Dems Crack Down On E-Cigs in DC

[Sirius]

I would support you in lobbying ECF for an NRA subforum.

No thnx -- I get enough debate on guns other forums in other places.

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

Well then since we have dove headlong into the vapor question, I give you what Sonic posted in another thread:

I think that may be an old post. This is the final versin as published, just in case it helps. (I.e. you might want to update your bookmarks.)

BMC Public Health | Full text | Peering through the mist: systematic review of what the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tells us about health risks

 

[Sirius]

I think that may be an old post. This is the final versin as published, just in case it helps. (I.e. you might want to update your bookmarks.)

BMC Public Health | Full text | Peering through the mist: systematic review of what the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tells us about health risks

Done Roger and thank you very much.

 

[SonHouse]

I think that may be an old post. This is the final versin as published, just in case it helps. (I.e. you might want to update your bookmarks.)

BMC Public Health | Full text | Peering through the mist: systematic review of what the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tells us about health risks

And, as expected, while the study elects to omit substances the user elects to consume, nicotine, VG, PG, etc. if you look in Appendix A which lists the measurements you'll find all three prominently featured.

 

[Vocalek]

It's pretty clear from the post linked that the poster has no real chemistry knowledge, for example, there's a assumption that the reaction proceeds with 100% efficiency which rarely occurs. If you do even a cursory examination of published results you'll find a whole lot of other stuff in there, for example, scroll down here and you'll find VG and PG right at the top of the list. In truth, VG and PG is not destroyed in the reaction, just dispersed into a collection of particles which attract and bind to water molecules resulting in particles large enough to see.

I'd be more careful with Internet sources instead of just believing someone because they're saying what you want to hear. Just my $0.02.

Your link (under "here") leads to a presentation made by University of CA Riverside's TRRDP program--bastion of such "experts" as Stanton Glantz and Pru Talbott. Glantz has a bad habit of misinterpreting the research of others, and Talbott has a bad habit of jerry-rigging the experiments to prove what she wants to see proved.

The biggest flaw I could see in the Monique Williams presentation is the fact that she doesn't tell the whole story. Her slides on Tobacco-specific Nitrosamines (TSNAs), for example, is careful to specify all four types of TSNAs, but quantities are totally omitted. Do you suppose the audience might have been interested in learning that the total daily exposure to TSNAs from even the highest concentration of e-liquids is surpassed by daily exposure to TSNAs from a nicotine patch?

I happen to believe that information is relevant, as is the fact that daily exposures to TSNAs from cigarette smoking are about 1800 times higher.

She throws around words like "detectable" without talking about the level of detection in the equipment being used. I can tell you with certainty that many of the processed foods you buy from the grocery store contain detectable levels of rat droppings. Detectable is not a synonym for harmful, but writers like these hope that the audience will not "detect" their use of misleading verbiage.

 

[SonHouse]

Your link (under "here") leads to a presentation made by University of CA Riverside's TRRDP program--bastion of such "experts" as Stanton Glantz and Pru Talbott. Glantz has a bad habit of misinterpreting the research of others, and Talbott has a bad habit of jerry-rigging the experiments to prove what she wants to see proved.

...

Agreed, I was not addressing the same points as you. I was debunking another claim that all of the VG and PG was miraculously turned into water and that was all that was contained in the vapor. Doesn't matter which side runs the experiments, that's not true. And I wasn't addressing the topic of the relative safety of the exhalation either.

 

[Sundodger]

LOL, so what you're saying here is you have absolutely no supporting evidence and are making stuff up as you go? And you can't even use Google to find out how thoroughly the water vapor myth has been debunked?

Dr Farsolinos publications have shown the exact same thing as have all other credible resources I've seen and I've read many studies over the last year of vaping. Making stuff up as you go is a terrible idea. Bias exists in most studies but generally manifests itself in the conclusions. When you read measurements from both sides of the debate, showing the same results, you can draw conclusions.

I'm not defending the "water vapor myth". And I use nothing "Google" related, I run noscripts just to make sure no crud gets in my machines. Slows things down, but I'm not in such a hurry to put my OS in jeopardy.

My problem is the study you linked to, how it is presented, this woman is like Helen Keller following Ray Charles through a mine field, it's not going to get pretty for her in the end.

 

[emus]

That sure is true emus..Look at the gun laws in Connecticut after Sandy Hook.
http://usfinancepost.com/is-connecticut-preparing-for-gun-confiscation-14238.html

It's true way to often. That and the money trail.

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

Do you suppose the audience might have been interested in learning that the total daily exposure to TSNAs from even the highest concentration of e-liquids is surpassed by daily exposure to TSNAs from a nicotine patch?

I happen to believe that information is relevant, as is the fact that daily exposures to TSNAs from cigarette smoking are about 1800 times higher.

