That was my 15th post.I can now post a link.
Fire Safe Cigarettes: Chemicals Added To Traditional Cigarettes FSC
Fire Safe Cigarettes: Chemicals Added To Traditional Cigarettes FSC
FDA Miscalculates Real Danger to Smokers
- Thread starter kristin
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Unfortunately, this is what is in debate in court right now. Companies were calling them smoking cessations and people were using them to quit smoking and the FDA defines "smoking cessation" as an NRT. NRTs don't really have their own long term, reduced harm category with the FDA. That's the problem.
Pretty much the whole point of the article.
Yeah, I was pretty much trying to avoid getting into the FDA's agenda, hypocrisy and alterior motives in this article. That would make a whole article in and of itself and pretty much has been written by others ad naseum. It's getting to the point that it's making us look like all we can do it cry conspiracy. It's seriously risking public sentiment going our way if they think we're all nutty, IMO. LOL! That's why I'm trying a different tactic - much to some people's chagrin.
Thanks for that link, BTW!
The use of "STANDARD antifreeze" is the way I'd go. Maybe explain that PG is used mainly in foods, soaps, cosmetics, meds, etc, but then explain how versatile it is. So versatile it's used to make a non-lethal form of antifreeze to save pets and kids lives.
Omitting this fact, especially if the reader knows it is used in antifreeze, sticks out like a sore thumb.
Thanks for the input!
Again, the difference between "antifreeze" and "standard antifreeze" would be lost on most people. I think it's pretty clear that something approved by the EPA for inhalation and by the FDA as a food base that it's deemed safe. Diethylene glycol is what scares people and THAT is the deadly toxin used in antifreeze. I'm trying to seperate the two. By adding that propylene glycol is also in antifreeze - I can't see how that wouldn't just complicate things in an uneducated (regaring these glycols) reader's mind. I honestly think it's better to keep it short and simple and seperate the two compounds in reader's minds. The issue, to me, is that people are mistaking propylene glycol ( safe food base) with diethylene glycol (a toxin). Does that make sense?
I read that PG is used as a carrier/solvent for fragrances i.e. perfume, air fresheners, and for aroma therapy. I shut someone up with that on youtube after saying PG maybe in food but eating is different from inhaling.
True, ergo it's approval by the EPA for human inhalation! There were studies done on it. I should find a link to that and number it in the article - thanks for the reminder!
Hey, do you have a link where you read that about PG's use in those airborne items?
Oh, one more thing. You might want to watch this and maybe contact him for his sources.
EDIT: here's one link for fragrance use. im trying to find the other one
http://www.dow.com/productsafety/finder/prog.htm
YouTube - Episode 8 - Health Concerns Smoking a Electronic Cigarette
EDIT: here's one link for fragrance use. im trying to find the other one
http://www.dow.com/productsafety/finder/prog.htm
YouTube - Episode 8 - Health Concerns Smoking a Electronic Cigarette
Last edited:
lol yah, i just realized it after looking at his website. he has links to it on his site
article link
http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/1/52
and i found the article. it has a list of items containing PG. its a toxicology
report.
http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/chemicals/egpg/propylene/PG_Report_Final.pdf
article link
http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/1/52
and i found the article. it has a list of items containing PG. its a toxicology
report.
http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/chemicals/egpg/propylene/PG_Report_Final.pdf
Last edited:
cool! I also found a link to the EPA that discusses how PG is still considered safe for human inhalation. I made it #4 on my resource list!
Kristin, you have a way of writing that sounds like a conversation with a good and trusted friend.
I'ts like fresh air. And, your references to the FDA are acceptibly critical, almost like you are exposing their gullibility to their supporters who are abjectly using them! It's pretty good comedy, actually. Big Bad Wolf in Gramma's clothing funny. I expect any day now they'll have to waffle out of this somehow. If Ruyan and Dekang LLC out of China can just get their ball rolling for application of US-FDA approval, and I think they can, mixed up with more of the truth of what Big tobacco has done for decades, this could turn into another "Deception-gate" of some significance. I hope I'm not just dreaming.
I'ts like fresh air. And, your references to the FDA are acceptibly critical, almost like you are exposing their gullibility to their supporters who are abjectly using them! It's pretty good comedy, actually. Big Bad Wolf in Gramma's clothing funny. I expect any day now they'll have to waffle out of this somehow. If Ruyan and Dekang LLC out of China can just get their ball rolling for application of US-FDA approval, and I think they can, mixed up with more of the truth of what Big tobacco has done for decades, this could turn into another "Deception-gate" of some significance. I hope I'm not just dreaming.
Parts per million or parts per billion are bare numbers, not percents. 1% is 10,000 parts per million, which is 10,000,000 parts per billion. (for every billion 'parts', ten million parts - 1% - were DEG)
The FDA report stated "Whole Cartridge: Diethylene Glycol by GC-MS
Diethylene Glycol was detected in one sample (Smoking Everywhere 555 High cartridge) at approximately 1%." - and 1% IS beyond allowable limits for DEG, IIRC.
Personally, I'd restructure this section to avoid the DEG matter entirely, OR approach is as a point of "... highlighting that improved production quality control may be needed at some manufacturers" or something. (which actually IS what the FDA's involvement ought to encompass)
j
I was wondering when someone would notice that! It didn't sound right to me. I've heard that some things they found were "parts per billion" vs. the standard testing range of "parts per million" but wasn't sure if that was DEG or not. I'll stick with just 1%. It sounds really weird that that much DEG would suddenly appear in one cartridge - it should have been found in more than one if it was a manufacturing control issue. Where would DEG suddenly appear in a factory? If it was in a batch of bad nicotine, it stands to reason that the other carts in the same package would have it - it's put together on an assembly line. Unless the carts are filled and then mixed in larger bins before gettng on the line to be packaged. But I digress....
I address this in the last paragraph regarding standards & ingredients. I believe admitting that e-cigs aren't perfect makes e-cig proponents more believable and competant to the general public. The FDA report is out there and ignoring it makes us look ignorant & fanatical to them.
newkirk said:
Which allowable limits? For an NRT? What is the allowable amount for a tobacco cigarette?
Sorry, that just chaps my hide that it's held to a different standard and not compared to cigarettes. (Not your fault - I'm venting, lol)
You're a sharp lady, Kate! Good to see fellow e-cig owners get the inside joke.
Kristin,
Yet another fantastic article, congrats! I need to give it a few more "close reads" still, but the shortcomings you bring up with Nicotine Replacement Therapy are completely in line with what I suggest in my call for Smoking Replacement Therapy as a more Holistic paradigm.
You're already hinting that e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation device deserve special consideration, I'm just suggesting a name for it: Smoking Replacement Therapy (in contrast to Nicotine Replacement Therapy). Smoking Replacement is based on the theory that replacing the Nicotine or treating with drugs like Chantix* only addresses the physical addiction and it ignores the psychological addiction to the activity.
Smoking Replacement does not even rely on nicotine, because the primary therapeutic benefit of using an e-cigarette is derived from the mimicry of smoking without any actual combustion. Nicotine is only included as a popular option because the "throat hit" it provides enhances the virtual experience of vaping making it a more effective smoking replacement. For this reason, I suggest that the vaporizers should be separated from the e-liquid so that if the FDA wants to regulate e-liquid as a tobacco product or as a NRT or even as a homeopathic formula for Smoking Replacement.
*I mentioned this because a Chantix commercial just came on the TV. Can you frickin' believe they can run COMMERCIALS for that poison while the FDA tries to ban e-cigarettes?!?
Yet another fantastic article, congrats! I need to give it a few more "close reads" still, but the shortcomings you bring up with Nicotine Replacement Therapy are completely in line with what I suggest in my call for Smoking Replacement Therapy as a more Holistic paradigm.
You're already hinting that e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation device deserve special consideration, I'm just suggesting a name for it: Smoking Replacement Therapy (in contrast to Nicotine Replacement Therapy). Smoking Replacement is based on the theory that replacing the Nicotine or treating with drugs like Chantix* only addresses the physical addiction and it ignores the psychological addiction to the activity.
Smoking Replacement does not even rely on nicotine, because the primary therapeutic benefit of using an e-cigarette is derived from the mimicry of smoking without any actual combustion. Nicotine is only included as a popular option because the "throat hit" it provides enhances the virtual experience of vaping making it a more effective smoking replacement. For this reason, I suggest that the vaporizers should be separated from the e-liquid so that if the FDA wants to regulate e-liquid as a tobacco product or as a NRT or even as a homeopathic formula for Smoking Replacement.
*I mentioned this because a Chantix commercial just came on the TV. Can you frickin' believe they can run COMMERCIALS for that poison while the FDA tries to ban e-cigarettes?!?
DEG was only found in a product that SmokingEverywhere had already taken off market before the study was conducted. FDA did not detect DEG in the vapor of ANY of the products. 1% DEG only exceeds the recommended levels for products intended to be taken internally, and I'm pretty sure that nobody is trying to drink e-liquid--especially not from a product that isn't even on the market.
The presence of DEG does indicate that you are right that e-liquid should be regulated for purity, but it by no means indicates an actual hazard that wouldn't be resolved with a label that says "Warning: Nicotine liquid may be harmful if swallowed." (Duh.)
I just have to say that this piece is very well written, it sounds like you are very well informed, and it was very easy to follow and comprehend along the way. The best aspect of it , however, was the fact that the content not only appeals to the vaping community but smokers, non-smokers, and anyone else who may be seeking more info on the subject.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
