Diacetyl exposure graphed.

[Jman8]

But I don't chuck 50 pound bags of powdered diacetyl. It is not a job I do, or one I would take.

I also don't smoke anymore.

I don't engage in the above practices because I have determined that they are a hazard to my health. So, like many others here, I "turned over a new leaf" and "switched" to vaping.

So:

Some of us are interested in the actual activity we DO engage in now.......which is vaping.

We went to know what our risk factors are for THIS activity.

Comparing it to things we don't do, or no longer do, seems to be a rather (constant) evasion of the questions we are asking.

Comparing it to smoking puts it into perspective that helps you relate to the actual risk you are taking. Find another activity that is 99% safer than smoking. Like say, 'walking through the park.' That could be 99% safer than smoking. It is not 100% safe, as harm could come to you in many ways, even if nothing visible occurs during that walk. So, if a 'walk in the park' is equal to 99% safer than smoking, then we could use that as benchmark, and say that vaping (with diketones) is on par with walking in the park.

Would that work for you? Or would you like to learn about all the things that are 99% safer than smoking and have those then shown to you as reasonable comparisons to vaping (with diketones)?

Some of us don't want to know the risk factors. Not because we don't care about our health, but because this issue paints a perfect example of how risk factor data can be so skewed in its information and during the informing process that it becomes senseless data. It becomes virtually impossible to navigate through the actual concern(s) to be had, and sets people up to have debates that are overly hung up on ridiculously minor points and/or improperly assessing major related concerns as not helpful, as you have done here.

Like if we were to list all the risk factors for 'walking through the park,' I'd like to see that debate among 3 million people and see how long it takes to get a viable, comprehensive list that all (sane) people can agree on.

 

[Rossum]

But you're okay being the guinea pig on all the other potentially dangerous aspects of vaping? Please explain that to me.

Compared to smoking? Yes. What's in our vape?

• Nicotine. I want that. I'm not very pleasant to be around without it; just ask my wife (who has never smoked or vaped). I'm willing to accept whatever negative consequences nicotine may have in exchange for its benefits to me -- my wife not leaving me being one of them.
  
  
• VG. Generally considered benign, even when inhaled as vapor/aerosol.
  
  
• PG. Generally considered benign, even when inhaled as vapor/aerosol. May even be beneficial due to its bactericidal / virucidal properties. I've not had a single cold in the (few days shy of) two years I've been vaping. I've woken up on a few mornings with symptoms that I previously would have taken to indicate I had a cold coming on. I started vaping as usual and those symptoms were gone in an hour or less.
  
  
• Flavorings. This component is optional. That means not essential. This component may or may not include substances that have been shown both in vitro and in vivo to be anything but benign. It makes sense to try to minimize one's exposure to such substances.

You keep trying to frame this as through diketones are essential to vape. They are not. One does not need to give up vaping, or even flavors, in order to avoid diketones.

The damage diketones can cause to lung tissue is permanent and irreversible. There is no argument that exposure to sufficient quantities of them WILL cause such damage. The only argument is whether the quantities in our vapes are sufficient to do that. Me, I'm not willing to risk that for a particular flavor profile, there are plenty of flavors I find entirely acceptable outside of that profile -- in moderation. Is it possible that other substances are in flavorings are less than benign? Yes, it is. But none have been identified as causing permanent and irreversible damage. If some were, I'd avoid those too.

Keep in mind, this is a personal decision on my part. I'm by no means trying to tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't vape. It's your body. You own it. Do as you please with it.

What I object to is when people try to sweep this issue under the rug, because I do think that vapers should be educated and be able to make informed decisions.

 

[VNeil]

Here's an article from Daily Drip. The graph compares exposures for e-cigs to cigarettes
and, factory workers. The author requests that his math be checked. I didn't find any
glaring discrepancies.
Everybody is talking about vaping and "popcorn lung" again, so here's a graph

Regards
Mike

I see a glaring discrepancy. The factor of 0.99 g/ml is the density of water, not air. The correct number is 0.0012 g/ml. So his result should be divided by 820, resulting in a number more like 927. Everyone is free to check my math too, for discrepancies

 

[VNeil]

...There is no argument that exposure to sufficient quantities of them WILL cause such damage. The only argument is whether the quantities in our vapes are sufficient to do that.

