How many chemicals are really in e-liquid?
- Thread starter Jay-dub
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Wolffy said:
In the past, PG was used in inhalers, but it's rare today. We haven't come across long-term human studies for inhalation. Asthma inhalers are not used like vaping anyhow. One or two doses a day from an inhaler for a flare up (which would be unusually frequent) is far different than inhaling up to 6 ml a day. (Although we probably only actually "absorb" half - if even - of the PG we inhale into our system. The other "half" gets exhaled to create those billows of vapor we love to see, lol.)
Last edited:
When I DIY'ed my eLiquid. . .just two. When I vaped I used 50/50 VG/PG, 0Nic/0Flavor. VG is quite sweet. My last vape was Feb 6th. Doubt I'm typical, but, it worked for me. JMHO
Cheers,
otrpu
I get what you're saying and it's a valid point. We can't compare e-liquid ingredients to chemicals in smoke. Some vapers do this and it is a bad comparison because it's apples to oranges. As you noted, a cigarette doesn't have "4,000 ingredients" but around the same as e-cigarettes: tobacco leaf, glycol and flavorings. Vapers often confabulate based on things they've read, confusing the ANTZ "antifreeze" argument is about PG (rather than the DEG found by the FDA) or like I mentioned earlier, use the "PG in asthma inhalers" argument, or saying "it's just water vaper."
We, as vapers, need to make sure we are stating facts and not twisting them - intentionally or not. We neither want to lower ourselves to using ANTZ tactics nor be made to look ignorant or foolish stating misconceptions or untruths. Maybe this week I'll have a chance to work on a blog post I've been meaning to do, "10 Facts About E-cigarettes Vapers Get Wrong." (Hopefully, it won't be more, lol.)
On the other side of things, what's found in the liquid doesn't really matter. We need to know what is harmful in the vapor. Most of the "potentially harmful" chemicals the ANTZ have detected were in the liquid, not the vapor. Since we don't drink the liquid, we inhale the vapor, this is significant. Just as most of the harmful chemicals found in smoke are not in unburned tobacco.
That is why the review of chemicals done by Dr. Burstyn with the CASAA grant is so important. It looks at the amounts of the potentially harmful ingredients and compared them to the acceptable (ie. considered "safe") standards for involuntary exposures in the workplace. The "number of chemicals" is in the liquids irrelevant. What matters is actual exposure to harmful levels of hazardous chemicals.
Edited to add: it is notable that most of the ingredients in e-liquid ARE also the majority of the "chemicals." PG, VG, distilled water and nicotine. The flavorings also contain their own chemicals, but the flavorings also only make up a small portion of the liquid as a whole. And those flavorings are considered GRAS - safe for human consumption - and don't appear to be the source of any of the chemicals the ANTZ claim are "potential health risks."
Last edited:
All around excellent post kristin. Quoted this part cause I mostly agree and because it is most pertinent going forward.
My only slight disagreement is that I think ingredients/chemicals for juice matters cause around .5% of my inhalations result in liquid getting on my lips/tongue inadvertently. And even more rare, I somehow manage to get liquid on my hands/skin. I think that's happened twice in about 2 years, but I think it could happen more with others.
As I'm mostly in agreement, I do wish to just reiterate that it is vapor to smoke that is the fair comparison. Not liquid to tobacco. And from the science linked on this thread, as I noted earlier, it is very challenging to find anything harmful in exhaled vapor, which is I think what really truly matters as a public health issue. According to the science, in my understanding, the exhaled vapor is so harmless that it appears to pose 0 risk to humans of any age. As in vaping around a toddler would result in no effects for that person. I honestly think that challenges a great many vapers' understandings, while it would almost definitely be met with denial by non-vapers.
As a side note, I wish to express utter amazement that smoke contains 1000+ chemicals. And I choose the low number, cause really anything more than 100 is amazing to me. Also amazing is that if it is even 100 chemicals in smoke, it seems challenging to understand how that can be considered harmful. You'd think, even with 100 in there, that it would be trace amounts. And I realize over time that it adds up, but if we go back to 1000+, then that would seem like it would take a long long time for harm to be realized. Or, at the very least heavy smoking for it to be realized. Which, as my final point, I'd just like to note that as one who smokes and vapes, I don't see smoking, in light use as harmful, unless I were to do it for another 120 years. Obviously just making up a number there, but it is very hard to understand, even in today's political climate, how anyone can claim light use of smoking (logs) is harmful/dangerous. Especially when taking into account the fact that there are 1000+ chemicals in smoke. I realize the opposite seems to be true (holy crap 1000+ chemicals), but as I just said, that would mean a whole bunch of those are in infinitely small amounts.
