Propylene glycol inhaling?

[donnakaren]

Gto some possibly bad news- although I'm not sure yet- but this is the second time I've got the uncomfortable burnign sensation in lungs when inhaling the E-Vapor & developped fever- the first time it happened I thought "O.K probably just a cold or slight lung bug or somethign- no big eal" so I let a day go by, then tried inhaling it again- seemed to go away- a few days went by, then late last night the burnign started again & got a fever which has persisted all throguh the day and gets worse when inhale the E-Vapor- but oddly enough not when I inhale regular tobacco smoke. Now, I do have Asthma, and do know what lung ailments feel like, but this is quite odd as it's not affectign my breathign any liek Bronchitis or a lung cold would. I really hope it's not hte PG or somethign else that is causing htis- but I'm goign to give it a few days, and start again and see what happens- if htis does happen again- I think I'm goign ot have to quit E-Smoking as thsi fever stuff is very unpleasant- Oe thign I've noticed is that my stomach gets rumbly and upset on this stuff too- but it was never really enough to disuade me from continuing, but the fever/burning in lungs I don't care for at all- I can take soem 'lung-burn' such as Regular Ciggs provide on inhale, but htis is beyond that and quite uncomfortable- Bleh- I am quite dissappointed as I was able to get myself down to 6-7 Real Ciggs per day by substituting & had hopes of even being able to do even better with hte help of E-Smokin.

Nazareth, I too have had this same burning in my lungs. I have asthma as well. For the last week, I have had trouble breathing, So much that it brought on a panic attack and the ambulance transported me to the hosptial. That was a week ago tonight. I do have trouble breathing when it's so hot and humid outside,(SC has terrible weather) so I don't know if my breathing problems are from the weather or the e-cig.

I started using the e-cig May 5th. Was a 1 pack a day smoker and have not had or wanted a real cigarette since. I really want to keep using my e-cig. But I'm really concerned about this burning in my lungs. I have not had a fever though.

I'd really like to try e-liquid without PG, not sure where to get any e-liquid without it. I sure hope I can find something that I can use...I sure don't want to go back to real cigs.. If you find something that helps, please let me know. PLEASE??

 

[Applejackson]

This may be slightly off-topic, and if it is I apologize, but I only read the first couple pages and decided to post. Here's what I was pondering: If the people that so desperately want to prove that e-cigs are harmful(PG, VG and flavorings, as we already know nicotine is), instead focused their efforts on building a guaranteed safe formula for use in a PV from the ground up, wouldn't that be the best solution? Allow people to vape for now while they create a universally "accepted-as-safe" formula that flavors and nicotine can be added to rather than trying to force those of us looking for a healthier substitute back to analog cigs. By not doing this, it sure makes it seem like they are really working in tandem with the big tobacco companies. As it stands, I understand there are risks in this product. I should be receiving mine tomorrow. I have tried other peoples and really enjoyed it, possibly more than analogs already. I intend to use 0 nicotine juice most of the time, as I have already kicked the nicotine habit (save for when I'm drinking), but desperately miss the hand-to-mouth "security" a cigarette brought. I really think that instead of trying to bring this industry down, they should be working their asses off to find the best, least detrimental product to the market. Don't leave it to the Chinese, for sure. If the U.S. and Europe (and really anyone who had useful input that would meet our high standards) put their best minds to the project, I have faith that they'd find a product that would be near-perfect in no time.



But that's only if they REALLY want people to stop smoking.

 

[TropicalBob]

This is a very old thread, Jackson, and things change. We now know more about the safety of vaporizing e-liquid -- and so far, so good. See the Health New Zealand study.

But a "guaranteed safe formula" is the Holy Grail not yet attained. What would be in that formula? Nicotine? Has to be or most of us won't be interested. Yet nicotine has known health hazards. PG? It's safe as a carrier. VG? We "think" it's safe as a carrier. Flavoring? Not essential, but most people like flavors and we know virtually nothing about the safety of inhaling some of them.

And the big question is "will the FDA see any formula as 'safe'" or will that agency require clinical safety trials that could take years and cost huge amounts of money.

I've spent countless hours educating myself on what I'm doing to myself when I e-smoke. I'm convinced my choice is relatively safe. Relative is an important word. Not even driving a car to work is "guaranteed safe." So I'll continue using my e-cigs. But I do understand those who say we really don't know what we're doing. Because we really don't. We just believe we do, based on the best evidence we can discover.