I'm not sure that is true at all. My understanding of the science is that OSHA, for example, is reluctant to put a workplace limit on airborne diacetyl because they are not convinced the studies have proven the case that diacetyl is the cause of OB in the popcorn and coffee factories. There appear to be many questions remaining, including why other smokers do not get OB, nor are smokers more at risk in those factories because of their combined exposure.
One study or a series of studies chained on each other do not always amount to "there is no remaining argument...". Nor does the opinion of a gov't body, such as the FDA do that, especially around here

 

[Rossum]

I'm not sure that is true at all. My understanding of the science is that OSHA, for example, is reluctant to put a workplace limit on airborne diacetyl because they are not convinced the studies have proven the case that diacetyl is the cause of OB in the popcorn and coffee factories. There appear to be many questions remaining, including why other smokers do not get OB, nor are smokers more at risk in those factories because of their combined exposure.
One study or a series of studies chained on each other do not always amount to "there is no remaining argument...". Nor does the opinion of a gov't body, such as the FDA do that, especially around here

There have been studies done on living tissue samples as well as living rodents. When exposed to diketones in sufficient concentrations, really bad things happen. This is not in question.

I expect OSHA's reluctance to set standards is because it is not well established at what concentrations diketones are likely to cause problems in humans and there haven't been enough cases documented in workplace settings for them to make it a priority.

 

[Jman8]

Compared to smoking? Yes. What's in our vape?

• Nicotine. I want that. I'm not very pleasant to be around without it; just ask my wife (who has never smoked or vaped). I'm willing to accept whatever negative consequences nicotine may have in exchange for its benefits to me -- my wife not leaving me being one of them.
  
  
• VG. Generally considered benign, even when inhaled as vapor/aerosol.
  
  
• PG. Generally considered benign, even when inhaled as vapor/aerosol. May even be beneficial due to its bactericidal / virucidal properties. I've not had a single cold in the (few days shy of) two years I've been vaping. I've woken up on a few mornings with symptoms that I previously would have taken to indicate I had a cold coming on. I started vaping as usual and those symptoms were gone in an hour or less.
  
  
• Flavorings. This component is optional. That means not essential. This component may or may not include substances that have been shown both in vitro and in vivo to be anything but benign. It makes sense to try to minimize one's exposure to such substances.

Nicotine is non essential. And as it is possible to get 100% VG or PG, then the other two components are non essential.

You keep trying to frame this as through diketones are essential to vape. They are not. One does not need to give up vaping, or even flavors, in order to avoid diketones.

That's not how I'm framing it. As evidence by my comment above. I'm saying all of it is non-essential. No one needs diketone in their vape, but same goes with all components. Your saying that one of those components is inherently dangerous. I'm saying, this is based on very weak associative links, or the kind of links that opposing forces of vaping wish to make about many components, all of which are non-essential.

You're on the side of suggesting an industry wide mandate would be best for vaping, regardless of how that comes about. I'm very okay knowing the choice already exists for those who are truly concerned to have product with or without. At least your somewhat different than others on this side as you are willing to pay for own testing to give you more confidence that it is not in products where vendor/manufacturer might claim it's not, though might not know and/or is being deceptive.

The damage diketones can cause to lung tissue is permanent and irreversible.

And yet, if it is found in substantial amounts in cigs and vapers quit cigs and then have tests done on their lungs to show better functioning lungs, it really makes one wonder how drastic this compound really is. You wanna hang your hat on some assertion like this and neglect a whole lot of data that would either minimize this assertion, or eliminate it. Can make this sort of assertion with all other components. You think PG is 100% safe and carries zero risks? Pretty sure you don't. So, you make an assertion like this, I say let's have a full on debate on it, rather than letting you slip it in there as if you just brought up something that is beyond dispute.

There is no argument that exposure to sufficient quantities of them WILL cause such damage.

Disagree. Just provided some argument above. Prepared to do more if you are intellectually able/honest.