No, the tobacco corporations and federal investigators BOTH listed them as ingredients, there were a number of inquires and investigations during the late '80s and early '90s that brought this to light. Research centers such as Johns Hopkins and UC Berkley verified them, the tobacco corporations have spent millions trying to keep this data quite. No one in the vaping community is trying to mislead anyone, the truth is the tobacco corporations have been adding chemicals to cigarettes since the early '70s to make them more additive and better tasting with little to no regard for user safety.
Sorry, but I've never seen a retailer without a CASAA banner on the web-site or on the B&M. I guess I just have a different idea of "grassroots" and "industry lobby". CASAA may be wonderful, honest, professional and objective people who do everything in their power to make sure that those commissioned to do studies know that the results are not part of a quid pro quo. I speak for myself when I say what I distrust and why. Peer reviewed studies are occurring and thanks to that the scientific knowledge is snowballing. That said, the peer review process is by no means complete and initial studies on flavoring/extracts etc... being inhaled are few and far between let alone being peer reviewed. Actually, if you could point me to some that would be great. I'd rather people know have as much data as possible so no city/state/federal hearing can catch a vape advocate/spokesperson with their pants down. We either forge each other by fire here or have it done in a less than supportive environment.
Concern troll? Please show me the chemical make-up of a general tobacco flavored e-liquid let alone a more complex blend of flavors. My concern is not physical, it's mental. I don't want us to look like a bunch of zealots that only have vague answers and a handful of non-peer reviewed studies. The latter concern seems to be taking care of itself when it comes to e-liquid in general but I have yet to see much science, let alone peer reviewed science on e-liquid with flavors. But, call all the names you like, it looks smart on you.
9 pages and only a few posters actually tried to address the OP in an objective, rational manner. The rest of you knee-jerks added nothing. Quit beating a tribal drum and try to have an honest discussion.
Last edited:
This thread has become pointless. The fact is that until thousands of studies have been done on e-cigarettes, we will not have a consensus of truth. Relying on even a dozen or two dozen studies is not enough of a base to go off of. Scientific "Studies" are often influenced by outside interest groups, flawed in their parameters, etc. Which is why it is not wise to base anything off of X study done here or X study done there.
What we know for certain is that smoking cigarettes eventually leads to cancer. Cancer is a horrible and prolonged way to die.... For now, that should be enough for most people, unless you want to go back to the patch or the gum or the pills, all of which I tried and all of which were over-priced and did not work.
What we know for certain is that smoking cigarettes eventually leads to cancer. Cancer is a horrible and prolonged way to die.... For now, that should be enough for most people, unless you want to go back to the patch or the gum or the pills, all of which I tried and all of which were over-priced and did not work.
Did you ever consider what's good for the customer is good for the business? Or that the businesses are owned by vapers?
Yay! Another rational person! That makes maybe three in those whole thread! I just get tired of people acting like they know something they don't know. And look what happened here when I tell them they don't know. I thought most people here would be 18+ due to the product that we've gathered around. If this is how adults react to being told they don't know something it's pretty friggin' sad. If it wasn't for Kristen stepping in as a voice of reason I thought I was going to get lynched. Way to go internets!
Is this still going on?
Well, up until now it's been people attacking the premise despite it being a sturdy one. You know: name calling, misunderstandings, false accusations, knee-jerk reactions, misrepresentations of facts and off subject incitements. Now that the kids are done playing we may be able to have a constructive conversation. It only took nine pages too! That's fewer than most isn't it?
The only inhaled flavorings I ever heard of where the ones in the tobacco I used. Then, thanks to regulation, the deliciousness was taken. I smoked a lot of Vanilla "Dreams" brand cigs. Then, they couldn't be sold in the U.S.. I tried the mini-cigar version that was the workaround for the producer and it was awful. Is it wrong of me to want to avoid such pitfalls in vaping? No matter what, I'd flavor my e-liquid myself if I had to. Still might eventually.
on what subject, please?
