propylene glycol, and glycerine...... see this, if you havent already.

[TropicalBob]

When you quit smoking, you gain weight because you have reduced your metabolic rate. The nicotine from e-smoking does NOT match that from smoking cigarettes, consequently your body does not boost metabolism and burn fat nearly as efficiently as when you smoked.

The PG study -- perfectly valid and replicated numerous times -- was the topic long ago of one of this forum's most informative threads, called "Germ-killing vapor". It's in this very sub-section of the Health section. Look it up. Pages and pages and studies piled on studies. The PG study from the 40s not only held up in subsequent studies, but was used by Dr. Murrey Laugesen in his pioneering report on e-smoking for Health New Zealand. It is not bogus. It is not biased. It is not subject to challenge by any intelligent brain.

Inhaled PG is not now and never has been a concern. Flavorings are a concern.

Do read the studies, instead of the TIME magazine report. Not that there is anything wrong with TIME, but you need to see the photographs of lung cultures, etc.

 

[StormFinch]

While rambling across the internet I found a couple of interesting pages. They began human trials on inhalation of Cyclosporine in a Propylene Glycol solution to prevent lung transplant rejection in early 2009. Initial studies were promising.

CIS001 Extension Study of Cyclosporine Inhalation Solution - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov

Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. - Journal of Aerosol Medicine - 20(4):417



And, our old friend Phillip Morris seems to have been doing their homework.

http://www.aapsj.org/abstracts/AM_2005/AAPS2005-003041.pdf

 

[paladinx]

Hey Tropical bob,

I usually agree with you 99 percent of the times. But I do not think there is one study out there that does not have a bias. No one does a study for the hell of it. There is usually someone funding a study for a particular reason. Did consumption of PG go up after that 1940 study? What about other studies done in 1940 that seemed conclusive in its time, but today are found to be completely bogus.

Like I said if we find a study from the 1800's done on PG for whatever reason, we will hold onto it as the golden truth. If another study comes out that says anything negative about PG, we will talk about corruption and biases etc. Corruption and bias is not a new phenomena, its been around and in some cases was much worse in the past. You cant pick and choose when or what you want to believe because it suits your preference.

Nothing in life is safe. Everything has a cause and effect when you are doing something to an extreme. I think it is naive to believe that you can do something for decades with 0 effects. Of course there is going to be an effect, the question is how much and how serious. And no one has that answer right now. for such a harmless chemical there are a lot of people wanting to switch to VG, and the word PG allergy used more times than i can count.

Who did the study about the germ killing vapor and for what reason? So far i have heard on this forum that PG is in inhalers, My mother uses a few and there is no pg in any of them. They say it is in nicotrol, i cannot find any information on that either. Anyone have any links, not saying its a lie or anything. I just cant find it.

 

[Kimmy]

Hey Tropical bob,

I usually agree with you 99 percent of the times. But I do not think there is one study out there that does not have a bias. No one does a study for the hell of it. There is usually someone funding a study for a particular reason. Did consumption of PG go up after that 1940 study? What about other studies done in 1940 that seemed conclusive in its time, but today are found to be completely bogus.

Like I said if we find a study from the 1800's done on PG for whatever reason, we will hold onto it as the golden truth. If another study comes out that says anything negative about PG, we will talk about corruption and biases etc. Corruption and bias is not a new phenomena, its been around and in some cases was much worse in the past. You cant pick and choose when or what you want to believe because it suits your preference.

Nothing in life is safe. Everything has a cause and effect when you are doing something to an extreme. I think it is naive to believe that you can do something for decades with 0 effects. Of course there is going to be an effect, the question is how much and how serious. And no one has that answer right now. for such a harmless chemical there are a lot of people wanting to switch to VG, and the word PG allergy used more times than i can count.

