Chest Xray-Lungs & Vaping

[mwa102464]

I've been wondering lately about the lungs and if there really clearing up at all by vaping. I see the color of liquids and how they turn darker in tanks, what happens inside of Atty's/Carto's and everything sure looks like it's turning dark, black, and just yucky. This has me really wondering what effect it is having on our lungs.

Has anyone had any chest X-Rays that has quite smoking for a year or two and has been vaping all that time ? I would love to see an X-Ray of an ex smoker who's lungs have cleared up from stopping the cigarettes and who has been vaping to see if they have turned pink again or if there still black. I know the tar from Cigarettes turns them black and we arent vaping tar but I'm really wondering about vaping and how it's effecting the lungs and I would like to get an X-Ray of my own and I've been thinking about doing it just to see what they look like now after quitting smokes and vaping for some time now? Opinion welcome of course ???

 

[six]

I haven't had any x-rays, but I can say this:

For the first couple of months after I stopped smoking, I was still coughing up the occasional chunk of crap. And, I think every smoker knows that sort of lung butter I'm talking about that obviously has tar and solid-looking bits of grey and black. - I recently had a cold and was coughing a lot. The cough became productive after a couple of days and none of the stuff coming out of my lungs looked like tar any more.

 

[ShannonA]

Here's a link to one posted on another site

 

[nocturn4l3030]

Here's a link to one posted on another site

that's friggin amazing.. i'm damn convinced!

 

[jjcordone]

Thank you very much for posting this, it's very inspirational!
PAD+ smoker for 30+ years. Vaping has cut my smoking in half and I'm trying to get completely off them.
Damn cigarettes really have a hold on me!
I ran out of cigarettes last night and today is going to be my first day vaping only.
I was searching ECF for stories like this to bookmark and read when I need the inspiration to fight the urge harder.
Thanks again!

 

[TomCatt]

Thanks for the question mwa, that led to Shannon (thanks Shannon!) posting the link to the x-rays!

Hang in there JJ!

 

[mwa102464]

Here's a link to one posted on another site

Wow, thanks ShannonA, that's a pretty impressive change in those lungs from smoking to vaping in my opinion.

 

[DDD]

Not to step on anyone's toes, or dispute the fact that vaping has got to be better than smoking, those chest films are misleading. Chest xrays do NOT show tar buldup, or damage due to smoking unless there is significant emphysema. The first film shows an opacity that is either a pneumonia, old scarring or some other phenomenon, and the second film does not show that. The difference in films, in terms of color, has more to do with exposure-that is, the second film is much more exposed than the first, making it much darker. This may give the false impression that the lungs are much clearer. The only difference between the first and second film really is the absence of the right upper lobe density (which is not tar buildup).

To my knowledge (I'm a physician) there have been no controlled studies on vaping in any significant way. No one knows what inhaling VG or PG all day can do, over a long period of time. If you want to explore that just google 'pubmed' and go to the link. There you can search for all legit health related, medical journal articles. Try different search terms such as smoking alternatives, vaping etc. There you will see the research (or lack of it.) Common sense has us believe that it has got to be better than inhaling burning plant material every 15 minutes of our waking life, and I'm sure it is-but I doubt its harmless. This lack of study-is some legit cause of concern for the FDA-in addition to other politics etc.

 

[John Phoenix]

Not to step on anyone's toes, or dispute the fact that vaping has got to be better than smoking, those chest films are misleading. Chest xrays do NOT show tar buldup, or damage due to smoking unless there is significant emphysema. The first film shows an opacity that is either a pneumonia, old scarring or some other phenomenon, and the second film does not show that. The difference in films, in terms of color, has more to do with exposure-that is, the second film is much more exposed than the first, making it much darker. This may give the false impression that the lungs are much clearer. The only difference between the first and second film really is the absence of the right upper lobe density (which is not tar buildup).

To my knowledge (I'm a physician) there have been no controlled studies on vaping in any significant way. No one knows what inhaling VG or PG all day can do, over a long period of time. If you want to explore that just google 'pubmed' and go to the link. There you can search for all legit health related, medical journal articles. Try different search terms such as smoking alternatives, vaping etc. There you will see the research (or lack of it.) Common sense has us believe that it has got to be better than inhaling burning plant material every 15 minutes of our waking life, and I'm sure it is-but I doubt its harmless. This lack of study-is some legit cause of concern for the FDA-in addition to other politics etc.

Doctor, what do you say about the PG studies that have been done.. you know they do use PG for inhalers and have for 50 years.. surely there must have been some conclusive evidence come out in all that time.

