Harvard Eliquid Study Today

[MorpheusPA]

f humans in an industrial setting can reach critical health is a few short years, the Rats should have croaked in a Few short months.

Proof--scientific--required. Rats are not humans, and may or may not have the same reaction to a given chemical that a human would. Threshold values often differ between rats and humans.

The problem with these types of tests is that the levels of exposure are often raised in the testing to show positive or negative results in a reasonable time span and within a rat's very limited life span. Then, of course, the criticism becomes "But Nobody Would Ever Consume That Much!" True, of course, but people who criticize these studies always want it both ways (and then often argue against label disclosure at the same time).

Lately, I'm finding these sorts of people to be extremely tiresome, but that's another story.

For human exposure, we tend to limit or ban on suspicion to be on the safe side, and then allow it if it turns out to not have been a problem. Or, if it has a GRAS or known low toxicity substitute, nobody ever gets back around to doing the research.

Given the complete lack of labeling standards or enforcement in the industry, I went DIY ages ago (and even make my primary flavoring myself). But I don't expect that most people would have the ability, skill set, time, or inclination to do that.

 

[crxess]

Completely understand, but for the uninformed

The Animal Model

 

[Douggro]

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.}

Table 3 in the Harvard study: values are "draft occupational exposure limits (ppm)".

 

[crxess]

Table 3 in the Harvard study: values are "draft occupational exposure limits (ppm)".

They are not based on science.
They are based on CDC environment study and set limitations not backed by science.

 

[Douggro]

They are not based of science.
They are based on CDC environment study and set limitations not backed by science.

My bad - should have put SUPER EMPHASIS on the word "draft" in the quote from the study. As in, they (NIOSH) haven't concluded what their REL's are going to be yet. I was trying to support part of your position, and failed.

 

[VNeil]

Proof--scientific--required. Rats are not humans, and may or may not have the same reaction to a given chemical that a human would. Threshold values often differ between rats and humans.

The problem with these types of tests is that the levels of exposure are often raised in the testing to show positive or negative results in a reasonable time span and within a rat's very limited life span. Then, of course, the criticism becomes "But Nobody Would Ever Consume That Much!" True, of course, but people who criticize these studies always want it both ways (and then often argue against label disclosure at the same time).

Lately, I'm finding these sorts of people to be extremely tiresome, but that's another story.

For human exposure, we tend to limit or ban on suspicion to be on the safe side, and then allow it if it turns out to not have been a problem. Or, if it has a GRAS or known low toxicity substitute, nobody ever gets back around to doing the research.

Given the complete lack of labeling standards or enforcement in the industry, I went DIY ages ago (and even make my primary flavoring myself). But I don't expect that most people would have the ability, skill set, time, or inclination to do that.

If you believe rats have the final say in toxicity then you need to remove nic from your juice. Nicotine causes lung cancer in rats.

That is just one example where the rats got it wrong

 

[VNeil]

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 !

And you have not addressed my last question to you. One billion people have tested diacetyl inhalation for their entire adult lifetime and have a 100.0000000000% null result. And they breathe smoke deep enough into their alveoli to eventually destroy them by other means. But they never get BO.

I won't get dragged into the minutia of the NIOSH report on that irrelevant industrial setting. I don't totally dismiss the report, it just does not supersede the findings of those 1 billion lab rats that much better model what we do as Vapists.

As @skoony points out, BO was considered a dust inhalation disease until vaping politics came along.

 

[crxess]

My bad - should have put SUPER EMPHASIS on the word "draft" in the quote from the study. As in, they (NIOSH) haven't concluded what their REL's are going to be yet. I was trying to support part of your position, and failed.

 

[Rossum]

And you have not addressed my last question to you. One billion people have tested diacetyl inhalation for their entire adult lifetime and have a 100.0000000000% null result. And they breathe smoke deep enough into their alveoli to eventually destroy them by other means. But they never get BO.

Really? 1 billion people who smoked their entire adult life have already died? Looking at a world population vs. time chart and knowing that smoking in many of the places with a high population density is a relatively new thing, I'm skeptical about that. But even if it that premise were true, your claim would require 1 billion post-mortem lung biopsies to have been done, all of them looking for the specific kind of damage that diketones are alleged to produce, damage that's not all that different than the COPD/emphysema that ~20% of smokers end up dying of.

 

[skoony]

But even if it that premise were true, your claim would require 1 billion post-mortem lung biopsies to have been done, all of them looking for the specific kind of damage that diketones are alleged to produce, damage that's not all that different than the COPD/emphysema that ~20% of smokers end up dying of.

One needs not have every single dead smoker to be examined. In the course of routine treatments of any
lung related disease sufficient amounts of biopsies are done and would have undoubtedly have
found OB in smokers by now. I can understand that misdiagnosis can occur. I can't understand a
100% misdiagnosis rate.

Regards
Mike

 

[sparkky1]

Proof--scientific--required. Rats are not humans, and may or may not have the same reaction to a given chemical that a human would. Threshold values often differ between rats and humans.

The problem with these types of tests is that the levels of exposure are often raised in the testing to show positive or negative results in a reasonable time span and within a rat's very limited life span. Then, of course, the criticism becomes "But Nobody Would Ever Consume That Much!" True, of course, but people who criticize these studies always want it both ways (and then often argue against label disclosure at the same time).

Lately, I'm finding these sorts of people to be extremely tiresome, but that's another story.

For human exposure, we tend to limit or ban on suspicion to be on the safe side, and then allow it if it turns out to not have been a problem. Or, if it has a GRAS or known low toxicity substitute, nobody ever gets back around to doing the research.

