I state very clearly the no one can tell you that any of this is safe, and that everyone must make their own decision. I state only for myself that I could care less about diketones. I care very much when a series of posts may influence a person who is smoking to be misguided to thinking that because of e.g. diketones, vaping is an unacceptable alternative. After all the cigarette already has 100 times the diketone anyway, not to mention far more dangerous components. I have never said that diketones were safe. It is my opinion that a smoker is already at far greater risk from them, and far far greater risk from much worse anyway.
I believe in common sense and restrained and rational discussion of the possible dangers of vaping but for an active smoker allowing them to be misguided and not consider vaping because of a perception of some significant known health risk is what is really really, just plain unacceptably irresponsible.
Don't add fuel to the fire by e.g. posting only what you want from some source - that is no better than FDA. Here is the full text of the abstract, I highlight what I consider significant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract
Introduction. The purpose of this study was to evaluate sweet-flavoured electronic cigarette (EC) liquids for the presence of diacetyl (DA) and acetyl propionyl (AP), which are chemicals approved for food use but are associated with respiratory disease when inhaled.
Methods. In total, 159 samples were purchased from 36 manufacturers and retailers from 7 countries. Additionally, three liquids were prepared by dissolving a concentrated flavour sample of known DA and AP levels at 5%, 10% and 20% concentration in a mixture of propylene glycol and glycerol. Aerosol produced by an EC was analyzed to determine the concentration of DA and AP.
Results. DA and AP were found in 74.2% of the samples, with more samples containing DA. Similar concentrations were found in liquid and aerosol for both chemicals.
The median daily exposure levels were 56μg/day (IQR: 26-278μg/day) for DA and 91μg/day (IQR: 20-432μg/day) for AP. They were slightly lower than the strict NIOSH-defined safety limits for occupational exposure and 100 and 10 times lower compared to smoking respectively; however, 47.3% of DA and 41.5% of AP-containing samples exposed consumers to levels higher than the safety limits.
Conclusions. DA and AP were found in a large proportion of sweet-flavoured EC liquids, with many of them exposing users to higher than safety levels. Their presence in EC liquids represents an avoidable risk. Proper measures should be taken by EC liquid manufacturers and flavouring suppliers to eliminate these hazards from the products, without necessarily limiting the availability of sweet flavours.
© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail:
journals.permissions@oup.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes we can do more, but OSHA limits are extremely strict, without the full PDF we really cannot assess what exactly they mixed, but it is quite possible any given component was used higher than we typically would include a single component, and of the samples that exceeded the OSHA levels (which again are extremely stringent, and really intended for a different exposure environment anyway, you may vape all day, you still are not breathing it) and not that they do not give numbers for how much samples exceeded the "limits" but it is reasonable to assume if some were way outside the ranges you likely would have gotten some numbers. I don't know that and will not speak to what I don't know, it is merely a reasonable assumption.
If you want to live a clean life, abandon vaping. I have stated repeatedly whatever harm it causes, it is certainly not benign. If you have quit or are reducing your cigarette intake, I applaud you. My issue is that I am not advocating turning a blind eye to health risks - I am not promoting vaping in *anyone* who is not a smoker. I also do not endorse speculative, largely flawed attempts to invoke "science" that can have a chilling effect of smokers who are considering attempting vaping as an alternative.
The worse health effects we have seen today are also either a fundamental part of tobacco use or absolutely pale in the relative potential risk level. Smokers can worry about diketones when they no longer smoke, if they choose to do so. As long as they are actively smoking, that should not be even a consideration.
Everyone knows the obvious lung cancer risk of smoking, and the cardiovascular effects. How many smokers, ex-smokers, persons vigorously campaigning against diketones for example are also aware of this: cigarette smoking is also the single strongest correlation for development of pancreatic cancer - an effective death sentence with abysmal morbidity outcomes?
Discussing health effects of vaping is important. But doing so responsibly and in a careful, restrained, and as scientifically sound and objective manner as possible is even more important because of the potential to influence people actively still smoking.
