Harvard Eliquid Study Today
- Thread starter WharfRat1976
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Dr. F's response to this:
A new study finds diacetyl in e-cigarettes but exaggerates risks and fails to discuss about smoking
A new study finds diacetyl in e-cigarettes but exaggerates risks and fails to discuss about smoking
alien Traveler" data-source="post: 17030733" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">I don't want to be dismissive about the presence of compounds like diacetyl in our juice because there is an associated risk with it. We, as vapers, should not be blind to the reality of what we are ingesting and the risks it may carry. But as I noted earlier, there is nothing that I saw in the study paper that established what the OSHA / NIOSH acceptable level of exposure is. So their findings are supported by the data but there's no qualification of whether that data supports their hypothesis that e-liquids contain dangerous levels of diacetyl and other compunds.alien Traveler said:
I say it again: Figures don't lie, but liars sure do figure.
Yes, nothing in the study, but as I have learned in another thread, it looks like 20 mkg/ml somehow corresponds to OSHA safety limit:
study : Flavoring Chemicals in E-Cigarettes: Diacetyl, 2,3-Pentanedione......
I think it is important to compare risk to vaping verse smoking, however, any health concerns related to vaping is not then simply dismissed or irrelevant just because it is a lower risk. My priority is to reduce all possible risk that are associated with vaping when that is an option. Smoking is behind me..i am focused on vaping and it's risk.. not smoking risk or it's comparison to vaping. I would think anyone contemplating quitting smoking would want to do so in the safest way as well because by the time they are looking to vaping, they are looking for a healthier alternative..not a new way to destroy their lungs...or they would at least like to be aware of risk they can avoid so they can decide for themselves. I think these articles help with that awareness.
Many eliquids have different levels of diketones in them and the million dollar question is...at what level should we be concerned. For me it's a matter of accepting they don't know so it becomes a matter of do i vape liquids with diketones, at any level, or not. Dr. F says they don't belong in there and we should avoid them. My hope for others is that all vapers are aware of these potential risk as well and have purposely chosen to vape diketones if they do...unfortunately though, many are not even aware of the concerns these chemicals have raised. Again, these articles help raise awareness and let people know they have an option to avoid diketones altogether by informing them of what liquids have them and that one can vape without them in it.
Many eliquids have different levels of diketones in them and the million dollar question is...at what level should we be concerned. For me it's a matter of accepting they don't know so it becomes a matter of do i vape liquids with diketones, at any level, or not. Dr. F says they don't belong in there and we should avoid them. My hope for others is that all vapers are aware of these potential risk as well and have purposely chosen to vape diketones if they do...unfortunately though, many are not even aware of the concerns these chemicals have raised. Again, these articles help raise awareness and let people know they have an option to avoid diketones altogether by informing them of what liquids have them and that one can vape without them in it.
The more I read this thing, the better it gets..
"A convenience sample of 51 e-cigarette flavors was selected for use in this study. Electronic cigarette cartridges, liquids, and their associated devices and batteries were purchased online and in retail locations. We evaluated 51 flavors, including all available flavors from three large cigarette companies (Brands A, B, and C, with 2, 2, and 7 flavors, respectively); 5 flavors from a large independent e-cigarette company (Brand D); and 24 additional flavors from three e-cigarette distributors (Brands E, F, and G, 10, 8, and 6 flavors, respectively) that we selected based on their potential appeal to children, teenagers and young adults (Table 2). In addition, we evaluated 11 e-liquid flavors that are inserted into a cartomizer (disposable cartridge and atomizer system) (Brands H and I, 6 and 5 flavors, respectively)."
Would it be fair to infer that they solely tested e-cigs/cigalikes from this statement?And just how did they determine the "potential appeal to children, teenagers and young adults"?
Risks are unknown. May be exaggerated.
But it looks like quite a few juices on the market exceed safety limit for industry workers.
Good points, and to add, there are more and more never smokers taking up vaping as its popularity increases, I'm all for studies and tests because if vaping is going to be here to stay, identifying and determining potential harm factors will only make it safer for all.
And just how did they determine the "potential appeal to children, teenagers and young adults"?
Complete SWAG, but I'd guess fruit and candy flavors.
The more I read this thing, the better it gets..
