The costs of running this huge site are paid for by ads. Please consider registering and becoming a Supporting Member for an ad-free experience. Thanks, ECF team.

Brace yourselves new Formaldehype junk study to be released Jan 21

Discussion in 'Media and General News' started by DrMA, Jan 20, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Image has been removed.
URL has been removed.
Email address has been removed.
Media has been removed.
  1. DrMA

    DrMA Ultra Member ECF Veteran

    Jan 26, 2013
    Seattle area
    Twitter is abuzz with anticipation for another conflicted and junk manufactured study purporting to show lots and lots of formaldehyde in ecig vapor.
    https://twitter.com/vapemestoopid/status/557661232447361025

    Watch this thread for updates.

    Screen cap of one of the figures:
    [​IMG]
    Source: https://twitter.com/Jake2001/status/557666251427020802/photo/1

    UPDATE:
    Response from Clive Bates: http://www.clivebates.com/?p=2706
    Response from AVA and CASAA: http://vaping.info/news/2015/new-e-cig-study-hypes-formaldehyde-fears-based-faulty-experiments
    Response from Dr. Farsalinos: http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/2015/191-form-nejm
    Update from Dr. F.: http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/2015/192-form-ver
    Response from Dr. Hajek: http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2015/01/22/formaldehyde-in-e-cigarettes-expert-responds/
    ECITA: http://www.ecita.org.uk/ecita-blog/first-burn-barrel-then-scrape-it-commentary-letter-published-nejm
    Brad Rodu: http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2015/01/bogus-research-on-formaldehyde-in-e-cig.html
    NNA: http://nnalliance.org/blog/80-yet-another-formaldehyde-study-blog
    Jacob Sullum: http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/22/does-formaldehyde-make-e-cigarettes-wors?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reason%2FHitandRun+%28Reason+Online+-+Hit+%26+Run+Blog%29

    First hit:
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/21/usa-health-ecigarettes-idUSL1N0UZ24620150121

    MSM:
    http://www.kgw.com/story/news/health/2015/01/21/lab-tests-imply-formaldehyde-risk-in-some-e-cigarette-vapor/22125965/

    Actual Study:
    http://t.co/9JxhQBawf3
     
  2. caramel

    caramel Vaping Master

    Dec 23, 2014
    If anyone is concerned about aldehydes. They are strong irritants. You can feel them. Load your rig with your fav juice in 0 nic. If you get any TH / raspy feeling then lower the voltage. Beyond that you'll need lab equipment, but as a quick sanity check this will work.
     
  3. caramel

    caramel Vaping Master

    Dec 23, 2014
    Given that these folks found 6x more aldehydes than in cigarettes. And since most of us remember the burn/itch that cig smoke will give you when getting in your eyes. And which doesn't happen with vape. One might suspect that they were actually studying dry hits under their "high voltage" designation. Which would be quite reconforting as it would mean that 1 dry hit is equivalent to 6 cigarette puffs.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. pennysmalls

    pennysmalls Squonkmeister Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jul 26, 2013
    Indiana
  5. caramel

    caramel Vaping Master

    Dec 23, 2014
    Exactly. To which I would add: does the original article disclose the type/model of the atomizer and the dissipated power? Something like "we used a nautilus mini at 10 respectively 30W" would definitely give us some idea of what exactly they were doing. Of course, puff information (like 10 puffs of 5 seconds each drawing x liters of gaseous compound") would clarify this even better.

    Otherwise I can publish a study where I show abnormal emissions of car engines at high vs low rpm. Conveniently forgetting to mention that I was severely redlining and destroyed several engines in the process.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. WhiteHighlights

    WhiteHighlights Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Sep 26, 2013
    Boston, MA, USA
    Sadly IMHO the New England Journal of Medicine has lost all credibility, especially in regards to e-cigs. They've published a series of articles that are all FUD without any reasonable attempt at putting the risks in perspective. And let us not forget the most disgusting piece of crock that nicotine is the gateway to other drugs.
     
  7. JustJulie

    JustJulie CASAA Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Jan 30, 2009
    Des Moines, IA
    A link to Clive's letter should be posted in every single news article that talks about the formaldehyde study. It's eloquent and easily understood . . . and, as usual, it's spot-on.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. pennysmalls

    pennysmalls Squonkmeister Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jul 26, 2013
    Indiana
    You guys what does FUD stand for?
     
