Opinion on Harvard study

[mattiem]

I think 8 seconds are do-able with the equipment we have now but I don't think so if we are talking cig-a-likes. I don't think the juice holder on them can deliver juice to the coil quick enough to fire it that long without producing dry/burnt hits and no one in their right mind with working taste buds could handle that taste. I often do 6-7 seconds on my tootle puffer gear but my normal time is 4-5 seconds.

 

[herb]

I'm also going out on a limb here to say no one uses 20 cigalikes a day to vape 20ml of e liquid. Wouldn't that cost $200 a day?

You know thats an extremely good point , thanks for realizing that .

 

[WillyZee]

does anybody know who paid for this? ... I highly doubt Harvard came up with this on their own

 

[skoony]

You know thats an extremely good point , thanks for realizing that .

When I used V2's a five pack was about $7.50 for a five pack online.
Regards
Mike

 

[Douggro]

does anybody know who paid for this? ... I highly doubt Harvard came up with this on their own

It's right in the front of the study … "This research was supported by NIH/NIEHS Center Grant P30ES000002"

 

[DC2]

I'm not sure the length of draw is all that significant.
It has more to do with the heat at the coil and the wicking.

If you vape it up faster than it is supplied, problems will ensue.
And it will be an unpleasant experience that you will quickly remedy.

An 8 second draw on a cigalike is not really going to be a good experience much of the time.

 

[lunloon]

When you say "they", do you mean the study Authors? Or the Media who has reported the Study in "News" Stories?

Or perhaps Both?

I'll say both the media and the author given that I don't have the actual basis of 1. The real intention of the study and 2. who paid for it.

 

[VNeil]

If you are not measuring your puff time with a mod that records puff count and time, you may be vastly overestimating the actual time. I know I was very surprised at how short my puffs are, averaging around 2.3 - 2.5 seconds. That based on my EVIC-VT and EVIC VTC Mini.

 

[Falconeer]

Electronic cigarette health risks - E-Cigs - The Facts

I do prefer this approach

 

[ruet]

I am in no way an expert in the field, I just have some experience in reading scientific papers…

Article itself is here: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/advpub/2015/12/ehp.1510185.acco.pdf


Short version:


Again, I am not an expert in methods of measurements which were used, so let’s for now accept results.

Bad news:

One of the cigalikes tested in the study provided 528 um (microgram) of diacetyl (D). For one real cigarette high amount of D is equal to 433 [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4137810/]

One cigalike contains about 1 ml of juice (correct me if I am wrong). So, 1 ml of that juice is equal to 1 cigarette in terms of amount of diacetyl. It means that if a vaper is vaping 20 ml of this juice a day[*], vaper gets as much D as from 1 pack of cigarettes with high amount of D. So, yes, vaping with specially selected juices can provide as much diacetyl as smoking.
* I mean not 20 cigalikes a day, but 20 ml of juice with the same flavorings but lower nic.

Good news:

Just two juices were really bad, close to cigarettes (both of the same company). Couple of other juices were somewhat bad, and about 34 (of 51 tested) juices were at least 100 times better than the worst one.


Authors attitude:

Authors stretched their method a lot to get barely detectable amounts of D. Their agenda was very visible: to show as much bad things about vaping as possible. But anyway we should be thankful for results they gave us – we should know what we vape. Not a lot of measurements (with whatever agenda) were made to date.


Some details.


It looks like authors have not much knowledge of e-cigs. They made measurements on cigalikes never explicitly stating it.


Method of obtaining vapor: they imitated 8 seconds draws whith 15-30 seconds resting time between draws. Looks OK, but they continued test to the full exhaustion of cartruges, determined by the lack of visible emissions in the chamber. So dry hit for the last draw (at least for one draw). Good they did not measure formaldehyde…


Measurements, especially of lower quantities, are quite questionable. Authors were too eager to measure things they cannot reliably measure. Some juices were measured multiple times and results were disastrous in low D concentration range. For example 4 measurements of the same cigalikes gave results 27.0, 1.6, 0, 0. Authors try to explain these variations by non-consistent manufacturing process, but much more probable their method is not suited for low concentration measurements.