Can I please get those links for my collection

 

[specter9mm]

So, I am actually planning on having my brother put raw liquid and some vaporized liquid residue through a mass spectrometer. If you guys have any ideas the best way to do this, I am planning on sending the results to several researchers who have express interest in publishing actual scientific facts around vaporizers, as opposed to all of the snake oil that is currently being sold about them.

 

[Sirius]

So, I am actually planning on having my brother put raw liquid and some vaporized liquid residue through a mass spectrometer. If you guys have any ideas the best way to do this, I am planning on sending the results to several researchers who have express interest in publishing actual scientific facts around vaporizers, as opposed to all of the snake oil that is currently being sold about them.

I would suggest you DIY a 50/50 PG/VG at 12mg Nicotine to give him so that it will reflect a shops e-liquid. Flavor at 1% to 3% and also choose a shops liquid to have a proximity of what is standard in vaping. You can use one you vape on a regular basis also. I can't wait to see what is found in that test. Thanks Specter!

 

[sonicdsl]

I would support you in lobbying ECF for an NRA subforum.

Absolutely not. This is an e-cigarette forum. However, you are welcome to opening a thread in the outside to discuss/debate that topic.

 

[Vocalek]

Can I please get those links for my collection

Here are a couple:

Safety evaluation and risk assessment of electronic cigarettes as tobacco cigarette substitutes: a systematic review

The most comprehensive study on TSNAs has been performed recently by a South Korean group, evaluating 105 liquids obtained from local retailers [Kim and Shin,2013]. On average, they found 12.99 ηg TSNAs per ml of liquid, with the amount of daily exposure to the users estimated to be similar to users of NRTs [Farsalinos et al. 2013d]. The estimated daily exposure to nitrosamines from tobacco cigarettes (average consumption of 15 cigarettes per day) is estimated to be up to 1800 times higher compared with EC use (Table 3).

And in the Burstyn analysis, we see a comparison of TSNAs from snus (which research shows does not cause or promote cancer) to potential exposure via vapor.

BMC Public Health | Full text | Peering through the mist: systematic review of what the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tells us about health risks

Analyses of aerosols indicate that TSNAs are present in amounts that can results in doses of < ng/day [5,33] to μg/day [8] (assuming 150 puffs/day) (see also [43]). The most comprehensive survey of TSNA content of 105 samples of liquids from 11 manufactures indicates that almost all tested liquids (>90%) contained TSNAs in μg/L quantities [36]. This is roughly equivalent to 1/1000 of the concentration of TSNAs in modern smokeless tobacco products (like snus), which are in the ppm range [48]. For example, 10 μg/L (0.01 ppm) of total TSNA in liquid [36] can translate to a daily dose of 0.025–0.05 μg from vaping (worst case assumption of 5 ml liquid/day); if 15 g of snus is consumed a day [49] with 1 ppm of TSNAs [48] and half of it were absorbed, then the daily dose is estimated to be 7.5 μg, which is 150–300 times that due to the worst case of exposure from vaping.

 

[Sirius]

Absolutely not. This is an e-cigarette forum. However, you are welcome to opening a thread in the outside to discuss/debate that topic.

I'm very tired of giving my opinion on THAT topic. E-Cig topics are much better debated anyway!

 

[Sirius]

We poisoned ourselves and enjoyed it? This video made me sick.

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

We poisoned ourselves and enjoyed it? This video made me sick.
<vid URL snipped>

Hard to believe that they sat through the entire procedure, and burned 400 analogs ... w/o stepping out at least once for a quick smoke.

Unless they were vapers, of course.

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

Here are a couple: <snip>

Thanks!

Hmm, you know at first I thought maybe a DB for all of these would be a good idea, now I'm more into fantasizing about a wiki.

Something stronger than a simple keyword search ... linkage of assertions to studies, plus maybe some free-form text (w/ embedded lnks) descrbing how well a particular assertion w.r.t. a specific study is vindicated or vitiated. Both ours and theirs.

Bookmarking, plain text, searching forum or blog posts - that's just not enough IMO.

 

[Uma]

Thanks!

Hmm, you know at first I thought maybe a DB for all of these would be a good idea, now I'm more into fantasizing about a wiki.

Something stronger than a simple keyword search ... linkage of assertions to studies, plus maybe some free-form text (w/ embedded lnks) descrbing how well a particular assertion w.r.t. a specific study is vindicated or vitiated. Both ours and theirs.

Bookmarking, plain text, searching forum or blog posts - that's just not enough IMO.

Yes!!!

 

[Sirius]

Thanks!

Hmm, you know at first I thought maybe a DB for all of these would be a good idea, now I'm more into fantasizing about a wiki.

Something stronger than a simple keyword search ... linkage of assertions to studies, plus maybe some free-form text (w/ embedded lnks) descrbing how well a particular assertion w.r.t. a specific study is vindicated or vitiated. Both ours and theirs.

Bookmarking, plain text, searching forum or blog posts - that's just not enough IMO.

I agree a thread would get off topic and we need a go to source.