Harvard Eliquid Study Today
- Thread starter WharfRat1976
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I have extreme difficulty believing that smokers do not inhale smoke as deeply into their lungs as a person breathing normally. I'm sorry but for me that defies credibility. And that entire report was couched very speculatively, as it had to be, since they were so obviously making things up to support a conclusion.
In the current political climate I have no doubt that no toxicologist would dare go against the party line and suggest it is ok to add diketones to juice. Regardless of the 50 Ton Elephant in the room. Or what they might think. Just a personal opinion on that and how people behave.
Just as an aside, the puff counter and time counter on my mod indicates my last 7681 puffs lasted 17691 seconds, average 2.3s, almost exactly what the report suggests for smokers. Doesn't do anything to make me more warm and fuzzy about the science of the speculations in that report...
I guess I consider all this direct lung inhale vs mouth to lung to be Much Ado About Nothing. I can do an MTL and inhale quite deeply. As deeply or deeper than I would be inhaling while standing on a factory floor. So I just don't get all that in that linked report. I can't see it as anything other than FUD to try to hide the 50 Ton Elephant. It defies credibility to suggest that a billion smokers are inhaling massive quantities of diketones but not inhaling deeply enough to do harm. Getting lost in the minutia can't change that simple fact.There have been many polls over the years on this subject here on the forum...
And the results are very clear...
The vast majority of people on this forum did not direct lung inhale cigarettes.
And a large percentage of them were shocked to find out that some people actually did that.
I always direct lung inhaled my cigarettes, and thought everyone did as well.
And personally, I was shocked to find out I was part of a very small minority in that respect.
Don't want to derail the thread, but did want to point it out.
If, for example, only a couple percent of smokers inhaled deeply, that leaves tens of millions of deep lung inhalers in the potential victim pool. I'm not saying the number is only a couple percent. I'm just trying to point out that the sheer numbers are staggering. This is really more than a typical 50 Ton Elephant.
The report Mazinny linked attempts to portray a billion smokers as a bunch of robots, all smoking exactly the same way in order to thread this needle just so, such that any diketone related damage is avoided even though the substance is considered so toxic at the levels known to exist in cig smoke. As well as thousands of pathologists all studiously avoiding any detection of BO during autopsies. And thousands of physicians all similarly studiously avoiding a correct diagnosis, despite the fact that the smoking/BO connundrum has been known for years now.
Cherry picking? They did test the powder,paste and liquid form. They never said what was used when and how much was being
used. The diacetyl in the wet powder (whatever that is) , paste and, liquids were higher. Without knowing when and how much
was used I'm going with the dust. I have cited three sources that specifically stated the dust was the main concern. Having worked
in an environment where airborne dust was the primary occupational hazard and knowing the health risks dry fine particulate
matter poses to ones lungs I'm betting on the dust. Any dry particulate matter can pose serious lung related issues. As they were
just simulating methods to detect the amounts of diacetyl and, not actually testing for actual harm caused assuming the presence
of diacetyl in the higher amounts was a cause of the illness is premature at best because it doesn't take into account different environmental factors in play through out the mixing process.
Regards
mike
I have a question for @Mazinni. Your linked study suggests that smokers do not draw smoke deeply into the lungs. In support of that claim it references computer models and the location of lung cancer. The report suggests that vapers, based on statistical averages of puff times, will draw their vapor (and diketones) deeply into the lungs, but apparently smokers do not.
Now, I did a little research on Emphysema, a smoker's disease. I wanted to know where Emphysema manifests itself, and I found this NIH report: Cellular and Molecular Mechanisms of Alveolar Destruction in Emphysema: An Evolutionary Perspective
That report suggests that Emphysema is mainly due to damage to those same alveoli that your linked report suggests somehow escapes the ravages of smoke.
So my question is... why did the linked report focus on the location of lung cancer (which has nothing directly to do with where smoke goes) and totally ignore the evidence of Emphysema ?
Is it remotely possible the report was cherry picking science to try to come up with some explanation, no matter how tortured, to make that 50 Ton Elephant disappear?
Surely Occam, after reading this thread and reading that report, is not only spinning in his grave, but pounding on the top of his coffin and screaming.
Now, I did a little research on Emphysema, a smoker's disease. I wanted to know where Emphysema manifests itself, and I found this NIH report: Cellular and Molecular Mechanisms of Alveolar Destruction in Emphysema: An Evolutionary Perspective
That report suggests that Emphysema is mainly due to damage to those same alveoli that your linked report suggests somehow escapes the ravages of smoke.
So my question is... why did the linked report focus on the location of lung cancer (which has nothing directly to do with where smoke goes) and totally ignore the evidence of Emphysema ?
Is it remotely possible the report was cherry picking science to try to come up with some explanation, no matter how tortured, to make that 50 Ton Elephant disappear?
Surely Occam, after reading this thread and reading that report, is not only spinning in his grave, but pounding on the top of his coffin and screaming.
I have to agree with this.
If you're worried about diketones, then you might want to consider worrying about all flavoring compounds.
I am mitigating my risk by limiting diketone exposure, but also by trying to use more unflavored.
I generally vape unflavored when I'm just sitting around having a vape.
But I still seem to need flavors when I'm having a few drinks.
Yet since I don't really vape much anymore when I'm not drinking...
I don't reach for my unflavored very much yet.
Yep, there are lots and lots of other compounds in flavorings, some of which might not be good to inhale. This is one reason I'm reducing the amount of flavorings I use. There's also a flavorings manufacturer who hasn't just eliminated diketones, but who is doing extensive inhalation-specific toxicity testing on their flavors. Until others do the same, that manufacturer will be my sole source for flavors.