 

[congaman]

Do the old toilet tissue test. Take a sheet of toilet tissue and blow analog smoke through it. Eeeck. Next, take another peice and blow e-cig vapor through it. Ahhhhhh, clean and clear!

 

[Levitas]

Doctor, what do you say about the PG studies that have been done.. you know they do use PG for inhalers and have for 50 years.. surely there must have been some conclusive evidence come out in all that time.

Good question. I'd further this along by asking, how much does propylene glycol change when it is boiled/heated?

 

[DDD]

I don't know the answer to that entirely, as using PG as a binder in a simple spray inhaler-may be different than vaporizing it along with oil (flavor) and alcohol. I'm not arguing a point, just saying that I don't know. Nobody does. It is not the same.

I haven't really cared to heavily study the matter-as a 2 pk a day nonfilter smoker for 29 years-i know this has got to be better-along with no smell, ashes etc. Good enough for me right now.

I posted because those films give the appearance of some kind of magical change in the lung- and people shouldn't be mislead to think that that is what it shows. Its like comparing an underexposed picture of clouds, with an overexposed picture of the same clouds-one might look completely cloudy and the other much more clear.

 

[John Phoenix]

I did some searching on Pubmed and some thing look encouraging for the use of PG such as:

Toxicological considerations on the use of propylene glycol as a humectant in cigarettes.
Gaworski CL, Oldham MJ, Coggins CR.
Source

Altria Client Services, 601 East Jackson Street, Richmond, VA 23261, USA. Charles.L.Gaworski@altria.com
Abstract

Propylene glycol (PG) is a humectant commonly used in cigarettes. Previous toxicological examinations of the effects on the addition of PG to tobacco used mixtures with several other flavoring agents. In the present work, toxicological comparisons were made of experimental cigarettes containing no added PG against otherwise similar cigarettes with three different amounts of PG added to the tobacco. The main toxicological comparison was a sub-chronic inhalation study with mainstream smoke in Sprague-Dawley rats (exposures of 150 mg/m(3) of total particulate matter, 6h exposure per day, for 90 consecutive days). The target PG concentrations in the tobacco of the four cigarette types were 0, 4, 7 and 10%. Additional studies with mainstream smoke were bacterial mutagenicity (5 Salmonella strains, both with and without metabolic activation, particulate phase only), cytotoxicity of both particulate and gas/vapor phases (using the neutral red uptake assay), and analytical chemistry (41 analytes). The graded inclusion of PG into experimental cigarettes resulted in increases in the smoke concentrations of propylene oxide, at very low concentrations. Broadly similar responses were seen across the four cigarette types, and the responses were similar to those previously described in the scientific literature. The addition of PG to experimental cigarettes reduced concentrations of some smoke components (e.g. nicotine), but had minimal effects on the biological responses. Most of the changes produced in the 90-days of exposure were resolved in a 42-day post-inhalation period.

Toxicological considerations on the use of propyle... [Toxicology. 2010] - PubMed result

Turns out PG may reduce effects of nicotine, so if we use PG, it may be helping us cut down on any damage from nicotine.

And,

Safety and Toxicology of Cyclosporine in Propylene Glycol after 9-Month Aerosol Exposure to Beagle Dogs.
Niven R, Lynch M, Moutvic R, Gibbs S, Briscoe C, Raff H.
Source

1 APT Pharmaceuticals , Burlingame, California.
Abstract

Abstract Background: Cyclosporine inhalation solution (CIS) delivered via nebulization is under evaluation for the prevention of chronic rejection post-lung transplant. A 300-patient randomized, controlled clinical trial (CYCLIST) is expected to be completed late in 2011. In support of this trial, a chronic inhalation toxicology study in dogs has been completed. Methods: To mimic the clinical setting, animals (four/sex/dose plus two/sex/dose in the control and high dose recovery groups) were exposed to aerosolized CIS, via nose-only exposure, three times per week for 9 months at targeted inhaled doses of 0 (air), 4, 12, and 24 mg/kg. In addition, the potential for persistence or reversibility of any toxic effects were assessed after a 6-week recovery period. The toxicological endpoints included clinical observations, body-weight, food consumption, toxicokinetics, clinical chemistry, and histopathology. Results: All dogs receiving CIS completed the study with the only consistent observations being excessive salivation and changes in minute ventilation. There was no limiting lung or systemic toxicity associated with exposure to CIS, and the only possible drug-related effect was an observation of benign fibroadenoma tissue in the mammary glands of the high-dose female recovery group. Toxicokinetic data showed that cyclosporine is initially absorbed rapidly with little drug remaining in lung tissue or blood 24 h after the end of dosing. Conclusion: The study supports the pulmonary and systemic safety of aerosolized CIS at expected lung dose levels/kg of up to 12 times greater than the average dose patients are receiving in the CYCLIST trial

Safety and Toxicology of Cyclosporine in Propylene... [J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv. 2011] - PubMed result

There is a whole bunch of studies just on PG inhalation. See here: propylene glycol inhalation - PubMed result

Interesting reading, But I'd still like the Doctor, DDD chime in on this.