Yes, it is possible to buy / make a wonderful flavored liquid that tastes just like my formerly beloved small sweet-flavored cigars. All that yummy taste - but without the smoke.
But as this liquid contains flavoring... well... might as well not talk about that subject.
And flavored cigarettes get prohibited (in Europe, at least), not because the flavoring itself is dangerous but to make smoking "less attractive". "Think of the children kind" of stuff. No - and I mean: no - reference is ever made about the flavoring itself being dangerous in tobacco cigarettes. Not ever.
But as we are talking about vaping and not about tobacco cigarettes, the only advice I (or anybody) can give is:
If you are concerned about possible effects of flavorings on your health, then vape unflavored.
And if you want to vape flavored liquids, then vape flavored liquids.
It is your decision. And your decision only.
There is nothing to discuss. Nothing whatsoever.
Last edited:
You're doing the same everyone else has done and taken a defensive stance against me accusing e-liquids having dangerous or harmful flavorings when all I'm saying is we've been protesting to know more than we actually know. We've become a culture of mindlessly passing on slogans supporting our cause despite the fact that inaccuracies in such sloganeering could quite possibly be and undermining factor. http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ld-rather-i-smoke-analogs-4.html#post11260847 Do you really want me to go through all the threads that such statements, some even by myself, have been made? For many people here, you'd rather be defensive at your own peril when I'm trying to be offensive. I'm trying to have answers to questions before they are asked so I don't get stuck posing theories that are later proven wrong. If you don't want to be informed on the myriad of flavorings, most of which have only been studied under traditional consumption instead of inhalation then don't bother. Hell, we my find out that it's good for you but that's not the point I've spent 9 pages trying to make. For good or bad, what is "vanilla". Is there a standard for the types of flavoring used specially for inhalation? Is there an approval process for what constitutes a valid flavoring? When you buy meat do you just buy a sack of meat or do you look for signs that the meat meets some standards? I'd like to see the industry itself jump on this before politicians do. The industry will surely do a much better job if they're not too busy circling their wagons and killing the messenger. Which, I highly doubt those in the know would take such a reactionary approach to the subject.
I promise, the notion of flavors to entice youth will be used against the industry. I guess grown-ups aren't supposed to like flavors. That's why when I go to the fair I get my funnel-cakes powdered in vitamin supplements instead of powdered sugar.
Last edited:
Myk stated a good reason as to why vendors have the CASAA logo. A majority of vendors are vapers themselves.
I would like to add another reason, because their customers have asked them to put the logo on their sites. I, personally have gotten my e-liquid vendor to prominently display the CASAA logo on their web site. The more people that see it and get curious, the more that question what is going on in our fight.
Please remember that we have a passion for vaping. Many of us had tried to stop smoking many times and many different ways. All unsuccessful. Then we discovered ecigs! Finally! Something that addresses not only nic but also the 'act' of smoking! There are a lot of people that have seen their smokers cough go completely away. There are those that were on meds for breathing problems, and other medical issues, that have reduced or even have been able to get off those meds. With those thoughts in mind, yes we believe in ecigs.
When we see these questions, we feel like it is an attack. Especially when we have seen these types of threads come up every couple of months from new members. Please trust, some of these new members do sometimes turn out to be the very ANTZ we are fighting. Yes, it does happen.
Those flavored tobacco cigs were pulled from the market after a successful lobby by the very ANTZ we are continuing to fight now. When they discovered they could scare the non-smoking, and even some of the smoking, public they learned the 'for the children' argument was extremely effective. They continue to use this argument to this day. If all else fails (read their failed pseudo studies) bring out the flavor being targeted towards kids argument.
I don't think there is any approval process specific for inhaled flavorings. Dr. Farsalinos did do some cell culture tests the vapors of a few different brands and flavors of liquids. I can see something like that becoming a goal, but like I said earlier, testing all of the flavors available is a monumental task. Even if you decide on a test, even if you could narrow it down to 'test viability of cell cultures when exposed to x flavor compound' you are still left with loads of unknowns. Was it the right cell culture (what type of cells do you choose for the culture), does this translate into anything meaningful in the human body, if there was a loss of cell viability what was the exact compound that caused it? Testing on animals would be massively more expensive, time consuming, difficult to interpret, etc... Testing on humans is unethical and can not be done. Epidemiology for inhaling flavors would be a big cluster...
