May contain Diacetyl formaldehyde etc...

[jamesbeat]

Maybe this is more encouraging

E-Cigarettes and Toxin Exposure | Annals of Internal Medicine | American College of Physicians

Here's an excerpt of the results to save folks time:

"The e-cigarette–only and NRT-only users had significantly lower metabolite levels for TSNAs (including the
carcinogenic metabolite 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol [NNAL]) and VOCs
(including metabolites of the toxins acrolein; acrylamide; acrylonitrile; 1,3-butadiene; and
ethylene oxide) than combustible cigarette–only, dual combustible cigarette–e-cigarette, or
dual combustible cigarette–NRT users. The e-cigarette–only users had significantly lower
NNAL levels than all other groups."

And there's this:
Evidence for harm reduction in COPD smokers who switch to electronic cigarettes

Here are the graphs of results to save folks time too:
View attachment 658249

View attachment 658251

Personally, I'm more encouraged by results from actually, like using e cigarettes, and seeing improvements in both decreasing toxic metabolites measured in real people, and evidence of folks with significant lung disease (like lots of us ex-smokers around here likely have to one degree or another) improving with e cigarette use in comparison to smoking. In vitro tissue culture studies are certainly helpful when evaluating outside of actual clinical study (easier to do with cells in a dish than gather up a bunch of actual people and follow them over several years or have them keep coming back for tests of toxin levels, way cheaper too) but are limited to the difficulty in interpretation of cellular responses and correlation with the multiple cell types which make up our lungs (way more types than just the one in the culture dish).

I will also throw out for folks to consider when posting links to scientific articles, particularly when using specific testing techniques which may have both advantages as well as limitation, to recognize that the large majority of folks around here probably lack the knowledge or experience to critically analyze the studies presented, and therefore just work off the title of the article. That in and of itself can be misleading to forum readers unable to to place such published material within context.

Of course that is not meant for those with a medical, cell biology, physiology and/or toxicology background around here. Just sayin'.

True, nobody is saying that vaping isn't considerably safer than smoking.

What the in vitro tests do tell us though is that the liquids with flavorings damaged more cells than the control, which was just PG/VG.
Also, it showed that some flavorings did more damage than others.

Whether that makes much difference in real life is debatable though.

 

[Eskie]

True, nobody is saying that vaping isn't considerably safer than smoking.

What the in vitro tests do tell us though is that the liquids with flavorings damaged more cells than the control, which was just PG/VG.
Also, it showed that some flavorings did more damage than others.

Whether that makes much difference in real life is debatable though.

I agree with you that questions regarding real life risks throws vaping into the "safer than smoking" category. Even rabid ANTZ folks are grudgingly giving in on that point. I am still concerned when we take in vitro studies and in a non-scientific environment try to extrapolate conclusions and potential harm risks. It's even tougher when there is only an abstract available without the full text to understand the methods used, and the results prior to the authors' interpretations.

 

[beckdg]

Its up to the user if they want to inhale these chemicals I guess,for me I see no point in giving up the stinkies to just inhale these types of chemicals if it can be avoided.

I wish we had more companies in Canada willing to put these labels on their bottles.

This is why I vape flavourless, i would toss it in the garbage.

Poor guy.

I'm sorry.

I vape unflavored too.

When I want to.

Everything else, I get as much diacetyl as possible.

I was nearly bed ridden due to lung function at one point.

Now thanks to my heavy diacetyl juice, I can chase my kids after working long shifts again.

But if you want your options eliminated out of fear, that's your prerogative.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

 

[beckdg]

It's California.
They have huge "....known to cause cancer by the State of California" signs plastered on the front doors of all Carl's Jr. fast food restaurants.

And want everything you lay, sit or stand on or in completely doused in off gassing, "fire proof" chemicals that cause cancer by prolonged contact and inhalation for at the very least, decades.



Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

 

[beckdg]

Next:

• Sugar free salt,
  
• Bottled water : now with 50% less arsenic
• Low sodium salt
• Cereal box: now with 50% less rat droppings
• Low cholesterol apples sold here!
• Dog medicine form the vet with label: may cause drowsiness, do not operate heavy machinery, do not take with alcohol
  
• Make sure you hold the correct side of chainsaw while operating
• Bicycles with labels about "not for internal use"
• Peanut butter with a peanut allergy warning label "may contain peanuts"
• don't eat the mints in the urinals

The worse/scary part is that some of these are actually real.