  9. caramel

    caramel Vaping Master

    Dec 23, 2014
  10. pennysmalls

    pennysmalls Squonkmeister Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jul 26, 2013
    Indiana
    Thank you caramel, makes sense!
     
  11. readeuler

    readeuler Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jul 17, 2014
    Ohio, USA
    I was going to say Fanatical Use of Deception, but I guess that works too :p
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Jman8

    Jman8 Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Jan 15, 2013
    Wisconsin
    I kinda like when their junk science comes out. Exposes just how fallacious the original data on "smoking kills" (or even harms) actually is. But yeah, I know, the sad reality is that some people won't give eCigs a try based on this propaganda.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Kent C

    Kent C ECF Guru Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jun 12, 2009
    NW Ohio US
    See SOTU :facepalm:
     
  14. stevegmu

    stevegmu Moved On ECF Veteran

    With high power vaping come greater risks...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Jman8

    Jman8 Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Jan 15, 2013
    Wisconsin
    With high power ANTZ comes greater propaganda....
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Kent C

    Kent C ECF Guru Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jun 12, 2009
    NW Ohio US
    Here's the objective study that they had to disprove.....

    Assessment of e-cigarette safety by comparing the chemical composition of e-cigarette aerosol and cigarette smoke from reference traditional cigarette | esmokinginstitute.com

    "The results for e-cigarette aerosol and traditional cigarette smoke where compared. Studies of aerosol created after evaporating Mild Black (intensity 14 mg/ml) and Volish Platinum High (18 mg/ml) liquids show that the aerosol entering the lungs of the e-cigarette smoker does not contain any harmful substances (or that their concentration was below the detection threshold for this method)..."

    [​IMG]

    And they leave out the science regarding carcinogens and formaldehyde (which itself is not a carcinogenic):

    http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/media-general-news/626784-e-cigarettes-10-times-more-cancerstuff-than-analog-says-japan-researcher-10.html#post14701947

    So there is a pecking order in which materials can potentially do the most harm and also 'tumor promoters' (not necessarily carcinogenic themselves) and 'co-carcinogens' - wiki: "A Co-carcinogen is a chemical that promotes the effects of a carcinogen in the production of cancer. Usually, the term is used to refer to chemicals that are not carcinogenic on their own."

    Formaldehyde is generally considered a 'co-carcinogen'. Much lower on the totem pole than the PAHs and NNKs above. And since it is not carcinogenic on its own, and only 'promotes the effects of an actual carcinogen', this is where a misunderstanding of the 'players' and 'rules' of the process, can cause a scare. And most journalists don't likely get it either. :)

    For example, IF there are no carcinogens - unlike with tobacco combustion - for formaldehyde to 'promote the effects', then formaldehyde isn't 'fulfilling' it's role as a 'co-carcinogenic' and no carcinogenic effects result from its presence.
     
  17. pennysmalls

    pennysmalls Squonkmeister Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jul 26, 2013
    Indiana
    Just how high is to high though? Isn't Dr. Farsalino's doing a study on that now?

    Anyway- I vape at .5 ohm on a regular basis and honestly can't see my set up ever producing such toxic results unless my unit's fire button was somehow depressed for an extended time. And no vaper in their right mind would take a drag off an attie that had been firing for that long. I'd sure like to know what wicking material was being used and at what temp and for how long the fire button was depressed.

    One thing is for sure someone needs to tap these researchers on the shoulder and say "Dude, your doing it wrong"
     
  18. Texasbox

    Texasbox Senior Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jan 9, 2015
    Dallas,Tx
    I think it's a big crock os... cigarette companies are likely behind these studies being done. I agree if they were to publish manufacture names and usage of equipment this would go down the drain. More then likely they sucked the wick dry and recorded the readings after. Who does that...SMH :-(

    Sent from the dust in front of you!
     
  19. Kent C

    Kent C ECF Guru Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jun 12, 2009
    NW Ohio US
    While there can be problems, none of their procedures approximate the actual use of sub-ohm vaping. And there are solutions which this study ignores or that they're ignorant of - namely rDNA-40 temp control - where sub-ohm'ers are going now. Free markets offer solutions. Gov't intervention freezes innovation and ends up with results opposite of the 'safety' they presume to provide.
     
  20. DrMA

    DrMA Ultra Member ECF Veteran

    Jan 26, 2013
    Seattle area
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice