E-cigarettes and vaping ‘may cause lung cancer like normal cigarettes’

[Patrick21]

Well i certainly feel more healthier for not smoking, better breathing etc; Anyone think there is any truth in this? Quite a bold statement.

metro.
co.uk/2014/07/29/e-cigarettes-and-vaping-may-cause-lung-cancer-like-normal-cigarettes-4813648/?

"E-cigarettes and vaping 'may cause lung cancer like normal cigarettes' | Metro News"

 

[DetraMental]

The key word in the title is "may" cause cancer.

 

[patkin]

I don't know... can only give personal perspective... When I see the disclaimer "may," I figure its a lie.

 

[rufus1138]

formaldahyde? im not buying that at all, this is ignorance run rampant.

 

[dragonpuff]

Well i certainly feel more healthier for not smoking, better breathing etc; Anyone think there is any truth in this? Quite a bold statement.

metro.
co.uk/2014/07/29/e-cigarettes-and-vaping-may-cause-lung-cancer-like-normal-cigarettes-4813648/?

"E-cigarettes and vaping 'may cause lung cancer like normal cigarettes' | Metro News"

Aaaahhh this is the same formaldehyde study we've been talking about for months!!! I'm tearing my hair out!!!!

Can some research lab, ANY research lab, please give us a NEW study?? Pretty please???

If anyone conducts a study that refutes or adds to this formaldehyde study and makes certain it is published as widely as this one has, I WILL BAKE YOU A CAKE! A WHOLE CAKE! Please someone follow up on this study!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Towmotor]

E-cigs MAYcause cancer, liver disease, pregnancy, hot dog fingers and manifestations of the devil.....well, they may.

 

[emstorm]

"may" also not cause lung cancer like normal cigarettes

 

[Mogar]

Smoking does not cause cancer either. It INCREASES the chance of getting it.
I do know a 2 pack a day smoker that has been doing it for over 60 years.
I also know a heath nut that never touched it with lung cancer...

misinformation people

 

[DaveP]

Search this study for spectrographic analysis of e-cigarette vapor using the search term "formaldehyde". TLV column is "Threshold Limit Value" allowed by the FDA.

http://publichealth.drexel.edu/~/media/files/publichealth/ms08.pdf

 

[DaveP]

I still hear people say they heard there was antifreeze in my ecig. It's PG and it replaced diethylene glycol in antifreeze because DEG was killing animals who licked it up off the pavement because it was sweet. So, technically it is in antifreeze and thousands of things you ingest and rub on your skin, too. The bad stuff isn't in antifreeze anymore.

The PG that's in antifreeze and ecigs is also used as an anti-foaming agent in your can of Coke. (and in your toothpaste and cosmetics, pie fillings, ....) PG is used all over where a safe thickening agent is needed.

 

[Dayglow]

I was under the impression that smoke particulate sizes were smaller than the water vapor droplet sizes and therefore the water droplets did not penetrate as deeply into lung tissues...hmm...
Not to mention that the physical smoke particles are slightly more substantive than the contents of a vapor droplet. Physical particulates can embed and require cilia movement to disperse and digest. Liquid droplets get absorbed most often by passive movement across the membrane. Who am I to argue, I just went to college for this kind of stuff...

 

[DaveP]

I was under the impression that smoke particulate sizes were smaller than the water vapor droplet sizes and therefore did not penetrate as deeply into lung tissues...hmm...
Not to mention that the physical smoke particles are slightly more substantive than the contents of a vapor droplet. Physical particulates can embed and require cilia movement to disperse and digest. Liquid droplets get absorbed most often by passive movement across the membrane. Who am I to argue, I just went to college for this kind of stuff...

Everything I've read says that smoke is microscopic ash particles coated with nicotine that can penetrate more deeply into the lungs. Vapor is larger droplets that condense on the bronchials and don't generally get into the smaller tubes. I'd rather cough up the artifacts of aerosol vapor than sticky ash particles from smoke.

Besides, I'm enjoying my Cilia working once again.

This thread talks about Formaldehyde and acrolein production.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/health-safety-e-smoking/391973-formaldehyde-e-vapor.html

I also question the production of formaldehyde in ecig vapor. Is it primarily a VG issue or does it occur easily with PG or a mix of the two? The clip below says formaldehyde was found in both, but at far lower levels in ecigs.

Results:Traces of
acetaldehyde were detected in all examined EC solutions(0.081±0.042 μg/mL).
Acetaldehyde was found in all EC vapors (0.153±0.116 μg/30 puffs), but at levels
more than a thousand-fold lower than in tobacco smoke. Formaldehyde and acrolein
were only found in vapors generated from glycerin-based solutions (0.116±0.022
and0.110±0.190μg/30 puffs) and in tobacco smoke (12 and 32-fold higher levels,
respectively). None of the examined VOCs were detected in the vapors, while all
were found in tobacco smoke. Conclusions: In contrast to tobacco smoke, the
vapors generated from ECs does not contain VOCs. Exposure to CCs from ECs is
significantly reduced compared to tobacco smoke and may be attributable to the
glycerin content in the nicotine refill solution.

More information in this thread ... we all need to be informed.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-story-e-ciggarettes-safer-than-stinkies.html

 

[dragonpuff]

I was under the impression that smoke particulate sizes were smaller than the water vapor droplet sizes and therefore did not penetrate as deeply into lung tissues...hmm...
Not to mention that the physical smoke particles are slightly more substantive than the contents of a vapor droplet. Physical particulates can embed and require cilia movement to disperse and digest. Liquid droplets get absorbed most often by passive movement across the membrane. Who am I to argue, I just went to college for this kind of stuff...

It's the other way around - smaller particles can penetrate into deeper tissues because of their size. Think of it like running water through a filter - the filter traps larger particles, while smaller particles like water molecules and ions pass right through.

Nevertheless, you are absolutely right about the way smoke interacts with our tissues versus vapor yet, while much of the vapor is going to get absorbed along surfaces as it goes deeper into the lungs, some of it will penetrate very deeply into lung tissue. This is based in studies done on aerosols.

However, the claim is that these particles will carry the horribly dangerous chemicals provided by e-cigarette vapor deeply into the lungs, which can lead to disease via a cumulative effect over time. Yet, aside from the flawed carbonyl study cited in this article, there is no evidence that vapor particles contain hazardous chemicals at a high enough level to cause harm.

So there you have it - yes, vapor can penetrate deeply into lung tissue, but no, it will not cause a problem unless the vapor itself is hazardous, and that has not been proven.

 

[DrMA]

The issue of particulates has been discussed at length: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...isks-e-cigarettes-emerge-sciencenews-org.html

I'll repeat it here, in case anyone missed it: there are no solid particles in vapor. Particles that are dangerous and *may* cause cancer are exclusively tiny bits of solid matter, whereas vapor is comprised solely of small liquid droplets.

Any research that claims to have measured particles or particle size in vapor using optical or opacity-based methods is knowingly lying and maliciously distorting science to fulfill the predetermined ANTZ agenda.

On the topic of aerosols:
When it comes to studies of "particles," be weary of the methods used. Studies that use non-discriminating methods (optical particle counters) cannot differentiate between solids and liquid droplets. Whereas studies that use condensation methods intentionally count liquid droplets and report them as "particles", while citing risk values associated to solid particulate matter (e.g. PM10, PM2.5).

There is no one instrument that can differentiate and separately count solid particles and liquid droplets from an aerosol. Hybrid particles (i.e. those that contain both liquids and solids) are especially tricky to quantify, a well-known and widely studied problem in atmospheric sciences. For this purpose one has to use differential or comparative methods by combining data from multiple instruments, but there is no established standard methodology to perform such a measurement.

 

[dragonpuff]

The issue of particulates has been discussed at length: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...isks-e-cigarettes-emerge-sciencenews-org.html

I'll repeat it here, in case anyone missed it: there are no solid particles in vapor. Particles that are dangerous and *may* cause cancer are exclusively tiny bits of solid matter, whereas vapor is comprised solely of small liquid droplets.

Any research that claims to have measured particles or particle size in vapor using optical or opacity-based methods is knowingly lying and maliciously distorting science to fulfill the predetermined ANTZ agenda.

On the topic of aerosols:
When it comes to studies of "particles," be weary of the methods used. Studies that use non-discriminating methods (optical particle counters) cannot differentiate between solids and liquid droplets. Whereas studies that use condensation methods intentionally count liquid droplets and report them as "particles", while citing risk values associated to solid particulate matter (e.g. PM10, PM2.5).

There is no one instrument that can differentiate and separately count solid particles and liquid droplets from an aerosol. Hybrid particles (i.e. those that contain both liquids and solids) are especially tricky to quantify, a well-known and widely studied problem in atmospheric sciences. For this purpose one has to use differential or comparative methods by combining data from multiple instruments, but there is no established standard methodology to perform such a measurement.

This is the exact article that the IFLS article was referencing! I needed this, thank you!!!

 

[JoeChemo]

Today's Metro article is pulling info from the Roswell Park Cancer Institute's press release of 15 May 2014:

www. roswellpark. org/media/news/some-electronic-cigarettes-may-increase-health-risks

 

[Dayglow]

It's the other way around - smaller particles can penetrate into deeper tissues because of their size. Think of it like running water through a filter - the filter traps larger particles, while smaller particles like water molecules and ions pass right through.

Nevertheless, you are absolutely right about the way smoke interacts with our tissues versus vapor yet, while much of the vapor is going to get absorbed along surfaces as it goes deeper into the lungs, some of it will penetrate very deeply into lung tissue. This is based in studies done on aerosols.

However, the claim is that these particles will carry the horribly dangerous chemicals provided by e-cigarette vapor deeply into the lungs, which can lead to disease via a cumulative effect over time. Yet, aside from the flawed carbonyl study cited in this article, there is no evidence that vapor particles contain hazardous chemicals at a high enough level to cause harm.

So there you have it - yes, vapor can penetrate deeply into lung tissue, but no, it will not cause a problem unless the vapor itself is hazardous, and that has not been proven.

I think you are misreading that part I wrote. I intended the particle travel to describe that of the water droplet, not the smoke particle. Perhaps my phrasing could have been better.

 

[Kent C]

These links keep being recycled when someone new finds the terrifying study

I like this one because it shows how industry always conscience of junk science law suits will overstate levels of possible harm, giving them a 'buffer' in case something is used incorrectly by the particular portion of their market (and the ones that are more likely to bring the lawsuits) - their really ignorant customers.

Harpocrates Speaks: Demystifying Vaccine Ingredients - Formaldehyde

How Much Is Too Much?

We know that formaldehyde is actually pretty darn important for life. We also know that too much of it can be a bad thing. But just how much is too much? When do we need to start worrying?

A good place to start is to figure out what is the NOAEL, or No Observable Adverse Effect Level. That is the largest dose at which there are no significant adverse effects among those exposed to the substance in question. Thankfully, the EPA has looked at that and extrapolated from animal experiments what a safe level of formaldehyde exposure should be. According to their calculations, a human could consume 0.2 mg/kg of formaldehyde every day, in addition to what their own body produces, without showing any adverse effects, such as weight loss, and that is factoring in a lot of safety buffers; the real safe exposure level is likely around 10-100 times higher than that. But, this is the EPA; they like to play it safe. Similarly, Health Canada lists a NOAEL for indoor air concentrations of formaldehyde of 615 μg/m3, though for avoiding observable respiratory effects in children, they set the safe level for 8-hour indoor exposure at about 50 μg/m3. Again, these levels include pretty big safety buffers, with the level at which adverse effects first become apparent being much, much higher. Serious effects, like death, don't occur until even higher levels.

On the other hand, gov't agencies such as the EPA and FDA do the opposite. They operate from a 'no-threshold' view of safety, where any trace of a carcinogen, no matter how small, is dangerous! I've mentioned this before but their only restriction now, is the limits of the tools used to measure. It used to be they could only detect parts per thousands, then ppm, ppbilions, etc. As their tools improve, the levels needed to declare danger are lower and lower to where you get: (thanks tomcat)

OUR Breath Causes Cancer?

"The formaldehyde that is naturally formed in our bodies is
exhaled at concentrations of up to a few parts per billion.1
Yet 0.008 parts per billion is the inconsistent and overly
conservative cancer risk value proposed by the EPA’s draft
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) risk assessment
– meaning every human breath poses an unacceptable
risk of cancer."

http://www.americanchemistry.com/Pr...ms-with-EPAs-Formaldehyde-Risk-Assessment.pdf

A visual on the levels compared to ecigs. Also note that the offending study (also noted mainly by DaveP elsewhere here) has a concentrated aerosol vs. how we actually vape - taking in air (which has formaldehyde naturally ) plus our own breath, and ecig vapor) so the aerosols tested show higher amounts than what we actually inhale.

Assessment of e-cigarette safety by comparing the chemical composition of e-cigarette aerosol and cigarette smoke from reference traditional cigarette | esmokinginstitute.com

Black Mild 14mg and Volish Platinum 18mg being the name/nic level of the eliquids used.

 

[skoony]

I still hear people say they heard there was antifreeze in my ecig. It's PG and it replaced diethylene glycol in antifreeze because DEG was killing animals who licked it up off the pavement because it was sweet. So, technically it is in antifreeze and thousands of things you ingest and rub on your skin, too. The bad stuff isn't in antifreeze anymore.

The PG that's in antifreeze and ecigs is also used as an anti-foaming agent in your can of Coke. (and in your toothpaste and cosmetics, pie fillings, ....) PG is used all over where a safe thickening agent is needed.

please be aware that propylene glychol is not in all anti-freeze. only in pet safe anti-freeze. it does not protect to as low or high a temperature as the poisonous stuff does. it may however be mandated in some states,i don't know.
regards
mike

 

[Anjaffm]

@Kent C:
excellent posting! Thank you