IMO, it seems you want to set the bar too high. If you insist on 100% testable safety (which is actually impossible) vaping will fail. In fact, everything would fail. I'm not sure if that is what you have in mind, and I don't want to be putting words in your mouth, but it seems that you are pressing for a standard that is unobtainable (both because 100% safe is a myth, and because the scope of testing required would be impossible).
I expect we will see some testing of flavors in the future, perhaps using the cell viability model that Dr. Farsalinos used. He did find a loss of viability with certain tobacco liquids and cinnamon liquids, but none as large as the loss of viability when cigarette smoke extracts were used, and no attempt to identify the exact compounds that caused the loss of viability (again; expensive, time consuming, difficult). More of that sort of research in the future will be welcome by me. Use of diacetyl in liquids has largely been abandoned now because of the reported cases of popcorn-lung in popcorn factory workers. It's possible that more issues like that will come to light as we learn more. It will take many years.
Based on everything I have read vaping has to be much safer than cigarette smoking. If we can make it even safer, great, as long it doesn't kill vaping or the pleasure of vaping. If vaping were not pleasing, people would not be switching. There has to be a trade off between safety and vaping being a desirable alternative. If we make it, say, 50% safer but nobody wants to switch anymore, that's a fail. My 2 cents...
IMO, it seems you want to set the bar too high. If you insist on 100% testable safety (which is actually impossible) vaping will fail. In fact, everything would fail. I'm not sure if that is what you have in mind, and I don't want to be putting words in your mouth, but it seems that you are pressing for a standard that is unobtainable (both because 100% safe is a myth, and because the scope of testing required would be impossible).
I expect we will see some testing of flavors in the future, perhaps using the cell viability model that Dr. Farsalinos used. He did find a loss of viability with certain tobacco liquids and cinnamon liquids, but none as large as the loss of viability when cigarette smoke extracts were used, and no attempt to identify the exact compounds that caused the loss of viability (again; expensive, time consuming, difficult). More of that sort of research in the future will be welcome by me. Use of diacetyl in liquids has largely been abandoned now because of the reported cases of popcorn-lung in popcorn factory workers. It's possible that more issues like that will come to light as we learn more. It will take many years.
Based on everything I have read vaping has to be much safer than cigarette smoking. If we can make it even safer, great, as long it doesn't kill vaping or the pleasure of vaping. If vaping were not pleasing, people would not be switching. There has to be a trade off between safety and vaping being a desirable alternative. If we make it, say, 50% safer but nobody wants to switch anymore, that's a fail. My 2 cents...
Perhaps its just me, but every time I hear something like 'x causes cancer' my scientific self wishes it was phrased as 'x is correlated to risk of cancer.'
To say 'x causes cancer' implies if you do x, you will get cancer. Thus, everyone reading this sentence, who has smoked, will inevitably get cancer. As we all know that is not true, then it seems far fetched to say smoking causes cancer. Which I think relates to what OP is getting at. But, I realize, that if every vaper in the world went on record as saying smoking doesn't cause cancer, but does appear to have high correlation to risk of getting cancer, that ANTZ would cut out everything from "but" and on and make us look like deniers of a 'known scientific fact.'
With that said, I completely believe a report will come out some day that says vaping causes cancer, because as this post by DougW1971 notes, "everything will kill you." And even if it isn't 'vaping causes cancer' it'll be something else within the ingredients that once a vaper, or handful of vapers, have passed away, it'll be something in eliquid that is correlated with that person's death. Vapers will play the deny game while ANTZ will sound the trumpets of warning for all to pay attention to the notion that if you vape, you will die.
In another recent thread here on ECF (that is now closed) it was suggested that saying just because certain chemicals in vaping are used in other substances, doesn't make it right to note that data. Or put another way, as was stated in that thread, it is contributing to misleading information. Like arsenic in the above list. One might think it would be hard for a smoker to defend decision to smoke if a poison like arsenic is something they are knowingly putting in their body. Yet google "arsenic and chicken meat" and be prepared to realize that if you've had chicken anytime in the last oh say 50 years, you've been putting arsenic into your body. Think this will cause people to stop eating chicken meat? Or lead to bans on chicken meat? Yeah, me neither.
