well I do take hteir motive into concideration, but on the other hand- there may be soem truth to what they say as well, and the fact is that noone really knows what long-term effects consistent exposure ot htis might have, and it may justy turn out quite bad, but then again, it could turn out just fine- there doesn't seem to be any long term human trials or observances done scientifically- I'm just always learey of new stuff that hasn't been thoproughly tested- as much as I want for htis to be a safe product, I still am a bit nervous since it hasn't been tested enough I guess. I take all info thgat isn't scientifically gained with a grain of salt, and weigh it all- good or bad- objectively- just gotta sift htrough the obvious 'incentives' and rhetoric of special interest groups, and get to the straight facts and claims, but I don't think we can dismiss whqat is said just because they might have interests in saying so if their facts are sound enough though.
Propylene glycol inhaling?
- Thread starter BigBuxNoWhammy
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I don't know if a link to this study has been posted on this board yet but it is certainly relevant to this thread. It implies that PG is considered safe as a vapor carrier in medical applications. Does anyone know if PG is actually used for inhaled medicine in humans. Granted, it's an animal study but it was used in lung transplantation and transplanted lungs are pretty sensitive. Not to mention that if you give a rat anything it gets cancer. 
Here is the quote from the abstract:
Here is the link to the abstract:
Preclinical safety evaluation of inhaled cyclosporine in propylene glycol.
Here is the quote from the abstract:
Here is the link to the abstract:
Preclinical safety evaluation of inhaled cyclosporine in propylene glycol.
Here is the link to the abstract: Preclinical safety evaluation of inhaled cyclosporine in propylene glycol.
Mamba
Not to mention that if you give a rat anything it gets cancer - lol
Not to mention that if you give a rat anything it gets cancer - lol
That's a home run quote for anyone, me included, concerned about any effects of inhaling propylene glycol probably 300 times a day for the rest of my life.
Now, we have only to worry about the nicotine. No small matter ... Find Science Daily http://www.sciencedaily.com/, search "nicotine" and start some very depressing reading on our favorite drug.
Nazareth asks:
I thought this was common knowledge: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... id=1987356
I thought this was common knowledge: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... id=1987356
uggh- anyhtign less technical? I can make it out, but only if I really put my mind to figuring it all out- Is the study talkign abotu burned nicotine being carcinogetic? Or any for of nicotine regardless of delivery methods? I guess it woudl be all methods as it looks liek htey might be talking abotu all forms of NNK- even food based NNK- gotta read throgu it more tomorow.
That was oen of my asthma drugs at oen time- but then they switched me to a newer one- prbably shoudla stayed on the Theophyllin.
I've read in a couple of places that nicotine doesn't by itself cause cancer- here's one such claim
That was oen of my asthma drugs at oen time- but then they switched me to a newer one- prbably shoudla stayed on the Theophyllin.
I've read in a couple of places that nicotine doesn't by itself cause cancer- here's one such claim
http://health.nytimes.com/ref/health/healthguide/esn-smoking-ess.html wikipedia (not a real reliable source for sure) has the same claim as well- though not real sure how recent their info is.
What they are referring to are the TSN's (tobacco specific nitrosamines) which got a lot of press several years ago. These are supposedly derived from nicotine both in the processing of the tobacco and in the users body. The low/no nicotine tobaccos were designed with this in mind to create a less carcinogenic tobacco.
Some researchers indicate that nicotine is the highest risk factor in developing smoking related cancers. Concentrated levels of nitrosamines are found in small cell lung cancer tumors. Nicotine is purported to have a stimulus effect on existing cancer cells. These findings cast doubt on the health benefits of a high nicotine/low tar tobacco.
What gets me is that this seems to be the best evidence of the dangers of smoking and the anti's seem to be ignoring it.
Some researchers indicate that nicotine is the highest risk factor in developing smoking related cancers. Concentrated levels of nitrosamines are found in small cell lung cancer tumors. Nicotine is purported to have a stimulus effect on existing cancer cells. These findings cast doubt on the health benefits of a high nicotine/low tar tobacco.
