Big tobacco take on e-cigarette's health issue

[dalr]

Hi!

Yesterday evening, I spent the evening with a friend working for a big tobacco name as a lab researcher. He saw me vaping and flat out told me that it was way worse than an analog, according to tests he had conducted himself.

His argument was that of all e-cigarettes models he tested, none were able to produce consistent temperature of the atomizer. It meant that the nicotine contained in the e-liquid would react differently between two tokes. As such, a "burnt" nicotine molecule would produce cancerous molecules way worse than in an analog. He attributed this behavior to the e-cigarette's inability to control the delivery of e-liquid to the atomizer. When underfed, the atomizer would burn too hot, while when overflown, the atomizer would light up to a lower temperature.

Consequently, he mentioned the inability of an e-cigarette to control the size of the vapor drops: the biggest (low temperature) would get stuck in the throat, while the smallest (burnt) would go as far as the alveolars of the lungs.

Before starting vaping, I have read almost any study I could lay my hands on and none mentioned this in particular. When I confronted my friend with this, he mentioned than even the biggest universities didn't have the testing equipment big tobacco industries had.

His advice to me was: if you must vape, do it without nicotine. If you need your nicotine, light up a ..., it's way less harmful to you.

I have known this friend for a long time and completely trust him. I know that he wouldn't try big tobacco propaganda on me and he looked genuinely worried seeing me vaping. This evening has left me pondering on what he told me. I'd be quite interested to hear your opinion (or first-hand lab knowledge) on this. Is there really cause for concern?

 

[cmknight]

If it really is as bad as he says it is, why are BT companies branching out into e-cig sales?

 

[dalr]

If it really is as bad as he says it is, why are BT companies branching out into e-cig sales?

Are they yet? It'd be interesting to see how different they products are from "ours".

Has anyone any insight on what I've been told?

 

[ut1205]

Something smells fishy here.

 

[Tontomoses]

So the message is: big tobacco should be put in charge of every major scientific study on earth because they have better testing equipment than everyone else, and that study should include a cure for cancer a horrific disease that is caused by their cigarettes but for some reason they continue to sell a gazillion of them per year.... And we need to be thankful to them for saving our lives with an ecig alternative? I'll take my chances on that one lol!

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

[03FXDWG]

Uh, if it burns in a PV, it definitely burns in an analog and yes, at least 3 of the big tobacco companies are heavily invested in electronic versions. What does your friend do for BT? Methinks I smell a troll.

 

[wv2win]

Maybe your friend actually believes his own comments but I really don't think his position is plausible. I find it hard to believe that the studies done by university researchers, such as at Drexel University in Philadelphia, are inferior to the testing done by tobacco companies.

And since your friend mentioned "atomizers", I'm sure the only PV's he studied are the VASTLY inferior models made by Big Tobacco, like Blu, which are sold in gas stations for $9. Most cig-a-like models are very inconsistent. Most of the models we use are "regulated" and provide a much more consistent power level. It's ironic, considering your friends comments, that Big Tobacco makes no PV's like the ones most of us use and I'm sure have no intention of ever providing a better PV.

Here is the latest study I referenced:

CASAA: New study confirms that chemicals in electronic cigarettes pose minimal health risk

 

[e-pipeman]

This is the second post that I have read today making unverifiable assertions in the first person. This is a rhetorical ploy that means the reader feels reluctant to challenge what is said because they have effectively been asked to trust the poster. This style of post makes me feel uncomfortable.

I also feel that the thread title is misleading as the reported comments of a "friend" can hardly be taken to be the official views of Big Tobacco.

 

[dalr]

Hey, to all of you: don't take my post as a provocation or anything like that. For what it's worth, I really had this discussion and I make no assumption whatsoever on this. I'm just genuinely intrigued by what I heard and thought I'd ask the community on this. Of course it's hearsay, but it has me wondered. I never said it is proof of something, just what I heard and nothing more.

Instead of calling me a troll, I'd really love to read something here adding to the conversation. Darn, susceptible much?

 

[Racehorse]

If it really is as bad as he says it is, why are BT companies branching out into e-cig sales?

That's not exactly a good question, since BT had no problems poisioning us in the past.

According to my Dr. unless you have certain health problems, nicotine is not bad for you. So nicotine molecules getting stuck in throat or going deeper doesn't bother me per se. Flavorings and such, however, do worry me. I would love to know what the actual cell damage is when getting hit with eliquid, etc.

However, switzerland researchers tend to be on cutting edge of these things, I will give your friend a wee bit of credit since he is talking about "how" the nicotine is actually vaporized on the atty. I DO agree that BT has the very best testing equipment, there is no doubt in my mind about that, they have it all figured out, don't kid yourselves.

Since there is no research proving what your friend said is true or false yet, we can't just toss his thoughts, IMHO.

Bottom line for me is that I have to stay off the cigarettes, which due to their combustible nature, I am quite sure are worse than ecigs. HOw much worse I do not know yet, but I know they are worse.

My whole feeling about vaping, from the very start, has been "less is more". I don't vape at super high temps, I spend at least part of the day vaping unflavored nic solution, and I don't vape at higher nicotine levels than I really *need*. Sometimes, at night, I even vape ZERO NIC solution with no flavorings.

I don't think it's right calling somebody a troll every time somebody muses on the safety of ecigs. If it ws totally safe it would not be called harm reduction. It would be called harm free. As for friends, I have friends who designed space station freedom, and researchers in aerospace, and you can be DARN SURE I take what they say about aircraft quite seriously. That is because they have extensive specialized training that I do not have, and if they have a tidbit of info to offer, I'm going to at least liisten.

 

[Racehorse]

Dalr is a fellow vaper. Let's remember that before we call somebody a troll?

We have some resident chemists etc. here on the board who have, in the past, admitted there are a few things they find worrisome about ecigs, but can't say for sure. Just because they have 5,000+ posts, are they spared the "troll" label?

I think it's going to look bad for us as a community if nobody can EVER bring up possible problems they see with vaping. We will then be as close minded as the ANTZ, right?

As a person who is open minded and capable of some critical thinking, I like to think of myself as open to information.......I can afterwards do my own research, and then go to my doctor, my friends who are pharmacists and chemists, etc. and say "what does this theory sound like to you? Possible or not possible?"

I mean, the ONLY confirmed research we have so far is that which has been done, with actual test subjects. Everything else is still on the table and up in the air, isn't it?

 

[WillyZee]

are you sure your buddy doesn't work in tobacco sales disguised as lab research?

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em: U.S. tobacco giant Lorillard buys e-cigarette company Blu Ecig in $135m deal.

 

[KurrptSenate]

since the temperature of the atomizer isn't regulated that makes the nicotine more dangerous.

...

...

that makes no sense.

 

[Racehorse]

I find it hard to believe that the studies done by university researchers, such as at Drexel University in Philadelphia, are inferior to the testing done by tobacco companies.

I didn't see anything specific in the study that was done at Drexel on exactly how nicotine molecules are vaporized DIFFERENTLY on different temperature atomizers and the effect of consistency of atomizer temperatures on nicotine eliquids? (ie. esp. the "burnt" hit?)

That was what the researcher above was futzing around with.....maybe I missed reading that part of the Drexel study, can somebody link me to the appropriate test results on that?

Unless I missed reading that part.

 

[dalr]

That's not exactly a good question, since BT had no problems poisioning us in the past.

According to my Dr. unless you have certain health problems, nicotine is not bad for you. So nicotine molecules getting stuck in throat or going deeper doesn't bother me per se. Flavorings and such, however, do worry me. I would love to know what the actual cell damage is when getting hit with eliquid, etc.

However, switzerland researchers tend to be on cutting edge of these things, I will give your friend a wee bit of credit since he is talking about "how" the nicotine is actually vaporized on the atty. I DO agree that BT has the very best testing equipment, there is no doubt in my mind about that, they have it all figured out, don't kid yourselves.

Since there is no research proving what your friend said is true or false yet, we can't just toss his thoughts, IMHO.

Bottom line for me is that I have to stay off the cigarettes, which due to their combustible nature, I am quite sure are worse than ecigs. HOw much worse I do not know yet, but I know they are worse.

My whole feeling about vaping, from the very start, has been "less is more". I don't vape at super high temps, I spend at least part of the day vaping unflavored nic solution, and I don't vape at higher nicotine levels than I really *need*. Sometimes, at night, I even vape ZERO NIC solution with no flavorings.

I don't think it's right calling somebody a troll every time somebody muses on the safety of ecigs. If it ws totally safe it would not be called harm reduction. It would be called harm free. As for friends, I have friends who designed space station freedom, and researchers in aerospace, and you can be DARN SURE I take what they say about aircraft quite seriously. That is because they have extensive specialized training that I do not have, and if they have a tidbit of info to offer, I'm going to at least liisten.

THANK YOU for this.

I have no knowledge in chemistry or the medical field. This is why I'm looking for a second opinion from people with actual knowledge and competences. I know there are many people of such skills here, that's why I'm asking.

- Is there any truth about nicotine altering itself at high temperatures? If so, can it be harmful?
- Is there any risk associated with vapor drops getting stuck in the throat (for how long?) or going into the alveolars (?) of the lungs? What's the worse that could happen?

Now let's get a deep breath and let some steam off Happy vaping!

 

[Racehorse]

I am merely open to any and all information when it comes to my behaviors and how they relate to my health.

