New studies find carcinogens in vg and pg at high temps, even in tootle puffers

[Mowgli]

Interesting thanks. Sucks that with every new coil/atomizer/liquid I try while attempting to find my go-to setups/liquid I have to go through all this research I mean I just want to vape and have the security of knowing it’s better than smoking. There is SO many variables to vaping. Defienetly not like going to the gas station and buying a pack of cigs and lighter. Sure I know this is just 1 dangerous chemical found, BUT it took what 9 years? Just to find this. And it’s being “claimed” 10X the amount found in cigarettes that just sucks I thoroughly enjoy vaping, higher watts to I’ve noticed, I get better taste is higher watts personally. Is there a certain tank and coil that I can buy to have a bit more security that it won’t go above the 470F level??

I switched to vaping 5 years ago. From the beginning I wanted it stronger.
Hardware progressed and I found my happy place at ~70W for about a year.
I started TC about a year ago and found my build at ~45W is in the "safer zone".
It seemed weak at first but I got used to it and 60w+ tastes absurd to me now.
But @mikepetro tried my exact build and he thinks I'm a terrorist now. YMMV

You're better off vaping anything than smoking.
Give it time and experiment with different setups till you find what you enjoy.
Your tastebuds will heal and flavors will change with that.
Have fun

 

[mikepetro]

I switched to vaping 5 years ago. From the beginning I wanted it stronger.
Hardware progressed and I found my happy place at ~70W for about a year.
I started TC about a year ago and found my build at ~45W is in the "safer zone".
It seemed weak at first but I got used to it and 60w+ tastes absurd to me now.
But @mikepetro tried my exact build and he thinks I'm a terrorist now. YMMV

You're better off vaping anything than smoking.
Give it time and experiment with different setups till you find what you enjoy.
Your tastebuds will heal and flavors will change with that.
Have fun

Hey, that build of yours came in handy........
(One day when the power went out and i had no heat)

 

[stols001]

I vaped for about 3 months using "not best" temperature practices. Oh, I wanted that to improve and it has as I've built vaping "skill" as it were. I use TC vaping sometimes but also follow best practices to reduce temps in my non TC vapes. There are some I am not willing to give up.

With that said, I neared COPD when I switched to vaping and despite NOT using best practices, in fact fairly poor practices (I am PG sensitive and was using max VG in a tiny, mouth to lung atomizer) my health drastically improved, my docs noted improvements, and here I am still alive and without inhalers even.

I'm not saying don't improve your vaping. But most if not all new vapers start out not using best practices and work their way up to them. You will be fine, just keep building your vaping skill and don't stress yourself out to the point that you return to smoking.

Vaping period, will most likely improve your health anyway. Further improvements are great as well, but I guarantee almost EVERY vaper did not start out using "best" TC practices, because it can be awful complex to learn all at once.

You'll be okay is mainly what I am trying to say.

Anna

 

[Wooots]

Guess i'am fine with my high ohm build ( 1.25 actual, was used to use 1.6 or so ) and 6-7w xD

 

[capthook]

Agreed, a 70ml draw over 4 seconds is equal to a large MTL hit (50ml is considered an avg MTL volume). I did my testing at ~ 0.75 L/min to simulate a MTL hit, they were just slightly above that.

Thanks for this. Was a question I hoped to ask you.

I do think they are looking in the right direction though. I.e. looking at all of the constituents in flavorings. They just dont have the right sampling protocol yet.

I think this is the biggest contribution of this study, providing a relative toxicity for flavorings.
I was hoping the database presented data and could be searched by individual flavors/chemicals/molecules rather than by product name ie. blueberry tobacco.

So having done a first read through, two things of interest stand out for me.
The 1st we mentioned, being able to compare the relative toxicity of flavors, to some degree.
How a juice with vanillin compares to one without etc.
Vanilla Swirl is one of my favorites that I add to most mixes at 1%-2%.
I may have to rethink that.

First, most of the data and testing done is to offer validation on their new testing protocols.
Their new primary method is to expose live cells to a solution of e-liquid and then count the live cells cells, comparing them to control groups.
The data they give on exposure to vapor testing etc. shows similar results to their new protocol, giving what they consider validation that data obtained exposing live cells to a solution will be similar to that of exposing them to vapor.
Basically it's a faster, cheaper way to analyze many different samples.
But at the cost of data that is less relevant, specific and variable imo.

The 2nd is the toxicity of PG/VG.
As we have learned in this thread, PG/VG alone can be toxic at higher temps.
The toxicity being mostly carbonyls.
That might lead one to believe that it is relatively benign at lower temps.
Live cell testing seems to show that PG/VG alone is toxic to cells at any temp, and increases with flavorings.
How toxic? Need to examine the data more.
Where are the danger points?
What are the variables?
Anyone?
Not sure the answer can be found in their data.
But one might have to consider PG/VG as toxic, and high temp PG/VG as highly toxic.
Basically two sides of the coin,
a) cell death
b) carbonyls (cancer)

Need to read more this weekend.

