not exactly our application.
 

drunkenbatman

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 26, 2014
1,340
1,271
It's windy, USA
the people with popcorn lung got it from breathing in excessive amounts of dikeytones in a factory. Or do I have that wrong?

Sadly, the guy who made it famous was just someone who liked to eat a bag of microwaved popcorn every day. He had this ritual where he'd come home from work and pop a bag and loved the smell right as it came out of the microwave. He won $7 million, but suffers from bronchiolitis obliterans.

To my knowledge, no one knows if there is a really safe level, and definitely not for vaping which changes things. To be clear: not reaching the level of bronchiolitis obliterans doesn't mean damage isn't done, just like not reaching a root canal doesn't mean you aren't getting cavities. That's why they removed it from products even if you aren't working in a factory -- they can't know, and this stuff sneaks up. His just got so bad over years that the doctors tracked the damage back, but no one really knows if there is a safe level.

Is there any solid evidence that suggests that small amounts of diacetyl in eJuice is actually going to cause long term health issues? This isn't meant to be a snarky comment, I'm really curious.

Due to the way these things work, there hasn't been like a 20 year study exposing animals to varying amounts and such where you'd go "aha, at 10 years under this amount you're OK!" There's a whole lot of research going on, not just on diketones but other flavorings which are considered safe to consume (even ceramic fibers!) but not to inhale. Much of the research is geared at the specific ways it causes damage and less so safety threshholds, as they're trying to understand it.

There was a study published in September on eliquids with diacetyl that showed ~50% of them exposed their user to daily amounts that would exceed OSHA threshholds if they had been working in a factory. Unfortunately, even a lot of the government guidelines as to what is acceptable casual exposure in a workplace is conjecture and kind of arbitrary. And no one knows if they come close to applying when it's heated and inhaled directly, like a popcorn bag -- but my money would be on that being worse.

What we do know is that diacetyl isn't considered safe to inhale, like fiberglass and such, because we see that it damages airways in animal studies and have seen it born out in humans. And if a company came along with a diacetyl base -- which again, would be effective at making it creamy! -- and said it was safe, the onus to prove it was would be on them, not the consumer.
 
Last edited:

Rondo9

Super Member
Aug 30, 2014
321
98
Canada
To be fair, some research has been done showing some aspects of it more harmful than others -- flavorings would be a good example (cinnamon, NETs, types of oils, etc.) which I try to pass on when it seems appropriate.



I'm pretty sensitive to this, and while I entirely respect the caution I don't think that's the case. e.g., no one has done a 30yr controlled study looking at the exact amounts of diacetyl inhallation over time that cause issues, yet we know the stuff is not good for inhaling. I don't think it's overly-cautious to push vendors to disclose if they are including it in their flavor mix nor, if the vendor claimed it was safe, exactly why they felt they could say that given all that is known about it.

Sadly, the guy who made it famous was just someone who liked to eat a bag of microwaved popcorn every day. He had this ritual where he'd come home from work and pop a bag and loved the smell right as it came out of the microwave. He won $7 million, but suffers from bronchiolitis obliterans.

To my knowledge, no one knows if there is a really safe level, and definitely not for vaping which changes things. To be clear: not reaching the level of bronchiolitis obliterans doesn't mean damage isn't done, just like not reaching a root canal doesn't mean you aren't getting cavities. That's why they removed it from products even if you aren't working in a factory -- they can't know, and this stuff sneaks up. His just got so bad over years that the doctors tracked the damage back, but no one really knows if there is a safe level.



Due to the way these things work, there hasn't been like a 20 year study exposing animals to varying amounts and such where you'd go "aha, at 10 years under this amount you're OK!" There's a whole lot of research going on, not just on diketones but other flavorings which are considered safe to consume (even ceramic fibers!) but not to inhale. Much of the research is geared at the specific ways it causes damage and less so safety threshholds, as they're trying to understand it.

There was a study published in September on eliquids with diacetyl that showed ~50% of them exposed their user to daily amounts that would exceed OSHA threshholds if they had been working in a factory. Unfortunately, even a lot of the government guidelines as to what is acceptable casual exposure in a workplace is conjecture and kind of arbitrary. And no one knows if they come close to applying when it's heated and inhaled directly, like a popcorn bag -- but my money would be on that being worse.

What we do know is that diacetyl isn't considered safe to inhale, like fiberglass and such, because we see that it damages airways in animal studies and have seen it born out in humans. And if a company came along with a diacetyl base -- which again, would be effective at making it creamy! -- and said it was safe, the onus to prove it was would be on them, not the consumer.
Aspire has said their materials do not contain fiberglass. Why do you keep stating otherwise?
 

KGB7

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 23, 2014
1,334
1,274
Rockville, MD

chargingcharlie

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 14, 2014
431
546
MA
That's an interesting claim when their own released report describes it as "Fiberglass" in the first sentence.

I read that too, but I'm also curious if it was an error in translation. I guess we really won't know until if/when they release more details.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

chargingcharlie

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 14, 2014
431
546
MA
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread