How many chemicals are really in e-liquid?

[Jay-dub]

I don't think I'd spend the money and get my ... kicked by my wife on multiple occasions for buying more vape "toys" than I really need if I was seriously trying to undermine vaping. I wouldn't be sitting here with my iTaste 134 giddy about stopping by the local vape shop as soon as I get out of work if I didn't like vaping. I don't want to appear disingenuous by passing on talking points that are more sloganeering than honest, deliberate discussions.

 

[kristin]

I don't understand how anyone can be leery of the study done with the grant from CASAA.

1) Dr. Burstyn, the respected researcher to whom CASAA awarded the grant, has no ties to the tobacco industry, e-cig industry or tobacco harm reduction advocacy. He is an expert in environmental air quality and epidemiology.

2) CASAA was not involved in the study other than helping provide access to the existing known studies he reviewed. We asked for his expert evaluation of the existing research and didn't know for certain what his conclusions would be until we got his final report. His research is now being reviewed for publication.

3) The idea that Dr. Burstyn would risk his reputation and possble future career - by lying or manipulating the results of something that has his name on it - for a small, relatively unknown advocacy group that gave him a grant of a measly $15k is a ridiculous notion. That suspicion may be reasonable if he got millions from a company selling e-cigs, but seriously - who would do that for $15k for several months of work? As a professor at Drexel University, its not like that's a lot of money worth risking your reputation.

4) The review has been public for a few months now and the ANTZ haven't ripped it apart over being junk and have largely pretended it doesn't exist. That tells us that they can't argue its conclusions and because of that, they don't want the public to know about it.

5) There will never be e-cigarette research funded by a 100% uninterested party. The people who fund research have a vested interest or they wouldn't spend the money. The FDA does not do research, it reviews research submitted by companies.

6) So far, the ANTZ research has found no evidence of hazards to public health, yet they write conclusions and press releases pretending their research found anything "significant." CASAA simply asked an expert to review all of the existing research to see if what the ANTZ claimed as a health risk was true. Dr. Burstyn found, using the results of the ANTZ testing, not his own, that direct inhalation of the vapor may be a small, but unlikely, health risk because we have no long-term studies of human PG inhalation. And he found NO reason why vapor would be ANY health risk to bystanders.

Its hard to accuse the CASAA study of bias when we gave our grant money to a 100% unbiased, unvested researcher, who simply evaluated all of the existing research done by other scientists.

 

[Caridwen]

I don't think I'd spend the money and get my ... kicked by my wife on multiple occasions for buying more vape "toys" than I really need if I was seriously trying to undermine vaping. I wouldn't be sitting here with my iTaste 134 giddy about stopping by the local vape shop as soon as I get out of work if I didn't like vaping. I don't want to appear disingenuous by passing on talking points that are more sloganeering than honest, deliberate discussions.

Really, it's a decision you have to make for yourself. Like I said, if you find some of the ingredients questionable, most are in flavorings- vape unflavored. It's really not bad at all.

 

[wv2win]

.......................

My skepticism comes from more than just one for-profit industry being dishonest.


My lack of trust doesn't necessarily mean the object of my distrust is actually being dishonest.


I don't really know that but I'm not afraid to air skepticism.


Please point out anywhere in this entire forum that I've made such a claim.


I don't know Ant'z.

1. Skepticism of any unrelated industry does NOT support skepticism of another industry. Basic logic
2. I never stated your lack of trust was dishonest, only that it is baseless and not supported by evidence.
3. Airing skepticism with no supporting evidence is simply "fear mongering"
4. Anti Nicotine Tobacco Zealots. You are using their classic straw man lack of reasoning.

Your dismissing of strong evidence that your "skepticism" is baseless, diminishes it to nothing more than "fear mongering". Provide some real evidence and reasoned logical thought, not just top of the head conjecture and most of us would be less dismissive.

 

[Mr.Mann]

I don't think I'd spend the money and get my ... kicked by my wife on multiple occasions for buying more vape "toys" than I really need if I was seriously trying to undermine vaping. I wouldn't be sitting here with my iTaste 134 giddy about stopping by the local vape shop as soon as I get out of work if I didn't like vaping. I don't want to appear disingenuous by passing on talking points that are more sloganeering than honest, deliberate discussions.

No reason to prove your bonafides as an actual vaper. I don't think anyone is questioning that.

 

[Jay-dub]

Once again - I have not stated anything about e-liquid being good or bad for you. I have, on many occasions throughout this forum, stated how much of a lifesaver vaping is and how much healthier I am than when I smoked analogues. I have questioned the culture and how accepting people seem to be of false comparisons for a cause that doesn't need to massage facts or make apples-to-oranges comparisons. I made the mistake of asking overzealous people to not be so overzealous. That way, as a community, we don't get caught up in making claims or comparisons that are less than fair. Like comparing ingredients in one to the entire chemical composition of the other.

 

[Jay-dub]

1. Skepticism of any unrelated industry does NOT support skepticism of another industry. Basic logic
2. I never stated your lack of trust was dishonest, only that it is baseless and not supported by evidence.
3. Airing skepticism with no supporting evidence is simply "fear mongering"
4. Anti Nicotine Tobacco Zealots. You are using their classic straw man lack of reasoning.

Your dismissing of strong evidence that your "skepticism" is baseless, diminishes it to nothing more than "fear mongering". Provide some real evidence and reasoned logical thought, not just top of the head conjecture and most of us would be less dismissive.

1. I'm skeptical of all for-profit industries. Guess it's an illogical quirk of mine.
2. I think you need to re-read my statement... you misunderstood my point.
3. Anyone can look up how flavors are derived. I've had a hard time finding any studies showing what is in those derivatives or extracts. You're welcome to help.
4. Understood. I'll try to avoid it if I can.

What have I said that is fear mongering again?

 

[kristin]

Well, in that case, maybe it will make you feel more confident in CASAA's ethics to know that we have even criticized poor research that was "pro-vaping" as well as ANTZ research. We, too, caution vapers from treating every little positive study as "conclusive" evidence. We were criticized by some in the community for doing so, but our mission is getting out the TRUTH to the public and we take that very seriously.

For the record (in case folks don't know), CASAA is a non-profit 501c4 organization, with an unpaid board of directors, that represents CONSUMER interests.

Once again - I have not stated anything about e-liquid being good or bad for you. I have, on many occasions throughout this forum, stated how much of a lifesaver vaping is and how much healthier I am than when I smoked analogues. I have questioned the culture and how accepting people seem to be of false comparisons for a cause that doesn't need to massage facts or make apples-to-oranges comparisons. I made the mistake of asking overzealous people to not be so overzealous. That way, as a community, we don't get caught up in making claims or comparisons that are less than fair. Like comparing ingredients in one to the entire chemical composition of the other.

 

[Ultra-X]

My point is that over and over again I see us putting down cigarettes for their 4000 chemicals while not even knowing how many or what chemicals compose e-liquid. We've compared the ingredients of one against the chemical composition of another which is disingenuous. Of course I'm going to consider the knowledge of harmful chemical compounds more important to benign ones but it never hurts to be informed overall. I just don't want to blindly follow what everybody says just because they say it. Pointing fingers at 4000 chemical substances while not even knowing exactly how many are in the substance I'm advocating isn't my style. So, are we going to compare chemical compositions to chemical compositions, ingredients to ingredients, or do as we've done so far and compare e-liquid ingredients against the chemical composition of tobacco?

This is nice thread and one i've been looking for cuz i wonder all the time.
Not sure how many companies out there have the means to actually do this type of testing.
And if they even want to do it.
Big Tobacco and government. I think that's about the only groups that can afford this type of in-depth testing.
And you think they will do it at cost?
I don't think they will. Big tobacco would do it if they only can make money.
Government will do it but only at their pace and time and inefficiency.
Do we (as vapor-ers) really want to go there?

Would think this whole vaping culture would be cheaper without regulation, but then
the lack of regulation has a cost associated as well: the unknown and/or the malicious manufacturer
that deliberately uses a cheaper filler ingredient which is harmful when vaped and no one will know.

(2 cents)

 

[Myk]

Once again - I have not stated anything about e-liquid being good or bad for you. I have, on many occasions throughout this forum, stated how much of a lifesaver vaping is and how much healthier I am than when I smoked analogues. I have questioned the culture and how accepting people seem to be of false comparisons for a cause that doesn't need to massage facts or make apples-to-oranges comparisons. I made the mistake of asking overzealous people to not be so overzealous. That way, as a community, we don't get caught up in making claims or comparisons that are less than fair. Like comparing ingredients in one to the entire chemical composition of the other.

You made the mistake of accusing A of being B.
If you don't like the talk of 4000 chemicals in cigarettes shoot that down, don't do what you say you don't like to ecigs.

It doesn't matter how many "chemicals" are in something. What matters is how many harmful chemicals are there. The claim of rat poison in cigarettes is no different than the claim of antifreeze in ecigs. So if you don't like the claim of "rat poison" it would be best to address that and not to start claiming there's antifreeze in ecigs and hope people understand where you're going.
I don't believe I have ever heard anyone claiming 5 chemicals in ecigs, I've heard 5 ingredients. If anyone has claimed 5 chemicals they don't know what they're talking about, go after them don't start a thread going after everyone.

And don't go making claims about a grassroots organization that are false.

 

[wv2win]

......................
What have I said that is fear mongering again?

When you impugn the integrity of CASAA (which is "us", consumer vapers) with no supporting facts , that's fear mongering. When you insinuate, with no supporting evidence, that valid studies on vaping are somehow "tainted", that is fear mongering. When you insinuate that we should be skeptical of vaping because of your non-supported hypothesis that vaporizing eliquid somehow, might be harmful, when no study has found that to be the case, that is fear mongering.

 

[Wolffy]

A couple of points.

1) "Dr. Burstyn found, using the results of the ANTZ testing, not his own, that direct inhalation of the vapor may be a small, but unlikely, health risk because we have no long-term studies of human PG inhalation."

Have no studies been done on the long term effects of asthma inhalers? I believe PG is a major constituent of the mist from a asthma inhaler.

2) Combustion, especially low temperature (incomplete) combustion is a game changer. If you look at hazardous waste disposal by incineration it's a lot different than the coal furnace that your Grampa had. Look at the temperatures in automotive catalytic converters it's the last part of an exhaust system you want to touch on the underside of a car that has been driven. Both are effective because of higher temperatures causing more complete combustion of the nastys being burnt in them.

With vaporization there is no combustion so the chemical changes are minimal if any.

 

[Fulgurant]

5) There will never be e-cigarette research funded by a 100% uninterested party. The people who fund research have a vested interest or they wouldn't spend the money. The FDA does not do research, it reviews research submitted by companies.

This deserves bolding and underlining, not just for vapers but for everyone. Folks, there's a good chance that every study you see waved about in the media is funded by or carried out by someone who has an ax to grind. Skepticism is good, but if you're gonna walk the path of the skeptic, you should probably start by questioning those who are truly rich and powerful, not those who try to resist them.

Wonderfully well said, Kristin, as always.

 

[Anjaffm]

Well said, kristin!

And I just love the link with the apple
Presented in that way, now who would want to eat THAT?

 

[Talyon]

Like the second hand smoke myths have dissipated over time?

For many here on ECF alone yes, including me.

Vapeing doesn't have as big a stigma as smoking it's still very new to many.

But I do understand your point, well made.

 

[dick39]

I cannot give a decent answer to the topic starter's question.
I even do not know a lot about chemical reactions.....

But I do know that, if you smoke, you burn the tobacco and the additives at 900 degrees C, or about 1650F.
PG/VG becomes vape at about 150 degrees F, and my common sense makes me believe that warming up PG-VG-water-flavour-nicotine to vape is much harmless then burning tobacco+additives at extremely high temperatures.

I was reading an article lately. A study confirmed that e-cig has minimal quantities of nitrosamines.
e-liquid .... 13 nanograms per ml
cigarette ..... 5000 nanograms PER cigarette
And they forgot to tell that they heat up the e-liquid to over 650 degrees F

So, I gonna sleep very good tonight.
4 months vaping, and if I heat up the e-liduid to 650 F, I get the same amount of nitrosamine as 1 tobacco-cigarette........
If I heat up an apple pie to 650 degrees, and eat it, I would probably stay a few days in the hospital....

 

[Steamix]

Propyleneglycol, Glycerol, Nicotine, Dihydrogenmonoxide (very dangerous ), plus dozens or even hundreds of chemicals that constitute a flavour, ranging from the ppm down to ppb range. Difference is that these chemicals are usually listed someplace as being 'safe' or at least 'suitable' for flavourings. Sure, BigFood smiles condescendingly about the antics of the BP and BT lobbyists - their lobbyists deal in completley different strata. Smoking or vaping is to some extent a matter of choice - taking medicine is a matter of an ailment in the first place. But you need to eat, regardless of your health or your preferences in the stuff you're inhaling. The flavours or base chemicals used to make them are found in food stuff too, just take a minute and read the fine print on the packaged foods you just dropped into your shopping cart....

 

[Mr.Mann]

Propyleneglycol, Glycerol, Nicotine, Dihydrogenmonoxide (very dangerous ), plus dozens or even hundreds of chemicals that constitute a flavour, ranging from the ppm down to ppb range. Difference is that these chemicals are usually listed someplace as being 'safe' or at least 'suitable' for flavourings. Sure, BigFood smiles condescendingly about the antics of the BP and BT lobbyists - their lobbyists deal in completely different strata. Smoking or vaping is to some extent a matter of choice - taking medicine is a matter of an ailment in the first place. But you need to eat, regardless of your health or your preferences in the stuff you're inhaling. The flavours or base chemicals used to make them are found in food stuff too, just take a minute and read the fine print on the packaged foods you just dropped into your shopping cart....

Dihydrogenmonoxide overdose killed a couple of classmates of mine, one friend and two cousins. That's not a joke or a lie. But, unfortunately, it is joke when you really look at how fear can be inspired.

 

[EleanorR]

Folks, please do not Feed the Concern Troll. By definition, it cannot be satisfied. Ever.

Plenty of good science has been linked to in this thread. Will the Concern Troll even be bothered to read any/all of it?

Good common sense and Toxicology 101 has also been offered in this thread. Alas, apparently, to no avail.

I enjoyed reading the facts presented here in an attempt to educate the OP. Other than that, there is really nothing more we can do for him.

 

[Burnie]

Well I still have the Going

Vape On