Problem is, there's actually reasons for most of those...

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

 

[beckdg]

Absolutely..

And now that the diacetyl scare "fad" has died off (and it just didn't work out and no one died or got sick from it at this point still - after 10 years), so now we've having the formaldehyde scare fad to replace it.

News Flash

Focus on different chemical...
Still been 10 years...
Same results, people.



Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

 

[beckdg]

I have a weed whacker that will cause cancer if you whack weeds in California.

Little secret...

It's electric. [emoji38]

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

 

[beckdg]

yes but consuming and inhaling are two very different things,just because you can eat something doesn't mean you can inhale vast amounts of it into your lungs.

Vast amounts?

I gotta see this.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

 

[beckdg]

This kinda seems like deja vu from when cigs were first a big thing,the smokers said nothing here to worry about lol.

Nothing is 100% safe but I chose not to add other potentially harmful chemicals to my vape.

Not really.

Govt, doctors, and bt duped people into thinking it was totally safe.

Guess what, they're still the enemy. Though some docs don't completely pander to their bp support.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

 

[beckdg]

You're quite right that they haven't found anything yet, but they also haven't tested all of the flavorings and combinations of flavorings.

As I keep saying, my personal feeling is that flavorings probably don't do any harm, but we don't have enough data yet to be certain.

I also agree that a lot of these researchers have set out to discredit vaping, and the fact that they haven't been able to do so is doubly encouraging.

However, we don't know everything yet, and it may turn out that certain types, concentrations or combinations of flavoring can be harmful.
Again, I think that this is probably not the case, and all the evidence that we have so far is very encouraging.

Want a real scare?

Check out your municipalities annual water quality report.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

 

[beckdg]

The point is to put the least "extra/unneeded" stuff in anything.

Food coloring has already been showed to have certain health issues, and no one, not a single e-liquid maker had gone that route for a reason. (at least that I know of)

I know that you keep being passive-aggressive in a lot of your posts, but at some point, you're passing the point of curious and devil's advocate and into "looking for anything to validate something that must prove that vaping is bad".

Mad Murdock was one such company pretty well known for doing so.

Don't know if any still exist.

Wouldn't be surprised, though.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

 

[Asbestos4004]

I've said it before....I demolish buildings and spend an average of 50 hours a week playing around with Asbestos, lead, mold, PCB's.....homeless junkies....you name it. If the flavoring in my ejuice is what takes me out, I'll be surprised as well as dead.

 

[Imfallen_Angel]

I think that the perspective that people tend to lose their bowel movement over is a bit funny.

Compared to smoking, we'd have to compare it as something like:

Drinking a tub full of sludge from the local swamp, as opposed to a couple of drops of "MAYBE" stuff in a glass of clear water.

Yeah, I might be slightly exaggerating, but probably not by that much but at least it's a visual that might help some people understand what the "risk" actually is.

Perspective is just lost so easily.

 

[jamesbeat]

Want a real scare?

Check out your municipalities annual water quality report.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

I live on Long Island, and my family and I only drink bottled spring water from sources outside NY.
I'm from England and have only lived here on LI for eight years, so I probably haven't had enough exposure to worry about. Neither have our kids, because they have been drinking bottled water most of their lives.
I do worry about my wife though because she's lived here her whole life.

There is much debate about the high incidences of certain types of cancer on Long Island (or whether they exist at all) and the water supply is not confirmed as the reason (though it's looking likely given recent findings).

We still hedge our bets and stick to bottled spring water though, and so do many other people who live here.

The one exception is that I drink filtered tap water at work, but as I said, I haven't lived here my whole life and we intend to move to a different state eventually.
No idea if the water filter removes the cancer causing chemicals, but I don't let it keep me awake at night.

 

[Asbestos4004]

Just for the record, I've always found the "when we smoked, we didn't worry about....." arguments pretty silly. None of us who quit smoking started vaping for a change of pace. We quit smoking because it was killing us and we stunk. So to say 'I wasn't worried about what was in my cigarettes so why should I worry about what's in my e-liquid' is a bit dumb. What I truly believe, based on the studies that have been done by non biased, independent smart people, is I'm so much better off vaping my flavored e-liquid that it's a no-brainer. This is backed up by the annual Pulmonary Functions tests I have to do.... I was told by the doc that I had the lungs of an 18 yr old. Everything else is shot, though.....

