Doubts over the safety of NET E-liquids
- Thread starter fabricator4
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- goodejuice halo myvapejuice
- Status
I think that studies like this one are great and more studies are needed but, to me they prove I made a smart choice to quit smoking and start vaping! And I'd like to throw out a big thank you to all the veterans and companies that have helped get us to where we are today debating the issues of vaping and trying to determine just how safe it is and where we may choose to make it better.
And in light of this study, you can bet the "web copy" on a large % of eliquid sites will be receiving an update pretty quickly.....
.......that is, if they can tear themselves away from the thousands of emails and phone calls they will also be recieving to ask about this
Just sayin'...........
Okay, so I downloaded the study and am working my way through it (my head hurts, but I am pushing through the pain. LOL). I don't know if its been mentioned here (I'll look back later) but one of the liquids that did show up as being (marginally) cytotoxic was one using food-grade flavoring (cinnamaldehyde, i.e., cinnamon flavoring), in addition to a couple from HoL which were in fact cytotoxic (though not all NETs from HoL were cytotoxic). There was also mention of a previous study that showed another eliquid that used food-grade flavoring that was cytotoxic, but it didn't mention the liquid or where it came from, just that it was a food-grade flavoring. So the cytotoxic issue is not necessarily exclusive to tobacco extracts, but that is not to say that all flavoring along side tobacco extracts should be thought of as equally "risky," just that vaping in general is a calculated risk.
Interesting bit from the study: "Although other manufacturers reported the use of industrially-produced tobacco extracts in several of the samples tested, none of them was found to be cytotoxic on cultured cells." I think it is safe to assume that "industrially-produced tobacco extracts" is in reference to my frienemy, tobacco absolute.
It was also shown in the study that "[a]lthough samples of vapour produced with high voltage were not cytotoxic, cell viability was reduced compared to vapour produced with regular voltage." The "total energy" for the "regular voltage" was 6.2 watts and the "total energy" applied to the "high voltage" was 9.2 watts.
Sheesh! Some NETs bad. TA good. Low heat good. Man, that's like going back to 2008 and prior. LOL. Cig-a-like anyone? Not me. My harm is reduced enough. I can't get down with pleasure-reduction.
Jokes aside, I will say that study is thorough as all get out. It really was well done. I have NO qualms with it so far and will go to sleep just as happy of a vaper as I was when I woke up.
Interesting bit from the study: "Although other manufacturers reported the use of industrially-produced tobacco extracts in several of the samples tested, none of them was found to be cytotoxic on cultured cells." I think it is safe to assume that "industrially-produced tobacco extracts" is in reference to my frienemy, tobacco absolute.
It was also shown in the study that "[a]lthough samples of vapour produced with high voltage were not cytotoxic, cell viability was reduced compared to vapour produced with regular voltage." The "total energy" for the "regular voltage" was 6.2 watts and the "total energy" applied to the "high voltage" was 9.2 watts.
Sheesh! Some NETs bad. TA good. Low heat good. Man, that's like going back to 2008 and prior. LOL. Cig-a-like anyone? Not me. My harm is reduced enough. I can't get down with pleasure-reduction.
Jokes aside, I will say that study is thorough as all get out. It really was well done. I have NO qualms with it so far and will go to sleep just as happy of a vaper as I was when I woke up.
Last edited:
I find myself both agreeing, and disagreeing, with what you say.
I've had all the same thought myself......and now, in the end, I guess I'm just going to keep repeating to myself: "vaping is harm reduction". In other words, nobody promised me a rose garden. I vape, and continue to do so, mostly because I do not feel it is inherently going to prove terribly unsafe.
But like moral relativism, this is just another kind of relativism we get into in these eliquid discussions, that A "might" be safer than B, even though like Jerms said "nothing has been proven, more testing needs to be done."
Which brings me to the same question I keep asking, and that is: what are we waiting for? i see these small efforts like Dr. F's team who probably is not exactly rolling in dough, probably limping by on small grants as researchers tend to do, or is the actual eliquid industry who is making a living this way gonna step up and start doing some testing?
I have noted certain things, reading on vaping forums. The markup on eliquids is rather large. (Anyone who DIYs knows this). Vendors most certainly deserve the $$ for their product creation and all that goes into mixing and sending it out. I"m not arguing that.
But every month somebody is moving to a new building, or opening up 2 new locations, yada yada yada and yet, since 2009 lip service and hundreds of posts on vaping forums continue to ask about if the components in the juice is safe and why or why not, and where's the labelling, blah blah blah. Many vapers seem to be under this vast delusion that mr. and mrs. eliquid vendor are eeking by in an applalachia style homestead somewhere mixing juice in their little kitchens, barely getting by. When you do an actual profit analysis, and look at the projected sales for 2014 in this industry, it tells a very different story.
While all the while, the FDA is breathing down our necks.
Then, the FDA will annnounce they are going to start testing, and everyone will be throwing big rotten tomatoes at them and getting all paranoid.
I'm putting on my flame suit after this post, but I'm just asking some honest questions that I'm quite sure have crossed the minds of others.
I can pretty much say that there are plenty of struggling Ph.D. candidates and teaching assistants in universities across the US who would love to get a grant or funding to engage in some studies...it's not like there's a lack of manpower to undertake these things. And of course, they will take the ANTZ $$ too, so why not get started. There are plenty of independent researchers who could use some work, too.
Last edited:
.....
Which brings me to the same question I keep asking, and that is: what are we waiting for? i see these small efforts like Dr. F's team who probably is not exactly rolling in dough, probably limping by on small grants as researchers tend to do, or is the actual eliquid industry who is making a living this way gonna step up and start doing some testing?
....
But every month somebody is moving to a new building, or opening up 2 new locations, yada yada yada and yet, since 2009 lip service and hundreds of posts on vaping forums continue to ask about if the components in the juice is safe and why or why not, and where's the labeling, blah blah blah. .....
Brilliant point.
It was mentioned, though I didn't specifically raise the issue in my OP. The problem with cinnamaldehyde is shown to be a lot less, almost marginal, by this rather well designed test. It's good to know about it and I have some concentrate here because I was intending to do a DIY "Christmas Vape" round about now. At lower concentrations it would not seem to be so much of a problem.
I agree with almost everything you say and I think all the base components PG/VG/NIC are pretty well covered but the flavorings are our weak point. Thus I believe the testing should be by those providers and not those that use them i.e. e-juice vendors and DIY. If a company is big enough to have flavors designed then part of their R&D should be for testing of safety. But first the community needs to set-up a standard of what a product is to be tested for and how it is to be tested. Just my
I agree that the funds are available, the brains and ability are available, and there is good reason for further testing. Why it has yet to be done I haven't a clue. I'd like to read a write-up on why by someone who knows these things. I hope when it gets done the majority if testing is done by a neutral party.
We are limited on real life results of long term use, since vaping has only been around about a decade, but research of the type done in this study could be amped up.
We are limited on real life results of long term use, since vaping has only been around about a decade, but research of the type done in this study could be amped up.
Not that I disagree, but would people trust those results? Do people trust the results that Big Tobacco reports on the safety of cigarettes? That may be an unfair comparison, but still.. I don't think there's a simple answer on how and who does the testing and where the money and resources come from.
It wouldn't really matter as there are far too many people that ain't gonna trust anything that doesn't confirm what they already believe. I just saw a study on that which confirmed my point! LOL.
My idea would be to hold them responsible to have the testing done but, it would have to be performed by an independent party.
Good point. I left them out, based on the assumption that most of their clients are in the food industry, not the vaping industry. We also can't lose more time arguing over who is going to pay for it. We will all pay now or pay later, anyway.
Well it's a great start and we all applaud this study.
But things move very fast when the smell of $$ is already in the water.
It pays to be proactive, otherwise, you may find yourself on foot, standing on the white line on the highway, looking at a large semi-truck belonging to your competitors/enemies barrelling toward you ----- when your team is still back at the truck stop checking tire pressure.
Lip service, email campaigns, signing petitions, and marches are hollow-sounding without incontrovertible data and research.
Haha yes this is true. In a perfect world a neutral party would do thorough testing and lawmakers would use that evidence to make informed and neutral decisions on regulation. But as we all know, that's a pretty far cry from how things actually work.
Non-smoking activists will continue to fight vaping because.. it looks like smoking. The government will tend to support or reject vaping based on the biggest decider, money. The FDA, BT, and ecig vendors all have monetary reasons to control which way regulations fall. I'll still speak out as a vaper who is pro-vaping. Fingers crossed.
Even that can be suspect though.. much like a study that is done by an independant party but funded by Big Tobacco is suspect.
Again, not that I disagree, just questioning how well these results would be received by those quick to point out "that study was paid for by the person who want to sell the stuff! We can't trust that!".
You should know better by now than to ask my opinion onNETssoaks.
Don't like 'em.
That may be true, and you know I know that is, but some of the contents of the study get wonky and it's not just about soaks (and neither are all NETs necessarily--though I get why you don't like the umbrella term). Maybe I should've specified, but my intention was to ask about your perspective on the science (the study in general), not your opinion about soaks. Hell, we could talk about what you think abut the high voltage part, or the cinnamon, or the methods used to arrive at the conclusions. That's all.
Last edited:
Ah, I get it.
The study looks pretty well put together.
The points I take away from it are:
1. The fundamental combination of vaping base and nicotine are not cytotoxic.
2. Once you get past the vaping base and nicotine, things get uncertain.
3. Soaks are suspect as are some specific flavorings.
4. Most anything you vape is still safer than smoking.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