Who did the study about the germ killing vapor and for what reason? So far i have heard on this forum that PG is in inhalers, My mother uses a few and there is no pg in any of them. They say it is in nicotrol, i cannot find any information on that either. Anyone have any links, not saying its a lie or anything. I just cant find it.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/health-safety-e-smoking/1734-germ-killing-vapor.html

Medicine: Air Germicide - TIME

 

[paladinx]

Yeah i read that study a long time ago. Is PG currently used now in this manner? Are they currently pumping hospitals with PG to stop the spread of infection? Just curious. I am a little leery about taking studies from that long ago at face value without investigating the outside circumstances. Around that time there was a lot of snake oil going around as well.
How many people back then became complete junkies addicted to hardcore drugs like heroine, codeine, morphine etc etc. and much more because they were using and abusing it by doctors recommendation in a crap load of medicines and tonics that were sold over the counter.

 

[JimStanmore]

i put my concerns to rest many months ago based on data that I found that I could empirically believe. One way to determine the validity of a study is to read the details. What was tested, how it was tested and whether there were enough samples. Another hurdle is whether it is accepted by other researchers, i.e. peer reviewed. As a psychology major and scientist I really have little use for anything that has not been peer reviewed and duplicated with strong numbers. Actually PG has been researched for quite a while and is currently being evaluated in several treatments. I had a long list of articles that spanned decades up to the present that I compiled last year before I committed my lungs and health to the e-cig. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find it.

Based on my research, I have very little concerns about PG or VG (the attys don't get hot enough in use to generate toxic gases from the VG.) My only caveat is that I have to drink more fluids (a good thing) and, if I vape heavily for a day my throat will be dry (but in way better shape than after the same behavior with analogs.) Here are some links that may interest people, though. Everyone has to make their own choice:

PROPYLENE GLYCOL -- Pesticidal Uses

http://www.inchem.org/documents/sids/sids/57-55-6.pdf

Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. - Journal of Aerosol Medicine - 20(4):417

http://www.esta.org/tsp/working_groups/FS/docs/cohen.pdf

http://www.esta.org/tsp/working_groups/FS/docs/HSE.pdf

Experimental exposure to propylene glycol mist in aviation emergency training: acute ocular and respiratory effects -- Wieslander et al. 58 (10): 649 -- Occupational and Environmental Medicine

Ethylene Glycol and Propylene Glycol Toxicity: What is Propylene Glycol | ATSDR - Environmental Medicine & Environmental Health Education - CSEM

Propylene Glycol

Spacecraft Maximum Allowable Concentrations for Selected Airborne Contaminants: Volume 5

 

[TropicalBob]

The 1940s study was done for the military. It was done to find a way to prevent a duplication of the 1918 flu pandemic where sick soldiers passed on the germs in hospital confines. It was not done to benefit Big Pharmaceutical, who stood to make zero profits from its use.

PG lost out to other methods of germ control back then. UV lights carried the day. But remember that there were no personal PG vaporizers and no fog machines like I can buy at my local party store.

The PG inhalation safety issue was put to rest long ago. Let's let it alone and worry now about rogue asteroids, Yellowstone blowing up and parked SUVs in Times Square.

 

[paladinx]

You sure about the heat thing? I have atomizers that practically melted the cartridge and burnt the polyfill. They can get pretty damn hot. I wouldn't bank on your statement, especially with the higher volt mods. The coils can get red, almost fire hot.


Im not reading through all of those links, But I just picked a couple of random ones from the links you gave, and if you really read into it, you can see how people are comparing apples to oranges on this forum. They take what they want to hear, and ignore the rest.

For example they will be talking about PG being safe with no ill effects, but they are talking about a small amount that could "potentially be inhaled". And how the PG does not actually get to the lungs because it gets caught in the upper respiratory system. Not sure if that really applies to someone whos heating and directly inhaling it.

Other parts suggest that after some exposure people were getting ill effects from very short periods of time. Dry throat, coughing, dry eyes, changes in blood cell count, and lung irriation.

Than u have the famous monkey experiment with PG that everyone talks about and holds onto so dear. and than you get this quote at the end.

"it was noted that monkeys (both treated and untreated) had infections, to a variable extent, with parasites (roundworms) and lung mites. Many had anemia and were sick or dying during the experiment. Because of these adverse health conditions, only limited confidence can be placed in these data"

"National Toxicology Program has reported that this chemical is a potential carcinogen (NTP 2004). No chronic inhalation exposure study exists in which the carcinogenic potential of PG was evaluated."