That said, I've yet to hear of another compound that's been implicated in the destruction of lung tissue to the point where people have required transplants in order to live, like diketones have.
That said, I've yet to hear of another compound that's been implicated in the destruction of lung tissue to the point where people have required transplants in order to live, like diketones have.
Sadly there have been many cases requiring transplant due to OB where the patient was never exposed. Just saying.
___________________________________
Non the less, I am glad to see this thread continuing and information being shared as well as debated.
___________________________________
* CDC Findings......okay. Their track record is anything but impressive.
Area of concern - {Mixing Room} Limited Ventilation, perhaps much less than the rest of the Facilities air circulation.(lower Air Quality)
Where is the Detailed List of Chemical involved in exposure?
What were the Actual Exposure levels of each?
What would be the threat of Combining these chemicals?
Were ANY of these other Chemicals considered Risk?
What Testing was done on each chemical for inhalation risk?
Were any combination reaction test done?
All I have found From the CDC and every POPCORN LUNG media garbage since was:
Found Diacetyl and OTHER Chemicals
i.e. a Blame must be found - Pick one, set limits of exposure(by way of Air Quality adjustments){which by the way, effect exposure to all chemical in the area.}
Impose theoretically safe limits................from what studies?
Danger?............Maybe
CDC................seriously
*admittedly, my opinion of OSHA is no better
How is it that 2,3-Butanedione the main contributor linked to factory workers contracting lung disease 15 - 16 years ago, has been over looked in cigarettes and all the while knowing the amounts of each free radical volatile organic compound Reducing Levels of Toxic Chemicals in Cigarette Smoke: A New Healthy People 2010 Objective ,with how many cases ? of BO from smoking, just 100's of thousands of mis diagnosed cases of COPD / asthma, study's concluding Cigarette smoke contains 1014 free radicals per puff E-cigarettes an emerging public health concern, Johns Hopkins researchers say and ecigs confirmed 100 times less but suddenly as of 2012 and more so 2015 2,3-Butanedione has become the new "asbestos" bringing on the theory that if you "vape" this in aerosol form (now evidently it matters how dense the aerosol is) while at lower temps than a lit cigarette, you could possibly loose the functioning of your lungs in the form of (BO) , not asthma, not cancer, heart disease, stroke, lung diseases, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), emphysema or chronic bronchitis, just the non reversing lung disease BO ? So I would only have to assume that the Emergency Response and Air Toxicants (ERAT) Branch Laboratory, CDC would not be able to accurately analyze e cigarettes without the proper funding or won't take action until enough illnesses have occurred like they have with cigarettes ?
You know, the question i asked ( and you have repeatedly refused to answer ) was not a rhetorical one and i wasn't trying to make a point. I was honestly interested to see how you came to the conclusion to completely dismiss the NIOSH studies. It's a moot point now that you have changed course and blame it on the powder !?
Another negative outcome of this ridiculous Harvard study ( which added absolutely nothing to our understanding of the issues and was a monumental waste of taxpayer dollars ) is that it has made some vapers even more defensive and contentious than before, and has politicized the issue even further. This diketone issue is fast becoming the AGW of vaping.
Harvard, Oh they're stooges of the Obama FDA and big tobacco, what do you expect .... Toxicologists ? pffft they are just towing the party line ( whatever that is ) .... NIOSH, anti-business communists ...
I haven't made my mind up on whether diketones in ejuice is problematic and at what concentration. I think a lot more study is needed. In the meanwhile i will exercise caution and try to stay away as best as i can.
I am a little concerned, however, that this Harvard study has somehow convinced a group of vapors that diketones in ejuice is absolutely and unequivocally a complete non-issue regardless of the concentrations. It's almost as if Harvard saying it's bad is almost proof enough in itself that it must be good for you !
To be fair, the group of vapers you are referring to felt that way long before this Harvard study.
Actually I'm the one pushing the powder as I have past experience working with hazardous
powdered based ingredients.
Regards
Mike
Perhaps, that's why i said they are even more contentious and defensive
I wonder if a random smoker checks in on some of the sub-forums here, they think we are all conspiracy theorists. What is the opposite of ANTZ ?Well actually it was while it was in it's florescent green / blue stage heated being in it's most volatile stage, but tell me this, if the average mixer "each" worked with an average of 800 pounds a year how in the world could they come up with such small percentages for NIOSH measurements ? but my 3 oz of flavoring a year I mix could produce more than there ul ppm ?
Last edited:
Perhaps, that's why i said they are even more contentious and defensive
Or perhaps you simply miss understand that Saying there is No conclusive studies is not the same as saying anyone believes any of this is 100% safe.
I preach Proof constantly, Yet I DIY and choose carefully. My decision and My choice.
I Believe in Honesty and full disclosure.
If you claim it is safe it better be - Safer, well, that falls under subjective.
If you claim it is Deadly - Show Proof.
Articles in social media are not proof.
Court Case rulings are not proof.
CDC limitations for workplace safety are not proof.
Scientific study and documentation brings proof.
So, bring me proof...........or allow me my educated choices.
This is from NIOSH Blog November 10th, 2008 9:23 am ET
{NIOSH is continuing to evaluate new information pertaining to the risk of respiratory disease from occupational exposures to flavorings. Several efforts are underway to investigate exposures, improve sampling methods, evaluate engineering controls, use animal toxicology models to study a range of flavorings and determine how lung injury occurs, disseminate important public health information, and determine appropriate steps to help safeguard workers’ health. More information can be found on the NIOSH Flavorings-related Lung Disease topic page.}
Where are the Results? If humans in an industrial setting can reach critical health is a few short years, the Rats should have croaked in a Few short months.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
