I respectfully disagree. They are unreasonable unless backed by solid science showing that bystanders are exposed to significant levels of harmful substances.
Overheating E-Liquid May Produce Formaldehyde
- Thread starter mooreted
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I respectfully disagree. They are unreasonable unless backed by solid science showing that bystanders are exposed to significant levels of harmful substances.
Here's a LINK to the complete report.
I'm unqualified to comment on the methodology or the results presented in the report. I can't translate levels of formaldehyde measured in nanograms ("ng") per 15 puffs to levels that are proven to be harmful or not harmful. An ng is one billionth of a gram, which doesn't seem like very much but, for all I know, 50 ng would kill me in short order.
Of course the study doesn't purport to say anything relevant to second-hand vaping and I don't know how to correlate ng/15 puffs with ppm of formaldehyde in ambient air, which OSHA limits to 0.75 ppm.
I wish someone with more scientific training would analyze the full report in depth. Telling me 15 puffs have X ng formaldehyde means virtually nothing to me.
I'm unqualified to comment on the methodology or the results presented in the report. I can't translate levels of formaldehyde measured in nanograms ("ng") per 15 puffs to levels that are proven to be harmful or not harmful. An ng is one billionth of a gram, which doesn't seem like very much but, for all I know, 50 ng would kill me in short order.
Of course the study doesn't purport to say anything relevant to second-hand vaping and I don't know how to correlate ng/15 puffs with ppm of formaldehyde in ambient air, which OSHA limits to 0.75 ppm.
I wish someone with more scientific training would analyze the full report in depth. Telling me 15 puffs have X ng formaldehyde means virtually nothing to me.
Not sure if this helps, but Dr. Farsalinos commented on that report here: Formaldehyde release in ecigarette vapor The New York Times story explained in detail
Yes, I read that and it was helpful. His main point seems to be that the study did not appear to properly replicate something that vapers actually do with equipment they're likely to use in the same manner the testers used it. It would be nice to sit these guys down and ask them to please explain why they did it that way. I note that the lead researcher disclosed that he got his funding from Pfizer, which causes one to raise an eyebrow just a wee bit.
No, my questions have to do with other aspects of the methodology and just how bad are these formaldehyde levels.
EDIT: Perhaps the good Dr. Farsalinos could suggest a better methodology. I imagine most vapers would like to have this kind of information, if only for our own personal benefit so we can make informed decisions.
Last edited:
At the time of the deeming doc:
http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2014-09491_PI.pdf
Under "Health Risks of Products"/5. Ecigarettes...(pg 58) the fda acknowledges that the one DEG instance was isolated to one cartridge:
Again, this isn't CASAA talking, it's the FDA:
"we note that it was found in only 1 of 18 cartridges studied and it was not found at all in another 16 studies.
So it isn't that they lack studies for finding stuff like this. But the next line on formaldehyde is:
"Further, one study found that toxic chemicals such as formaldehyde and acetaldehyde
were detected in the cartridges as well as the aerosol from certain e-cigarette nicotine solutions"
And while that study states:
"Smoking an ecigarette (also referred to as vaping) can result in exposure to carcinogenic formaldehyde comparable with that received from cigarette smoking."
Again 'can result in' but their table shows that the ratio of traces found in cigs vs. ecigs is 9:1. There were a few samples that were comparable to cigs, but most were not.
It might be nice to know how much they'd find in pharmaceutical grade nic base and pharmaceutical grade VG and PG - which is where the industry standard is moving. Many are already there including my supplier.
http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2014-09491_PI.pdf
Under "Health Risks of Products"/5. Ecigarettes...(pg 58) the fda acknowledges that the one DEG instance was isolated to one cartridge:
Again, this isn't CASAA talking, it's the FDA:
"we note that it was found in only 1 of 18 cartridges studied and it was not found at all in another 16 studies.
So it isn't that they lack studies for finding stuff like this. But the next line on formaldehyde is:
"Further, one study found that toxic chemicals such as formaldehyde and acetaldehyde
were detected in the cartridges as well as the aerosol from certain e-cigarette nicotine solutions"
And while that study states:
"Smoking an ecigarette (also referred to as vaping) can result in exposure to carcinogenic formaldehyde comparable with that received from cigarette smoking."
Again 'can result in' but their table shows that the ratio of traces found in cigs vs. ecigs is 9:1. There were a few samples that were comparable to cigs, but most were not.
It might be nice to know how much they'd find in pharmaceutical grade nic base and pharmaceutical grade VG and PG - which is where the industry standard is moving. Many are already there including my supplier.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/tin-foil-hat-club/565191-science-bogus-5.html#post13208577
"As a scientist myself I know that I can not be completely unbiased. Nobody can."
But, see, the problem is glANTZ is not a scientist. He's a (failed) mechanical engineer. And that profession is known for well... engineering devices to perform a pre-specified task. So, by engineering standards, glANTZ is doing a mighty fine job of building exactly the correct PR device(s) to accomplish the task at hand - demonizing ecigs, dehumanizing vapers, and denormalizing scientific standards of inquiry (nay, common sense) in tobacco control research.
cross referencing my earlier post in the Tin Foil Hat Club
"Overheating E-Liquid MAY Produce Formaldehyde" is not science in any way, shape or form. It's a supposition.
Period.
"Overheating E-Liquid MAY Produce Formaldehyde" is not science in any way, shape or form. It's a supposition.
Period.
Taking quotes out of context is bogus, lol.
Right, so I do believe that it's impossible to be entirely unbiased. Good scientists know this and try to control for it as best they can. Less good scientists perhaps think that they aren't affected by bias, or can avoid it, or aren't completely aware of the problems it can cause. Dishonest scientists don't really care. In much research, this isn't a huge problem. The research I did was not the least bit political. It was pure basic research, and any eventual profits from it are so far down the line that it wasn't much affected by any political or financial motives (bias is still an issue of course, just not as high stakes). Once politics and money enter, it's a whole different game.
As Kristen said, you just aren't going to get some disinterested party to front the money for a study on a controversial issue. It's not going to happen. It wouldn't make any sense. If a party/organization/funding entity doesn't care about the results, they are not going to pay for the study. That's just common sense. This is how the world works.
I believe that CASAA did everything possible to reduce bias in the study they commissioned. They chose a researcher with nothing to gain from pushing the results in one way versus another. They did not dictate the results. Of course, people are going to use the fact that it was CASAA who funded the study against it, but the alternative is to continue to sit back and just try to defend against the unabashedly biased studies being cranked out by people who truly do have high stakes interests. That, IMO, would be a bad decision.
Right, so I do believe that it's impossible to be entirely unbiased. Good scientists know this and try to control for it as best they can. Less good scientists perhaps think that they aren't affected by bias, or can avoid it, or aren't completely aware of the problems it can cause. Dishonest scientists don't really care. In much research, this isn't a huge problem. The research I did was not the least bit political. It was pure basic research, and any eventual profits from it are so far down the line that it wasn't much affected by any political or financial motives (bias is still an issue of course, just not as high stakes). Once politics and money enter, it's a whole different game.
As Kristen said, you just aren't going to get some disinterested party to front the money for a study on a controversial issue. It's not going to happen. It wouldn't make any sense. If a party/organization/funding entity doesn't care about the results, they are not going to pay for the study. That's just common sense. This is how the world works.
I believe that CASAA did everything possible to reduce bias in the study they commissioned. They chose a researcher with nothing to gain from pushing the results in one way versus another. They did not dictate the results. Of course, people are going to use the fact that it was CASAA who funded the study against it, but the alternative is to continue to sit back and just try to defend against the unabashedly biased studies being cranked out by people who truly do have high stakes interests. That, IMO, would be a bad decision.
hehehehe...
I never saw it before!
There is no better spelling for Stan's name. After all he is the embodiment of everything that's corrupt, maliciously ignorant, and morally bankrupt in all ANTZ, as well as their supposedly scientific voice. Therefore glANTZ refers to both Stan and all other ANTZ at the same time.
Maybe we should send him a Kayfun. Nothing like learning to rebuild a clever little atty to take an engineer's mind off politics. He might even be charmed.
hehehehe...
I never saw it before!
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...eless-tobacco-e-cigarettes-3.html#post4558821
In this instance, quoting the statement out of context did not change its meaning one iota. It merely reduced visual clutter by eliminating the surrounding text, emphasizing the salient point.
- Status
Similar threads
