New studies find carcinogens in vg and pg at high temps, even in tootle puffers
- Thread starter mikepetro
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Nice study. You have to review the methods and assumptions used, but they're running with the 95% risk reduction (5% higher risk over non smoking non vaping). If you assume that is overly optimistic they used a pretty pessimistic 60% reduction (40% higher risk over non smoking non vaping) and risk reduction was still significant. Pretty good even on that pessimistic side. It will probably turn out to be between those values in real life over the next 30 or 40 years, maybe 10% (I'm a pessimist at heart), and that's still OK.
What is especially nice is seeing both who's doing the research (decent academic centers) and funded (NIH through NIDA). Now it's handles as a real scientific and medical research topic and not emotion driven "save the children" and "it's just as bad it's still has nicotine". This is exactly the type of study we need to see more of and we will as more and more of these that were first funded several years ago now reach publication. The more mainstream the scientific and medical discussion goes, the better for vaping.
Only problem is that it will never show up in the lame stream media. Not sensational or emotional enough, not to mention it contradicts their "narrative".
I'm happy to see it in the mainstream medical media. That's where the legitimacy of vaping will arise, then filter into the general media. The more healthcare providers understand the benefits, the faster the encouragement to transition from smoking to vaping will occur. And that will make the general media pay attention in a manner differently than they have to date.
The problem is the amount of time that will take. My own doctor seemed happy to see me convert to vaping, but I've heard too many stories that went the other way. Anecdotal, true, but it does seem to be a common problem. Being published in a reputable medical journal helps a lot, but small minds can be hard to enlarge. The media will follow whatever looks the most offensive and dangerous, like so many of the, alleged, studies that have been done based on preconceived results.
Overall, I think there will be some progress but it will be far slower than an open dialog and mind would permit.
Overall, I think there will be some progress but it will be far slower than an open dialog and mind would permit.
The road to enlightenment begins with knowledge..........
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.....
And yada yada yada......
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.....
And yada yada yada......
OK, the scale is now in my possession. I need to do an amended 2015 tax return this weekend, but I have all my ducks in a row, it is now down to "fill in the blanks" in the software.
Then, I will play and see if I cant nail this down a little closer.
Then, I will play and see if I cant nail this down a little closer.
OK, I am getting closer. Still dont feel like I am nailing it, but I am getting close.
My setup today:
So here is what I did:
I threw out the first sample as an outlier.
So, if I average the last 5 results I come up with 2.3 ug/mg of formaldehyde.
Now, lets compare 50/50 juice @ 450f against the Wang data.
I am actually coming up with different levels than Wang showed, which given the respective test methods I dont believe. Someone please check my math, mine is off by like a factor of 10, maybe I am off a decimal point somewhere. (@Kurt are you out there)
However, I am now getting repeatable results. That is huge progress. The next step is to play with different temps and different juice ratios and see if there is a repeatable correlation there.
One thing about todays testing is that I am showing an ambient CH2O level of 20 PPB, where in the past ambient was always zero. I dont have a solid explanation for that other than a suspicion that it could be associated with just having my driveway sealed with coal tar, which does give off a lot of fumes.
My setup today:
So here is what I did:
- Weighed Mod before taking sample
- Tared scale so it would read zero with the mod on it.
- Took sample and injected it into the chamber.
- Weighed Mod, sample weight displayed as a negative number
- Allowed CH2O meter to stabilize, takes about 20 minutes.
- Read CH2O meter and subtracted ambient reading.
- Recorded all readings
- Allowed CH2O to stabilize back to ambient, about 20 minutes, before taking next measurement.
I threw out the first sample as an outlier.
So, if I average the last 5 results I come up with 2.3 ug/mg of formaldehyde.
Now, lets compare 50/50 juice @ 450f against the Wang data.
I am actually coming up with different levels than Wang showed, which given the respective test methods I dont believe. Someone please check my math, mine is off by like a factor of 10, maybe I am off a decimal point somewhere. (@Kurt are you out there)
However, I am now getting repeatable results. That is huge progress. The next step is to play with different temps and different juice ratios and see if there is a repeatable correlation there.
One thing about todays testing is that I am showing an ambient CH2O level of 20 PPB, where in the past ambient was always zero. I dont have a solid explanation for that other than a suspicion that it could be associated with just having my driveway sealed with coal tar, which does give off a lot of fumes.
Last edited:
You were a dead man before your first vape today
Last edited:
I bet the ambient reading is due to the driveway. As the sun went down the reading has been steadily dropping.
Conflating variables. It's more likely solar radiation.
Jk, really
Sunspots again messing with stuff.
Mike, just a note on the Merlin. Its volume is 4.5 ml, not 10 ml, or is there a reason you chose 10 ml I'm just missing.
10ml is the size syringe I used to take the vape sample. Really its irrelevant as the weight I consumed is what is used in the calculation.Sunspots again messing with stuff.
Mike, just a note on the Merlin. Its volume is 4.5 ml, not 10 ml, or is there a reason you chose 10 ml I'm just missing.
I am convinced my math is wrong. I have reached out to @Kurt (and Dr F) for help. I have all the measurements I need, I just need to calculate it right.
I suspect that my error is that I have to convert my PPM readings to factor in the the 500ml container I am injecting the sample into.
Last edited:
I’m frankly confused by all of this. So two in my rotation are Innokin T22 fixed at 14 watts with 1.5 coil. Your info so far suggests I should stop using them. Is that an accurate interpretation?
Not enough information to offer an opinion. I have never tested a T22 so I dont know what temperature you are running at 14w.
Temperature is the trigger, if the temp gets high enough then thermal degradation produces nasties.
Looking at the T22 cartridge, I am not sure if I could get a probe in it or not. There appears to be a silicone piece on top, perhaps that offers a way to get a probe next to the coil.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