". However, in the study, the author reported that the overall health of the monkeys was undesirable, and they had a high mortality rate. In the rats, although PG had caused no generalized or localized inflammation of the bronchi or lungs, microscopic examination of the lungs revealed a localized infectious process. This was also noted in 25% of the control rats."

"recommended that this study not be used for AC derivation because of the high incidence of infection in control rats, as evidenced by the microscopic changes in the lungs."


I mean im just throwing out a few questionable statements that caught my eye from the brief reading I did. Another thing is I see them talking a lot of times about concentrations in the air, For example .34 ml per liter of air or something. I mean is that really comparable to actually inhaling something? I could have glue in a bag open in a small room and after awhile I am going to feel its effects, but no way as strong or fast as if put the bag over my mouth and inhaled it directly.

 

[TropicalBob]

Been on this bus before and it just runs in circles. I'm getting off now ....

 

[Sun Vaporer]

The 1940s study was done for the military. It was done to find a way to prevent a duplication of the 1918 flu pandemic where sick soldiers passed on the germs in hospital confines. It was not done to benefit Big Pharmaceutical, who stood to make zero profits from its use.

PG lost out to other methods of germ control back then. UV lights carried the day. But remember that there were no personal PG vaporizers and no fog machines like I can buy at my local party store.

The PG inhalation safety issue was put to rest long ago. Let's let it alone and worry now about rogue asteroids, Yellowstone blowing up and parked SUVs in Times Square.

It really is a "bus to nowhere" TB. I am getting off with you my Friend.


Sun

 

[StormFinch]

It really is a "bus to nowhere" TB. I am getting off with you my Friend.


Sun

I've only been on it for a couple of stops and I am definitely not buying another ticket.

Dude, if you're that worried about it, go suck on a snus, they've got 20 years of real world human trials to back em up.

 

[lorikay13]

This is an intricate and complex issue. But just in my own humble opinion....if you want to decide where to place your beliefs in terms of trials and studies....just follow the money.

 

[lordmage]

without reading all the posted information here. let me chime in with a bit of my own personal experience with almost 2 years of vaping pg/vg.

what we are talking about here in at least what i did read. are drops in the ocean. The FDA does not look at the whole picture. they look at a drop in this case a product to approve or not to approve. side-effects of it aside they only see that product. now when you take into account that they are a bit narrow in mind and scope what they approve is not really a good thing. use to many approved products and say hello to worse case situations. what the FDA really does with that drop is decided weather to filter it or let it fall thru to the ocean in this case. the ocean is consumers as a whole.

Edit. i have been vaping various PG/VG juices in various MG levels for these 2 years and all i can say is that i am still here. yes i would love to hear about long term studies but we are the long term studies.

 

[zoiDman]

This is an excerpt from the VG MSDS sheet.

Exposure Limits:
TWA: 10 (mg/m3) from ACGIH (TLV) [United States] [1999] Inhalation Total.
TWA: 15 (mg/m3) from OSHA (PEL) [United States] Inhalation Total.
TWA: 10 STEL: 20 (mg/m3) [Canada]
TWA: 5 (mg/m3) from OSHA (PEL) [United States] Inhalation Respirable.Consult local authorities for acceptable exposure
limits.

Perhaps someone can clarify this. As I read it, the OSHA limit for Inhalation total is 10 (mg/m3).

Is that 10mg per day? Per week? Lifetime? Not sure what "m3" stands for.

Toxicity to Animals:
WARNING: THE LC50 VALUES HEREUNDER ARE ESTIMATED ON THE BASIS OF A 4-HOUR EXPOSURE.
Acute oral toxicity (LD50): 4090 mg/kg [Mouse].
Acute dermal toxicity (LD50): 10000 mg/kg [Rabbit].
Acute toxicity of the mist (LC50): >570 mg/m3 1 hours [Rat].

At least if I am a rat, I would be ok because I usually don't vape more than 570mg in one hour.

 

[paladinx]

See than everyone gets offended. Its like Jesus christ came down and told a few prophets on the E-cig forum the answers, and everyone else is an utter ..... for pointing out a few questions. I point out questions only because people say things with such conviction like they are 10000 percent certain of it. Meanwhile the same people say time and again that choosing to vape is a "faith based" approach. So its only faith based because of the flavorings but 100 percent positively not for PG or VG.

I dont know why my basic point is not getting through. yeah u guys talked about this stuff to death and posted some studies done and how PG is in a lot of products, and in cigarettes, and some monkeys back in 1940 inhaled it (meanwhile half of them were dropping dead). etc. Yeah that all is great, and im glad to hear it, and it is heading in a good direction. But no one has ever inhaled pure heated PG through an electronic device consistently, long term, before.

Why cant people take a more practical approach and simply say... hey. From past studies, and current information, it would appear PG might not have any real negative health impacts on e-cig users, however, there really is no conclusive data right now on long term use of PG use in electronic cigarettes. instead it appears everyone is convinced there is no issue whatsoever or anything to consider, and if you do feel any ill effects, you have the famous " you're allergic to PG". Do a search for PG allergy and ull get a gazillion posts.

 

[Sun Vaporer]

. Why cant people take a more practical approach and simply say... hey. From past studies, and current information, it would appear PG might not have any real negative health impacts on e-cig users, however, there really is no conclusive data right now on long term use of PG use in electronic cigarettes. instead it appears everyone is convinced there is no issue whatsoever or anything to consider, and if you do feel any ill effects, you have the famous " you're allergic to PG". Do a search for PG allergy and ull get a gazillion posts.

Paladinx--that is what I am saying---there is nothing set in stone nor will there be for another 20 years as that is how long a "long term" study takes to really get the data.

So you have three choices:

(1) Vape using the "unknown and unproven but looks promising and benign or;

(2) Go back to Analogs and more then likely die of Cancer;

(3) Quit everything using an FDA approved NRT that does not work.


Those are the options and that is the reality of it.

Sun

 

[Drozd]

This is an excerpt from the VG MSDS sheet.

Exposure Limits:
TWA: 10 (mg/m3) from ACGIH (TLV) [United States] [1999] Inhalation Total.
TWA: 15 (mg/m3) from OSHA (PEL) [United States] Inhalation Total.
TWA: 10 STEL: 20 (mg/m3) [Canada]
TWA: 5 (mg/m3) from OSHA (PEL) [United States] Inhalation Respirable.Consult local authorities for acceptable exposure
limits.

Perhaps someone can clarify this. As I read it, the OSHA limit for Inhalation total is 10 (mg/m3).

Is that 10mg per day? Per week? Lifetime? Not sure what "m3" stands for.

Toxicity to Animals:
WARNING: THE LC50 VALUES HEREUNDER ARE ESTIMATED ON THE BASIS OF A 4-HOUR EXPOSURE.
Acute oral toxicity (LD50): 4090 mg/kg [Mouse].
Acute dermal toxicity (LD50): 10000 mg/kg [Rabbit].
Acute toxicity of the mist (LC50): >570 mg/m3 1 hours [Rat].

At least if I am a rat, I would be ok because I usually don't vape more than 570mg in one hour.

it's cubic meter... so 10 ml dispersed into an airspace 1 meter by 1 meter by 1 meter

 

[Drozd]

See than everyone gets offended. Its like Jesus christ came down and told a few prophets on the E-cig forum the answers, and everyone else is an utter ..... for pointing out a few questions. I point out questions only because people say things with such conviction like they are 10000 percent certain of it. Meanwhile the same people say time and again that choosing to vape is a "faith based" approach. So its only faith based because of the flavorings but 100 percent positively not for PG or VG.

I dont know why my basic point is not getting through. yeah u guys talked about this stuff to death and posted some studies done and how PG is in a lot of products, and in cigarettes, and some monkeys back in 1940 inhaled it (meanwhile half of them were dropping dead). etc. Yeah that all is great, and im glad to hear it, and it is heading in a good direction. But no one has ever inhaled pure heated PG through an electronic device consistently, long term, before.