What gets me is that this seems to be the best evidence of the dangers of smoking and the anti's seem to be ignoring it.
well.. from http://www.healthnz.co.nz/Portland2008ECIG.pdf:toekuttr said:
Tobacco -specific Nitrosamines: 8 ppb (ng/g) => as I understand it, this is meant for the whole eliquid, not the nicotine alone
For comparison:
NRT gum: 8 ng/g)
Unburnt cig. Tobacco: 1200 ng/g )]
Cigarette smoke: to 500 ng /cigarette
As far as I remember, a cartridge holds about 1 ml and consists mainly of PG, which has a density of 1,04 g/cm^3, so a normal cartridge has about 8 ng. A cig weights about 1.14 g. so you can say that a single cigarette has about 62.5 times more nitrosamines than a whole cartridge of e-liquid. I don't really think that this is a concern for e-smokers
Klaue says:
Well thats great news! I do agree that theres likely a much reduced risk when compared to cigarettes and other forms of tobacco in general. I was just responding to the notion of nicotine itself being the "harmless" component in tobacco. Keep in mind though, that only the TSN's developed in the tobacco prior to metabolism are being measured.
Well thats great news!
I do agree that theres likely a much reduced risk when compared to cigarettes and other forms of tobacco in general. I was just responding to the notion of nicotine itself being the "harmless" component in tobacco. Keep in mind though, that only the TSN's developed in the tobacco prior to metabolism are being measured.
The jury is very much out on this. Tests currently underway in New Zealand might provide some answers for e-smokers (the vapor has yet to be analyzed). This referenced study seems to clear inhalation of propylene glycol. And that's great to know. But studies also say nicotine is not only unsafe, but acts to promote lung cancer (this is contra to many earlier assumptions). And that's what concerns me. Cigarette smoking initiates cellular changes that can explode into lung cancer over time. If I quit inhaling tobacco, but continue my nicotine dose via e-smoking, might I not be promoting continued cancer development in the lungs? I'd say most e-smokers are ex-cigarette smokers seeking a healthier alternative. The jury is still out on whether this is safe, not just safer than tobacco smoking. And if this is not safe, then no source of nicotine is. The implications boggle the mind -- and I too am surprised more anti-tobacco Nazis haven't seized on this to ban all non-medical nicotine sources. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060721201104.htm
Yeah- those sites I listed probably posted earlier 'facts' about nicotine that have since been refuted- but I wonder if nicotine delivered through atomization might not perhaps be a bit 'safer' as it isn't being burned, nor is it being acompanied by all the other cancer causing chemicals- it might be that it would take much longer for nicotine to actually cause cancer when delivered via atmozer? I don't know, I'm just thinking otu loud here. also- the nicotine we're gettign from E-smokin I think is a much lower dose? Is that right? So there again, we're gettign less than if we regular smoked, thus it would take longer to develop cancer? I'm not sure what hte mouse study revealed, and not sure the amounts used in the trial, but I think it would be fairly large amounts to 'accelorate' a 'real life' simulation. i'm not trying to defend the use of nicotine, i'm just not really up to speed on it, and am just guessing here.
toekuttr said:
Ok- is it derived from burned tobacco only? Or is it referign to the ingestion assimulation of any form of nicotine derived from any form of 'consumption'/ingestion/delivery from tobacco?
"Stimulous effect on Existing Cancer cells"- but does it create cancer cells itself? Or did the study only concentrate on what effect nicotine has on preexisting cancer cells?
Perhaps they know somethign that we don't- ie possibly that it's much safer than burinign tobacco? not saying it is, but maybe there's a reason they haven't jumped on htis yet? hopefully that's the cas- but yourright- I'm surprised too that htey haven't jumped all over htis- maybe there might be political reasons behind there hesitancy too, or maybe they fear pushing us tobacco adicts too far and are satisfied that they've been able to ban outright smoking of real ciggs and feel it is victory enough- dunno really
If i recall correctly, caffeine has a stimulus effect on pre-existing cancer cells as well. I could be totally wrong though.