 

[Rossum]

Do the exact same cell-culture tests, but substitute cigarette smoke for the vape aerosols and let us know what happens, please!

I bet they don't dare dare do it, because the results wouldn't fit the narrative they're pushing.

 

[awsum140]

I seem to remember reading a report, just can't remember where, that studied cell death with exposure to PG/VG aerosols. I believe it was conducted in Europe, maybe England. If I am correct that report showed no significant difference from normal "room air". Toxicity is a relative term, more toxic than purified air, probably, more toxic than the air we actually breath, maybe. And even if it is more toxic than normal room air, that level needs to be quantified and compared to a tobacco product. I doubt we'll ever see that done even though it is a key factor.

Again, unless and until they do realistic testing, with realistic volumes, realistic "inhalation" times, controlled temperatures and documenting that method fully, and state the percentages of each flavoring used as well as the ratios of PG and VG, it's just an exercise in futility looking to produce a headline that supports the desires of those backing the research. It seems odd to me that they'd use "modern" vaping equipment then use unrealistic volumes and never mention the concentrations of flavors. Hmmmmm.....

 

[DaveP]

It's the tars in tobacco, not the nicotine. Pretty much the same findings that the PG vapor study found with lab rats in the 1940s.

Long-term effects of inhaled nicotine. - PubMed - NCBI

Abstract
Tobacco smoking has been reported to be associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer, particularly of the lungs. In spite of extensive research on the health effects of tobacco smoking, the substances in tobacco smoke exerting these negative health effects are not completely known. Nicotine is the substance giving the subjective pleasure of smoking as well as inducing addiction. For the first time we report the effect on the rat of long-term (two years) inhalation of nicotine. The rats breathed in a chamber with nicotine at a concentration giving twice the plasma concentration found in heavy smokers. Nicotine was given for 20 h a day, five days a week during a two-year period. We could not find any increase in mortality, in atherosclerosis or frequency of tumors in these rats compared with controls. Particularly, there was no microscopic or macroscopic lung tumors nor any increase in pulmonary neuroendocrine cells. Throughout the study, however, the body weight of the nicotine exposed rats was reduced as compared with controls. In conclusion, our study does not indicate any harmful effect of nicotine when given in its pure form by inhalation.

 

[Rossum]

It's the tars in tobacco,

And the carbon monoxide.

 

[CMD-Ky]

And the carbon monoxide.

Double thumbs up on the CO.

 

[Eskie]

I thought this one was interesting as it goes to FDA guideline requests
An evaluation of electronic cigarette formulations and aerosols for harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs) typically derived from combustion - ScienceDirect

Always nice to see something turn out right.

 

[mikepetro]

I thought this one was interesting as it goes to FDA guideline requests
An evaluation of electronic cigarette formulations and aerosols for harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs) typically derived from combustion - ScienceDirect

Always nice to see something turn out right.

Definitely interesting, just wish it was funded by somebody more neutral than "Altria Client Services LLC". But then again, BT has the bucks to do the big testing, and the experience to know how back it up with validation.

 

[untar]

BT has the bucks to do the big testing, and the experience to know how back it up with validation.

They also have the experience of being dismissed solely because "they lied in the past and can never again be trusted with anything". Wouldn't be surprised if that was the only thing the WHO has to say regarding this.
Seeing how many of the things the FDA says atm seem adopted from WHO outlines (like eg their low nic cigarette wet dream) I don't think much will come from this. But you can bet next week there'll be a study that shows squirrels can drown in eliquid.

 

[awsum140]

Children can drown in eliquid too! We've got to protect the children!

 

[zoiDman]

I thought this one was interesting as it goes to FDA guideline requests
An evaluation of electronic cigarette formulations and aerosols for harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs) typically derived from combustion - ScienceDirect

Always nice to see something turn out right.

I like this exert...


... Several researchers have also established that thermal degradation products such
as carbonyl compounds (e.g., formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein)
can be detected in e-cigarette aerosols at various concentrations
under realistic and unrealistic use conditions, and their formation is
clearly related to the temperature of the e-cigarette device during
aerosol formation (Farsalinos et al., 2015c; Flora et al., 2016b, 2017;
Geiss et al., 2016; Goniewicz et al., 2014; Gupta et al., 2015; Guthery,
2016; Jensen et al., 2015; Kosmider et al., 2014; Margham et al., 2016;
Sleiman et al., 2016; Talih et al., 2017; Talih et al., 2016; Uchiyama
et al., 2013). Talih et al. (2017) recently demonstrated that some refillable
high power sub-Ohm devices (coil resistance well below 1 Ohm)
can produce carbonyl levels far greater than conventional cigarettes
and explored the interaction between power and device geometry on
carbonyl formation. ..."

 

[MoeKeto]

I like this exert...


