@roly would you be willing to send me a quick PM, I just wanted to ask you a quick question if you don't mind. Sorry to be a pain, and I do appreciate this conversation. I understand that this topic might be more complicated than I am making it, but hopefully some things I am suggesting come true one day.
Common Sense and the Unknown
- Thread starter paladinx
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
You are obviously interested in extended safety and so am I. But I have to tell you, we are in a minority.
No vendor on ECF is allowed to make any claims of that type. It's why we exclude 33% - 50% of those who apply. The remainder often have to make changes to their sites before we will register them. Some even have claims like that in their name. That will be a slight problem when the class actions come around - and they've already started.
Diacetyl or butanedione is a buttery, creamy, popcorn-like flavor that is safe to eat but toxic to inhale. The majority of vendors have removed it from their flavors after extensive publicity on ECF. It's unlikely that this is the only flavor with health implications - but it's the only flavor with irrefutable data proving it is toxic.
It would be a very short list. A list of zero, in fact. There is no vendor that publishes a regular set of tests on a finished retail product. In fact if a vendor did so, ECF would give them some sort of award - and a ton of publicity for free.
I'll put that in plain language so there is no misunderstanding: if an ECF registered vendor provides a test or tests on a monthly basis that showed what 99.9% of the ingredients are in ONE example of ONE finished retail product - in other words a test of ONE 5ml bottle per month - then ECF will make sure that vendor gets the publicity due. That would be an industry first. There is no vendor who knows exactly (i.e. everything) that is in their finished product (or they have not published that information recently).
I see why you are asking this sort of question: you probably think that vendors actually know what is in their products. If only that were true. There may indeed be some who do, but they do not publish that information (or show us in confidence either).
I agree with you that many buyers would be interested to know that a vendor could actually prove they knew what is in their liquids. I'm not sure the number is as high as 50%, but I still think it would be enough to make publishing a full set of tests on just one bottle regularly a significant marketing advantage.
No vendor on ECF is allowed to make any claims of that type. It's why we exclude 33% - 50% of those who apply. The remainder often have to make changes to their sites before we will register them. Some even have claims like that in their name. That will be a slight problem when the class actions come around - and they've already started.
Diacetyl or butanedione is a buttery, creamy, popcorn-like flavor that is safe to eat but toxic to inhale. The majority of vendors have removed it from their flavors after extensive publicity on ECF. It's unlikely that this is the only flavor with health implications - but it's the only flavor with irrefutable data proving it is toxic.
It would be a very short list. A list of zero, in fact. There is no vendor that publishes a regular set of tests on a finished retail product. In fact if a vendor did so, ECF would give them some sort of award - and a ton of publicity for free.
I'll put that in plain language so there is no misunderstanding: if an ECF registered vendor provides a test or tests on a monthly basis that showed what 99.9% of the ingredients are in ONE example of ONE finished retail product - in other words a test of ONE 5ml bottle per month - then ECF will make sure that vendor gets the publicity due. That would be an industry first. There is no vendor who knows exactly (i.e. everything) that is in their finished product (or they have not published that information recently).
I see why you are asking this sort of question: you probably think that vendors actually know what is in their products. If only that were true. There may indeed be some who do, but they do not publish that information (or show us in confidence either).
I agree with you that many buyers would be interested to know that a vendor could actually prove they knew what is in their liquids. I'm not sure the number is as high as 50%, but I still think it would be enough to make publishing a full set of tests on just one bottle regularly a significant marketing advantage.
Regarding testing of e-liquids there is one company ( a small one at that) here in Montreal who has had their liquids lab tested and examined by medical professionals, I'll see if I can find the info. I too would like to se all companies at least take some initiative to ensure our safety, and I hope this becomes a trend in the e-liquid community...BRB
It's on the Canadians against the e-cig ban facebook page, I'll do a brief C and P of the announcements:
Jp Maltais
First and foremost, I want to say hi to you guys, and to say that this group is quite awesome. It is very nice to see that people can gather and try to make things better regarding the ecig situation here.
First of all, let me just state that I work as a PR in an e-cig company based in Montréal. That being said, I'm not here to promote our product; don't worry.
Now, last week, we received the results of some lab testing we had done. We did these testing because even though we all pretty much KNOW what is inside e-liquid, we yet, as an industry, had to have legal papers signed by chemists (or professionals) saying "yes, this is it and nothing else".
Well, we just so happen to have these papers now and, by monday, we will have run them by a doctor who is the head cardiologist in an hospital who agreed to put his signature on these papers.
I also have some very, very exciting news regarding further official, scientific publication of our lab results (peer-reviewed), but I do not want to open my mouth too much before everything is signed.
So I just wanted to say that things were moving. Let's keep hope guys; soon, our government will have no choice but to listen to our voice.
Vape on,
Julian.
+++++++++++++++++
So here is a page of the lab results we received that sums it all up quite nicely. Like we stated earlier, we did these testing to be 100% sure of what was inside OUR cartomizers. Even though we all pretty much know what is inside e-liquids, having PROOF on an official paper is something else.
The names and techniques that were used to do said testing have been censored. Please refer to Julien-Pierre Maltais' "A message to whoever it may concern" for reasons of this censorship.
The whole document being in french, I will do a translation in the "comments section".
Like · · Share · August 19
2 people like this.
Vapur Electronic Cigarettes "Results and Discussion"
This analysis was performed to determinate the concentration of propylene glycol in the sample. The amount found was 21.8%.
August 19 at 3:19pm · Like
Vapur Electronic Cigarettes The amount of glycerol found in the sample is 48.8%, while the amount of nicotine found is 0.7%.
August 19 at 3:20pm · Like
Vapur Electronic Cigarettes NO OTHER CHEMICAL COMPOUND WAS DETECTED
August 19 at 3:20pm · Like
Vapur Electronic Cigarettes The amount of water found in the sample is 28.3%.
August 19 at 3:21pm · Like
Link to the document in french
Wall Photos | Facebook
Sorry that was so long winded, it still doesn't prove that these substances are SAFE to vape for extended periods of time etc. but at least some business owners are trying to show us some facts rather than empty claims. I had seen another document on that page that had the official lab report breakdown but I'm having a hard time finding it. It is also unclear to me at this point if there were any flavors added to these carts, he says no other chemical compound was detected... I'll keep my Nancy Drew hat on and post here if I find anything else that seems relevant to the testing of e-liquid etc.
Julia
Jp Maltais
First and foremost, I want to say hi to you guys, and to say that this group is quite awesome. It is very nice to see that people can gather and try to make things better regarding the ecig situation here.
First of all, let me just state that I work as a PR in an e-cig company based in Montréal. That being said, I'm not here to promote our product; don't worry.
Now, last week, we received the results of some lab testing we had done. We did these testing because even though we all pretty much KNOW what is inside e-liquid, we yet, as an industry, had to have legal papers signed by chemists (or professionals) saying "yes, this is it and nothing else".
Well, we just so happen to have these papers now and, by monday, we will have run them by a doctor who is the head cardiologist in an hospital who agreed to put his signature on these papers.
I also have some very, very exciting news regarding further official, scientific publication of our lab results (peer-reviewed), but I do not want to open my mouth too much before everything is signed.
So I just wanted to say that things were moving. Let's keep hope guys; soon, our government will have no choice but to listen to our voice.
Vape on,
Julian.
+++++++++++++++++
So here is a page of the lab results we received that sums it all up quite nicely. Like we stated earlier, we did these testing to be 100% sure of what was inside OUR cartomizers. Even though we all pretty much know what is inside e-liquids, having PROOF on an official paper is something else.
The names and techniques that were used to do said testing have been censored. Please refer to Julien-Pierre Maltais' "A message to whoever it may concern" for reasons of this censorship.
The whole document being in french, I will do a translation in the "comments section".
Like · · Share · August 19
2 people like this.
Vapur Electronic Cigarettes "Results and Discussion"
This analysis was performed to determinate the concentration of propylene glycol in the sample. The amount found was 21.8%.
August 19 at 3:19pm · Like
Vapur Electronic Cigarettes The amount of glycerol found in the sample is 48.8%, while the amount of nicotine found is 0.7%.
August 19 at 3:20pm · Like
Vapur Electronic Cigarettes NO OTHER CHEMICAL COMPOUND WAS DETECTED
August 19 at 3:20pm · Like
Vapur Electronic Cigarettes The amount of water found in the sample is 28.3%.
August 19 at 3:21pm · Like
Link to the document in french
Wall Photos | Facebook
Sorry that was so long winded, it still doesn't prove that these substances are SAFE to vape for extended periods of time etc. but at least some business owners are trying to show us some facts rather than empty claims. I had seen another document on that page that had the official lab report breakdown but I'm having a hard time finding it. It is also unclear to me at this point if there were any flavors added to these carts, he says no other chemical compound was detected... I'll keep my Nancy Drew hat on and post here if I find anything else that seems relevant to the testing of e-liquid etc.
Julia
Thanks Sweetmeat.
They identified 50.8% of the components, which leaves another 49.2% unaccounted for.
[edit]
Sorry - didn't see one figure, so it's 99.6%.
This would be unflavored liquid, in that case. I don't think anyone adds that amount of water to a mix, so it may have been in the VG or PG.
It's useful to see what their unflavored base looks like, but that's only part of the story. At any rate it seems to indicate there is a maximum of 0.4% contaminants in the base. However it would be nice to see an explanation of the analysis method as without it we don't really know the full story. In one or more other test we know of, the water content was calculated separately, leaving a large percentage of unknown ingredients. It would be nice to see this wasn't done here. (If the water was not measured in the main test then it could have been determined separately. The purpose of the test is stated at one point to be 'to find the PG content'.)
They identified 50.8% of the components, which leaves another 49.2% unaccounted for.
[edit]
Sorry - didn't see one figure, so it's 99.6%.
This would be unflavored liquid, in that case. I don't think anyone adds that amount of water to a mix, so it may have been in the VG or PG.
It's useful to see what their unflavored base looks like, but that's only part of the story. At any rate it seems to indicate there is a maximum of 0.4% contaminants in the base. However it would be nice to see an explanation of the analysis method as without it we don't really know the full story. In one or more other test we know of, the water content was calculated separately, leaving a large percentage of unknown ingredients. It would be nice to see this wasn't done here. (If the water was not measured in the main test then it could have been determined separately. The purpose of the test is stated at one point to be 'to find the PG content'.)
Last edited:
Fascinating conversation.
If I remember correctly, wasn't this compound responsible for "popcorn death syndrome" or something like that? People who worked in microwave popcorn factories were (are?) getting lung cancer or something from breathing in the fake butter smell. I believe there was some concern about it being off-gassed by the microwaving process at home as well.
I added up 99.6 - am I missing a conversion (like proof or something?)
An interesting link from the sticky up above regarding diacetyl and flavorart testing , seems pretty safe to vape liquids using their products and they are specifically indicating those that are non-vapable 
ClearStream Protocol - FlavourArt - The Flavors tailors
Royal it says PG 21.8% Glycerol (VG?) 48.8% Nicotine .7% Water 28.3% = 99.6 % (I think you missed the glycerol)
I read on his page that the .4% unaccounted for was the margin of error (excuse me I'm not a scientist but I think thats the correct term) I'm thinking this unflavored liquid but I don't know why there's so much water?
ClearStream Protocol - FlavourArt - The Flavors tailors
Royal it says PG 21.8% Glycerol (VG?) 48.8% Nicotine .7% Water 28.3% = 99.6 % (I think you missed the glycerol)
I read on his page that the .4% unaccounted for was the margin of error (excuse me I'm not a scientist but I think thats the correct term) I'm thinking this unflavored liquid but I don't know why there's so much water?
That is nice to see sweet meat.. I am glad to see your company is trying to do something at least, and validate some claims that are made. Like I said, we all know how e-cigs are being marketed to the public. Its marketed as a safe alternative, or much safer. One thing we do know about cigarettes is that regardless of all the bad stuff in them in very minute amounts, they are very long term killers. Not every smoker gets cancer, and most smoking related diseases happen to those who have been consuming tobacco smoke their ENTIRE lives.. and most of these statistics are inaccurate because they are blaming tobacco smoke on EVERYTHING when they shouldn't be. If you really look into tobacco related deaths, you can see the statistics are extremely flawed.. Im not saying they are good for you, they are bad and can kill you, but keep inn mind the amount of consumption needed to create disease and keep in mind that the statistics now are purposely distorted to make them look even worse than they are.
That being said.. There are MANY things that could probably kill you pound for pound much quicker than a cigarettes. This is what the general public really seems clueless about. That chemical in the popcorn could be more devastating and a quicker killer than tar in tobacco smoke. These are the points people seem totally clueless about. There are chemicals out there far more dangerous then tobacco smoke. People at the world trade center who were exposed to chemical smoke for even as little as a few hours are getting disease. I just really hope in the end these things remain a viable option. Being able to keep smoking in a safe way sometimes seems too good to be true. Lets just all do what we can to turn this industry into an honorable one instead of the typical industry that wants to make money but screws the people.
