Murray Laugesen on e-cigarettes

[Bill Godshall]

E-Cigarette Interview with Dr Murray Laugesen
Interviewer: James Dunworth, E Cigarette Direct
May 26, 2009
Murray Laugesen: E Cigarette Interview

We have been fortunate enough to talk to the man who, outside the
labatories of the electronic cigarette manufacturers themselves, probably knows most about the electronic cigarette. Respected reseacher, Dr Murray Laugesen of Health New Zealand Health New Zealand is one of the few to have carried out an indepth analysis of the contents of the electronic cigarette, and has presented on his findings at international conferences. In this interview we talk to him about concerns over the electronic cigarette.

ECD In previous interviews we have conducted scientists have estimated that, based on the evidence available, the risk to health from electronic cigarettes is between 1% and 1/10th of 1% of real cigarettes. You have actually done a product assessment of Ruyan electronic cigarette. What's your assessment of the risks?

ML We would rate the Ruyan electronic cigarette two to three orders of magnitude safer (100 to 1000 times safer) than a tobacco cigarette. We say this because our testing of the Ruyan e-cigarette for nearly 60 major toxicants has not found any cigarette smoke toxicants in any but trace quantity so far..........

Read the rest here

 

[NY JETS]

BG, this is giant step in the right direction, would be even better if the interview was conducted by an opposing party though.

 

[WendyM]

Thank you for posting.

 

[kinabaloo]

"ML We would rate the Ruyan electronic cigarette two to three orders of magnitude safer (100 to 1000 times safer) than a tobacco cigarette. We say this because our testing of the Ruyan e-cigarette for nearly 60 major toxicants has not found any cigarette smoke toxicants in any but trace quantity so far. This is not surprising, as the operating temperature of the atomiser of an e-cigarette is 5 to 10% that of a burning tobacco cigarette, so the volatile cigarette smoke toxicants are not created."

While I would agree with a figure around 300x less harmful than smoking tobacco, this is only true in ideal circumstances and usng Ruyan's products. A number of factors could well make this number much smaller and the conclusion false: in practice, e-cig heater coils often get dry from time to time (even when the cartridge still has juice, but cannot keep up or the airflow is sufficient to activate the col but not sufficient to draw juice to the coil) and so do at times run much hotter (to over 400C as opposed to a normal <200C); dry residues build up on the coil and degrade there, all the way to carbon (though Ruyan juice seems to be one of the best in this regard); use of VG, which will partially decompose. Under mechanical stress from repeated expansion and contraction tiny paticles of deposit break free and enter the inhaled airstream (and may contain tin among others). This is in addition to likely noxious gasses from the degrading of the deposit (leading to the well-known bad-small/taste that occus every so often). There are other factors but these are the main ones.

Furthermore, ML should be more careful in wording such conclusions, IMO. At one time he talks of, paraphrasing, 'trace amounts of those toxins looked for', then 'no toxicants' (not in the above paragraph, but elsewhere). Similar jumps occur in his reports. While I am very much on the same side, these over-statements could be used to discredit what is actually a powerful case that does not require any hype.

IMO though, even if the figure for relative safety was as low as 10x less harmful, I'd still see that as remarkable and certainly worthy of no ban while tests are carried out. There is no real reason to doubt the supposition that e-cigs are far healthier so the testing should take place while legal use continues, and it should focus on pointing to improvements that could be made to both the technology (such as temperaure control and partcle filter; sealed juice container) and juice (including alternatives to PG and VG and ensuring a minimum of dry residues from flavorings, additives and adjuvants).

 

[TropicalBob]

Dr. Laugesen is THE man on e-smoking matters. That interview is an excellent, up-to-date assessment of both the promise and the problems. Must reading for every e-smoker. Thanks for posting, Bill, and I wish reasonable minds among lawmakers would read it and think hard on the implications and consequences of a ban. I'm sure you'll do your part to enlighten those lawmakers.

 

[harmony gardens]

Wow,,, I'm almost speechless. This man has the clearest view on the situation I have read. I'm filled with hope after reading it.

John Lennon's Imagine comes to mind...

 

[lvlninety9]

While this interview could be seen in a positive light there is one thing that Dr. L said that doesn't sit to well with me and might become a spark for controversy. "The problem is that most manufacturers do not comply in this respect." Now sure Ruyan came up good in this aspect but it throws a shadow on other manufacturers. That statement right there despite the rest of the interview might throw the whole community into a tizzy. Because as most people know, the eye sees what it wants to see. And anti-smokers, FDA, government officials will more then likely focus on that rather then the actual tests from what Dr L. is saying.

Also he says that there are trace quantities so far. This can be construed to work against us also as saying that there are still harmful chemicals. Not to sound like a pessimist, but I try to look at everything from all angles

 

[TropicalBob]

Things might go wrong sometimes by telling the truth, but they certainly will by not telling it. Dr. Laugesen made accurate statements and assessments in that interview.

There is a long, dark shadow over almost all manufacturing of e-cigs and liquids. Until some light is shed on sanitary and labor conditions, users can only remain wary. How much do any of us know about how our devices and liquids were made? And how easy is it for the press to raise questions and get answers? In China? Forget it.

Besides, decisions are likely made on our practice. We just haven't had them announced to the world. Dr. Laugesen's valuable research might still save e-smoking -- after an FDA e-interruptus.

 

[lvlninety9]

I really hope it does. I'm not downing his interview and I think it's great that we have some positives finally, I'm just saying from a Devil's Advocate sort of view. I have a tendency to do that. Probably not one of my better traits.

 

[Wally]

This is all way too sensible and intelligent to be reflected in any U.S. federal legislation. What a pity! After the FDA/Tobacco bill passes, is there a next step in our efforts to keep harm reduction products, including the e-cig, available? Or are we all planning to just throw in the towel? If we convince the Feds that it's a tobacco product, the e-cig is eliminated because of the 2007 clause in the bill. If we convince them it's a pharmaceutical, the e-cig is eliminated because no one will be able to demonstrate safety, efficacy, etc. in controlled trials. What's the next step? I'm really asking.

Wally

 

[TropicalBob]

Wally, I don't think this is our ball to run with. It will be in the hands of the manufacturers, who should have studied their product extensively prior to marketing. Ruyan has, and Ruyan likely will be the only maker even remotely capable of meeting FDA demands.

If you think of this as a game, e-smoking is about to be flagged with a penalty. But the game won't be over at that point. We just need those who profit from our money to do what must be done.

We're not players in this high stakes game. We're fans in the bleachers, cheering a home team that keeps fumbling.

 

[Wally]

TB-

I guess part of my question was, who are "we." In my impression, most of the marketers of e-cigs in the U.S. are individuals who are not capable of doing the kind of work that might lead to approval. At the high end, I don't know what kind of capitalization a company like S. Everywhere has, but I'd guess it's very small. I also don't know what the funding of ECA is, but I'd guess that that's also quite small. Do you actually think marketers in the U.S. are going to rise to this challenge?

Wally

 

[TropicalBob]

Sorry to confuse. We (reading this) are users of product. Those we must depend on to meet compliance are neither independent sellers or fanatical users. They are the makers. Independent sellers, many on this forum, are in the same boat users are -- at the mercy of makers to meet government requirements. So far, none have. In not one country.

 

[deewal]

TB-

I guess part of my question was, who are "we." In my impression, most of the marketers of e-cigs in the U.S. are individuals who are not capable of doing the kind of work that might lead to approval. At the high end, I don't know what kind of capitalization a company like S. Everywhere has, but I'd guess it's very small. I also don't know what the funding of ECA is, but I'd guess that that's also quite small. Do you actually think marketers in the U.S. are going to rise to this challenge?

Wally

No i don't think they are or can. They are Marketers not Manufacturers.
The only people who's responsibility it is to Prove that their Products are Safe and meet the requirements of Governments (of the Countries where they wish to sell) are the Manufacturers. It is their Product. They should have the Health and Safety Tests done and passed before they Sell it.
For Instance.. Janty's Certificate of Safety is a Test Report by an Italian Lab which shows the ingredients and say's it's safe.
Does'nt mean a damn to Australia, Mexico, Canada, Denmark, the FDA etc,etc...the list is growing longer as we speak.

Dho. TB beat me to it while i was writing.

 

[sherid]

If we convince the Feds that it's a tobacco product, the e-cig is eliminated because of the 2007 clause in the bill.

If someone shows that the predecessor of the e cigarette was actually the Accord or Heatbar, we are most definitely NOT doomed by the 2007 clause.

 

[TropicalBob]

The Eclipse, Accord, Premieire and Heatbar all used tobacco, Sherid, so it's unlikely today's vaporizer would qualify as a descendant of those inventions. They were doomed first by their taste, then by anti's who called them just another unsafe cigarette. We have quite a different argument to make. I know, I know, it will be hard, but e-smoking is pharmaceutical in nature. This is a drug-delivery system at its core. That's what the FDA likes to call its "essential purpose," and it's hard to argue with that, since the patents spell it out.

 

[sherid]

The Eclipse, Accord, Premieire and Heatbar all used tobacco, Sherid, so it's unlikely today's vaporizer would qualify as a descendant of those inventions. They were doomed first by their taste, then by anti's who called them just another unsafe cigarette. We have quite a different argument to make. I know, I know, it will be hard, but e-smoking is pharmaceutical in nature. This is a drug-delivery system at its core. That's what the FDA likes to call its "essential purpose," and it's hard to argue with that, since the patents spell it out.

I do disagree although I certainly follow your way of thinking. Inventions evolve from their original concept, and it is certainly conceiveable that an electronic device that started using tobacco as its fuel would eventually use only a by product of tobacco or just the nicotine. I'm sure that a case would be made for either way of thinking. I simply do not believe that, in reality, this device's invention is nearly as new as some think.

 

[providence]

One of the key points that the FDA will pounce on:

Provided each e-cigarette maker has certified good manufacturing practices, plants and uses pure ingredients their emissions should be harmless also. The problem is that most manufacturers do not comply in this respect.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Ruyan and NJoy (and probably others) were marketing e-cigarettes in the US prior to February 15, 2007.

But this appears to be a moot point, as the Kennedy FDA tobacco bill (S. 982) doesn't apply to e-cigarettes (which weren't being marketed in the US in 2003/04 when Philip Morris and CTFK negotiated and agreed to the legislation introduced by Waxman and Kennedy since 2004 (although Waxman cut several side deals last year and the Kennedy bill was amended in the HELP Cmte in 2007, none of which affected e-cigarettes).