New study: E-Cigarrettes restrict lungs airways..

[Aryza]

Electronic cigarettes, seen by many as a healthy alternative to tobacco smoking, do cause damage to the lungs, scientists from the University of Athens, Greece, explained at the European Respiratory Society's Annual Congress 2012, Vienna, on Sunday. Electronic cigarettes, also called e-cigarettes have also been marketed as effective smoking cessation devices.

Professor Christina Gratziou and team set out to determine what the short-term effects of smoking with e-cigarettes might be on different individuals, including those with no known health problems, as well as existing smokers with and without lung conditions.

They carried out experiments on 32 volunteers; of whom 8 were lifetime non-smokers and 24 were current regular smokers. Some of them had healthy lungs, while others lived with asthma or COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease).

They were asked to use an electronic cigarette for 10 minutes, inhaling the vapors into their lungs. A spirometry test, as well as some others diagnostic procedures were used to measure their airway resistance. Airway resistance is used in respiratory physiology to measure the resistance of the respiratory tract to airflow coming in during inspiration (inhalation) and going out during expiration (exhalation).

They found that using an e-cigarette caused an instant increase in airway resistance that lasted for 10 minutes in the majority of the participants. Below are some of their findings:

• Non-smokers - even among lifetimes non-smokers, using an e-cigarette for ten minutes raised their airway resistance to 206% from 182% (mean average); the researchers described this as a "significant increase".
  
• Current regular smokers - among existing regular smokers, the spirometry tests revealed a significant rise in airway resistance to 220%, from 176% after using one e-cigarette for ten minutes.
  
• COPD and Asthma patients experienced no significant increase in airway resistance from using one e-cigarette for ten minutes.

The medical profession and scientists generally agree that e-cigarettes, if they do pose any dangers to health, are much less harmful than tobacco smoking.

 

[JayTater]

I might be looking at the numbers wrong, but how does a current smoker have less airway restriction than a non smoker? 176% for a smoker vs. 182% for a non smoker.

Seems that the numbers may be a hair bit skewed.

 

[mavieboy]

I might be looking at the numbers wrong, but how does a current smoker have less airway restriction than a non smoker? 176% for a smoker vs. 182% for a non smoker.

Seems that the numbers may be a hair bit skewed.

carried out on only 32 volunteers, isn't that accurate!

 

[cags]

I don't really believe studies, you can always find one that says what you want to hear. and I don't care, I'm vaping regardless..........

 

[Domtine]

The scientist that published the study is a paid researcher of one of the big pharma. Basically what she said is common sense. Whatever that goes in your lungs that is not normal air, you'll feel a certain degree of discomfort.

Google her name and you'll find many articles debunking her publications.

Sent for North Korea and we have Disneyland here.

 

[enuun]

Let's face it.

Anything that is not natural and we take into our body over a period of time is definitely going to have some effects one or another. Its the same for processed foods like bread, cured meats and sodas. They are a health concern and imho they present a greater threat to general public health and safety than e-cigs. E-cigs are not healthy at all. They are just a more wholesome alternative to smoking tobacco and no one should even be arguing if it is safe or healthy or good for you. Instead, studies and research should be spending their time on looking for proof that ecigs are a better alternative to smoking and in the long term may help a smoker to quit entirely.

So far, it seems that almost every research is either inconclusive or they have shown while ecigs are not as healthy as some vendors have claimed, they are a better alternative to smoking and really improve the general air quality for non-smokers. I am sick of smelling cig smoke wafting into my room at night when my neighbour decides to take a puff. When I was smoking I did not smoke at home or out of the window. Now imagine if he were vaping? Different story. No smell no nothing.

But let's take it easy and give our government a chance. In the mean time, do remember that vaping is still illegal in sg and vape at your own risk.

 

[SyncVaper]

E-cigarette is unhealthy, just like how KFC and MacD's are but it's further unhealthier when it hurts both the right pocket and left pocket, not just either one.

I believe we don't need any publication. Using common sense, look at the ingredients of both analog and e-cig. Now, ask yourself again, do you actually need someone who wasted their life studying just to convince you that 3 bad ingredients is notas bad as 3000 bad ingredients?

 

[WarHawk-AVG]

Fine fine....lets see
Wanna see something absolutely mind numbling scary!

