How valid are vaping health claims?

[Kate]

I first mentioned diacetyl and chemical related lung disease months ago but didn't make any effort to issue clear warnings until I discovered the Bickford link, I didn't want to overreact. Now what I do is to inform people that diacetyl is a known problem when inhaled and they should make efforts to find out that they aren't using it.

Ingredient lists from Chinese manufacturers tend to be pretty thorough but I don't know if they apply to all flavours. Non-Chinese manufacturers tend to say flavours and not be specific about what chemicals that means. Getting reliable information about formulas is like wading through chewing gum.

I can't advise you on the safety of any particular eliquid but for what it's worth I vape and consider my informed risk to be lower than the risks from smoking.

 

[cleo]

Well..thanks for the info Kate.
This diacetyl possibility is enough for me to go back to regular cigs.
At first I thought you were just being paranoid but now I see there is a noble cause behind the concerns.

It apparently only took 3 months of exposure in rats to begin the deadly lung disease caused by diacetyl.

Is there any info on some specific eliquid that does not contain diacetyl?

Cause now im thinkin about stopping after only 5 days and $200 spent!

personally i am using TW liquid ,and they are listing all the ingredient of their juices .you can also check their lab report as well.as far as i can see ,no diacetyl in it.

 

[Kate]

That's a good point Cleo, I forgot about the toxicology tests.

Ruyan and Wicked eliquids have been assessed by labs for toxic ingredients.

 

[cleo]

i think that intellicig are going to release their toxicology lab reports as well for their ecopure liquid.they mention in their website that it is available on demand.

 

[SkyMonkey]

It seems the safest alternative would be "flavorless" eliquid.

Have you guys tried that type?

 

[Kate]

I've vaped glycerine and propylene glycol without nicotine or flavours and enjoyed it. I like flavoured nicotine eliquid better but minimal is best probably.

 

[SkyMonkey]

Thanks Kate....sorry if I seemed rude in my earlier comments.

I think these kind of questions should be asked.
I will probably now go with a e-liquid that provides a toxicology report, or go with flavorless.....even though it doesnt sound very good lol.

 

[Kate]

No problem Sky. It does sound a bit far fetched to say that we might get lung disease from vaping when so many people make health claims.

You're right to investigate and educate yourself, we have a far better chance of success if we know what we're doing.

 

[leaford]

Before we all panic and go back to cigarettes, diacetyl is in cigarettes, too.
Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

Cigarettes are are our forerunners in establishing the "safety" of inhaled flavorings, and the standard we need to measure the safety of these things against is cigarettes. Are they safer than cigarettes? Do they add any additional health risks cigarettes do not?

In this case, no.

Monkeymark had a good quote, "Since absolute safety of any substance can never be proven, decisions about the safety of color additives or other food ingredients are made on the best scientific evidence available."

Judging by the best evidence available includes factors like the toxic dose, the half life in the body, the amount of that compound that is in the vapor, etc.

The case studies involved are very different than our situation. They involve prolonged contact to high quantities; workers stirring the vats, QC workers popping 100s of bags per shift in a small room, etc. Our liquids may use minute traces, but not the high concentrations they were expoosed to. Bear in mind, this is BUTTER flavor. Some of our flavors may have a touch of butter, but these guys were inhaling tons of it in a much more concentrated form.

 

[SkyMonkey]

Point taken Leaford.

I guess to keep things in perspective, analogs have hydrogen CYANIDE, as well as Formaldehyde in them... hows that for toxic? lol

 

[Frankie]

(...)the standard we need to measure the safety of these things against is cigarettes.

I find this attitude sort of similar to the "quit or die" one. There are other ways of getting nicotine for the e-cigs to be compared to apart from classical analog smokes. In the Forum there is a whole section devoted to them. The fact they do not look like cigarettes or work in a different manner does not mean the only thing to compare an e-cig is an analog one.

 

[leaford]

OK, my take on the list:
First off, I liked this much better when you posted it with the disclaimer that some are more valid than others.

SOme of them are just fear-mongering, made-in-china-is-scaaarry BS:

We don't know about what sort of paint is used on devices, it could contain lead.
We don't know if standards of hygiene or purity of product are maintained effectively at manufacturing facilities because there is no regulation of production.

Some of it could apply to almost any electronic product:

Faulty switches, chargers or batteries could cause fires.
We don't know if there is a safety risk with having a battery/power supply so close to our faces.