Nazareth:
Doesnt appear to be as some of the highest levels were found in chewing tobaccos.
Nazareth:
Good question, and this is whats being debated and studied in depth. It looks like some forms of nicotine are more stubborn in leaving the body, and some of the dangerous forms like TSN's act just like nicotine in the receptors but stay for quite a while.
Yep, thats an interesting question. Maybe they havent compiled enough "statistics" yet that they can misquote and manipulate for shock value. Dont forget though, nicotine has many beneficial aspects they dont want you to know about too.
Doesnt appear to be as some of the highest levels were found in chewing tobaccos.
Nazareth:
Good question, and this is whats being debated and studied in depth. It looks like some forms of nicotine are more stubborn in leaving the body, and some of the dangerous forms like TSN's act just like nicotine in the receptors but stay for quite a while.
Yep, thats an interesting question. Maybe they havent compiled enough "statistics" yet that they can misquote and manipulate for shock value. Dont forget though, nicotine has many beneficial aspects they dont want you to know about too.
(From Bob's link)
Ok- this answers the question (I think, as the study is 2 years old and new data may have coem our since then)- Nicotine by itself does not cause cancer, but aggravates cancer cells already present- but, the study does not mention if the nicotine is being delivered with all the other carcinogens present in burned tobacco or not- which might skew the results- the study doesn't mention how the nicotine was administered, although most likely, it wasn't by burned tobacco. It appears that nicotine stmulates the interraction between Rb and Raf-1 which increases the chance of aggravatign existing cancer cells. Note- updated response below- as Nico doesn't aggravate the cancer cells, or even 'promote' them, all it does is help to prevent cells from dying off like htey are supposed to by promoting the Akt pathway which I'll discuss more below- so nico isn't a promoter, or an aggravator, or a stimulator effect, just an enabler of a longer life for cells- over-riding their preprogrammed suicide circuits)
Of interest here is the statement that interfereing with the interractions between Rb and Raf-1 decreases the stimulation of prexisting cancer cells, so all we haveto do is invent some bubble gum that blocks completely the interraction between Rb and Raf-1 and we can keep smoking like fiends all we like
It appears to me that in a nutshell, the way nicotine stimulates cancer cells, (as a previous linked article mentioned) (a misnomer- which I'll breifly address in a minute) is by stimulating the Akt pathway- a process, or pathway more precisely that leads to a process, that keeps cells alive despite irregularities to hte cells such as cancer cells. Cells are preprogramed to 'commit suicide' at the first sign of irregularity, and nicotine apparently stimulates a a process that prevents this cell suicide.
The misnomer is that nicotine itself doesn't 'stimulate cancer cells' (accordign to htis 2003 study), but rather just a process that prevents cells from dying.
so here again, I think we can help oursleves by judgign the life of our cells, determining their cut-off point, and then eating somethign that triggers a mass lemming-like die-off of hte cells- j/k This all looks pretty dim from a safety of nicotine point of view. I guess we're all just goign to have to bite the bullet and really try to focus on cutting down (and hopefulyl eventually quitting nico) our nico consumption, or just face the fact that we don't care about what hapens and just coem ot terms with it. Was hoping nico was more safe than it appears to be after reading these articles, but apparently it'snot
And refined sugar tooRatInDaHat said:
Dag-nabbit- I might as well start diggin my grave now then, because I smoke, and I drink large quantities of Pepsi per day too- no way I am willing ot quite both, or even one or the other. Life just aint life without a pepsi and a cigartte. This whole thread is gloomy
Someone needs to invent a 'Cell Correction Injection" where once a year, we go in and get a shot, and we're back to square one again. i'll personally give whoever invents this $20
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