Find your particular brand of cig in the link below, then find the mg of TAR in each cig, multiply that time how many cigs you HAVEN'T smoked, then calculate how much TAR you didn't ingest!
Nicotine, Tar, and CO Content of Regular Cigarette Brands

Ill break it down for you on my cigs...I used to smoke Marlboro Reds
NIC TAR CO BRAND NAME TYPE
1.2 16 15 MARLBORO RED pkg 100 F HP

I got 1.2mg nicotine per cig, 16mg of TAR per cigarette, and 15 mg of Carbon Monoxide per cig...in each pack there is 20 cigs, so 16x20=320mg of TAR, 10 packs a carton =3200mg TAR, smoked a 2 cartons a week for almost 20 years, 52weeks in a year x 2 cartons a week=104, 104 cartons a year x 3200mg TAR = 332,800mg TAR, x 20 years = 6,656,000mg tar (conversion online of mg to lbs = 14.674 lbs of TAR I ingested into my lungs over the time I smoked...now do you understand why all those pictures of the dried up black leather lungs everyone shows you!!!!!!!!!!

Personal vapers DO NOT HAVE TAR OR CARBON MONOXIDE!!!! Read that again <- Personal vapers DO NOT HAVE TAR OR CARBON MONOXIDE!!!!
Only 4 ingredients, propylene glycol (food preservative, its practically in EVERYTHING...it's NOT antifreeze), food grade flavoring, nicotine extract, and medical grade glycerine) Nicotine in it's pure form without all the garbage from above is another chemical stimulant like caffeine...it is a toxin but in small doses it is just a stimulant...too much can kill you just like caffeine

Personal vapers are a MUCH safer "alternative" form for getting nicotine, just like a patch or a gum (and should be treated as such!)...it's not "perfectly" safe however it is immeasurably safer than normal combustion cigarettes!

If I would have vaped 20 years, my lungs wouldn't look like this
http://c767204.r4.cf2.rackcdn.com/869a3ac5-3687-44e5-ba9f-7980e3bbf58d.jpg

Sorry...I tarred my lungs like people tar roofs

I would trade it ALL in right now especially to have a slight restriction in my breathing to have been able to vape 20 years ago!

 

[Currynoah]

 

[poppychua]

wat study is that with only 32 ppl..... this u call a study... no point u ask a non smoker to do test... do they think that if a person is a non smoker do he/she will go n use it....

even after the study... u can see confirm tat e-cig is much much more better than analog.....

 

[dragonl]

huh, scientist use only 32 ppl to confirm a test?? Then why do they have to kill so many lab rats for.

 

[iamniceify]

I dun consider this is accurate lol. They got to need more ppl.

no matter what the most important things is tar and co

 

[Debra_oh]

I found this study to be very interesting and thorough. It looks at the compounds in the vapor but not the effect on breathing as the OP noted.

Key Conclusions:
 Even when compared to workplace standards for involuntary exposures, and using several conservative (erring
on the side of caution) assumptions, the exposures from using e-cigarettes fall well below the threshold for
concern for compounds with known toxicity. That is, even ignoring the benefits of e-cigarette use and the fact
that the exposure is actively chosen, and even comparing to the levels that are considered unacceptable to
people who are not benefiting from the exposure and do not want it, the exposures would not generate concern
or call for remedial action.
 Expressed concerns about nicotine only apply to vapers who do not wish to consume it; a voluntary (indeed,
intentional) exposure is very different from a contaminant.
 There is no serious concern about the contaminants such as volatile organic compounds (formaldehyde,
acrolein, etc.) in the liquid or produced by heating. While these contaminants are present, they have been
detected at problematic levels only in a few studies that apparently were based on unrealistic levels of heating.
 The frequently stated concern about contamination of the liquid by a nontrivial quantity of ethylene glycol or
diethylene glycol remains based on a single sample of an early technology product (and even this did not rise to
the level of health concern) and has not been replicated.
 Tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNA) are present in trace quantities and pose no more (likely much less) threat
to health than TSNAs from modern smokeless tobacco products, which cause no measurable risk for cancer.
 Contamination by metals is shown to be at similarly trivial levels that pose no health risk, and the alarmist claims
about such contamination are based on unrealistic assumptions about the molecular form of these elements.
 The existing literature tends to overestimate the exposures and exaggerate their implications. This is partially
due to rhetoric, but also results from technical features. The most important is confusion of the concentration
in aerosol, which on its own tells us little about risk to heath, with the relevant and much smaller total exposure
to compounds in the aerosol averaged across all air inhaled in the course of a day. There is also clear bias in
previous reports in favor of isolated instances of highest level of chemical detected across multiple studies, such
that average exposure that can be calculated are higher than true value because they are “missing” all true
zeros.
 Routine monitoring of liquid chemistry is easier and cheaper than assessment of aerosols. Combined with an
understanding of how the chemistry of the liquid affects the chemistry of the aerosol and insights into behavior
of vapers, this can serve as a useful tool to ensure the safety of e-cigarettes.
 The only unintentional exposures (i.e., not the nicotine) that seem to rise to the level that they are worth further
research are the carrier chemicals themselves, propylene glycol and glycerin. This exposure is not known to
cause health problems, but the magnitude of the exposure is novel and thus is at the levels for concern based on
the lack of reassuring data.