Some of them are just general fear of the unknown without presenting any coherent and plausable theory of risk (really, the batteries, Kate? ):

We don't know how the cocktail of chemicals we inhale interacts.
We don't know if there is a safety risk with having a battery/power supply so close to our faces.

The rest I more or less agree are fair concerns, although I think it's also fair to point out that if we don't have evidence they are safe, there is so far no evidence they aren't. And for the same reason, no studies.

At this point, the little evidence we do have would indicate it is safe, to a reasonable standard if not absolutely. Anecdotal evidence from tens of thousands of users who HAVEN'T reported something horrible and vapor related backs that up.

It is fair and valid to point out the unknowns, but it's unreasonable to automatically assume they must be unsafe, without evidence to suggest that, when what we DO know suggests otherwise.

 

[leaford]

I find this attitude sort of similar to the "quit or die" one. There are other ways of getting nicotine for the e-cigs to be compared to apart from classical analog smokes. In the Forum there is a whole section devoted to them. The fact they do not look like cigarettes or work in a different manner does not mean the only thing to compare an e-cig is an analog one.

Fair enough, but they have their own risks, too, so it's still not a comparison to an absolute, or even pharmaceutical standard. But ultimatly, I think for MOST users, smokeless products aren't a realistic solution for the same reasons NRT isn't, they don't fill the habits associated with smoking. So cigarettes are not the only standard of comparison, maybe, but theyre still the most realistic one.

The point is, these are ultimately a tobacco replacement, and should be judged on whether or not its safer than tobacco, and primarily cigarettes, not whether or not they would be considered safe in their own right.

Even though I think they are.

 

[dEFinitionofEPIC]

Anecdotal evidence from tens of thousands of users who HAVEN'T reported something horrible and vapor related backs that up.

Just because someone hasn't keeled over and died yet doesn't mean that the activity is safe in the long term. It took decades for people to figure out that cigarettes were killing them....

 

[leaford]

Point taken Leaford.

I guess to keep things in perspective, analogs have hydrogen CYANIDE, as well as Formaldehyde in them... hows that for toxic? lol

Even there, it's all about dosages. Reporting individual chemicals as if they were dangerous, without considering factors like the dose involved, the dose required to be toxic, how long it remains in the body, etc, is nothing but a fear tactic, designed to make people worry over nothing.

Out of the 4000+ chemicals in cigarettes the vast majority aren't harmful or dangerous in any way. Like the cyanide and formaldehyde. Not enough to do harm.

Misleading information like that was the anti-tobacco lobby's first foray into the dark side of junk science and lying statistics. They learned from Big Tobacco all too well.

 

[Kate]

Sorry Leaford I disagree.

I think we are obliged to share information on potential risks.

Nobody said they were unsafe, this thread is about health claims.

 

[leaford]

Just because someone hasn't keeled over and died yet doesn't mean that the activity is safe in the long term. It took decades for people to figure out that cigarettes were killing them....

That's an unreasonable standard. 1) How can you prove something will be safe for decades of use, until it has HAD decades of use? 2) NOTHING else entering the market has been required to provide data on DECADES of use. Why raise the bar higher for e-cigs than anything else?

 

[Kate]

Do you make health claims about vaping Leaford?

 

[SkyMonkey]

I think Leaford has made some valid points ... and so have people on the other side of the discussion.

I think if you take the reasonable points made from each side...you can make a reasonable conclusion.

What that conclusion is... dunno yet lol

There is one thing I DO know...
I have been smoking for 10 years.and after 5 days of vaping....I am averaging ONE analog-a-day.. thats amazing.

 

[leaford]

Sorry Leaford I disagree.

I think we are obliged to share information on potential risks.

Nobody said they were unsafe, this thread is about health claims.

But not all claims are valid, or equal risks.

Do you view ALL risks as equally posible? I don't. Science based medicine doesn't. Medicine first proves that there IS a risk, then evaluates the degree of risk, and then balances that against the likely benefit.

Trace elements of a chemical that in large quantity cause harm may do nothing at all, or may be only a low risk, and balancing against that is the likely benefit of avoiding smoking related illnesses.

Just saying that X chemical is in it, and X chemical is linked to Y disease, is too simplistic and results in an overestimate of what the degree of risk is. Or if there is a real risk at all.

Like just happened over the diacetyl.

That's what the other side will be doing. Why do their jobs for them?

Yes, we should present FULL disclosure of what we know. But presenting maybeys, what ifs, "nobody knows" worries, etc, as if they were all equally valid doesn't help.