New study by Dr. Farsalinos finds vaping is 3 orders of magnitude safer than tobacco

[DrMA]

A new study verifies that e-cigarettes are orders of magnitude safer than tobacco cigarettes

Together with another study published today:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...onstrates-vaping-effectiveness-12-months.html
this adds to the overwhelming evidence already out there that vaping is an extraordinarily safe and devastatingly effective alternative to smoking

 

[Painter_]

A new study verifies that e-cigarettes are orders of magnitude safer than tobacco cigarettes

By Dr Farsalinos
A new study was published today in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health by our group, evaluating e-liquids for the presence of tobacco-derived toxins. Additionally, the accuracy of nicotine labelling was assessed. The study is novel because for the first time we assessed tobacco-flavored liquids for the presence of phenols and nitrate (known toxins in tobacco smoke), as well as nitrosamines. Moreover, we assessed a specific group of e-liquids (known as Natural Extracts of Tobacco – NETs), which are made by using cured tobacco leaves to extract the flavor. This is the first time that such liquids are specifically tested.
The study verified that tobacco-derived toxins are lower by orders of magnitude in e-liquids compared to tobacco products. Characteristically, nitrosamines were 146-1447 times lower in e-liquids compared to tobacco products (in 1 mL liquid compared to 1 gram of tobacco), while nitrate was 1360 times lower. NET liquids contained somewhat higher levels of tobacco-derived toxins compared to conventional e-liquids, but the levels were still significantly lower compared to tobacco. Deviation from labelled nicotine content was on average 5.9% for conventional e-liquids and 1.5% for NETs, with maximum deviation being 22.1%. Interestingly, no difference between conventional liquids and NETs were observed, indicating that the flavor extraction process does not lead to extraction of nicotine from the tobacco leaves.


The study adds to current evidence confirming the lower risk potential of e-cigarettes compared to tobacco. NET liquids contained more tobacco-derived toxins, but still much lower compared to tobacco.

inShare1​

 

[SHOCK COLLAR]

so tobacco flavor is better than flavor extracted from tobacco, thats a double whamy on tobacco.

 

[RCHagy74]

Now correct me if I am wrong here (my numbers please, not grammar) -

So when Dr. F writes 2 to 3 magnitudes lower icky things, he is saying 100 to 1000 times lower icky things?

 

[caramel]

Now correct me if I am wrong here (my numbers please, not grammar) -

So when Dr. F writes 2 to 3 magnitudes lower icky things, he is saying 100 to 1000 times lower icky things?

Yes that's what magnitude orders mean.

I guess that using "100 to 1000 times" would be more straightforward.

 

[Cool_Breeze]

'X times lower/safer' is a logical fallacy in this and most other instances where such an expression is used in public media.

 

[RCHagy74]

'X times lower/safer' is a logical fallacy in this and most other instances where such an expression is used in public media.

Probably comes off better in the original greek...

 

[caramel]

"safer" is a fallacy
"less cancerstuff substances" is not

 

[RCHagy74]

You all make it sound as if 'icky stuff' is not scientific...

 

[Rickajho]

"safer" is a fallacy
"less cancerstuff substances" is not

In Facebookspeak: "less icky things" is what really matters.

 

[caramel]

In Facebookspeak: "less icky things" is what really matters.

We're on ECF here.

 

[Kent C]

"safer" is a fallacy
"less cancerstuff substances" is not

With the accepted (by some scientists and some unnamed laypersons who post here) no threshold theory of carcinogens, no amount of carcinogens are considered safe. See post #69:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...aganda-re-diacetyl-e-cigs-7.html#post15296724

So from one point of view the idea of 'less cancerstuff substances' is like saying 'less pregnant' - a fallacy.

Who here thinks that ANTZ will discount order of magnitude (not saying they should), and focus on the fact that some carcinogens were found?

 

[cinetrope]

The summary of the study suggests that vaping NETs is safer than many people had assumed, and certainly safer than combusted tobacco. Think I'll celebrate with some RBFS Poet & Scholar while I check the extraction thread for some good recipes. If you can deal with tobacco flavored juices, this is a big step toward future proofing at least one segment of the vaping spectrum.

 

[DrMA]

With the accepted (by some scientists and some unnamed laypersons who post here) no threshold theory of carcinogens, no amount of carcinogens are considered safe. See post #69:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...aganda-re-diacetyl-e-cigs-7.html#post15296724

So from one point of view the idea of 'less cancerstuff substances' is like saying 'less pregnant' - a fallacy.

Who here thinks that ANTZ will discount order of magnitude (not saying they should), and focus on the fact that some carcinogens were found?

Even under the "no safe level" (otherwise fallacious) assumption it will be easy to debunk such ridiculous claims by pointing out the quantity and number of carcinogens in vapor is comparable to those present in outdoor air, lower than those in tap water, and far far below those in common food items such as dairy, meat, and fish.

 

[philoshop]

If any sort of 'reality' is allowed to enter into the argument the anti's will have to break camp and go back to the actual tobacco products war, or even (gasp) find an entirely new demon enemy.

 

[skoony]

Even under the "no safe level" (otherwise fallacious) assumption it will be easy to debunk such ridiculous claims by pointing out the quantity and number of carcinogens in vapor is comparable to those present in outdoor air, lower than those in tap water, and far far below those in common food items such as dairy, meat, and fish.

that's where they get you every time. people can't or won't
under stand what the risks are.
for folks that don't seem to understand what this study means
it goes like this. vaping is so safe its potential harm is indistinguishable
from living your life as a nonsmoker/vaper.
the problem is some people can't or won't let anyone say
its completely safe in the grand scheme of things.
well it is. there's greater chance of death from breathing
in pollen in the so called clean air than anything vapor can produce.
nothing,not even "clean air" is 100% safe.
its the same for risk or non-risk groups alike.
when you add up all the risk factors involved we all
have a 100% chance of dying of something at
sometime in our lives.

regards
mike

 

[Kent C]

Even under the "no safe level" (otherwise fallacious) assumption it will be easy to debunk such ridiculous claims by pointing out the quantity and number of carcinogens in vapor is comparable to those present in outdoor air, lower than those in tap water, and far far below those in common food items such as dairy, meat, and fish.

Very true. It won't stop the anti's news stories though. But we already know that 1000 times over.

 

[caramel]

With the accepted (by some scientists and some unnamed laypersons who post here) no threshold theory of carcinogens, no amount of carcinogens are considered safe. See post #69:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...aganda-re-diacetyl-e-cigs-7.html#post15296724

So from one point of view the idea of 'less cancerstuff substances' is like saying 'less pregnant' - a fallacy.

Who here thinks that ANTZ will discount order of magnitude (not saying they should), and focus on the fact that some carcinogens were found?

The whole OSHA/NIOSH thing is based on the threshold theory.

If ANTZ think otherwise they should take it with OSHA/NIOSH first. 'Cause it affects a much larger segment of population than the vaping stuff.

 

[caramel]

And, BTW, Dr. Antz Laborcamp himself exhales CO2, traces of CO and various germs. According to his own theory, he should not be allowed in indoor public spaces or government buildings.

 

[DC2]

If any sort of 'reality' is allowed to enter into the argument the anti's will have to break camp and go back to the actual tobacco products war, or even (gasp) find an entirely new demon enemy.

Exactly.

If "reality" were part of the ANTZ playbook, we wouldn't be having these discussions.
In fact, this entire portion of the ECF forum would have no need to exist.