Secondhand Exposure to Vapors From Electronic Cigarettes

[ctkid57]

Secondhand Exposure to Vapors From Electronic Cigarettes

Conclusions: Using an e-cigarette in indoor environments may involuntarily expose nonusers to nicotine but not to toxic tobacco-specific combustion products. More research is needed to evaluate health consequences of secondhand exposure to nicotine, especially among vulnerable populations, including children, pregnant women, and people with cardiovascular conditions.

 

[zoiDman]

Subscribed

 

[BernieVideo]

This Study contradicts this. In this study, they could not detect ANY nicotine in the exhalation of Vapors.

 

[Orb Skewer]

The Goneiwicz report in the OP is from June....last year .

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...vapor-contains-nicotine-not-other-toxins.html

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...rand-new-post-your-comments-asap-support.html

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...vapor-contains-nicotine-not-other-toxins.html

 

[zoiDman]

This Study contradicts this. In this study, they could not detect ANY nicotine in the exhalation of Vapors.

Not sure which Study is Correct? Or if Either Study is Correct?

But there is an Old Saying. And that is...

"If Two Men say they are Jesus, at Least One of them is Wrong."

 

[vaperature]

I subscribe to the notion that if there's nicotine in it when it goes into your mouth, there is nicotine in it when it comes out of your mouth. That's just common sense and I'll be hard pressed to believe the findings of even the most thoroughly made study that contradicts simple common sense.

 

[Uma]

I can't wait til p.opus shows up with his calculating skills. . I bet the "May involuntarily expose" is somewhere around 0.038 (parts per million) ans only then if they are in a non-ventilated room filled with a many Vapers vaping 1ml an hour each (both scenarios already quite ridiculous),,,

 

[vaperature]

I can't wait til p.opus shows up with his calculating skills. . I bet the "May involuntarily expose" is somewhere around 0.038 (parts per million) ans only then if they are in a non-ventilated room filled with a many Vapers vaping 1ml an hour each (both scenarios already quite ridiculous),,,

So in other words you're describing any party where people are vaping, right?

 

[indoorsindica]

I subscribe to the notion that if there's nicotine in it when it goes into your mouth, there is nicotine in it when it comes out of your mouth. That's just common sense and I'll be hard pressed to believe the findings of even the most thoroughly made study that contradicts simple common sense.

Thinking maybe you should revisit heterogeneous mixtures and how density applies to such when a heat source is introduced. That would not be a common sense issue, in fact common sense should lead you to question either side.

 

[zoiDman]

I subscribe to the notion that if there's nicotine in it when it goes into your mouth, there is nicotine in it when it comes out of your mouth. That's just common sense and I'll be hard pressed to believe the findings of even the most thoroughly made study that contradicts simple common sense.

Yeah... But when did Common Sense ever Trump Creative Mathematics and the Ability to Choose Study Parameters to Reflect a Desirable Outcome?

 

[Kent C]

Not sure which Study is Correct?

But there is an Old Saying. And that is...

"If Two Men say they are Jesus, at Least One of them is Wrong."

Here's a hint:

"We generated e-cigarette vapor from 3 various brands of e-cigarette using a smoking machine and controlled exposure conditions. We also compared secondhand exposure with e-cigarette vapor and tobacco smoke generated by 5 dual users."

There is no 'sidestream vapor' in ecigs unlike cigarettes. So it really isn't 'secondhand' vapor, in the first (smoking machine) situation. Don't know if they conflated those numbers with the second situation, which sounds much more like 'secondhand' smoke/vapor. And for the second situation of 'duel users' of cigs and ecigs - almost any smoker know that cigarette smoke resides in the lung after smoking. Just close your mouth and forcefully breathe out, then open your mouth and smoke will come out. So the 'ecig results' on that phase of the experiment may have been contaminated. Why they would even do that if they were only concerned with ecig vapor results is questionable.

If you want pure second hand vapor numbers then first, don't use a 'smoking machine' that doesn't in any way duplicate the vaping experience and secondly, keep cigarettes out of the study. If you want to 'compare' cig smoke and ecig vapor - do separate studies, not using the same room, furniture, clothes, etc. etc.

 

[StormFinch]

So in other words you're describing any party where people are vaping, right?

Depends on the venue, I have yet to attend a party in a room with zero ventilation. And, unless someone has given up a subsector of vegetables, they're getting more nicotine with their spaghetti or large stuffed baked potato. That involuntary exposure line is ridiculous.