http://publichealth.drexel.edu/SiteData/docs/ms08/f90349264250e603/ms08.pdf

 

[Darkangel]

I found this study to be very interesting and thorough. It looks at the compounds in the vapor but not the effect on breathing as the OP noted.

Key Conclusions:
 Even when compared to workplace standards for involuntary exposures, and using several conservative (erring
on the side of caution) assumptions, the exposures from using e-cigarettes fall well below the threshold for
concern for compounds with known toxicity. That is, even ignoring the benefits of e-cigarette use and the fact
that the exposure is actively chosen, and even comparing to the levels that are considered unacceptable to
people who are not benefiting from the exposure and do not want it, the exposures would not generate concern
or call for remedial action.
 Expressed concerns about nicotine only apply to vapers who do not wish to consume it; a voluntary (indeed,
intentional) exposure is very different from a contaminant.
 There is no serious concern about the contaminants such as volatile organic compounds (formaldehyde,
acrolein, etc.) in the liquid or produced by heating. While these contaminants are present, they have been
detected at problematic levels only in a few studies that apparently were based on unrealistic levels of heating.
 The frequently stated concern about contamination of the liquid by a nontrivial quantity of ethylene glycol or
diethylene glycol remains based on a single sample of an early technology product (and even this did not rise to
the level of health concern) and has not been replicated.
 Tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNA) are present in trace quantities and pose no more (likely much less) threat
to health than TSNAs from modern smokeless tobacco products, which cause no measurable risk for cancer.
 Contamination by metals is shown to be at similarly trivial levels that pose no health risk, and the alarmist claims
about such contamination are based on unrealistic assumptions about the molecular form of these elements.
 The existing literature tends to overestimate the exposures and exaggerate their implications. This is partially
due to rhetoric, but also results from technical features. The most important is confusion of the concentration
in aerosol, which on its own tells us little about risk to heath, with the relevant and much smaller total exposure
to compounds in the aerosol averaged across all air inhaled in the course of a day. There is also clear bias in
previous reports in favor of isolated instances of highest level of chemical detected across multiple studies, such
that average exposure that can be calculated are higher than true value because they are “missing” all true
zeros.
 Routine monitoring of liquid chemistry is easier and cheaper than assessment of aerosols. Combined with an
understanding of how the chemistry of the liquid affects the chemistry of the aerosol and insights into behavior
of vapers, this can serve as a useful tool to ensure the safety of e-cigarettes.
 The only unintentional exposures (i.e., not the nicotine) that seem to rise to the level that they are worth further
research are the carrier chemicals themselves, propylene glycol and glycerin. This exposure is not known to
cause health problems, but the magnitude of the exposure is novel and thus is at the levels for concern based on
the lack of reassuring data.


http://publichealth.drexel.edu/SiteData/docs/ms08/f90349264250e603/ms08.pdf

Informative, Great!

 

[dibrs]

I don't care what they say, as long as i am staying away from analog which is PROVEN to be more harmful!!!

 

[dragonl]

Anyway regardless of smoker or non-smoker, the airway will constrict as long as it is smoke. Non-smoker will react much worst bcoz the body is not exposed to the element before.

 

[pleaselah]

doesn't bother me, definitely better than analogs

 

[iamniceify]

As long its better than analog you can just ignore it

 

[Aryza]

Guys, I just posted this for reference purposes. I am not discouraging anyone from vaping. But everyone have a right to know about what's going on in the scientific world. It's so obvious that compared to the harm that analog may do to our body. Merely "restriction on lung airways" are insignificant.

 

[Vale46]

Old news. Actually the results ain't that bad anyway. Vape on guys. Smoked a couple of stinkies in the summer and I can tell you 1 cig restricted my airways more than a whole day of vaping.