Health risks of e-cigarettes emerge - ScienceNews

[EbenezerScrews]

Par-tickle-it

 

[e30holmes]

The 1 key line I picked up was that electronic cigarettes and safer alternatives will kill tobacco companies by 2030 and I'm goi g to assume that's why they are spending that kind of money to research new ideas. I also picked up that it does not state when talking about tobacco that nicotine is a "drug" but as soon as they talk about e-cigarettes they state nicotine is a "drug". The article was clearly paid off by the Big tobacco Company.

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk

 

[DrMA]

There are no fish in water. Fish are large animate objects composed of complex proteins, whereas water is composed solely of tiny inanimate molecules of hydrogen and oxygen. Any research that claims there are fish in water is bogus.

This example is not only conceptually flawed, it can easily been seen as a deliberate attempt to deceive by changing both the subject matter and context of the discussion.

What you're actually proposing is that when you boil fish soup, the fish evaporate out of the pot together with the water, and if you held a net over the pot you'd catch the fish. For that matter, following your logic, commercial fishing should be a very easy operation: park your boat by the dock, wait for the sun to evaporate some water from the ocean, and hold out your hand, because the fish will be evaporating right along.

I don't know how physics work in your universe, but, in ours, the vapor that comes off the soup is made out of water droplets, while the fish stay in the pot, right next to the carrots and celery. So, yes, there are no fish in the steam above the pot, just like there are no solids in ecig vapor.

 

[JeansV]

Keep in mind who the author of the study is. Stanton Glantz spent a lifetime fighting against cigarettes. And now they come back in force - or so he thinks.

Sent from my SCH-i705 using Tapatalk

 

[AndriaD]

Try to resist the inclination to see research that suggests vaping might be harmful as being bogus. Realize that suppressing this information won't make it go away. It is in our best interest that we learn the truth, good or bad, about vaping.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

If and when they come up with some REAL SCIENCE that suggests there is some harm in e-cigarettes above and beyond the obvious (cardiovascular effects of nicotine, dehydrating effects of PG), I will pay close attention. Until then, I will dismiss junk science for what it is: JUNK. Exclaiming over the new clothes of the emperor doesn't make him one bit less naked.

Go play with your fish and leave intelligent vapers alone.

Andria

 

[DrMA]

Particle does not mean molocule, in either interpretation.

Particle is generally assumed to be solid, like the particles in cigarette smoke. The vast majority of particles in vapour are liquid and have known and safe composition.

One of Glantz's papers** says this:

That is at odds with the 3mg/m³ figure by a factor of five hundred. Can we read the paper that 3mg figure came from? No.

We can, however, make a guess. The 3mg figure appears to be somewhat in line with the mass of eliquid vapourised. One might suppose then that this figure is for liquid particles, which will be mostly VG and PG. The smaller figure of 6.6 to 85.0 μg/m3 would then be the concentration of solid particles, and this is one tenth of the concentration in cigarette smoke.

If we were to scale* the highest of those figures to compare it with the EPA limits, we would get 1.1 μg/m³ averaged over 24 hours. That compares to the EPA limit of 50 μg/m³ for 24 hours, and 15 μg/m3 averaged over a year. We are therefore under those limits by more than a factor of ten even if we use the highest concentration figure published by ANTZ and a more stringent limit than they invoke.

They don't say what the particles are composed of, but they are not heavy metals. Here's data from the same Glantz paper:

The range is for an e-cigarette, the final figure on each line is for a nicotine inhaler, which we might assume is perfectly safe. In each case it is for 15 puffs, maybe 15 litres of air. Let's scale that up to m³.

Cadmium: 1.5 ng = 0.0015 μg/m³
Nickel: 1.9 ng = 0.0019 μg/m³
Lead: 3.8 ng = 0.0038 μg/m³


---
* 300, 4 second puffs per day = 20 minutes of breathing vapour. So we divide by 72.
** circ.ahajournals.org / content / 129 / 19 / 1972.full

Very nice summary and analysis. Thanks!