Edit: I see your post, Thank you Doctor.. You may want to reply to this too.

 

[DDD]

In short, I don't know. No one does. There is a difference between PG as a binder in a spray inhaler-and inhaling vaporized PG, flavor oils, and alcohol. I'm not arguing any point here-just saying no one knows for sure about the risks. But to give an analogy-they have studied coffee every which way, and there are plenty of conflicting findings (antioxidant, antialzheimers effect vs increased homocysteine levels).

As a 2pk a day nonfilter smoker for 29 years-i believe this has to be better-and that is good enough for me right now.

I posted because I thought the films where misleading, and people might see the drastic change and think it was real (besides the lung density). Its like comparing an under exposed photo of clouds and an over exposed photo of clouds. One looks miraculously clearer-and it is simply misleading.

 

[Stownz]

In short, I don't know. No one does. There is a difference between PG as a binder in a spray inhaler-and inhaling vaporized PG, flavor oils, and alcohol. I'm not arguing any point here-just saying no one knows for sure about the risks. But to give an analogy-they have studied coffee every which way, and there are plenty of conflicting findings (antioxidant, antialzheimers effect vs increased homocysteine levels).

As a 2pk a day nonfilter smoker for 29 years-i believe this has to be better-and that is good enough for me right now.

I posted because I thought the films where misleading, and people might see the drastic change and think it was real (besides the lung density). Its like comparing an under exposed photo of clouds and an over exposed photo of clouds. One looks miraculously clearer-and it is simply misleading.

Appreciate your input on this. I know engines inside and out but x rays I'm clueless

Sent from my A500 using Tapatalk

 

[John Phoenix]

I understand about the x-rays and know you haven't studied this in depth. Thank you for your answer. I agree this needs much more study. We all wanted to quit smoking, not trade one bad thing for something else that might kill us. Your point on coffee is well taken.

 

[ShannonA]

Don't shoot me I'm just the messenger! Thanks doc for clearuing that up.

 

[DDD]

I apologize for the double post-i wasn't just repeating myself-but responding from a blackberry and it looked like my response didn't go thru-so I typed it again. Now I see they both went through, like a broken record. Lol.

Of course no one is trying to shoot the messenger-just clarify any possible misunderstanding that few may see.

I should take a closer look at this, and I will. I'll find this post and gather up what I can in the next day or so.

For now-what I should do is get 100 rats, and make them vape bobas bounty on my 6 volt grand, a thousand times a day, and another group of rats breathes a humidifier all day-over six months to one year and see which group is happier. I know which group I'd rather be in! Seriously though, that is probably the types of studies they'd have to do-as juice has a few things in it. My guess is that pulmonologists (lung doctors-which I am not) are interested in this and probably thinking about ways to look at it.

 

[John Phoenix]

what I should do is get 100 rats, and make them vape bobas bounty on my 6 volt grand, a thousand times a day, and another group of rats breathes a humidifier all day-over six months to one year and see which group is happier.

You do This and get it on Video and I will make you Rich! Heck, I don't even want any money.. just a few PV's and seeing this will be well worth it ! LOL

 

[DDD]

BTW-no one should delude themselves into thinking that vaping is free of any bad effects. We haven't talked at all here about the nicotine itself-we know that nicotine is a toxin, and is related to hypertensive and other cardiac risks (in any form-gum, patch etc). People argued in the 50s-60s that they didn't know that cig smoking was bad-because the science was not there at that time. We certainly shouldn't have needed hi falutin' scientific studies to show that inhaling smoke all day long for a lifetime is bad. Likewise-everyone should suspect that inhaling juice (forgetting the nicotine points above) with its colorants, oils etc all day long for years will be bad. The point is that it is probably less bad than some.

This may be some heresy here, and realize that I love vaping more than sliced bread...but this path of vaping might be best seen as an extended harm reduction path to quitting smoking, that will also need to be quit at some point. Probably not reasonable at all to think you can vape a lifetime scott free.
There is an old addage-if a medication has zero side effects, then it has zero effects.