 

[Topwater Elvis]

Want a real scare?

Check out your municipalities annual water quality report.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Add to, regularly check your areas air quality index (AQI), anything above moderate isn't really 'safe' to breathe, but whatcha gonna do.

--- --- ---- --- ---
Another vaping misconception, colorants;
If your e liquid isn't clear to slight amber your flavorings do contain colorants, suspended particles, dissolved sugars / sweeteners.

 

[Imfallen_Angel]

Just for the record, I've always found the "when we smoked, we didn't worry about....." arguments pretty silly. None of us who quit smoking started vaping for a change of pace. We quit smoking because it was killing us and we stunk. So to say 'I wasn't worried about what was in my cigarettes so why should I worry about what's in my e-liquid' is a bit dumb. What I truly believe, based on the studies that have been done by non biased, independent smart people, is I'm so much better off vaping my flavored e-liquid that it's a no-brainer. This is backed up by the annual Pulmonary Functions tests I have to do.... I was told by the doc that I had the lungs of an 18 yr old. Everything else is shot, though.....

Absolutely, but that's why I just posted about perspective...

We have the "we don't know" being said non-stop, but after 10 years of vaping, all the testing done, etc. and most of these tests had to be falsified to create something bad is technically speaking volumes about it.

So now it's more "well, after lots and lots of tests, there's still nothing that proves anything bad at this point".

Of course I'm open that it's may not be 100% safe, but when it's quote as (now) being a 1% or less "possible risk" compared to the 100% confirmed risk of cigarettes....

With cigarettes, all one needed was a coffee filter and blow through it and have physical proof instantly.

So to say how bad it MIGHT be, you have to consider that every food product out there has a certain amount of risk also... name the food, natural of processed, it doesn't matter, everything has a certain "possible risk" to it. (as my earlier example, Apple seeds are laced with arsenic, same with many other fruits seeds too)

 

[Imfallen_Angel]

I live on Long Island, and my family and I only drink bottled spring water from sources outside NY.
I'm from England and have only lived here on LI for eight years, so I probably haven't had enough exposure to worry about. Neither have our kids, because they have been drinking bottled water most of their lives.
I do worry about my wife though because she's lived here her whole life.

There is much debate about the high incidences of certain types of cancer on Long Island (or whether they exist at all) and the water supply is not confirmed as the reason (though it's looking likely given recent findings).

We still hedge our bets and stick to bottled spring water though, and so do many other people who live here.

The one exception is that I drink filtered tap water at work, but as I said, I haven't lived here my whole life and we intend to move to a different state eventually.
No idea if the water filter removes the cancer causing chemicals, but I don't let it keep me awake at night.

It doesn't... water by itself can cause cancer . It all depends on your cell deciding to mutate and it can be cause by anything, hell, it can just spontaneously do it just for the heck of it.

Substances can trigger it (predisposed), cause the cells to mutate (reaction), but you could do everything "right" and if your genes are set to "activate" under certain factors, such as plain old age, it'll happen.

And considering that some spring water bottles are no better than some tap water, and some aren't better than tap water going through a coffee filter, I wouldn't feel confident about that.

I use a water dispenser at home which has a large "Brita" type filter (activated carbon) tank that I just refill with tap water, and that makes a huge difference it the taste of the water... and better than having to haul those giant bottles back and forth.

 

[Riplea]

I live on Long Island, and my family and I only drink bottled spring water from sources outside NY.
I'm from England and have only lived here on LI for eight years, so I probably haven't had enough exposure to worry about. Neither have our kids, because they have been drinking bottled water most of their lives.
I do worry about my wife though because she's lived here her whole life.

There is much debate about the high incidences of certain types of cancer on Long Island (or whether they exist at all) and the water supply is not confirmed as the reason (though it's looking likely given recent findings).

We still hedge our bets and stick to bottled spring water though, and so do many other people who live here.

The one exception is that I drink filtered tap water at work, but as I said, I haven't lived here my whole life and we intend to move to a different state eventually.
No idea if the water filter removes the cancer causing chemicals, but I don't let it keep me awake at night.

Kind of off topic, but have you considered using something like a Berkey Water filter rather than bottles of water?

 

[Bad Ninja]

Problem is, there's actually reasons for most of those...

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

That's actually a screwdriver or bad photoshop ...lol....it's not the pull cord.

The pull cord doesn't come out of the air filter in a chainsaw.


Know your gear.