Diacetyl. Concerned and confused.
- Thread starter JonasDK
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Extremely bad logic. First of all as has been noted, you've altered the ratios. Second these are not "fatal doses". If you took either pill the other one is irrelevant.
A more logical argument:
If you smoke at some level, and co-vape at the same level, at the end of the day let's simplify and it and just call it an index. Your cigarette index is approximately 100. Your vape index is approximately 1. Your total index is approximately 101. So yes if you are a smoker, and I have emphasized that all along, the 1 from vaping all day in my day end index of 101 from also smoking, I consider that not necessarily safe but of little meaningful impact on my health outcome. OTOH if I reduce the 100 and maintain the 1, I consider that as a considerable impact on my health outcome - not the remaining 1 but the elimination of the 100.
That is a logical argument.
It may not even apply. Vaping produces an aerosol. You exhale much of that aerosol. We don't even know how much diacetyl is in fact absorbed. They only measured aerosol concentration. It is quite possible you could exhale most of it with the aerosol you exhale when vaping. We do know that the absorption of nicotine is aggressive. However the absorption of nicotine from typical vaping devices in limited studies has resulted in data (albeit very little) that seems to indicate the efficiency of absorption is not particularly high.
Again, we have to be reasonable about what we use this very limited information for. The numbers of DA in the aerosol may in fact not even be particularly meaningful. We don't know.
The 100:1 argument also has many possible unknowns but it is a more rational factor to at least consider.
I stand corrected.
However the "additive" aspect is still valid. Referring to your original 10:2 ratio - if the organism has already eliminated 3 units before you come with 2 new ones, these new ones could be considered "safe".
of course, since we don't know the exact values, the best approach for now is to avoid diketones completely.
This is akin to a different study "Sugar is bad for you" so many companies come out with "Sugar Free" foods. Great!!! Good job companies!!!
Really?
What the FDA (Governmental branch) stated is Sugar means Sugar made from Sugar Kane. So what do these companies do?
Maltose - Sugar made from malting barley
Sorbatol - Sugar made from Alcohol
Lactose - Sugar made from Milk
Ask any diabetic about the list of sugars that are derived from other sources. They do exactly the same thing to the body but is named differently
Really?
What the FDA (Governmental branch) stated is Sugar means Sugar made from Sugar Kane. So what do these companies do?
Maltose - Sugar made from malting barley
Sorbatol - Sugar made from Alcohol
Lactose - Sugar made from Milk
Ask any diabetic about the list of sugars that are derived from other sources. They do exactly the same thing to the body but is named differently
Nope. They do very different thing.
FDA Approved
There are six artificial sweeteners that have been tested and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA):
acesulfame potassium (also called acesulfame K)
aspartame
saccharin
sucralose
neotame
advantame
- See more at: Low-Calorie Sweeteners: American Diabetes Association®
I think you mean that the gov't means that sugar is "sucrose" -- which can come from beets just as easily (and more cheaply, apparently) as from sugar cane (though cane sugar has a much cleaner taste).
Andria
Some of the sugars (government has nothing to do with this designation) which are bad for diabetics and food with them cannot be labeled as “sugar free”:
Glucose
Fructose
Sucrose
Lactose
I am sure I missed one or two… It is just from the top of my head.
EDIT: Afterthought: I just remembered that for example fructose has pretty low glycemic index, so I am not sure it is bad for diabetics. Thankfully I do not have experience here.
Last edited:
Yes, that's true; I was just concerned about the apparent misperception that the only source of sucrose is sugar cane; beet sugar accounts for a pretty high percentage of "table sugar" in the US; something about 'farm subsidies'. I can no longer buy the "Great Value" (walmart) brand of sugar, because it's beet sugar, which tastes foul to me; now to get cane sugar, I have to get it at Ingles, or buy a name brand.
Andria
Even total elimination policies can often be flawed. Example: A family of compounds called PAHs.. Really really really bad stuff. They make diacetyl look like health food. They come from man-made activity, but also from essential natural processes - volcanic activity, renewal of arable land by forest fires etc. So they are "natural".
Here are some foods that are known to have the highest ability to incorporate and possibly even produce their own PAHs anyway:
apples, cabbage, spinach, grains, rice, potatos.
Do we eliminate these because they always have and always will contain PAHs? Do those foods sound "bad" to you like many find the sound of "diacetyl" and some even "propylene glycol" bad (BTW, in some respects glycerin is somewhat more toxic than PG, although both are pretty benign).
No, the answer is that the benefit these important foods provide far outweigh any effects of the PAHs you consume along with them.
And while on the subject, the whole "organic" thing. Diacetyl is an organic compound. As are PAHs. As is the deadliest compound known to man - botulism posion. As is ricin, which comes from castor oil. And you don't want to know about Calabar Beans or what they have been used for.