 

[nubee]

Hi and FYI - Johnson Creek smoke juice has all their flavors in VG. I've also started seeing a few site here/there that offer their flavors in VG as well. I have tried it and found it does seem to be "smoother" from the irritant aspect compared to PG. But I personally prefer the PG as I feel it vapes better - $0.02

 

[Applejackson]

This is a very old thread, Jackson, and things change. We now know more about the safety of vaporizing e-liquid -- and so far, so good. See the Health New Zealand study.

But a "guaranteed safe formula" is the Holy Grail not yet attained. What would be in that formula? Nicotine? Has to be or most of us won't be interested. Yet nicotine has known health hazards. PG? It's safe as a carrier. VG? We "think" it's safe as a carrier. Flavoring? Not essential, but most people like flavors and we know virtually nothing about the safety of inhaling some of them.

And the big question is "will the FDA see any formula as 'safe'" or will that agency require clinical safety trials that could take years and cost huge amounts of money.

I've spent countless hours educating myself on what I'm doing to myself when I e-smoke. I'm convinced my choice is relatively safe. Relative is an important word. Not even driving a car to work is "guaranteed safe." So I'll continue using my e-cigs. But I do understand those who say we really don't know what we're doing. Because we really don't. We just believe we do, based on the best evidence we can discover.

Thanks for the reply, Bob. You can call me AJ . My wording maybe could've been better, but what you're saying is kinda my point. Nothing is "guaranteed safe", but the gov't likes to use ridiculous words like that. What I was saying is, if they're so hung up about the product's safety, rather than trying to ban what's already available, try to find the safest and "acceptable to the gov't" formula so that it's a non-issue. The tactic they're taking now (essentially saying that it's NOT safe--also without the proper clinical tests, but hoping they might prove that it is) reeks of ......-madness style propaganda. There's just an underlying feeling that their interests do not lie in the health of the nation, but more in the health of their pockets. This is all speculation based on my general distrust of the government, especially in cases like this. I'm not a huge conspiracy-theory nut though. This just seems "off" to me. I feel like instead of taking the idea and expanding on it, bettering it to try and help the health of the nation, they're only looking for a way to crush it. And THAT is why I feel like there's got to be another agenda there.

Now we're getting pretty far off the direction the topic went originally so I'll stop ranting. Also, I don't want to start getting too political here. There's better places for that. Just my 2 cents when it comes to PV's, e-liquid, and the gov't.

Thesis? I think it is fairly obvious that PV's and their components provide a relatively healthy alternative to smoking that smokers enjoy, but it's not giving revenue to the tobacco industry or the government through taxes and therefore is an unwelcome product to gov't agencies regardless of the health factors. If it truly was our health that the gov't was concerned with, they wouldn't be trying to find ways to ban this product, they'd be looking for ways to improve it, and they'd be banning tobacco since it's been proven countless times to be one of the worst things you can do to yourself.

 

[happily]

Thanks for the reply, Bob. You can call me AJ . My wording maybe could've been better, but what you're saying is kinda my point. Nothing is "guaranteed safe", but the gov't likes to use ridiculous words like that. What I was saying is, if they're so hung up about the product's safety, rather than trying to ban what's already available, try to find the safest and "acceptable to the gov't" formula so that it's a non-issue. The tactic they're taking now (essentially saying that it's NOT safe--also without the proper clinical tests, but hoping they might prove that it is) reeks of ......-madness style propaganda. There's just an underlying feeling that their interests do not lie in the health of the nation, but more in the health of their pockets. This is all speculation based on my general distrust of the government, especially in cases like this. I'm not a huge conspiracy-theory nut though. This just seems "off" to me. I feel like instead of taking the idea and expanding on it, bettering it to try and help the health of the nation, they're only looking for a way to crush it. And THAT is why I feel like there's got to be another agenda there.

Now we're getting pretty far off the direction the topic went originally so I'll stop ranting. Also, I don't want to start getting too political here. There's better places for that. Just my 2 cents when it comes to PV's, e-liquid, and the gov't.

Thesis? I think it is fairly obvious that PV's and their components provide a relatively healthy alternative to smoking that smokers enjoy, but it's not giving revenue to the tobacco industry or the government through taxes and therefore is an unwelcome product to gov't agencies regardless of the health factors. If it truly was our health that the gov't was concerned with, they wouldn't be trying to find ways to ban this product, they'd be looking for ways to improve it, and they'd be banning tobacco since it's been proven countless times to be one of the worst things you can do to yourself.

