I ran across this ref.: "Experienced vapers, on the other hand, can obtain significantly higher blood levels that more closely match the nicotine absorption levels obtained via cigarette smoking. [cites Foulds/Veldheer/Berg]" here: http://holisticprimarycare.
net/topics/topics-a-g/environomics/1586-clearing-the-air-the-benefits-risks-of-electronic-cigarettes-2.html
(Broken for safety, but extra line doesn't matter, just paste the whole thing into your browser's address line.)
Original Foulds et al. in case it helps: National Center for Biotechnology Information
pubmed/21801287
(broken due to cessation junk)
I've also seen (again, w.r.t. Q of absorbtion): Nicotine absorption from electronic cigarette use: comparison between first and new-generation devices : Scientific Reports : Nature Publishing Group from Dr. F., which comes to the opposite conclusion (much less absorbtion than analogs), although it wasn't done w/ experienced vapers).
Foulds et al. discussed in this closed ECF thread, but only w.r.t. cessation:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-vapers-recommend-doing-what-doesnt-work.html
and also here (as part of a gen'l cessation studies list): http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-vapers-recommend-doing-what-doesnt-work.html
Comments? I.e. is this a pertinent study on absorption - which is itself IMO a relevant issue in media coverage, to the extent that the ANTZ argue that (a) high nic. abosrbption levels are problematic because: (b) nic. is addictive, ergo: (c) gateway-to-analogs effect on both minors + adults; and (d) insignificantly-grater levels of cessation than FDA-approved therapies due to: (d1) dual use; and/or (d2) "relapse".
I recognize that each of (b), (c), (d), (d1), and (d2) can be countered independently in a variety of ways.
Although such replies would be interesting and informative as always, I'd like to hear about (a) absorbtion in particular, since it strikes me as a noteworthy topic in its own right. (But then, what do I know?)
BTW at this point, these are the only two absorbtion studies that I've encountered, although I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't many more.
What I find especially striking is the difference - Foulds et al. says absorbtion is greater than analogs w/ experienced vapers, whereas Dr. F. study says much less (1/3 to 1/4). At least to an ignorant layperson such as Y.T., a factor of 3 or 4 seems if it may be significant.
net/topics/topics-a-g/environomics/1586-clearing-the-air-the-benefits-risks-of-electronic-cigarettes-2.html
(Broken for safety, but extra line doesn't matter, just paste the whole thing into your browser's address line.)
Original Foulds et al. in case it helps: National Center for Biotechnology Information
pubmed/21801287
(broken due to cessation junk)
I've also seen (again, w.r.t. Q of absorbtion): Nicotine absorption from electronic cigarette use: comparison between first and new-generation devices : Scientific Reports : Nature Publishing Group from Dr. F., which comes to the opposite conclusion (much less absorbtion than analogs), although it wasn't done w/ experienced vapers).
Foulds et al. discussed in this closed ECF thread, but only w.r.t. cessation:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-vapers-recommend-doing-what-doesnt-work.html
and also here (as part of a gen'l cessation studies list): http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-vapers-recommend-doing-what-doesnt-work.html
Comments? I.e. is this a pertinent study on absorption - which is itself IMO a relevant issue in media coverage, to the extent that the ANTZ argue that (a) high nic. abosrbption levels are problematic because: (b) nic. is addictive, ergo: (c) gateway-to-analogs effect on both minors + adults; and (d) insignificantly-grater levels of cessation than FDA-approved therapies due to: (d1) dual use; and/or (d2) "relapse".
I recognize that each of (b), (c), (d), (d1), and (d2) can be countered independently in a variety of ways.
Although such replies would be interesting and informative as always, I'd like to hear about (a) absorbtion in particular, since it strikes me as a noteworthy topic in its own right. (But then, what do I know?)
BTW at this point, these are the only two absorbtion studies that I've encountered, although I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't many more.
What I find especially striking is the difference - Foulds et al. says absorbtion is greater than analogs w/ experienced vapers, whereas Dr. F. study says much less (1/3 to 1/4). At least to an ignorant layperson such as Y.T., a factor of 3 or 4 seems if it may be significant.