As far as "organic produce" it is a total scam. If you think you can naturally grow a store worthy tomato, much less enough to supply even a single store, you've never grown a tomato. "Organic" farms that are successful are almost invariably successful because of advantageous location. I worked on a tomato project once (in addition to growing them). Organic farms use pesticides, they are just limited. "Natural" does not mean safe. But the really successful organic farms are almost always also conveniently situated. The tomatos I studied came from a farm in NC. In an area which in an earlier century had a thriving wood mill industry.
We tested the "organic" tomatos compared to ordinary ones grown with those evil pesticides. Relatively speaking, the "organic" ones had a veritable ....load of pentachlorophenol in them. They were some fine tomatos too. The farm had no need to use any pesticides at all, after over a hundred years the soil still had more than enough penta in it from telegraph pole and rail tie production to where you had no need to add any more pesticides. There was enough to last probably another century.
"Organic" is nothing more than a marketing scam.
Here are some foods that are known to have the highest ability to incorporate and possibly even produce their own PAHs anyway:
apples, cabbage, spinach, grains, rice, potatos.
Do we eliminate these because they always have and always will contain PAHs? Do those foods sound "bad" to you like many find the sound of "diacetyl" and some even "propylene glycol" bad (BTW, in some respects glycerin is somewhat more toxic than PG, although both are pretty benign).
No, the answer is that the benefit these important foods provide far outweigh any effects of the PAHs you consume along with them.
And while on the subject, the whole "organic" thing. Diacetyl is an organic compound. As are PAHs. As is the deadliest compound known to man - botulism posion. As is ricin, which comes from castor oil. And you don't want to know about Calabar Beans or what they have been used for.
As far as "organic produce" it is a total scam. If you think you can naturally grow a store worthy tomato, much less enough to supply even a single store, you've never grown a tomato. "Organic" farms that are successful are almost invariably successful because of advantageous location. I worked on a tomato project once (in addition to growing them). Organic farms use pesticides, they are just limited. "Natural" does not mean safe. But the really successful organic farms are almost always also conveniently situated. The tomatos I studied came from a farm in NC. In an area which in an earlier century had a thriving wood mill industry.
We tested the "organic" tomatos compared to ordinary ones grown with those evil pesticides. Relatively speaking, the "organic" ones had a veritable ....load of pentachlorophenol in them. They were some fine tomatos too. The farm had no need to use any pesticides at all, after over a hundred years the soil still had more than enough penta in it from telegraph pole and rail tie production to where you had no need to add any more pesticides. There was enough to last probably another century.
"Organic" is nothing more than a marketing scam.
We are discussing a substance which does not need to be in e-liquid. That's it. Finding other substances in other things which may be bad is irrelevant...
Of course we don't..thing is we don't usually smoke/vape
apples, cabbage, spinach, grains, rice, potatos. and other foodstuffs.
And, there's this stuff in your gut called hydrochloric acid that kinda takes care
of dissolving all those nasty naturally occurring chemicals and passing them down to yer gut.
So..apples and oranges.
Let's vape those and see what happens.
Hazy
Organic e-liquids and e-liquid components are very popular, and there is a widespread misunderstanding of what "organic" even means, as well as a false assumption it means "safer": or "better". I consider that relevant. If you do not and you are a moderator, by all means, moderate me.
Of course we don't..thing is we don't usually smoke/vape
apples, cabbage, spinach, grains, rice, potatos. and other foodstuffs.
And, there's this stuff in your gut called hydrochloric acid that kinda takes care
of dissolving all those nasty naturally occurring chemicals and passing them down to yer gut.
So..apples and oranges.
Let's vape those and see what happens.
Hazy
Not true. HCl does not affect PAHs at all, does not eliminate any of the major food poisoning sources (obviously) etc. But that is irrelevant, just another example of the ubiquitous flawed assumptions on this forum about what is safe, what is dangerous, etc. We still do not have those answers for vaping as a whole.
But the point is, people take this position that anything "bad" should be eliminated. What should instead occur is proper labeling. Some people want custard notes. There is no reason to ban or eliminate them as some advocate. Rather simply label them and let those who do not want them be free to not have them and those that do want them be free to have them.
That's how a Lot of these threads go.
Someone makes a comparison to Something Completely Unrelated. Or mentions some Organophosphate not found in an e-Liquid. And the next thing you know, we're all on that South Bound Train to Offtopicville.
Kinda Is what it Is.
Last time I went to Rome I lost my voice within a few hours due to the pollution from diesel tour busses and scooters, yet I couldn't smoke in my room...
Many men in the US can't or won't support and love one wife; I can and would two or three, yet that isn't legal, nor is vaping at Starbucks...
- Status
Similar threads