The only argument is whether the quantities in our vapes are sufficient to do that. Me, I'm not willing to risk that for a particular flavor profile, there are plenty of flavors I find entirely acceptable outside of that profile -- in moderation. Is it possible that other substances are in flavorings are less than benign? Yes, it is. But none have been identified as causing permanent and irreversible damage. If some were, I'd avoid those too.

And this chemical, when inhaled via smoking has not been shown to cause permanent damage in smokers. And for sure not in vapers. But you are equating this to being a guinea pig, when it still stands equally true for all components of vaping. All of them. Without exception. Thus disingenuous of you to claim you are okay being guinea pig on some ingredients, but not this one. Back up your associative links to permanent damage if you can. I believe you can't or won't.

 

[VNeil]

... This is not in question....

You do not question it. Others do. Please accept that. And I am not talking about me personally. The lab tests have not settled this question in the minds of many reasonable people.

 

[Rossum]

Nicotine is non essential.

Really? You think people who've smoked for decades, who've never been able to stop for more than a few days at best using any other method are going to be able to switch from smoking to vaping without nicotine in their vape? I'm sorry, but I find that notion so absurd that I'm not even going to respond to the rest of your post.

 

[VNeil]

Really? You think people who've smoked for decades, who've never been able to stop for more than a few days at best using any other method are going to be able to switch from smoking to vaping without nicotine in their vape? I'm sorry, but I find that notion so absurd that I'm not even going to respond to the rest of your post.

A convenient way to avoid the tough questions

 

[choochoogranny]

We've let ANTZ pick a "strawman" in Diacetyl and made us "afeared" of our own shadow. We should respond with laughter and ridicule.

 

[Rossum]

We've let ANTZ pick a "strawman" in Diacetyl and made us "afeared" of our own shadow. We should respond with laughter and ridicule.

No, we've handed it to them on a freshly polished silver platter by not cleaning up our own act. I've only been vaping for two years, but based on threads in this very form, we've had 5+ years to do so, yet to this day, people defend the presence of this stuff in liquids.

 

[Kent C]

Now i am confused. This study says smokers are exposed to more diacety; than the factory workers. The op post claims the exact opposite it seems !

Btw, the study linked was authored by the consultants testifying for the the food industry in diacetyl litigation.

Mazziny,

The OP posts cites the GML (Gilster-Mary Lee Corp) popcorn factory study.

I was replying to Mark444's question asking whether 'the FDA will shut down Starbucks'.... since diacetyl is also present in some aspects of coffee making, roasting.

The study I cited and the comments about diacetyl being 'less than cigarettes comes' from a study regarding coffee making, not popcorn making. :- )

 

[Mazinny]

Mazziny,

The OP posts cites the GML (Gilster-Mary Lee Corp) popcorn factory study.

I was replying to Mark444's question asking whether 'the FDA will shut down Starbucks'.... since diacetyl is also present in some aspects of coffee making, roasting.

The study I cited and the comments about diacetyl being 'less than cigarettes comes' from a study regarding coffee making, not popcorn making. :- )

ok so popcorn factory workers are exposed to more diacetyl than cigarette smokers who in turn are exposed to more diacetyl than starbucks workers !?

 

[skoony]

I see a glaring discrepancy. The factor of 0.99 g/ml is the density of water, not air. The correct number is 0.0012 g/ml. So his result should be divided by 820, resulting in a number more like 927. Everyone is free to check my math too, for discrepancies

I am no Einstein but, he addressed these issues in his equations.
regards
mike

 

[Mazinny]

I see a glaring discrepancy. The factor of 0.99 g/ml is the density of water, not air. The correct number is 0.0012 g/ml. So his result should be divided by 820, resulting in a number more like 927. Everyone is free to check my math too, for discrepancies

This makes sense. I was wondering that if Dr. F extrapolated 5 ppb in ambient air to 65 ppm per day, correctly , there is no way that the op figures can be correct as well. 0.2 ppm is only 40 times as high as 5 ppb. There is no way the factory workers could be exposed to the 760,000 number the op cites.