The glANTZ study you cited is new to me. It appears to be a shorter version of the "Position paper" he submitted to the WHO in anticipation of the October FCTC COP-6 (I'm not gonna link that here). But, unlike the larger document, this publication makes a few surprising statements, I never thought I'd ever see glANTZ make (yes, the rest is junk):
«If a patient [...] wishes to use e-cigarettes to aid quitting, it is reasonable to support the attempt»
«e-cigarette aerosol is likely to be much less toxic than cigarette smoking»
«it is reasonable to assume that, if existing smokers switched completely from conventional cigarettes (with no other changes in use patterns) to e-cigarettes, there would be a lower disease burden caused by nicotine addiction»



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.

 

[danfinger]

Particle is generally assumed to be solid, like the particles in cigarette smoke. The vast majority of particles in vapour are liquid and have known and safe composition.

That's not entirely accurate. "Generally assumed to be" and "defined as" are very different.

[1] In the physical sciences, a particle is a small localized object to which can be ascribed several physical or chemical properties such as volume or mass. The word is rather general in meaning, and is refined as needed by various scientific fields. Something that is composed of particles may be referred to as particulate, although this term is generally used to refer to a suspension of unconnected particles, rather than a connected particle aggregation.

And,

[2] Colloidal particles are the components of a colloid. A colloid is a substance microscopically dispersed evenly throughout another substance. Such colloidal system can be solid, liquid, or gaseous; as well as continuous or dispersed.

Vapor has both volume and mass, suspended in air and can accurately be scientifically described as a particle.

 

[DrMA]

As far as US regulators are concerned this is THE final word about particulates and health effects:
Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report) | Environmental Assessment | US EPA

Skim thru Chapter 3 starting on page 152 of the PDF for an overview of the nature, composition, and formation of aerosols.

 

[drksideken]

Even if this were all true...wouldn't it be safe to say that this could be negated by a slight shift in vaping tech. Like adding a filter of some kind to atomizer set ups? Something that can let the vapor through yet catch so called stray particles? I'm not saying they are correct in their analysis, but I believe making a move in that direction only serves to benefit people until the actual science is out. It would definitely show the world that the E-cig community is up for self regulation and innovation with an eye toward our safety as well as those around us who don't vape. Eliminate any possible problems (even if not absolutely proven) from our end and give them less ammunition against us. I'm not an expert on anything scientific or political at all, so if I'm not making sense, I apologize in advance, it's just my ignorance speaking.

 

[rurwin]

That's not entirely accurate. "Generally assumed to be" and "defined as" are very different.

Which is why I carefully used the former phrase. As DrMA says, they appear to count liquid particles and then appear to quote solid particle limits.

I'm no expert on the matter, although I have written device drivers for particulate counters in the automotive field for which I need some degree of understanding of the technology, so I'm not entirely ignorant.

When particles are mentioned in relation to cigarette smoke, they are solid particles -- little liquid will result from combustion and smoke will only have solid particles possibly surrounded by fluids. So, as I said, in this field, particles are generally assumed to be solid. The paper appears to use this misunderstanding to seed fear, uncertainty and doubt.

@drksideken, the particle size probably rules against any effective filter. I wouldn't expect a filter that adequately screened solid particles to allow any vapour past. Vapour is also particles, albeit liquid ones, and probably ones the same size or larger than the stuff you want to filter out.

 

[DaveP]

My concern when I read the article was that uninformed readers would take the text of that article for gospel and spread it. It's all in the presentation. Formaldehyde can be generated at very high temps, but those are in the range that constitute a hot, burnt, nasty vape. It's unlikely that vapers would do that any longer than it takes to puff once and turn it down. He mentioned high voltage ecigs in passing as he brought up the formaldehyde point.

I agree that particulate matter and aerosols are a blinding tactic designed to convince the uninformed reader that too much liquid in the lungs is dangerous, and it is. Fact is, most vapers are very aware of lung irritation and adjust their vape to prevent it. Vapers report CLEARING of the lungs after quitting smoking and vaping for a period of time. My doctor listens to my lungs for about 5 minutes on each physical. He reports "your lungs sound good". I SMOKED for almost 40 years before vaping. 4 years on ecigs have changed the profile of my lungs from raspy to a medically pronounced clear state.

I couldn't help but think about the car analogy when I read his account of how vapers and high voltage attys were dangerous. There are cars on the road capable of reaching 180mph. Doing that is dangerous, but have we ever heard a call for removing them from sales showrooms just because of their potential? We do know that tobacco cigarettes are dangerous, but there's profit in them for government, so they stand untouched aside from certain regulations.