Brace yourselves new Formaldehype junk study to be released Jan 21

[twgbonehead]

Perhaps we (myself too) shouldn't pass judgments until all the facts and details are known. Hopefully the ones doing this study will give more details on their entire process at some point. Things are just starting to shake out now. A little more detail is given every hour.

Yes, but even on its surface, the letter is junk. The title proclaims "Hidden Formaldehyde", although they insert this comment:

How formaldehyde-releasing agents behave in the respiratory tract is unknown, but formaldehyde is
an International Agency for Research on Cancer group 1 carcinogen.

And conclude with this garbage:

If we assume that inhaling formaldehyde-releasing agents carries the same
risk per unit of formaldehyde as the risk associated with inhaling gaseous formaldehyde, then
long-term vaping is associated with an incremental lifetime cancer risk of 4.2×10 −3 . This risk is
5 times as high (as compared with the risk based on the calculation of Miyake and Shibamoto shown
in Fig. 1), or even 15 times as high (as compared with the risk based on the calculation of Counts
et al. shown in Fig. 1) as the risk associated with long-term smoking. In addition, formaldehyde-
releasing agents may deposit more efficiently in the respiratory tract than gaseous formaldehyde,
and so they could carry a higher slope factor for cancer.

So, despite the fact that cigarettes released doses of ACTUAL formaldehyde, while e-cigs released "formaldehyde-releasing" substances, they feel entitled to compare the two, even while acknowledging that they are not comparable.

ETA:

And the cardinal sin I hilighted in red. If they were being accurate, this would have read "as the risk associated with formaldehyde exposure from long-term smoking". How high is this risk?

IF everything they hypothesize is true, the risk factor is 4.2x10-3. In other words, assuming everything they say is actually true, you stand an 0.42 percent chance of getting cancer from the formaldehyde. But by that same logic, you stand only a 0.028 percent chance of getting cancer from cigarettes, so I guess I can go back to smoking them without worrying.

 

[Bill Godshall]

The reality is that, with tens of thousands of different vapor products now on the market, Big Pharma and Big Government funded ANTZ will be conducting more poorly and/or deceitfully designed studies on different vapor products just so they can generate news stories to scare the public and to lobby for FDA and other unwarranted regulations.

Based upon the comments by James Pankow and David Peyton, its clear that their goal was/is to demonize e-cigs, scare the public and urge FDA to impose regulations.

The letter sent to Peyton by Medicated Developer at
https://www.reddit.com/r/electronic...s_find_high_levels_of_cloaked_form_of/cnwwl8v
contained a statement that may result in Pankow/Peyton doing another study to demonize coffee flavored e-liquids.

The liquid you were using may also be problematic. Many liquids are known to be harmful to plastic tanks and can even dissolve them eventually leading to cracking. Coffee flavors are one of these types of juices and many have been known to have adverse effects on plastics.

 

[BadThad]

I am a scientist and analyze my companies products for formaldehyde nearly everyday.

The published article is not scientifically sound. I could write quite the diatribe describing why, but I'll just point out a couple issues.

1) NO CONTROL - All scientific experiments must have controls, none were even mentioned in the article. The obvious one would be to use 100% PG in the experiment instead of an unknown, uncharacterized efluid and ONLY this fluid.

2) NMR is a poor quantitative, instrumental technique. The most accurate measurement for CH2O is performed by using derivatization with 2,4-DNPH followed by analysis with HPLC. Alternatively, there are GC methods for CH2O that are also very quantitatively accurate.

3) POWER, no mention of watts, the most accurate way to characterize perhaps the most important part of the experiment.

A comparison to cigarettes is not valid until the experimental procedures are validated and sound. In this case, I see no mention of validation or the following of standard scientific protocol.

 

[twgbonehead]

I am a scientist and analyze my companies products for formaldehyde nearly everyday.

The published article is not scientifically sound. I could write quite the diatribe describing why, but I'll just point out a couple issues.

1) NO CONTROL - All scientific experiments must have controls, none were even mentioned in the article. The obvious one would be to use 100% PG in the experiment instead of an unknown, uncharacterized efluid and ONLY this fluid.

2) NMR is a poor quantitative, instrumental technique. The most accurate measurement for CH2O is performed by using derivatization with 2,4-DNPH followed by analysis with HPLC. Alternatively, there are GC methods for CH2O that are also very quantitatively accurate.

3) POWER, no mention of watts, the most accurate way to characterize perhaps the most important part of the experiment.

A comparison to cigarettes is not valid until the experimental procedures are validated and sound. In this case, I see no mention of validation or the following of standard scientific protocol.

Very good points! And in general, I wonder what happened to real scientific research? Seems to have been replaced with "garage experiments".