 

[VNeil]

I am no Einstein but, he addressed these issues in his equations.
regards
mike

He did?

 

[Kent C]

ok so popcorn factory workers are exposed to more diacetyl than cigarette smokers who in turn are exposed to more diacetyl than starbucks workers !?

According to the OP post, yes. However..... The other study that is cited elsewhere in this forum from the daily caller article:

How The Media Totally Exaggerated Study On Risk Of ‘Popcorn Lung’ From E-Cigarettes

... also cites the "Critical Reviews in Toxicology" study. That deals with the diketones - diacetyl/AP in cigarettes.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
(as pointed out in the other thread - this 'error' still gets you to the study abstract :- )

They also found what the coffee study found:

"We found that diacetyl and 2,3-pentanedione exposures from cigarette smoking far exceed occupational exposures for most food/flavoring workers who smoke."

Their conclusion as a result of not finding OB in cigarettes is:

"This suggests that previous claims of a significant exposure-response relationship between diacetyl inhalation and respiratory disease in food/flavoring workers were confounded, because none of the investigations considered or quantified the non-occupational diacetyl exposure from cigarette smoke, yet all of the cohorts evaluated had considerable smoking histories".

IOW, their findings call into question any link between diacetyl and bronchiolitis obliterans, including the earlier popcorn factory (BML) studies, and they fully acknowledge this:

"Further, because smoking has not been shown to be a risk factor for bronchiolitis obliterans, our findings are inconsistent with claims that diacetyl and/or 2,3-pentanedione exposure are risk factors for this disease."

 

[Mazinny]

Their conclusion as a result of not finding OB in cigarettes is:

"This suggests that previous claims of a significant exposure-response relationship between diacetyl inhalation and respiratory disease in food/flavoring workers were confounded, because none of the investigations considered or quantified the non-occupational diacetyl exposure from cigarette smoke, yet all of the cohorts evaluated had considerable smoking histories".

IOW, their findings call into question any link between diacetyl and bronchiolitis obliterans, including the earlier popcorn factory (BML) studies, and they fully acknowledge this:

"Further, because smoking has not been shown to be a risk factor for bronchiolitis obliterans, our findings are inconsistent with claims that diacetyl and/or 2,3-pentanedione exposure are risk factors for this disease."

I believe the people who were cited for the bold part, claimed that this false. They wrote a response to the study you are citing. Let's see if i can find it. I believe Dr. F also wrote a response to the Pierce study you are citing.

And this from their conflict of interest statement :

All the authors are employed by Cardno ChemRisk, a consulting firm that provides scientific advice to the government, corporations, law firms and various scientific/professional organizations. Cardno ChemRisk has been engaged by several manufacturers and suppliers of diacetyl and diacetyl-containing flavorings in various litigation matters, and two of the authors (Drs. Pierce and Finley) have served as experts in diacetyl litigation. However, no external funding was received for the study, the research supporting the analysis, nor the time needed to prepare the article.

 

[VNeil]

I am no Einstein but, he addressed these issues in his equations.
regards
mike

Let me try to explain. He computes the cubic volume of (uncompressed ambient) air. He then multiplies that by the density to come up with the weight of the air. He then applies 2 ppm to come up with the portion of the total air composed of diacetyl. He then multiplies by 1,000,000 to convert the result from grams to micrograms.

Except he used the density of water, not air, to compute the weight. I would be quite surprised if I am wrong on this. It isn't rocket science although this is the second time in the past few days I've run across this density constant error (as you well know).

 

[skoony]

Let me try to explain. He computes the cubic volume of (uncompressed ambient) air. He then multiplies that by the density to come up with the weight of the air. He then applies 2 ppm to come up with the portion of the total air composed of diacetyl. He then multiplies by 1,000,000 to convert the result from grams to micrograms.

Except he used the density of water, not air, to compute the weight. I would be quite surprised if I am wrong on this. It isn't rocket science although this is the second time in the past few days I've run across this density constant error (as you well know).

So? He's trying to compare results found in one comparison to others using different base measurements in
different mediums. Unless his conversions are at fault there should be no problem.
Of course I'm not the one to fact check that.
Regards
Mike