"A convenience sample of 51 e-cigarette flavors was selected for use in this study. Electronic cigarette cartridges, liquids, and their associated devices and batteries were purchased online and in retail locations. We evaluated 51 flavors, including all available flavors from three large cigarette companies (Brands A, B, and C, with 2, 2, and 7 flavors, respectively); 5 flavors from a large independent e-cigarette company (Brand D); and 24 additional flavors from three e-cigarette distributors (Brands E, F, and G, 10, 8, and 6 flavors, respectively) that we selected based on their potential appeal to children, teenagers and young adults (Table 2). In addition, we evaluated 11 e-liquid flavors that are inserted into a cartomizer (disposable cartridge and atomizer system) (Brands H and I, 6 and 5 flavors, respectively)."Would it be fair to infer that they solely tested e-cigs/cigalikes from this statement?
And just how did they determine the "potential appeal to children, teenagers and young adults"?
Just my two cents and interpretation.....i didn't see anything wrong or sketchy here and they were upfront about their focus group.
I get your point and it's valid. But selecting flavors that they think are appealing to those groups can induce a statistical differentiation over presenting a list of flavors to a defined number of subjects from each group and using those selections for the study. That's flawed methodology in my book: the researchers are inserting their biases into the sample.
The folks the FDA listen(s) to have repetitively stated there are no exposure level standards that are relevant or applicable to flavorings as they are used in e cigs/vaping. None.
---> https://www.femaflavor.org/safety-assessment-and-regulatory-authority-use-flavors-focus-e-cigarettes
(In earlier reports), Fema also identified & reported to the FDA 1037 chemicals used to produce flavorings that have at least the potential to cause respiratory harm.
Over 300 were considered high risk at any exposure level, more than 40 were considered unsafe to inhale in any amount.
The few chemicals some vapors are concerned with (the ones you hear the most about) were not listed in the high risk or unsafe at any level categories.
Just because your liquid supposedly doesn't contain whatever your worried about doesn't mean it doesn't contain something worse that we haven't focused on or tested for.
Considering one simple single flavoring concentrate can contain as few as 3 to as many as dozens of these chemicals, then these single flavorings are combined with 1 to dozens of other flavoring concentrates to produce an eliquid flavor, the chance of having at least one of the 340 plus high risk chemicals floating around in your eliquids seems quite possible.
Doesn't bother me at all.
Safer than smoking, IMO yes.
I'll take my chances with the 340 or so instead of the thousands known in cigarette smoke.
---> https://www.femaflavor.org/safety-assessment-and-regulatory-authority-use-flavors-focus-e-cigarettes
(In earlier reports), Fema also identified & reported to the FDA 1037 chemicals used to produce flavorings that have at least the potential to cause respiratory harm.
Over 300 were considered high risk at any exposure level, more than 40 were considered unsafe to inhale in any amount.
The few chemicals some vapors are concerned with (the ones you hear the most about) were not listed in the high risk or unsafe at any level categories.
Just because your liquid supposedly doesn't contain whatever your worried about doesn't mean it doesn't contain something worse that we haven't focused on or tested for.
Considering one simple single flavoring concentrate can contain as few as 3 to as many as dozens of these chemicals, then these single flavorings are combined with 1 to dozens of other flavoring concentrates to produce an eliquid flavor, the chance of having at least one of the 340 plus high risk chemicals floating around in your eliquids seems quite possible.
Doesn't bother me at all.
Safer than smoking, IMO yes.
I'll take my chances with the 340 or so instead of the thousands known in cigarette smoke.
Last edited:
It's not the information that's the problem.
We've known this information here and discussed it in depth for a year or two.
Some of us are more precautious than others.
We're all enjoying the benefits of cutting down or cutting out smoking and tobacco.
But the problem is who, when, where and how this information is being displayed, used and manipulated to misdirect the public... to GIVE THEM THEIR OPINION and LET them think it's their own.
The masses are sheeple for "a good cause".
Tapatyped
How this should read...
This study is based on fact.
It is manipulation that is questionable.
Tapatyped
Last edited:
Industry workers can't take a breath between puffs and aren't diluting the concentration with clean air on every breath.
Those numbers are completely unrelated and useless.
The only thing they're good for are as indicators that we need to figure out if and when these chemicals become cause for concern how we use them.
Tapatyped
Yes, you are right.
But where were all these CASAA, SFATA, AVA, etc? Zero influence on public opinion. The case is lost.
Let's hope something will be done with lobbying.
You may want to talk about it with Dr. F. It's his interpretation, based, I believe, on total daily consumption of chemical (which looks as right thing to do).
Most of these same substances are found in cigarette smoke.
Let's ask how do the levels in cigarette smoke compare to the levels in Vapor?
Let's ask how do the levels in cigarette smoke compare to the levels in Vapor?
The vape community people are like tiny little ants on a sand hill, scurrying about being very busy performing all their little necessary and self important functions as Big Tobacco walks by with a size 14 and a half shoe and just steps on it like another bug.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