Quotes like this one and a whole bunch of others (on this forum and elsewhere) almost always leave me questioning a few things, or at the very least do a double take. My ongoing wish is for vaping to stand on its own without having to compare it to smoking in order to make vaping seem healthy (or healthier). But I reckon I could live another 50 years and that wish will still remain unfulfilled, especially as some vapers become ex-smokers and then appear a lot like ANTZ in relation to smoking.
One question I have though is if smoking is so darn lethal, and made that way by BT, then how the heck are some of you who smoked 2 PAD's for 40 years still alive? Furthermore, if you are no longer smoking, but still vaping nicotine say for your 2nd year straight, and feel 'very healthy' then either 40 years of very heavy smoking isn't all that lethal, or you are incredibly, super duper lucky.
Bottom line for me on this post is I do actually agree with where OP is coming from in this thread. I think OP, myself and most, if not all readers of this thread, are on the same general page when it comes to vaping - do it because it is a cool, enjoyable, rather harmless way to feed a desire for nicotine. But in doing it and then constantly comparing it to smoking, it would be nice if statements, or so called facts, were comparing apples to apples, rather than making claims that look a lot like how ANTZ talks about smoking. Not only would it be nice, it would be intellectually honest.
Please excuse me for polluting the 'Holier Than Though' thread with more of my 'Mindless Drivel' your Esteemed Eminence. (wheres the gag icon?)
I was into my MD's office today. Being a noob and only 26 days tobacco free after a 40 year carton a week cigarette habit, I am still ecstatic over the changes I am seeing including a drop in blood pressure (10 points on systolic and 20 points on diastolic) after seeing my BP slowly climbing over the last couple of years. Both the nurse and the MD were curious about ecigs and I quoted a couple of studies included on the ECTA website. ECTA Informational Publications/Studies/Articles/Videos
Nobody can be a total walking encyclopedia of facts concerning any particular product but lets look at what Wikipedia has to say about tobacco additives. "This is the list of 599 additives in cigarettes submitted to the United States Department of Health and Human Services in April 1994." Keep in mind this is 599 'additives' not just the chemicals in raw tobacco. Need to know more? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes
Lets also keep in mind that a steak can be a healthy part of a diet when consumed in moderation. If you burn the crap out of that same steak and still eat it you are consuming carcinogens. It's funny how burning stuff can alter the chemistry so much, but it is what it is.
While I can't answer your specific question about what chemical changes take place in vaporizing e liquid I can quote another study done in Sept 2012.
"On the base of the obtained results and on ARPA data about urban pollution, we can conclude by saying that could be more unhealthy to breathe air in big cities compared to staying in the same room with someone who is vaping."
http://clearstream.flavourart.it/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CSA_ItaEng.pdf
Sorry to have confused your high and mighty argument with facts, but those facts are good enough for me.
I was into my MD's office today. Being a noob and only 26 days tobacco free after a 40 year carton a week cigarette habit, I am still ecstatic over the changes I am seeing including a drop in blood pressure (10 points on systolic and 20 points on diastolic) after seeing my BP slowly climbing over the last couple of years. Both the nurse and the MD were curious about ecigs and I quoted a couple of studies included on the ECTA website. ECTA Informational Publications/Studies/Articles/Videos
Nobody can be a total walking encyclopedia of facts concerning any particular product but lets look at what Wikipedia has to say about tobacco additives. "This is the list of 599 additives in cigarettes submitted to the United States Department of Health and Human Services in April 1994." Keep in mind this is 599 'additives' not just the chemicals in raw tobacco. Need to know more? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes
Lets also keep in mind that a steak can be a healthy part of a diet when consumed in moderation. If you burn the crap out of that same steak and still eat it you are consuming carcinogens. It's funny how burning stuff can alter the chemistry so much, but it is what it is.
While I can't answer your specific question about what chemical changes take place in vaporizing e liquid I can quote another study done in Sept 2012.
"On the base of the obtained results and on ARPA data about urban pollution, we can conclude by saying that could be more unhealthy to breathe air in big cities compared to staying in the same room with someone who is vaping."
http://clearstream.flavourart.it/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CSA_ItaEng.pdf
Sorry to have confused your high and mighty argument with facts, but those facts are good enough for me.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