I believe we all agree with that one.

 

[acrilok]

Don't know if this report was previouly posted.....


Search Google for New Zealand report Ruyan e-cigarettes and a PDF of the report should pop up in your search. To be fair, this report was commisioned by Ruyan e-cigarettes (China), but I find the report interesting in any case.

I am awaiting the arrival of my first e-cig from Blu. I had a concern about PG prior to placing my order.

Johnson Creek currently sells a low propylene glycol version of their e-juice. They claim on their website that they are currently working on a zero PG juice.

A bigger concern I have is that the FDA is making sounds like they want to want to regulate e-cigs.

Just when I was getting ready to try an alternative, Big Brother wants a crack at me again.

 

[Applejackson]

Don't know if this report was previouly posted.....


Search Google for New Zealand report Ruyan e-cigarettes and a PDF of the report should pop up in your search. To be fair, this report was commisioned by Ruyan e-cigarettes (China), but I find the report interesting in any case.

I am awaiting the arrival of my first e-cig from Blu. I had a concern about PG prior to placing my order.

Johnson Creek currently sells a low propylene glycol version of their e-juice. They claim on their website that they are currently working on a zero PG juice.

A bigger concern I have is that the FDA is making sounds like they want to want to regulate e-cigs.

Just when I was getting ready to try an alternative, Big Brother wants a crack at me again.

Welcome to the boards! Yeah, that's been posted a brazillian times on these boards (even a few posts back). The FDA wants to BAN the sale of e-cigs until they've gone through all the proper channels to obtain certification and then fall under their regulation as a drug-delivery device (this will take years and even after that the cost will probably sky-rocket, rendering them essentially unavailable to all but the rich or very well insured, and won't be sustainable--like NRTs on the market now). I fully intend to purchase them illegally if/when the ban goes through as I honestly feel that such a ban is unconstitutional and a strike against personal freedom. How long have you been waiting for your Blu? I canceled my order half an hour after making it because I found this site and everyone says it takes at least a month and the product is sub-par. I bought a 510 from Midwest vapor which has shut down, I believe, but Rocky Mountain Vapor has 510 kits and free priority shipping. I had it in my hands 2 days later. Also, I hear almost nothing but bad things about JC juice, except a few people that really liked their OLD formula for Tennessee Cured flavor, which has now been changed and people don't like it anymore. I wouldn't worry about PG unless your allergic, but other places have VG or reduced PG juices too. I haven't dealt with either company (except ordering, then immediately canceling my Blu order), so all of this is second hand info. I just don't want you to have a bad experience with all of this and get turned off to the e-cigarette without knowing how good it can be. I'd do a little research around these boards about what model to buy and from whom. Why not? You've got 4-5 weeks before your Blu ships so you've got time.

 

[ASTEN]

For what it's worth....I think the E Cig is a brilliant idea! So much so, I was ready to become a distributor! That being said....I am 54 and have smoked Kool cigs (full strength) since I was 16. I have high sensitivites and am prone to allergic reactions. If there is a 1 in a million that will have a reaction...that would be me! After smoking the e cig on and off for aprox a month (med strength was to strong...constant coughing ... swithched to lite filter!) I lost my voice for aprox 2-3 weeks!8-o
I went to an ent specialist and he found a pollop on my voicebox! Coincidence? After much research, I felt the risk of ingesting propelne glycol was way to risky...I went back to regular cigarettes. More research revealed that even the lite filters on e cigs, contained more nicotine than what I smoke regularly! Through further research I found that there was a couple of companies trying to manufacture the e cig without the propelyne glycol....one of the reasons why shipments are being confiscated at customs because of the FDA (I'm sure one of the reasons why your distributor is currently out of stock and/or on back order!) Reports are that this new version is very sweet. In any event, I really think more research is needed in regards to ill effects on the health...and a better version is needed without all the "extra" crap! Isn't being more healthy the whole point?