That being said.. There are MANY things that could probably kill you pound for pound much quicker than a cigarettes. This is what the general public really seems clueless about. That chemical in the popcorn could be more devastating and a quicker killer than tar in tobacco smoke. These are the points people seem totally clueless about. There are chemicals out there far more dangerous then tobacco smoke. People at the world trade center who were exposed to chemical smoke for even as little as a few hours are getting disease. I just really hope in the end these things remain a viable option. Being able to keep smoking in a safe way sometimes seems too good to be true. Lets just all do what we can to turn this industry into an honorable one instead of the typical industry that wants to make money but screws the people.
Just to clarify, it's not my company/nor have I ordered from them..... I totally agree and I worry about the flavors too, but I think if you want to be as safe as can be you have to vape only unflavored pg/vg nic juice, totally doable and some companies offer pre-made unflavored liquids so you don't even have to DIY if you don't want to.
I'm using the flavors for now against my own better judgement because they're keeping my palate interested and keeping me off analogs, but if I decided to vape long term I'd certainly go unflavored.
(It says I've been here since 2009 under my avi, I did use e-cigs for about a month and signed up here, but I went back to smoking. I recently started vaping again a little over a month ago, I feel the technology/knowledge has finally gotten better, but I haven't actually been vaping for two years, just wanted to make that clear)
I'm using the flavors for now against my own better judgement because they're keeping my palate interested and keeping me off analogs, but if I decided to vape long term I'd certainly go unflavored.
(It says I've been here since 2009 under my avi, I did use e-cigs for about a month and signed up here, but I went back to smoking. I recently started vaping again a little over a month ago, I feel the technology/knowledge has finally gotten better, but I haven't actually been vaping for two years, just wanted to make that clear)
Oh sorry, How come you don't buy from them just curious?
Yeah I guess the unknowns is what bothers me.. You know the saying the devil you know? I know cigarettes might kill me eventually if I keep smoking the way.. But I really don't want to end up replacing the habit with something that might kill me sooner. Like If i start vaping black cherry cause I love it, and im sucking it down every single day and 4 months from now they say oh btw, black cherry ends up being toxic and i get some kind of lung disease.. I would be extremely ...... at myself and at e-cigs in general. I just have a fear that everyone is so gung ho with this new technology that if things start going wrong, either by bad quality standards or a flavor or some unknown in the liquid etc etc.. The industry .. or the idea which is great is going to come crashing down. What if the FDA already has the smoking gun they need and they are just waiting for the right time. Thats another thought in my head
Yeah I guess the unknowns is what bothers me.. You know the saying the devil you know? I know cigarettes might kill me eventually if I keep smoking the way.. But I really don't want to end up replacing the habit with something that might kill me sooner. Like If i start vaping black cherry cause I love it, and im sucking it down every single day and 4 months from now they say oh btw, black cherry ends up being toxic and i get some kind of lung disease.. I would be extremely ...... at myself and at e-cigs in general. I just have a fear that everyone is so gung ho with this new technology that if things start going wrong, either by bad quality standards or a flavor or some unknown in the liquid etc etc.. The industry .. or the idea which is great is going to come crashing down. What if the FDA already has the smoking gun they need and they are just waiting for the right time. Thats another thought in my head
I didn't order from them yet because they literally just popped up and said they weren't launching the website etc. until all the testing was done, I haven't really thought about them until today when I read your thread, I just went and checked and can't seem to find their website so maybe it still hasn't launched. Aside from that we still have some issues here with vendors being legally allowed to sell nic-juice so it's all a bit hush-hush here in Canada, LOL, but I think companies like his are trying to be prepared for the crackdown by showing responsibility and proving to Health Canada that they have testing etc.
Yeah thats the thing too.. That is why an e-cig like the plume, which isn't really an e-cig is a good idea in a way.. Because these devices are drug delivery systems. So the FDA has it in its power to ban them, or take control of it. I know how people feel about the FDA, but I am not sure I would be totally upset if these things became regulated.. That would suck for small businesses and people making a living off this industry, but hey.. if no one wants to think about future what if's than thats that. If they do ban e-cigs.. I hope they do so when it is popular enough where they see potential profit and start producing them.. or at least the liquid. People still could make mods and sell devices.. but the liquid would be pharmacy grade and black market.
In the US, e-liquids have been legally established as a tobacco product and not a drug; and an e-cig therefore is not a drug delivery device. And hopefully that sensible state remains; e-liquid is after all a tobacco extract.
That's because the PG and VG are hydrated as they are hydroscopic (attract water). And this is why they are not dehydrating when vaped - they are already hydrated so that water is inhaled too; and would be just a ml or so per day anyway.
Ahh, this makes sense, I was thinking it must have been water in the PG or VG....
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
