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

[Lessifer]

because this study was funded by the National Institutes of Health (This research was supported by NIH/NIEHS Center Grant P30ES000002) who is in partnership with the FDA and published by Environmental Health Perspectives (a peer-reviewed journal of research and news published with support from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health). The timing could not be better if they planned it...

My point is that this release basically says the same things that others have said, on this forum. Others have pointed out that what is being said is mostly exaggerated, especially the level of concern, even more so when you consider things in relation to smoking.

 

[curiousJan]

It's coming. I read a post on another thread about someone with lung issues wanting to sue the eliquid makers...


Sent from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk

Someone who doesn't have a diagnosis as of yet, didn't say how long he/she smoked, and wants to start a "class action". Something there smells off to me. Call me cynical, but ... well yeah, I'm cynical.

 

[YoursTruli]

My point is that this release basically says the same things that others have said, on this forum. Others have pointed out that what is being said is mostly exaggerated, especially the level of concern, even more so when you consider things in relation to smoking.

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.

 

[Mazinny]

Someone who doesn't have a diagnosis as of yet, didn't say how long he/she smoked, and wants to start a "class action". Something there smells off to me. Call me cynical, but ... well yeah, I'm cynical.

Plaintiffs are not trying to recover damages for alleged harm, they are suing for misrepesentation, claiming they would not have bought the product had they known it contained diketones. If they win, each plantiff will collect a portion of what they paid for the product only.

 

[Lessifer]

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.

Just following Dr. F's lead.
From the first link in this thread

Not only are levels of diacetyl far higher in tobacco smoke than e-cig vapor, but the levels of dangerous compounds found in many of the products studied“are absolutely minimal, and it is not expected to raise any concerns about human health effects,” according to Farsalinos.

Farsalinos adds that the researchers fail to mention the presence of these compounds in tobacco cigarette smoke. “This omission creates the impression that e-cigarettes are exposing users to a new chemical hazard while in reality their exposure will be much lower compared to smoking.”

I personally think the part I highlighted is the most poignant, but we always have to make the comparison to smoking, for some reason.

 

[ManiacMedic]

Aerosols versus combustion is apples to oranges.

I have documented respiratory changes after Vaping high AP

 

[YoursTruli]

Aerosols versus combustion is apples to oranges.

I have documented respiratory changes after Vaping high AP

Documented how?

 

[curiousJan]

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.

I don't think anyone is saying that the presence of these substances should be perfectly acceptable to vapers. I think we all have the right to full disclosure and the ability to make our own choices. If a vendor (juice or flavor) lies about or misrepresents its product it should be held accountable.

Plaintiffs are not trying to recover damages for alleged harm, they are suing for misrepesentation, claiming they would not have bought the product had they known it contained diketones. If they win, each plantiff will collect a portion of what they paid for the product only.

I wonder if the referenced poster is approaching this matter from that angle ... or if liability for harm was more the thinking. I do not believe that the current case was the intent when suggesting class action against the juice vendors. I could be completely off base, though.

 

[ManiacMedic]

Documented how?

Testing through multiple physicians? How else?

 

[ManiacMedic]

I don't think anyone is saying that the presence of these substances should be perfectly acceptable to vapers. I think we all have the right to full disclosure and the ability to make our own choices. If a vendor (juice or flavor) lies about or misrepresents its product it should be held accountable.



I wonder if the referenced poster is approaching this matter from that angle ... or if liability for harm was more the thinking. I do not believe that the current case was the intent when suggesting class action against the juice vendors. I could be completely off base, though.

I'm sure I was the referenced poster. Feel free to PM

 

[ManiacMedic]

Fyi I'm currently diagnosed as unspecified adult onset asthma. This diagnosis will change soon due to fixed airway obstruction and my HRCT. still discussing a few things. Mind you, I'm nowhere near dead, just a bit annoyed and uncomfortable, and I pushed the limit pretty hard. I would definitely be on the upper end of the spectrum in terms of Vaping.

 

[YoursTruli]

Testing through multiple physicians? How else?

Thank you for answering, I was not sure which is why I asked. I am really sorry to hear you are experiencing these respiratory problems.

 

[ckquatt]

Fyi I'm currently diagnosed as unspecified adult onset asthma. This diagnosis will change soon due to fixed airway obstruction and my HRCT. still discussing a few things. Mind you, I'm nowhere near dead, just a bit annoyed and uncomfortable, and I pushed the limit pretty hard. I would definitely be on the upper end of the spectrum in terms of Vaping.

I'm glad you said those last lines. I've been wondering if this might effect high wattage, low ohm vapers that go through 10 mls of juice a day more than say the normal ohm "Tootle Puffer" vaper that doesn't.

Has there been any "Tootle Puffers" that have cropped up with these issues? Maybe the poisons in the AMOUNT of the dose.




Sent from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk

 

[mcclintock]

Both here and in those reports the amount of diacetyl tends to be exaggerated. Traces amounts of DA are usually naturally occurring or breakdown products of diacetyl substitutes. Technically it's still some amount of DA but it's not a blatant disregard for user safety in continuing to intentionally add the substance. That probably accounts for at least 70% of the 75% number that one article claimed to find.

 

[skoony]

and seriously a lot more vapers need to be made aware of it to make informed decisions on what they want to or do not want in their eliquid.

I agree if everyone would take the time to pay attention to these sorts of things the world would
be a better place. The problem is 99.9% of those vapers you refer to don't really care. Many of them
resent self appointed saviors projecting their fears and concerns onto them. They do not want a
bunch of nannies pontificating at every turn about everything they do. I personally believe it's not my
responsibility to be bothering others with unfounded health risks unless there is solid scientific
evidence of harm occurring. This is why I am against the FDA regulations. This why I think our
government in general is heading in the wrong direction. Making regulations on the assumption
something "might" happen as opposed to what has or is going happened can never be good. Looking out for
your fellow man is all well in good if in fact your fellow man wants looking out for.
If you have a little time google "buy e-juice online". Let me know how many vendors mention diketones
or testing.

Regards
Mike

 

[440BB]

Diacetyl has been discussed here and elsewhere for years. Whether it and related chemicals have any bad effects and in what volume will take years to know, but that's not the real issue right now. Perception is the issue.

The vaping community, although well intentioned, hasn't been unified well enough to deal with the potential headline that diacetyl left us open to. Our opponents are focused and driven with deep pockets. We were not prepared to compete with the corporate game plan demonizing vaping that has relentlessly moved forward. In a way we left the barn door unlocked, debating the actual harm while the perception of vaping was being thoroughly undermined.

Our bursting cottage industry, with a wide variety of skill levels and so many players, is no match for the big boys when it comes to managing public opinion.

That said, I think this study is just another piece of the puzzle in the opposition strategy. They are executing their game plan very well, and the average person may end up thinking it was a good thing. That pisses me off.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Siegel calculated that the diacetyl levels found in the DHHS funded Harvard vapor study were 750 times lower than what cigarette smoke creates.

Mike Siegel: New study finds that average diacetyl exposure from vaping is 750 times lower than from smoking
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: New Study Finds that Average Diacetyl Exposure from Vaping is 750 Times Lower than from Smoking

 

[pennysmalls]

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.

 

[pennysmalls]

Siegel calculated that the diacetyl levels found in the DHHS funded Harvard vapor study were 750 times lower than what cigarette smoke creates.

Mike Siegel: New study finds that average diacetyl exposure from vaping is 750 times lower than from smoking
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: New Study Finds that Average Diacetyl Exposure from Vaping is 750 Times Lower than from Smoking

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!"

 

[skoony]

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.

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