Disclaimer: I have no personal interest in knowing of levels of diacetyl in flavorings. I DIY and use just 0.5-2% of flavorings (instead of usual 20%). I consider myself safe with diacetyl. Anyway, diacetyl is potential risk factor (not really well established) and everybody should decide for himself what is acceptable and what is not. To decide we should know how much (if any) of diacetyl is in juice/flavor.

Bronchiolitis obliterans is the specific type of lung disease caused by the inhalation of very high levels of diacetyl.

1. Most cases are not due to exposure to diacetyl via smoking.
2. Since exposure to diacetyl from vaping is similar to that of smoking (per the study); one could surmise that the chance of contracting bronchiolitis obliterans from vaping is just as low as with smoking.
3. In 2011, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health proposed a recommended short-term exposure limit of 25 parts per billion (ppb) and a time weighted average exposure of 5 ppb. How do these recommendations correlate to what was found in the study?
4. Diacetyl is approved by the Food and Drug Administration as a safe flavor ingredient.
5. There are currently no warnings from federal regulators about diacetyl.

That being said; everyone should make an informed decision with the best data available.

Bronchiolitis obliterans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[VNeil]

Bronchiolitis obliterans is the specific type of lung disease caused by the inhalation of very high levels of diacetyl.

1. Most cases are not due to exposure to diacetyl via smoking.
2. Since exposure to diacetyl from vaping is similar to that of smoking (per the study); one could surmise that the chance of contracting bronchiolitis obliterans from vaping is just as low as with smoking.
3. In 2011, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health proposed a recommended short-term exposure limit of 25 parts per billion (ppb) and a time weighted average exposure of 5 ppb. How do these recommendations correlate to what was found in the study?
4. Diacetyl is approved by the Food and Drug Administration as a safe flavor ingredient.
5. There are currently no warnings from federal regulators about diacetyl.

That being said; everyone should make an informed decision with the best data available.

Bronchiolitis obliterans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I need to emphasize that there are No Known Cases of Diacetyl related smoking disease (no known cases of BO in smokers EXCEPT those few dozen smoking popcorn factory workers). There are an estimated 1 BILLION smokers worldwide.

I'm always a stickler for accuracy

 

[OlderNDirt]

I better make an appointment to see my doctor! I can't even suck in air for 8 seconds unless I do it extremely slow. Isn't there a direct correlation between duration of draw and suction strength, also know as "suck power"?

 

[mattiem]

Electronic cigarette health risks - E-Cigs - The Facts

I do prefer this approach

Thank you for this link. It is a very interesting read.

 

[Douggro]

Bronchiolitis obliterans is the specific type of lung disease caused by the inhalation of very high levels of diacetyl.

1. Most cases are not due to exposure to diacetyl via smoking.
2. Since exposure to diacetyl from vaping is similar to that of smoking (per the study); one could surmise that the chance of contracting bronchiolitis obliterans from vaping is just as low as with smoking.
3. In 2011, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health proposed a recommended short-term exposure limit of 25 parts per billion (ppb) and a time weighted average exposure of 5 ppb. How do these recommendations correlate to what was found in the study?
4. Diacetyl is approved by the Food and Drug Administration as a safe flavor ingredient.
5. There are currently no warnings from federal regulators about diacetyl.

That being said; everyone should make an informed decision with the best data available.

Bronchiolitis obliterans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WRT the study results and your item #3, there is no direct correlation in the study to show how their results correspond to the NIOSH exposure limits even though the NIOSH limits are listed in the study report. It's possible to convert the microgram values they list into ppb but again the study doesn't reference the mass of volume that their testing used for getting their results (at least, not that I could find in the study).

 

[herb]

"Suck power" too funny lol. I actually worry more about Acetyl Propional than diacetyl , this whole topic is really not going to amount to any worthwhile trustworthy information at this time .

Most people have only been vaping a very short time 3 years or less, you aren't going to get any conclusive info that can be relied upon i would think for another decade .

This is all complete speculation on applications that are not even relevant to how people vape these days , just vape whatever you feel like vaping and live your life .

We will all know eventually how the whole health issue plays out , i'm playing it safe since that choice is available to me , if it wasn't i would still vape juice with diketones over going back to smoking but since i can vape juice free of diketones i'm sticking with that path .

We are all adults and we are never going to agree on all issues , besides agreeing all the time is unbearable boring , it's perfectly normal behavior to wish death on a fellow forum member if you disagree , you just got to refrain from acting upon it.