The whole experiment has too many unknowns to be considered actual scientific research. Perhaps most conspicuously, the relevant scientific question is "at what TEMPERATURE do these compounds form", which is only nominally associated with the power.

A useful scientific experiment would be to heat several liquids, using a coil, where the surface temperature of the coil could be accurately measured. Do this for pure PG, VG, 50/50, and water (or some acceptable control medium where the expected formaldehyde emissions would be 0 - in other words, a REAL control, that would help ferret out contamination, equipment errors, etc).

Once these results are in, apply accurate temperature-measurement techniques to the liquid in an e-cigarette, so that you could correlate what gets released to the operating conditions of the device.

An experiment like this would be scientifically useful (but perhaps not, as I suspect the first part has already been done). It would provide some understanding of where the emissions are coming from, and under what conditions. It would point the way towards PG or VG being more susceptible to this phenomenon, and open the door to designing temperature-regulated mods that would avoid the issue.

That would be science. This is more like a C+ version of Science Fair.

 

[caramel]

And in general, I wonder what happened to real scientific research?

The American School of Business declared that it should be run like a business. Hordes of MBAs obliged.

 

[JollyRogers]

can someone confirm for me they burned at 5v for 100 seconds or some such test? I am on lunch break and just don't have time to read and search... but that is my initial impression. subscribed!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bill Godshall]

Worst article yet on this junk study.

NBC hypes junk study on e-cigs without any fact checking; coauthor James Pankow falsely claims “the bottom line is, there are toxins and some are more than in regular cigarettes,” and “it's hard to pinpoint whether formaldehyde is the main culprit in cigarette-related cancers,” to confuse and scare.
http://www.
nbcnews.com/health/cancer/you-vape-high-levels-formaldehyde-hidden-e-cigs-n290826

 

[stevegmu]

The study found little to no formaldehyde in low power vaping and substantially more in high power vaping. Not sure why that is so difficult for some to believe or accept...

 

[Alto101]

The study found little to no formaldehyde in low power vaping and substantially more in high power vaping. Not sure why that is so difficult for some to believe or accept...

I had a feeling that you would say something like this given your posting history. The problem is that the test was not representative of how humans actually vape. The high levels of "bad stuff" they found was a direct result of what we vapers know as a dry puff. Any logical vaper would not continue vaping at a level that causes dry puffs. Please read the excellent analysis already posted in this thread.

 

[stevegmu]

I had a feeling that you would say something like this given your posting history. The problem is that the test was not representative of how humans actually vape. The high levels of "bad stuff" they found was a direct result of what we vapers know as a dry puff. Any logical vaper would not continue vaping at a level that causes dry puffs. Please read the excellent analysis already posted in this thread.

Actually, no. If you read the studies it is PG at higher power levels which is the issue concerning formaldehyde... Dry hits cause other issues... Really, I don't care. I'm a low power vaper...

 

[twgbonehead]

can someone confirm for me they burned at 5v for 100 seconds or some such test? I am on lunch break and just don't have time to read and search... but that is my initial impression. subscribed!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't believe that is correct. I believe that samples were collected by pulling in 50ml of air/vapor over a 3-second interval, then repeating.

In any case, the battery used was an Innokin VV V3, which wouldn't allow for more than a 10-second draw in any case.

 

[twgbonehead]

Worst article yet on this junk study.

NBC hypes junk study on e-cigs without any fact checking; coauthor James Pankow falsely claims “the bottom line is, there are toxins and some are more than in regular cigarettes,” and “it's hard to pinpoint whether formaldehyde is the main culprit in cigarette-related cancers,” to confuse and scare.
http://www.
nbcnews.com/health/cancer/you-vape-high-levels-formaldehyde-hidden-e-cigs-n290826

They found that vaping 3 milligrams of e-cigarette liquid at a high voltage can generate 14 milligrams of loosely affiliated or "hidden" formaldehyde.

OMG! We're facing a catastrophe! Vaping is increasing the weight of the planet, and the ultimate result is bound to be a deadly spiral into the sun......

Pankow said some e-cigarettes can burn hotter than 1,000 degrees fahrenheit.

Yes, I suppose, if you throw them into a smelting furnace.


But the best part is something I can't even quote here on ECF! He's recommending a safer alternative (as long as you don't dilute it with PG!!!!!). I suspect he's done a bit too much experimenting in that field....

 

[Alto101]

A more balanced article:

New study fires up e-cigarette debate | 2015-01-22 | ISHN

 

[readeuler]

And at this point, there is no study with detailed methodology and data on detected formaldehyde for each draw, right?

I only ask because if it were actual science, the kind that viewers at home could replicate (minus an apparatus for measuring formaldehyde, which viewers in a lab could use to replicate the study), I would buy the innokin vv3, the extremely off-brand top coil clearomizer, just so I could learn what formaldehyde tastes like. I would even practice my 30ml 3-second draws

This is assuming their results are unlike the Japanese study, with only a single aberrant measurement; that wouldn't do me any good. How would I know if I were getting the good stuff then?