Why cant people take a more practical approach and simply say... hey. From past studies, and current information, it would appear PG might not have any real negative health impacts on e-cig users, however, there really is no conclusive data right now on long term use of PG use in electronic cigarettes. instead it appears everyone is convinced there is no issue whatsoever or anything to consider, and if you do feel any ill effects, you have the famous " you're allergic to PG". Do a search for PG allergy and ull get a gazillion posts.

see people get offended because they answer your questions and provide you with links and then you admittedly don't read the information and continue to ask the same dumb questions...maybe if instead of running your mouth and fingers you actually read and researched (christ a bunch of people have already done the work gathering sources for you)...you'd see that theres plenty of conclusive evidence...you just refuse to read it ...AND THAT IS WHAT OFFENDS PEOPLE...

AS for PG allergy I call BS on this one....actual PG allergy is rare...but the minute someone says I have a sore throat or this symtom or that ...someone automatically answers with that PG allergy line and thats what people walk away with and think...oh I must have an allergy...VG is better for me.....what do you think the # of actual real cases of PG allergy there are...I'm willing to bet that it's less than 1/4 of the # that actually claim it..

 

[paladinx]

"So you have three choices:

(1) Vape using the "unknown and unproven but looks promising and benign or;

(2) Go back to Analogs and more then likely die of Cancer;

(3) Quit everything using an FDA approved NRT that does not work."

U could also use smokeless tobacco, quit cold turkey, or what I think is a cool idea, use both snus and e-cigs that way you are not doing anything too much.

"ee people get offended because they answer your questions and provide you with links and then you admittedly don't read the information and continue to ask the same dumb questions...maybe if instead of running your mouth and fingers you actually read and researched (christ a bunch of people have already done the work gathering sources for you)...you'd see that theres plenty of conclusive evidence...you just refuse to read it ...AND THAT IS WHAT OFFENDS PEOPLE..."

I have read a lot of the links in the past already. The best study we have or the most relevant was the experiment on the chimps, and I pointed out in my post why that experiment was not 100 percent conclusive. So in other words you and others are angry with me because I am not agreeing that it is totally conclusive because they experimented on primates in 1940 when it is stated that half the monkeys were dieing or died after the experiment.
Like I said everything I have read sounds promising, or at least some positive news, but I do not believe any of it is totally conclusive or 100 percent related to the way in which we are using these devices.

Take snus for example. Its been used for over 200 years and studied. The tests are still ongoing, even that is not totally conclusive, but there is a lot more valid data that is specific to the users, ON PEOPLE.. long term.

 

[StormFinch]

Alright, I'll bite.

Try reading the Robertson study again Paladin. The monkeys were sick when he got them. 3 of 16 control monkeys died, 7 of 29 PG. Of the healthy monkeys, no difference was found between them when they were sacrificed for autopsy. -

"Two pathological conditions were found in practically all the monkeys both test and control : (1) infection with Aesophagostomum apiostomum, a parasitic nematode closely related to the hookworm, and (2)
infestation of the lungs with the lung mite Pneumonyssus griffithi. On opening the abdomen, small chocolate colored cysts, 3-5 mm. in diameter, enclosing the larval worms, were scattered throughout the omentum and along the wall of the bowel. These varied from a few to many scores. Adhesions were frequently present, and were most extensive in animals dying of the disease where they occasionally caused obstruction of the common duct, or interference with the portal circulation as evidenced by ascites, or partial intestinal obstruction."

"The tests on exposing monkeys and rats continuously to atmospheres saturated with propylene glycol vapor for periods of 12 to 18 months may be summarized by the statement that no deleterious effects either functional or organic could be attributed to this treatment. Actually both the rats and monkeys kept in the glycol atmosphere appeared to do somewhat better than the control animals in respect to gain in weight, incidence of pulmonary infection and increase in red blood cells and hemoglobin."

Of course, if you believe that 32 years worth of study on over 500,000 men using snus is not enough, I don't see what good a bunch of monkeys, sick or well, is going to do.