 

[ASTEN]

For what it's worth....I think the E Cig is a brilliant idea! So much so, I was ready to become a distributor! That being said....I am 54 and have smoked Kool cigs (full strength) since I was 16. I have high sensitivites and am prone to allergic reactions. If there is a 1 in a million that will have a reaction...that would be me! After smoking the e cig on and off for aprox a month (med strength was to strong...constant coughing ... swithched to lite filter!) I lost my voice for aprox 2-3 weeks!8-o
I went to an ent specialist and he found a pollop on my voicebox! Coincidence? After much research, I felt the risk of ingesting propelne glycol was way to risky...I went back to regular cigarettes. More research revealed that even the lite filters on e cigs, contained more nicotine than what I smoke regularly! Through further research I found that there was a couple of companies trying to manufacture the e cig without the propelyne glycol....one of the reasons why shipments are being confiscated at customs because of the FDA (I'm sure one of the reasons why your distributor is currently out of stock and/or on back order!) Reports are that this new version is very sweet. In any event, I really think more research is needed in regards to ill effects on the health...and a better version is needed without all the "extra" crap! Isn't being more healthy the whole point?

 

[four2109]

More research revealed that even the lite filters on e cigs, contained more nicotine than what I smoke regularly!

Would you care to elaborate on that? "lite filters"... ? More research? ...?

 

[ladyraj]

Would you care to elaborate on that? "lite filters"... ? More research? ...?

Response is not recommended....something is a bit off, not sure what, but let's hope some are not litigious by nature.8-o

 

[Laramie]

Hi,
First post and wanted to share this independent research which concurs with the NZ testing in which they had two groups of hospitalized adolescents, one in "normal air" as control for the second group which breathed vaporized propylene glycol. The propylene glycol group had measurably fewer infections particularly of the respiratory types than the subjects in the control ("normal air") group.
Hope this helps the cause.

Lar

p.s., I am still deciding on my first PV- but I'll get there!

 

[Laramie]

Lol, i forgot the link! Can tell it's my first time , huh?
jem.rupress.org/cgi/content/abstract/75/6/593

Ok, it's not a link, just copy and paste

 

[harvest38]

So have any tests actually been done to determine if it's bad to be inhaling this stuff all day? Who knows, maybe it's worse than tobacco? I doubt it, but has it actually been tested at all? I know they have tested it somewhat because they use smoke machines and stuff all the time.. but that's just inhaling a bit that's in the air, it's not really the same.

Studies conducted in 1942 by Dr. Oswald Hope RobertsonBillings Hospital showed vaporized propylene glycol inhalation in laboratory mice may prevent pneumonia, influenza, and other
respiratory diseases. Additional studies in monkeys and other animals were undertaken to determine longterm effects, especially the potential for accumulation in the lungs. After a few months of treatment, no illeffects were discovered

 

[ajm79]

Hi harvest - I found the same article on wikipedia. I wonder why no studies like this have been repeated in the last 60+ years? Or at least none that I can find!

 

[telsie]

This is really the first potentially scary thing I've read about propylene glycol. It pertains to ingestion, though, not inhalation, and it's pretty vague. But since it's a report from a state government, I thought it was worth posting.

I can't post links yet, so just add the h t t p : / / to this:

des.nh.gov/organization/commissioner/pip/factsheets/ard/documents/ard-ehp-12.pdf

Excerpt from near the bottom of page 2:

Rats exposed orally to a high concentration of ethylene glycol had blood effects such as reduced red blood cells and hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen. High levels of propylene glycol caused similar effects in dogs. In another study, high concentrations of propylene glycol fed to rats resulted in changes in their blood indicating that red blood cells were being destroyed.

After all the reading I've done about propylene glycol, my personal feeling is that it's relatively harmless, at least for short term use, as a direct inhalant. My own real concern is whether it could pose health hazards long term.

 

[JamieJ]

Laramie- nice find interesting!

 

[helki12]

I don't think it is a good one. It is better to have a through knowledge before making to any solutions.

 

[frankie1]

For information on PG you can visit the National Library of Medicine website:

HSDB Search Results - Frameset

Make sure you read all the way to the bottom. The final entry reads:

Minimum Fatal Dose Level:
1=PRACTICALLY NONTOXIC: PROBABLE ORAL LETHAL DOSE (HUMAN) IS ABOVE 15 G/KG; FOR 70 KG PERSON (150 LB), MORE THAN 1 QT (2.2 LB).
[Gosselin, R.E., H.C. Hodge, R.P. Smith, and M.N. Gleason. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products. 4th ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1976., p. II-120] **PEER REVIEWED**