I use real M.D.s for my doctors, but my main guy is a Functional Medicine M.D./Internist.

Those are the people that don't just hand out pharmaceutical pills....the specialty is for those who encourage their patients to use lifestyle changes to improve their health.

I was able to lower my (very high) cholesterol by almost 100 points just using lifestyle changes.....a feat my doctor says has shown better results than ALL his patients on statin drugs. Yes, i"m proud of myself.

So i am always open to ideas.....I don't believe in putting down somebody's idea unless you can prove it wrong OR you have direct experience and expertise in the subject matter and can show that they are wrong.

There are always things we can do to minimize our health risks. Always.

So, I took up vaping as harm reduction to get away from smoking. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to keep researching how I can minimize my risks with vaping. That would just be silly.

 

[flowerpots]

I think your friend may believe what he is telling you, otherwise, he is not a good friend - and you say he is, so my guess is that he believes this to be true. I don't doubt that they are busy bees trying to find some plausible reason(s) to ban vaping, even if it makes no sense logically, chemically, or medically. He is probably stuck in that environment and affected by it. There are thousands of reported chemicals in analogs (cigarettes). Whether you have a chemistry or medical background or not, this begs the question, how can a liquid and delivery device that are not on fire, and do not deliver those chemicals, be worse? Cigarettes contain carbon monoxide, tar, and known carcinogens (tested, double tested, confirmed). Even with the lack of evidence we have with vaping, especially over decades, to follow vapers and their health status over time, people who quit smoking and vape report better breathing capacity, increased vitality, better overall general health. I don't think this can be dismissed as subjective with so many people saying the same thing. You will hear strong opinions here in support of vaping and against BT and BP, so the bias is on both sides (vapers and those opposed) - I don't see it being any different on either side in that respect, but it's obvious authorities are trying to hijack this burgeoning community and take the money for themselves. That is a big difference with selfish ulterior motives that fuel the fervor.

There is a decent amount of info on this site about what BP and BT are doing and have done in the past. I will try to link some threads here for you explore.

Here is a list of chemical additives in cigarettes. Most of us could not tell what they are, where they are derived from, or what problems they cause, but just the sheer quantity of chemicals added in and of itself is enough to cause alarm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes

Helpful threads:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/483702-cdc-keeps-lobbying-fda-deeming-reg-misrepresenting-survey-data-cigar-use-falsely-claiming-cigars-addictive-harmful-cigarettes.html

 

[Racehorse]

I don't doubt that they are busy bees trying to find some plausible reason(s) to ban vaping

Huh?

BT has absolutely no interest in banning vaping. They are IN the ecig biz now.

Big Pharma, on the other hand, does want to ban vaping, and any other THR (tobacco harm reduction) methods.
Big Pharma wants to call ecigs a medical device NRT..........instead of THR (tobacco harm reduction). The FDA works for Big Pharma.

This is about money anyway. Who gets it. IMHO, the way this will come down is that BT $$ will help at least in the beginning stages of the fight.

I'm sure BT has thrown GOBS of money at this already, but are playing it close to their chest. To me, it's always a good move to peek at somebody else's poker hand if you get the opportunity.

And that is really all the OP did. Tell us a little about BTs poker hand.

Maybe there aren't any poker players here, but it sure is damn stupid to turn down that peek, and chase the person providing it off by calling them a troll.

If in the course of wanting to sell ecigs BT wants to do studies on what heating elements/coils are not going to give off dangerous by-products. I say let them do that. Let them spend the $$. We can't even get juice vendors to spring a few lab tests, even though they can actually afford it.

Because this stuff WILL have to be proved even for ecigs to become an accepted consumer product, or even regulated, but still "legal" product.

This could have been an interesting discussion, but instead, it's just become the usual knee jerker.

 

[ut1205]

Ok, call me rude, crude and insensitive. I believe it was Ronald Regan that said "Trust but verify". In this post I am being ask to give credibility to a private conversation between two individuals that I don't even know occurred, and give "scientific credibility" to a person I don't even know if he/she exist, who is employed by a BT firm, maybe in Switzerland, that has yet to be named. Give me a break. I'll be back when this is published by a valid or even invalid source.

 

[flowerpots]

Huh? BT has absolutely no interest in banning vaping. They are IN the ecig biz now.

Agree, disagree - good debates and discussions will bring in all sides of the subject.

Yes, BT is in the e-cig business, but only for itself. It's no doubt in my mind that they will still lobby and push to monopolize the market with their products with biased testing to ban vaping as we know it now. It will either come in the form of providing misleading information such as what the OP stated, that the inconsistencies in current deliver devices are of concern, or that the batteries/mods we use are questionable in safety, or some other spin. But, they will try to oust what options we have, thereby giving consumers only their products to purchase