 

[Topwater Elvis]

These are the people the FDA listen(s) to as far as flavorings go.
Pay attention to the last paragraph.
---> Safety Assessment and Regulatory Authority to Use Flavors: Focus on E-Cigarettes | FEMA

-- -- -- --
* Snipped from the link *

Occupational Exposure Limits and E-Cigarettes

Occupational exposure limits (OELs) have been established for a small number of flavoring substances. OELs have no relevance to exposure to flavors from the use of e-cigarettes. OELs, such as permissible exposure limits (PELs) established by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), recommended exposure limits (RELs) established by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and threshold limit values (TLVs) established by the American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), are intended to serve as regulatory limits in the case of OSHA PELs, or in the case of RELs and TLVs, as benchmarks for limiting exposure to substances in the workplace. It is improper to use OELs as indications of safe levels of exposure to flavoring substances from the use of electronic cigarettes.
-- -- -- --

There is no agency, group or responsible party that has researched, studied or set any safe exposure limits for flavorings as they are used in vaping or any measure considered relevant in any way to our specific use.
None.

My opinion on all the so called studies so far hasn't changed.

 

[ruet]

I need to emphasize that there are No Known Cases of Diacetyl related smoking disease (no known cases of BO in smokers EXCEPT those few dozen smoking popcorn factory workers). There are an estimated 1 BILLION smokers worldwide.

I'm always a stickler for accuracy

No problem. I didn't want to say "no" because I wasn't 100% sure about it. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[herb]

Electronic cigarette health risks - E-Cigs - The Facts

I do prefer this approach

I find the below comment comical and a perfect example as to why these studies are completely worthless AT THIS TIME.

It seems that there were no cases of chronic lung disease attributed to e-liquid.

Knocking on skull of the person who was brilliant enough to come up with that completely useless comment , of course there are no documented cases , you won't see documented cases i would bet for at least another decade.

It's way way too early for there to be any documented cases with e juice at this point. Really makes ya scratch your head and say "DUH" .

 

[mattiem]

I find the below comment comical and a perfect example as to why these studies are completely worthless AT THIS TIME.

It seems that there were no cases of chronic lung disease attributed to e-liquid.

Knocking on skull of the person who was brilliant enough to come up with that completely useless comment , of course there are no documented cases , you won't see documented cases i would bet for at least another decade.

It's way way too early for there to be any documented cases with e juice at this point. Really makes ya scratch your head and say "DUH" .

And this is how things get twisted. That comment was in response to:

“We don’t yet know about vaping. I mean clearly they put in flavourings, we don’t know the impact of those. Butterscotch has had to be withdrawn because people got chronic lung disease.”
This is a quote from Dame Sally Davies on a BBC programme.

It is kinda sad that this was all you took from that article.

 

[VNeil]

I find the below comment comical and a perfect example as to why these studies are completely worthless AT THIS TIME.




Knocking on skull of the person who was brilliant enough to come up with that completely useless comment , of course there are no documented cases , you won't see documented cases i would bet for at least another decade.

It's way way too early for there to be any documented cases with e juice at this point. Really makes ya scratch your head and say "DUH" .

Vaping is at least 7 years old now. The popcorn workers were found to have lung disease attributed to diaceytl exposure as little as 2 years on the job, and before 10 years very advanced cases of BO. So the statement is not useless. That statement will obviously gain merit as time passes. Although it is possible (probable???) that much of what we know as vaping will be banned long before the statement has much more merit. As a result, 30 years from now it may still be an open issue, for lack of long term users.

The lack of evidence of any vaping related illnesses is truly one of the pieces of the puzzle.

And if you consider the very significant portion of vapers who have 30+ years of heavy smoking behind them, and whose lungs were in various states of degeneration prior to vaping, I find it amazing that we hear of so few claims of continuing degradation. I would expect this forum to be full of it. After all, those smokers have a 30+ year head start and many have lungs already close to the "tipping point" where reduced lung function becomes very obvious. It would not necessarily take another 40 years for vaping related lung damage to show up. Vaping related degeneration would pile on top of smoking related degeneration.

It's almost as if vaping is somehow healing them. But I shouldn't even speculate on something like that. The politics of vaping is that you can only speculate on the negative, never the positive.