Given the complete lack of labeling standards or enforcement in the industry, I went DIY ages ago (and even make my primary flavoring myself). But I don't expect that most people would have the ability, skill set, time, or inclination to do that.

Awesome, we have another member of the SFC on the forum ?

 

[Rossum]

One needs not have every single dead smoker to be examined.

Actually, in order to make the claim of "100.0000000000%" it IS necessary. You see that number has several more zeros in it than the number one billion. It therefore asserts a level of certainty requiring exactly that.

In the course of routine treatments of any lung related disease sufficient amounts of biopsies are done and would have undoubtedly have found OB in smokers by now.

I'm sure some have been done. But how many, and were they diligently looking for the somewhat subtle difference between BO and COPD?

Oh, and BTW, what is the causative agent in COPD? Have you considered the possibility that the diketones present in cigarette smoke may play a role in COPD?

 

[crxess]

If you believe rats have the final say in toxicity then you need to remove nic from your juice. Nicotine causes lung cancer in rats.

That is just one example where the rats got it wrong

Not trying to rub on you, but links would be nice. I have only found one hard core Mice study with Nicotine claiming it to cause Cancer and that was Rejected by the medical community.
Study claims nicotine causes cancer
and this was on a Quit Smoking Site.

 

[VNeil]

Really? 1 billion people who smoked their entire adult life have already died? Looking at a world population vs. time chart and knowing that smoking in many of the places with a high population density is a relatively new thing, I'm skeptical about that. But even if it that premise were true, your claim would require 1 billion post-mortem lung biopsies to have been done, all of them looking for the specific kind of damage that diketones are alleged to produce, damage that's not all that different than the COPD/emphysema that ~20% of smokers end up dying of.

About 20 million smokers die each year. How many of those lungs are examined in the routine course of autopsies? Are you seriously suggesting that BO has been missed in every case? Especially in the last decade since the BO issue has been on the radar screen. This defies credibility and you know that

 

[VNeil]

Not trying to rub on you, but links would be nice. I have only found one hard core Mice study with Nicotine claiming it to cause Cancer and that was Rejected by the medical community.
Study claims nicotine causes cancer
and this was on a Quit Smoking Site.

It is frequently discussed here. When I get on a computer I'll try to find a link. But it's a Red Herring and has nothing to do with the 50 Ton Elephant and the reasons I gave that any attempt to make the lack of BO in smokers go away defies credibility.

 

[WillyZee]

To be fair, the group of vapers you are referring to felt that way long before this Harvard study.

Last Friday, I go outside for a vape at work ... I see another vaper from the building, however, he's smoking a cigarette.

I go, dude ... what's with the cigarette? ... he goes, have you read the new Harvard study on eJuice?

I say, yes I have ... he then goes, and you're still vaping?

Yup ... this is their slickest anti-vape propaganda yet.

They are pulling out the Big Guns now.


Sent via iPhone

 

[crxess]

Oh, and BTW, what is the causative agent in COPD? Have you considered the possibility that the diketones present in cigarette smoke may play a role in COPD?

A single Tobacco Flavoring patent:
Patent US3903900 - Tobacco articles and compositions containing 1,2-cyclohexanedione and methods for producing same

 

[sparkky1]

Really? 1 billion people who smoked their entire adult life have already died? Looking at a world population vs. time chart and knowing that smoking in many of the places with a high population density is a relatively new thing, I'm skeptical about that. But even if it that premise were true, your claim would require 1 billion post-mortem lung biopsies to have been done, all of them looking for the specific kind of damage that diketones are alleged to produce, damage that's not all that different than the COPD/emphysema that ~20% of smokers end up dying of.

Actually, in order to make the claim of "100.0000000000%" it IS necessary. You see that number has several more zeros in it than the number one billion. It therefore asserts a level of certainty requiring exactly that.


I'm sure some have been done. But how many, and were they diligently looking for the somewhat subtle difference between BO and COPD?

Oh, and BTW, what is the causative agent in COPD? Have you considered the possibility that the diketones present in cigarette smoke may play a role in COPD?

The ATS has been well aware of the disease in fact naming it, (Flavorings-related fixed obstructive disease) usually presents with a non-productive cough and the subsequent development of exertional shortness of breath, but some workers show no symptoms at all. These asymptomatic workers may only be identified by abnormal findings on screening spirometry. Onset of disease is usually gradual, but disease progression in a matter of months has been identified. Symptoms generally persist while away from work and are often attributed to other common conditions such as asthma, allergic rhinitis, acute or chronic bronchitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pneumonia, or other infectious processes. The gradual onset of disease and the persistence of symptoms when away from work make it difficult for both workers and clinicians to recognize this as a work related condition.

 

[VNeil]

Last Friday, I go outside for a vape at work ... I see another vaper from the building, however, he's smoking a cigarette.

I go, dude ... what's with the cigarette? ... he goes, have you read the new Harvard study on eJuice?

I say, yes I have ... he then goes, and you're still vaping?

Yup ... this is their slickest anti-vape propaganda yet.

They are pulling out the Big Guns now.


Sent via iPhone

I had the same experience with two smokers outside a bar the other day. And they refused to believe the media would lie to them

 

[sparkky1]

A single Tobacco Flavoring patent:
Patent US3903900 - Tobacco articles and compositions containing 1,2-cyclohexanedione and methods for producing same

Acute toxicity (oral, dermal, inhalation), category 4
smells good ..............