How the media totally exaggerated study on risk of ‘Popcorn Lung’ from e-cigarettes

[AndriaD]

I always cringe whenever someone says compared/in relation to smoking like just because we smoked any chemicals/toxins that may be in eliquid that are less than what was found in cigarettes should be perfectly acceptable to us or we are overly concerned/exaggerating/scaremongering... as far as this study goes I see the necessity for the comparison to put things into perspective to a largely unknowledgeable about vaping public.... but, people do need to be made aware of this.

Completely agree; what I mainly object to about all this is the level of hysteria attending it, by both vapers and those who wish vaping would just disappear.

It's almost amusing, watching it, except I know that the ANTZ are watching it too, and that's a big concern, considering how it's now being spread far and wide as a real "danger". I'm not sure that it really is. I made the choice to move entirely to DIY partly because of this issue, and because I'm fairly cynical -- people lie, especially when there's money to be made by lying. I made the choice to trust more in flavor makers than in ejuice makers, and to read very carefully about any flavors that I use. Not because I think this is really a danger, but because, as an asthmatic, I'm unwilling to take even a slim potential risk with already-compromised lungs -- just *vaping* already presents a risk to those damaged lungs, and I'd like to mitigate that risk as far as possible.

From my reading, as far as I can tell, the only symptom that presents with B. O. is "shortness of breath," which I suffer daily, as an asthmatic -- so how would I know if I was suffering an ordinary asthma attack -- already a pretty terrifying event, at times -- or something far worse? Just knowing that it COULD be something far worse might be sufficient to elevate my anxiety levels to the point that a minor asthma attack could become extremely major, requiring a visit to the ER (which I can't afford!). For me, it just seems the better part of wisdom to try and avoid all diketones just as far as I'm able.

But I am not entirely convinced that it's really the huge danger that is now being trumpeted far and wide by the very irresponsible media, and jumped on with both feet by the ANTZ.

Andria

 

[VNeil]

Very interesting comments in that article. This one is fascinating, I wonder if the guy knows what he's talking about.


"The study notes that the lowest level of exposure at which popcorn lung was detected in workers working for 8 hours per day was 0.2ppm. According to the converter at http://www.unitconversion.org/... I believe that works out to 200 mcg/Liter. that's 200,000 micrograms per cubic meter. At about one meter average working air intake per hour, it was found that workers inhaling 1,600,000 micrograms of diacetyl every day for years began developing popcorn lung.

As opposed to this concern about Vapers inhaling about 10 micrograms.

Actually, while Dr. Siegel didn't go into the specifics of it, if we reasonably dropped the weird high-level outlier of 238 micrograms supposedly measured for the kid-loving-candy-flavored "Peach Schnapps" variety (Golly but those kidz DO luv their Schnapps, now don't they?) the average exposure drops to below FIVE micrograms.

So the ordinary vaper of these weird flavored fluids would have to sit around vaping for roughly 160,000 days (i.e. FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRTY-EIGHT **YEARS**) to get just a one day equivalent exposure to the workers who need to work for years on end to get the dreaded popcorn lung. How many years? It's not clear what the minimum might be, but from the information supplied let's *guess* we're talking about popcorn workers generally working at least ten years before they're buttered up and put away.

So how many days of e-cigging would it take for e-ciggers to get that sort of nasty worker dose? 160,000 x 10yrs x 300 workdays per year =

584,000,000 days of puffing away on an ecig (about one and a half million years) before the typical e-cigger might get popcorn lung.

Feel free to check my figures: I *have* been known to accidentally drop/add a decimal point here or there as I do a lot of this stuff in my head... but realize this: even if I'm off by a full order of magnitude we'd still be looking at 160,000 years of puffing. If I was off by THREE orders of magnitude, it would STILL take the better part of 2000 years of constant puffing.

The jury is still out as to whether ecigs might be somewhat harmful or somewhat beneficial to health, but if they're truly beneficial enough to extend the average life span to over fifteen hundred years...

Well hell's bells on a trampoline, I'd take my popcorn lung at that point with a cherry on top and a big silly smile!"

liKED because someone bothered to add context to numbers intended to fearmonger, reducing said numbers to meaningless trace amounts.

Some may not like comparisons to smoking but it does put context into the discussion. If it takes 20 years or more for smoking to cause serious harm and the amounts in question are 1\100 or 1\1000 as much than that indeed puts context to it

I googled 'e-cigarette' today. A fear mongering junk science study released within the past week was result #1. This forum came up on page 2. That is all you need to know about why the FDA is funding that stuff and why the war is lost.

 

[Racehorse]

I always cringe whenever someone says compared/in relation to smoking

I believe many people feel that way. I thought this poster expressed it perfectly in the Harvard topic:

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...

......they would at least like to be aware of risk they can avoid so they can decide for themselves

For many of us, comparing anything to smoking is setting the bar terribly, terribly LOW.

Smoking is jetstream for me. I already quit smoking.


What I want to know is: how vaping as a habit/behavior/dependency/hobby stands ON IT'S OWN.

NOT how it compares to smoking.


Because there are never-smokers and others who take up vaping who have never smoked, including those who are doing it for appetite control, or for the nicotine (in the case of people with certain digestive diseases, parkinsons, anxiety disorders, etc. )

So, can vaping stand on it's own or not? And can we be informed about THAT?

 

[Bill Godshall]

The only reason why a growing number of people inaccurately believe that vaping is as harmful as cigarette smoking is because the vast majority of news stories about vaping (and many studies on e-cigs) do NOT compare the risks of vaping to those of cigarette smoking.

Seems like some vapers want even more people to believe vaping is as harmful as smoking.

 

[pennysmalls]

I already quit smoking.

You used vaping to quit smoking but you don't want to compare it with smoking? Now that you've quit? But it was ok before you quit and during the time that you were quitting?

 

[pennysmalls]

The only reason why a growing number of people inaccurately believe that vaping is as harmful as cigarette smoking is because the vast majority of news stories about vaping (and many studies on e-cigs) do NOT compare the risks of vaping to those of cigarette smoking.

Seems like some vapers want even more people to believe vaping is as harmful as smoking.

I would really like to know what we should be comparing it to. Food? We don't inhale food.

 

[VNeil]

Not comparing to smoking leads to the junk science being discussed here where increasingly miniscule threashholds of detection are trumpeted as hazardous. That is pure propaganda.

 

[pennysmalls]

When measuring risk there has to be a comparison/yard stick in order to measure. In this case it's levels of diketones being measured for risk. OK, what others sources of diketones do we have that we can use to gauge risk? Cigarettes and popcorn factories are it. But we're not supposed to use those because.....? Instead we get comments about vaping standing on it's own. It's already standing on it's own. It's taking down BT.

 

[AndriaD]

When measuring risk there has to be a comparison/yard stick in order to measure. In this case it's levels of diketones being measured for risk. OK, what others sources of diketones do we have that we can use to gauge risk? Cigarettes and popcorn factories are it. But we're not supposed to use those because.....? Instead we get comments about vaping standing on it's own. It's already standing on it's own. It's taking down BT.

And stealing a great deal of thunder from BP, because it actually works, unlike all that snake oil that BP sells.

Andria

 

[Kent C]

In this case it's levels of diketones being measured for risk. OK, what others sources of diketones do we have that we can use to gauge risk? Cigarettes and popcorn factories are it.

Cigarettes are it - as a source, not as a risk.

 

[pennysmalls]

Cigarettes are it - as a source, not as a risk.

Thanks Kent.

 

[Kent C]

Thanks Kent.

In case you missed it:

Chemicals in e-cigarette flavors linked to respiratory disease...?

 

[YoursTruli]

As I said previously... I completely understand and agree with e-liquids compared to smoking when it comes to scientific studies but not when it comes to "it should not matter to me what is in my eliquid because I was a smoker". As many of you that disagree with this analogy have pointed out most ex-smokers use vaping as harm reduction from smoking so it makes sense to many of us to want to reduce that harm as much as possible, especially if it's an avoidable risk of harm, like diketones.