 

[Jman8]

Got a link today in my email from a concerned friend regarding this information. From NPR article, no less, where Greg C.'s wisdom is found (thank God). Already sent refutation to my friend (in a friendly, diplomatic, but stern manner).

Honestly, I expect this kind of stuff going forward. ANTZ scientists gotta make a living too! And as long as "protecting the children from eCigs" is on the political table, I'm not sure how our side will ever get around these issues. Heck, some people (vapers, no less) actually believe smoking is deadly and must absolutely be kept from away from children.

Our battle will likely be uphill forever, but speaking truth and bringing balance to the Force on a daily basis is inherently rewarding.

 

[MsGoddess2U]

My issue is that they use the term "high voltage" but they do not define that term. In my line of work, high voltage is 7.2 kV, which is only one distribution powerline. Service drops are not considered "high voltage" and I'm pretty sure we don't have any set ups available to us that allow for 120V, let alone 220V! My point is simply that high voltage can mean many different things to many different ppl and, quite honestly, if any scientific study were performed by QUALIFIED scientists, it would seem to me that definition of such a vague term would be included in the release of the findings, for credibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Follow up: Just read this that Alto101 posted. Thank you for sharing this and I'll share again just in case anyone misses it, like I did, the first time around.

http://www.ishn.com/articles/100533-new-study-fires-up-e-cigarette-debate

 

[caramel]

it is PG at higher power levels which is the issue concerning formaldehyde...

The issue is failing to observe the power limits of the equipment under test.

You can happily powervape at 100W with the proper equipment.

 

[caramel]

And at this point, there is no study with detailed methodology and data on detected formaldehyde for each draw, right?

I only ask because if it were actual science, the kind that viewers at home could replicate (minus an apparatus for measuring formaldehyde, which viewers in a lab could use to replicate the study), I would buy the innokin vv3, the extremely off-brand top coil clearomizer, just so I could learn what formaldehyde tastes like. I would even practice my 30ml 3-second draws

This is assuming their results are unlike the Japanese study, with only a single aberrant measurement; that wouldn't do me any good. How would I know if I were getting the good stuff then?

You could probably purchase the same equipment they used and take a few puffs at "5V". Depending on taste / smell you could then evaluate the merits of the article.

 

[readeuler]

You could probably purchase the same equipment they used and take a few puffs at "5V". Depending on taste / smell you could then evaluate the merits of the article.

Well, my only point was that if they found a set up that reliably produces significant quantities of formaldehyde (even if, as we all suspect, the set-up has been reliably misused), I'd like to try it so I could identify formaldehyde in the future.

ETA: However, I'm not gonna hold my breath for this one, as I suspect it may be like the Japanese study in that only trials that could reasonably called outliers produced much formaldehyde, not even most of their "high voltage" tests.

 

[twgbonehead]

The issue is failing to observe the power limits of the equipment under test.

You can happily powervape at 100W with the proper equipment.

Yes, and I think throwing out the question of "What wattage" is a bad idea. Although we here might have an idea of what a CE5 does at 12 watts, it's still misleading.

The relevant question is at what TEMPERATURE the liquid is being vaporized at. There are 1000-watt (and even higher) fog machines, that can produce MASSIVE amounts of vape (and no, the "LegalVape4000" although it used a 4KW generator, was only using a 400-watt fog machine!) And they do it without creating any formaldehyde because they are temperature-regulated, and designed to vape large QUANTITIES of PG at a high rate. If they were creating even small amounts of formaldehyde, the clubs would be dead, since their customers would run screaming. (Away from the stage, towards the exits).

It's admittedly a complicated concept, but only when you bundle 10 different factors into a single experiment (which is what the "scientists" in question have done). They have talked about "voltage" (and have since disclosed the head they were using, and its resistance). But there's composition of the liquid, whether they tilted the CE4's or relied on it wicking against gravity, how long they allowed for the wick to recover, how much e-liquid they ran through the head before changing the coil (if they were even using a clearo with a changeable coil) how fast they were drawing air through the e-cig as well as all the variables associated with the construction of the head itself.

They compound the error by comparing vastly different studies (with different methodologies, measuring different things, and which are not consistent with each other) with their own, and then make predictive statements about risks based on these analyses.

THIS IS NOT LEGITIMATE SCIENCE IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM!!!!


We have our kids do science-fair so they can get an idea of what designing and conducting an experiment is like, and to let them hopefully have a little fun with science. But by the time you get your PhD, you're supposed to know the difference between a real scientific experiment, and what you got a medal for in 9th grade.

And the reviewers are supposed to know the difference, too.