The reason I asked that question relates directly to PG: If we are not heating the PG enough to actually physically alter it, then aren't we just inhaling droplets of straight PG? If so, how is that fundamentally different from ingesting it? IOW, why would it be more toxic through inhalation than through ingestion?
Propylene Glycol origins?
- Thread starter Mrez
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Why Have you ever sucked some soft drink down the wrong way? The digestive tract is set up to handle different stuff than the respiratory system is. filtering out molecules of oxygen is a bit more delicate than digesting a hot dog.
They way I understand it we heat enough for the vapor to form, or choose aerosol as you have mentioned before, this is what we inhale which I agree with you it is the same. The lungs process substances different than the stomach so there may be some issue with how substances (Mainly food flooring and other additives - if any).
I believe the issue of aldehyde being form come from combustion which would be at a higher temperature and would think that altering substance may come into play there. Of course, at lower wick saturation (dry hits and such) combustion may be present.
That is how I understand it. Of course it may not be exact but good enough for my puny mind.
The amount of H2O absorbed by eliquid is trace. What we are doing is vaporizing a solution, VG has higher surface pressure than PG so the higher the % of VG the hotter the temp needs to be to transfer the solution to the vapor state. The solution does not stay in vapor state for more than a few milliseconds before it starts to condense into droplets ie. Aerosol.
Aldehyde would be formed as a decomposition byproducuct.
Edit: removed section describing how to make it. Too dangerous
If there was combustion you would know it rather quickly as eliquid is flamable.
Sure, I get that. Inhaling liquids and solids is a problem because the particle size is too large and ends up clogging the lungs up -drowning/suffocation. But the lungs are equipped to deal with inhalation of aerosols. The question is: Do the components of the aerosol cause problems in lung tissue? For example, tobacco smoke contains chemicals that do damage the lung tissue in many ways. As far as I know, PG is not a chemical that damages lung tissue.
I'll put it this way: When people say, "We don't know what heating up and inhaling PG does long term," I tend to disagree. I think we do know enough to make a reasonable guess because 1)It's approved for use in medical inhalers, 2)No link between PG inhalation and lung damage has been demonstrated and plenty of studies have shown no damage and 3)with millions of vapers over the last decade or so there would have been many reports of harm already. So while there remains some possibility that longer-term exposure might cause damage, I think that possibility is remote and getting more remote with every passing year without report of harm.
Needless to say, I have never "back pedaled" in my life during a conversation. I LOVE debate. But, I will respond to this dumb assertion of yours later on because I have mostly answered your posts and I have others to reply to. Since I have already answered your first post, I will put this post in my mental FIFO buffer (programming term) so you go to the end of the line. Once done replying to the other posts, I will return to this one.
Let's see now ..... Maybe addiction for you is tough to identify but for people in the know it is much easier to spot.
Like I have told VNeil and others here, I was put away for months for addiction in a couple of treatment centers and the various facets of addiction were pounded into my thick skull. Like many folks, I said phooey with the addiction/dysfunction business and didn't think that denial pertained to me.... What a nut job I was back in my early years. Of course I was dead wrong.
Because I showed everyone what is written in a Wiki? (which by the way is 100% correct).... I suppose you think because I applied the term of addiction to "vaping" that it "seems" like I am being liberal with the definition? Is that what you are driving at? For your information that scientific definition for addiction is just that, a definition without regards to what it is applied to. It does not say that the definition only applies to smokers or boozers or drug addicts....... It is a very terse and "matter of fact" type of definition that applies to the PERSONALITY/ACTIONS of the individual(s) in question and without regard to what type of substance they are ingesting or action they may be taking.
Hey, we agree on something!
Hey, I am older than you
Nah I suppose you are right.......getting lung cancer or COPD from smoking is not bad, neither is getting a wet brain or cirrhosis of the liver from drinking. Oh wait, then there's a esophageal hemorrhage caused from drinking which causes you to suffocate to death. Oh and let's not forget about all those wonderful birth defects that you can pass down to offspring from continued use of certain drugs. Come on. Of course addictions are bad! In the wiki I posted one of the hallmarks is doing things that are harmful to yourself. Is doing something harmful to yourself not a bad thing?
I am literally shocked! We have something else in common.
That's one of the differences between you and I............ I would like to drink a couple of beers but I know I shouldn't because I am just asking for trouble. It took me many years but I yielded to my stupid inner pride and finally realized that it would be wisest if I never attempt to drink anything with ethyl alcohol in it. In other words, I broke through my denial.
Also, I never called you a fool nor would I call anyone a fool. I might call people lots of other things but never fools. Secondly, I never said you were addicted to anything either. All as I did was post a wiki that PLAINLY states what addiction is. I never pointed fingers at any one person. I am merely trying to get people to understand that addiction goes a bit deeper than many folks may realize and it shows itself in many forms.
Hate to sound philosophical, which I usually do anyway, but did it ever occur to you that life is more than chances and fate? Is there the possibility that everything that we do has a purpose and that we often get in the way of that purpose by our own stupid actions, desires, addictions, and dysfunctions? Just food for thought.
Yes, I agree, that there are chances with being harmed by most everything we do in life. But to cop an attitude where you think "life is dangerous, so I might as well have a few addictions" is exactly that, a cop out. That type of thinking is simple denial and an excuse for people to keep doing whatever the heck they want, harmful or not.
ok Steve. what is the temperature when water will vaporize?
what is the temperatures PG and VG start to vaporize
180F,300+F,and 500+F.
what's going to happen first?
regards
mike
VG wicks just as good as PG. the problem is VG is heavier.
a little more water is needed to effectively atomize (agonize) it.
it's the water that makes it work.
regards
mike
Last edited:
1/2 correct...... harm to one's self
Don't exactly know what that statement means.
You are trying to split hairs here........... You could consider that as an addiction as well if you knew full well that the gum was going to harm you and if you repeatedly chewed gum with full knowledge of the outcome. Chewing gum can be a habit, or habitual. Since it can be a habit, and the action is constantly repeated, then yes you could class it as an addiction if harm is intentionally being allowed. Most folks though do not want a bad outcome and so they get regular oral cleanings and practice good dental hygiene so that their gum chewing does not lead to a bad outcome. Many substances that people habitually use though, there is no way to ward off the bad outcome.
Axiom,
I am not trying to be I am a smarter than you type. After vaping for 3 years I am still trying to understand it. My point was people throw addiction around and use it it the very loose term, especially on ecf. Yes people can be addicted but that is the extreme.
I am sorry you have your addiction. Smokes made me feel better. It took the edge off life when it became stressful. I can't say I was addicted but maybe I was. I have 5 clients that are psychologists and a daughter that has expressed interest in it. She will be sitting down with 2 of them and seeing if it for her. We have discussed addiction before. Around 3 years ago when one came into my office and saw my vaporizer on my desk and asked questions right after he said I can't bill him for the time
Yes we do agree on things yet disagree on others.
I wasn't copping an attitude. I was trying to show that when humans do things for enjoyment it doesn't necessarily mean they are addicted.
I am a big guy and in my college years could put away a lot of beer. Many of my girlfriends would express concern that I was addicted to alcohol. I always smiled and said I wasn't that I just enjoyed it. A few of them I met later in life and they saw me drinking water and asked if I had gotten help. After a puzzled look, they would say with alcohol. I would respond with a smile and say no I just grew up.
We all have different physiologies. What is an addiction to one doesn't mean it is to another.
After having an alcoholic in law pass away it is good that you conquered your addiction. I have a client that has a drug addiction which is ruining their life. The cries for help are tough to bear. I commend you for conquering yours.
I guess as crexx stated we have gone way past what the op thread was about. To them I am sorry.
Peace mate.
I am not trying to be I am a smarter than you type. After vaping for 3 years I am still trying to understand it. My point was people throw addiction around and use it it the very loose term, especially on ecf. Yes people can be addicted but that is the extreme.
I am sorry you have your addiction. Smokes made me feel better. It took the edge off life when it became stressful. I can't say I was addicted but maybe I was. I have 5 clients that are psychologists and a daughter that has expressed interest in it. She will be sitting down with 2 of them and seeing if it for her. We have discussed addiction before. Around 3 years ago when one came into my office and saw my vaporizer on my desk and asked questions right after he said I can't bill him for the time
Yes we do agree on things yet disagree on others.
I wasn't copping an attitude. I was trying to show that when humans do things for enjoyment it doesn't necessarily mean they are addicted.
I am a big guy and in my college years could put away a lot of beer. Many of my girlfriends would express concern that I was addicted to alcohol. I always smiled and said I wasn't that I just enjoyed it. A few of them I met later in life and they saw me drinking water and asked if I had gotten help. After a puzzled look, they would say with alcohol. I would respond with a smile and say no I just grew up.
We all have different physiologies. What is an addiction to one doesn't mean it is to another.
After having an alcoholic in law pass away it is good that you conquered your addiction. I have a client that has a drug addiction which is ruining their life. The cries for help are tough to bear. I commend you for conquering yours.
I guess as crexx stated we have gone way past what the op thread was about. To them I am sorry.
Peace mate.
OK finally I am back to you in the queue and can reply back...............
First let me say that some folks around here (hint) are hung up on the differences between the uses of the technical terms of "dependency" and "addiction"......... Of course we all know there is a difference between the two and I will often use the term "addiction" when referring to dependency. But, I figure that most folks who read this are knowledgeable enough to know what I am referring to without me having to hold their hands. However, if you prefer me to be very accurate with my terminology then I will do this as well.
OK, back to this "weird post"................ I see, so you are hung up on the word "possibility". Here you go trying to dance around the obvious again by bringing up anything that steers away from the obvious. But, to oblige you I will remark.....
What is the difference between "possibility of danger" and the word "danger" ? The answer to this question is actually a moot point in regards to people with dependency issues because no matter if it's "dangerous" or "possibly dangerous" they are going to do it anyway if it brings some kind of reward or euphoria.
You do not need to take my statements or the facts from the wiki to a "clinician" but rather to a dependency counselor.
Now this thread has turned into a mine is righter than yours contest.
No idea why I looked in again.
Mike, your argument is still invalid.
I add NO water to my mixes.
ALL PG/VG solutions.
Solutions bind together to form a final result. Y
You are not going to Vaporize each component separately.
I normally do not Vape above 400 Degrees - TC tank
Not once have a had a 1/2 full tank remaining because the VG would not vaporize
Don't get me wrong, your comments are interesting - I just disagree from my direct experience vaping over the past 3 years.
No idea why I looked in again.
Mike, your argument is still invalid.
I add NO water to my mixes.
ALL PG/VG solutions.
Solutions bind together to form a final result. Y
You are not going to Vaporize each component separately.
I normally do not Vape above 400 Degrees - TC tank
Not once have a had a 1/2 full tank remaining because the VG would not vaporize
Don't get me wrong, your comments are interesting - I just disagree from my direct experience vaping over the past 3 years.
to ones self or others.second hand smoke and alcohol related
traffic fatality's.
there is no clause saying just because some thing is possible
that means in fact it will happen, just more likely than
potential harm which has no bearing in real world scenarios.
i am not splitting hairs. there are very real reasons to term
something an addiction.
its the difference between legislating legal cures as opposed
ignoring it as harmless.
regards
mike
kF
you could take any mix you have and put it in
a inhaler operated by compressed gas and get the same result.
where is your heat factor then?
VG will not vaporize until over 500F period.
PG not until over 300F.
water at 180F.
ciga likes do not get over 280F.
they still produce what we call vapor.
as temperature increase the water vaporizes faster verses
total heat verses area heated.
this is why totally saturated wicks using almost pure VG
produce dry hits.
there isn't enough water.
adding water does thin VG.that does not mean thinned VG
vapes better. it means there is enough water to atomize the VG.
its all quite simple.
regards
mike
you r wrong for so many reasons.Now this thread has turned into a mine is righter than yours contest.
No idea why I looked in again.
Mike, your argument is still invalid.
I add NO water to my mixes.
ALL PG/VG solutions.
Solutions bind together to form a final result. Y
You are not going to Vaporize each component separately.
I normally do not Vape above 400 Degrees - TC tank
Not once have a had a 1/2 full tank remaining because the VG would not vaporize
Don't get me wrong, your comments are interesting - I just disagree from my direct experience vaping over the past 3 years.
you could take any mix you have and put it in
a inhaler operated by compressed gas and get the same result.
where is your heat factor then?
VG will not vaporize until over 500F period.
PG not until over 300F.
water at 180F.
ciga likes do not get over 280F.
they still produce what we call vapor.
as temperature increase the water vaporizes faster verses
total heat verses area heated.
this is why totally saturated wicks using almost pure VG
produce dry hits.
there isn't enough water.
adding water does thin VG.that does not mean thinned VG
vapes better. it means there is enough water to atomize the VG.
its all quite simple.
regards
mike
I think once mixed the solution vaporizes at a different temperature than any one of its parts...
My e-liquids don't have water added...
My e-liquids don't have water added...
I do not think you could distill the different ingredients out in an ecig atomizer.
If you could you would just have VG left in the tank after a while since PG vaporizes at a lower temperature.
Hmm an interesting test for someone with a temp control rig. Set the temp for just above PG vaporization temp and use 50/50 and see if it stops vaporizing and still is half full?
It's like B-52's. If not consumed when ablaze, the drink goes out once the 151 burns off...
- Status