... Several researchers have also established that thermal degradation products such
as carbonyl compounds (e.g., formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and acrolein)
can be detected in e-cigarette aerosols at various concentrations
under realistic and unrealistic use conditions, and their formation is
clearly related to the temperature of the e-cigarette device during
aerosol formation (Farsalinos et al., 2015c; Flora et al., 2016b, 2017;
Geiss et al., 2016; Goniewicz et al., 2014; Gupta et al., 2015; Guthery,
2016; Jensen et al., 2015; Kosmider et al., 2014; Margham et al., 2016;
Sleiman et al., 2016; Talih et al., 2017; Talih et al., 2016; Uchiyama
et al., 2013). Talih et al. (2017) recently demonstrated that some refillable
high power sub-Ohm devices (coil resistance well below 1 Ohm)
can produce carbonyl levels far greater than conventional cigarettes
and explored the interaction between power and device geometry on
carbonyl formation. ..."

Lol they’ve got to be joking... unrealistic conditions are somehow grouped with realistic to form a conclusion lol, that says what? This is so funny!
That’s like saying I test drove a car on mountainous road with no street lights or headlights, while it was snowing and raining at the same time, there were no rails, and I didn’t even have tires, and it turns out you can have 10 times more accidents than you would had you been walking to the mall on a Sunday afternoon, when I was Saturday. Lol, if that sounded gibberish to you, it is literally what they’re saying in that exert you picked.
Lol thanks for making my day!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[zoiDman]

Lol they’ve got to be joking... unrealistic conditions are somehow grouped with realistic to form a conclusion lol, that says what? This is so funny!
That’s like saying I test drove a car on mountainous road with no street lights or headlights, while it was snowing and raining at the same time, there were no rails, and I didn’t even have tires, and it turns out you can have 10 times more accidents than you would had you been walking to the mall on a Sunday afternoon, when I was Saturday. Lol, if that sounded gibberish to you, it is literally what they’re saying in that exert you picked.
Lol thanks for making my day!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you might be Misinterpreting the Authors intent.

I Don't believe the Intent was to draw a Conclusion(s) based on "unrealistic use conditions". But to Point Out the Systemic Flaw in some "Studies".

 

[MoeKeto]

I think you might be Misinterpreting the Authors intent.

I Don't believe the Intent was to draw a Conclusion(s) based on "unrealistic use conditions". But to Point Out the Systemic Flaw in some "Studies".

I thought so when I first read it, then I reread and figured that this was simply their insurance policy in the case of blowback, in pretty much every possible way, but it’s actually very awkwardly and weakly done. It is logically so weak that if policy decisions were based on logical debate, this whole study would be tossed out.

This is basically a leeway for BT to come up with “safe” e-cigarettes, and for regulators to tax the life out of whatever product they deem unsafe, and for enterprises like theirs to get more funding to figure more stuff out, and to design safety testing methods that they themselves can sell, and standardize. They were the ones who found the carcinogens, using “modern devices” and a flashy name like “blueberry tobacco.” Never mind any other tests or reading that exert again, it will be buried under a mountain of data.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[zoiDman]

I thought so when I first read it, then I reread and figured that this was simply their insurance policy in the case of blowback, in pretty much every possible way, but it’s actually very awkwardly and weakly done. It is logically so weak that if policy decisions were based on logical debate, this whole study would be tossed out.

This is basically a leeway for BT to come up with “safe” e-cigarettes, and for regulators to tax the life out of whatever product they deem unsafe, and for enterprises like theirs to get more funding to figure more stuff out, and to design safety testing methods that they themselves can sell, and standardize. They were the ones who found the carcinogens, using “modern devices” and a flashy name like “blueberry tobacco.” Never mind any other tests or reading that exert again, it will be buried under a mountain of data.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You have an Interesting Take on the Grand Scheme of things.

I guess I'm just Not Seeing it that way.

 

[MoeKeto]

You have an Interesting Take on the Grand Scheme of things.

I guess I'm just Not Seeing it that way.

I just asked myself why would someone intentionally use unrealistic vaping conditions to obtain results that would conclude that vaping in these unrealistic conditions, using some real life elements, like the eJuice and mods and atomizers, to finally conclude that vaping produces 10 times the carbonyls as cigarettes do? Also you can read it in the conclusion of the study itself, it’s not like they were concerned for vapers’ safety, because it’s not like they didn’t know that mods can do temperature control. I mean, they enlisted the help of various institutions and finally got modern devices to run their tests. It’s not like they’re asking vapers to just tone down the temp, they’re simply saying that it produces more carbonyls than cigarettes, and carbonyls are carcinogens. Think of how a new vaper would take this, how a person who’s trying to quit smoking would be afraid of doing even more damage to their health by switching from cigarettes.

Who is this narrative helping? Definitely not smokers, or vapers who would take this as simply another attack on vaping, nor would it be serving the public. All they had to say was that by keeping coil temperatures under a certain limit, a vaper can avoid significant levels of carcinogens, making this a better option than smoking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk