Pee tests? I was told there'd be no math..
- Thread starter somdcomputerguy
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I guess the numbers are what was to be expected, but the comment made in the article "e-cigarette users are being exposed to risky chemicals, we don’t know yet whether these are at levels high enough to be concerning over a lifetime of use", I'm I to assume that these chemicals were never tested for lifetime use of cigarette usage ? I mean there would be 50+ years of exposure to these chemicals from cigarette usage. I'm so confused !!!!
It's worth looking at the actual data in chart form:
It's also worth looking at the fact the article is more fear mongering than science.
They lump all metals in with nicotine when discussing the chemicals in e-cigarette users urine:
"Naturally, the participants who neither smoked nor vaped showed the lowest levels of toxic chemicals in their pee, “Compared with exclusive e-cigarette users, never users had 19% to 81% significantly lower concentrations of biomarkers of exposure to nicotine, TSNAs, some metals (eg, cadmium and lead), and some VOCs (including acrylonitrile)."
So that "scary" amount included nicotine and, well, that's largely the point of e-cigarettes..
duh.
I hate articles who spend more time trying to scare people like this one does. It's actually a positive study even if the science behind it was free and loose, but most people will miss that altogether.
Last edited:
"Lead study author Maciej Goniewicz pointed out that while e-cigarette users are being exposed to risky chemicals, we don’t know yet whether these are at levels high enough to be concerning over a lifetime of use."
They don't attempt to determine risks of specific 'chemicals' even for smokers, because in the few cases where they have, they account for only a tiny fraction of the purported risk.
Another study: "estimating an upper bound on the contribution to lung cancer risk made by a specific, much-discussed causal pathway that links smoking to a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) (specifically, benzo(a)pyrene diol epoxide-dna) adducts at hot spot codons at p53 in lung cells. The result is a surprisingly small preventable fraction (of perhaps 7% or less) for this pathway,..."
Estimating preventable fractions of disease caused by a specified biological mechanism: PAHs in smoking lung cancers as an example. - PubMed - NCBI
BAP diol epoxide adducts were hyped in the media as the final, definitive answer to how smoking causes lung cancer. And Surgeon General reports make a big deal of it, too. But when you put it in perspective, it's a nothing-burger. And that's how all that FUD-mongering about chemicals is lying.
They don't attempt to determine risks of specific 'chemicals' even for smokers, because in the few cases where they have, they account for only a tiny fraction of the purported risk.
Another study: "estimating an upper bound on the contribution to lung cancer risk made by a specific, much-discussed causal pathway that links smoking to a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) (specifically, benzo(a)pyrene diol epoxide-dna) adducts at hot spot codons at p53 in lung cells. The result is a surprisingly small preventable fraction (of perhaps 7% or less) for this pathway,..."
Estimating preventable fractions of disease caused by a specified biological mechanism: PAHs in smoking lung cancers as an example. - PubMed - NCBI
BAP diol epoxide adducts were hyped in the media as the final, definitive answer to how smoking causes lung cancer. And Surgeon General reports make a big deal of it, too. But when you put it in perspective, it's a nothing-burger. And that's how all that FUD-mongering about chemicals is lying.
Are there any concerns about dihydrogen monoxide levels?? I've heard about millions of deaths associated with it. No real mention of it in this report. Fake news.
And, as common, this study lumps all e-cig use together. However, titanium coils (e.g. grade 1 wire) should eliminate lead and cadmium while further reducing acrolein and acrylamide (via more consistent temperature control). I recommend to those using TC.
Just my $02. Enjoy!
BTW, thanks for posting this info.
Just my $02. Enjoy!
BTW, thanks for posting this info.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 66
Goniewicz has been funded by FDA/NIH for many years, and he's made many false fear mongering claims about vaping to the news media that grossly misrepresent his actual research findings.
One of Goniewicz' earliest e-cig studies found that vapor aerosol contains exponentially fewer toxicants than cigarette smoke, but he was featured in a front page NY Times article claiming that vapor aerosol contains toxic and poisonous chemicals.
In this study, Goniewicz similarly found that vapers are exposed to exponentially fewer toxins than cigarette smokers, but his study's conclusion similarly stated "Exclusive use of e-cigarettes appears to result in measurable exposure to known tobacco-related toxicants".
One of Goniewicz' earliest e-cig studies found that vapor aerosol contains exponentially fewer toxicants than cigarette smoke, but he was featured in a front page NY Times article claiming that vapor aerosol contains toxic and poisonous chemicals.
In this study, Goniewicz similarly found that vapers are exposed to exponentially fewer toxins than cigarette smokers, but his study's conclusion similarly stated "Exclusive use of e-cigarettes appears to result in measurable exposure to known tobacco-related toxicants".
Just because something is "measurable" does not mean it's present at a level sufficient to cause any harm.
- Status
Similar threads