 

[pennysmalls]

In case you missed it:

Chemicals in e-cigarette flavors linked to respiratory disease...?

I did miss that.

 

[pennysmalls]

YoursTruli, the issue I'm having is that we don't actually know there is a risk but all these changes are being demanded anyway. I'm worried that the entire industry will suffer from the panic over something that doesn't actually warrant panic. I'd prefer that we not play the "what if" game when our foes have the power to show us "what for".

 

[skoony]

As I said previously... I completely understand and agree with e-liquids compared to smoking when it comes to scientific studies but not when it comes to "it should not matter to me what is in my eliquid because I was a smoker". As many of you that disagree with this analogy have pointed out most ex-smokers use vaping as harm reduction from smoking so it makes sense to many of us to want to reduce that harm as much as possible, especially if it's an avoidable risk of harm, like diketones.

When diketones are proven harmful by using them in e-juice we can avoid them.
Diketones are not an avoidable risk. Some believe they maybe a potential
risk. This means it's just as likely to cause no harm.
Regards
Mike

 

[YoursTruli]

We've got members here upset that some of us are using cigarettes as a comparison to eliquid. So this commentary from Siegel won't be good enough for them. Strange really when it's cigarettes that e-liquid is replacing and it's e-liquid that's keeping never smoking vapers from taking up smoking at all.

YoursTruli, the issue I'm having is that we don't actually know there is a risk but all these changes are being demanded anyway. I'm worried that the entire industry will suffer from the panic over something that doesn't actually warrant panic. I'd prefer that we not play the "what if" game when our foes have power to show us "what for".

Being blamed for the downfall of vaping, being antz, scare/fearmongering, perpetuating propaganda........

and the issue I am having is the constant snark directed toward those that do have genuine concerns about what is in their eliquids and fully believe diketones are an known avoidable risk, a risk many do not care to take. Given the studies we presently have, an issue of what is, rather than what if.

 

[VNeil]

Being blamed for the downfall of vaping, being antz, scare/fearmongering, perpetuating propaganda........

and the issue I am having is the constant snark directed toward those that do have genuine concerns about what is in their eliquids and fully believe diketones are an known avoidable risk, a risk many do not care to take. Given the studies we presently have, an issue of what is, rather than what if.

If the risk you want to avoid is any measurable level of these compounds, then I predict when all is said and done you will have little to vape except unflavored. Diketones and the others seem to be present in minute quantities in virtually all (ETA:flavored) juice, similar to the fact that bacteria are everywhere too. Demanding no measurable level of that stuff in flavored juice might be no different than demanding a sterile living environment.

IOW I think you are oversimplifying the problem.

 

[skoony]

Being blamed for the downfall of vaping, being antz, scare/fearmongering, perpetuating propaganda........

and the issue I am having is the constant snark directed toward those that do have genuine concerns about what is in their eliquids and fully believe diketones are an known avoidable risk, a risk many do not care to take. Given the studies we presently have, an issue of what is, rather than what if.

It seems to me the things you are saying are being directed towards you are
precisely the things that are directed at those of us that refuse to jump on
the FUD wagon. All that and being heartless cad´s for not caring for others.
R
Mike

 

[VNeil]

Some people do not like the comparison to smoking because it gives a understandable comparison to
what's being discussed. Its very helpful for those without a scientific background to understand.
I could say staying at home on the sofa is magnitudes of order safer than driving my car. Some would
say its not a valid point and we should still regulate sitting on the sofa because we don't know the long
term effects. You never know, a car could crash through the wall and hit you and you would have been
safe if sofa sitting was regulated.


Regards
mike

Oh, but we do know. Long term couch potato lifestyles result in diabetes, heart disease, obesity... should I go on? All things resulting from a sentient lifestyle and known to take many years off your life. Perhaps there should be a 200% tax on couches, and they should be regulated by the FDA.