 

[Kent C]

I subscribe to the notion that if there's nicotine in it when it goes into your mouth, there is nicotine in it when it comes out of your mouth. That's just common sense and I'll be hard pressed to believe the findings of even the most thoroughly made study that contradicts simple common sense.

If the exhaled vapor is the same as the inhaled vapor then we likely wouldn't be vaping. A transformation takes place in the lungs and/or mucus membranes of the mouth and throat, where some substances are absorbed. How much is the question. Perhaps we absorb all of the nicotine. Or that the nicotine exhaled is so minute to be measurable. Similar to oxygen and carbon dioxide in regular breathing. A displacement occurs.

 

[zoiDman]

...

If you want pure second hand vapor numbers then first, don't use a 'smoking machine' that doesn't in any way duplicate the vaping experience and secondly, keep cigarettes out of the study. If you want to 'compare' cig smoke and ecig vapor - do separate studies, not using the same room, furniture, clothes, etc. etc.

Hard to Argue with that Kent.

But there can be a Break Down in Logic when Comparing two things. And that is If the Way you Evaluated "A" is Wrong, it Doesn't make the way you Evaluated "B" Correct.

Every study should be Peer Reviewed and It's Scientific Merit Evaluated in Isolation.

 

[vaperature]

If the exhaled vapor is the same as the inhaled vapor then we likely wouldn't be vaping. A transformation takes place in the lungs and/or mucus membranes of the mouth and throat, where some substances are absorbed. How much is the question. Perhaps we absorb all of the nicotine. Or that the nicotine exhaled is so minute to be measurable. Similar to oxygen and carbon dioxide in regular breathing. A displacement occurs.

Why? Do you know of some physiological function that has the ability to separate the nicotine from the vapor in the lungs and erase it from the vapor that comes out of the mouth. More likely we absorb very little of the nicotine that is contained within the vapor, only that which actually touches the surfaces of your lungs, throat, mouth, nostrils, so on. Everything in the middle comes out the same way it went in, a cloud of vapor with nicotine in it. Hypothetically of course.

 

[Kent C]

Hard to Argue with that Kent.

But there can be a Break Down in Logic when Comparing two things. And that is If the Way you Evaluated "A" is Wrong, it Doesn't make the way you Evaluated "B" Correct.

Every study should be Peer Reviewed and It's Scientific Merit Evaluated in Isolation.

Agree and the 'comparing' part is what I attempt to address in the first part - iow, a smoking machine - unless it has human lungs, is the 'wrong way' Some of these studies don't reach the level of Mythbusters - which is quite low in constants and duplicating exact actions in reality.

 

[Kent C]

Why? Do you know of some physiological function that has the ability to separate the nicotine from the vapor in the lungs and erase it from the vapor that comes out of the mouth. More likely we absorb very little of the nicotine that is contained within the vapor, only that which actually touches the surfaces of your lungs, throat, mouth, nostrils, so on. Everything in the middle comes out the same way it went in, a cloud of vapor with nicotine in it. Hypothetically of course.

Not erase it but an absorption takes place or we wouldn't vape. Does the food you eat have the same properties coming out?

 

[vaperature]

Not erase it but an absorption takes place or we wouldn't vape. Does the food you eat have the same properties coming out?

No of course not, but let's not compare apples and oranges. Your food passes through a complex digestive system and take about 24 hours of this process before it comes out. Vapor merely goes into the lungs and then comes out seconds later. Surely you don't really believe somehow all the nicotine vapor gets absorbed by your lungs while the pg vapor, vg vapor and flavoring vapor for some reason doesn't.

 

[zoiDman]

Agree and the 'comparing' part is what I attempt to address in the first part - iow, a smoking machine - unless it has human lungs, is the 'wrong way' Some of these studies don't reach the level of Mythbusters - which is quite low in constants and duplicating exact actions in reality.

I agree.

BTW - I Edited my Post to give a More Correct Reflection of my views on Both Studies.

Not sure which Study is Correct? Or if Either Study is Correct?

But there is an Old Saying. And that is...

"If Two Men say they are Jesus, at Least One of them is Wrong."

It falls in line with the Part about "at Least One of the is Wrong". And not One of them is Wrong. Implying that the Other is Correct thru Controposite (sp?).

 

[Kent C]

No of course not, but let's not compare apples and oranges. Your food passes through a complex digestive system and take about 24 hours of this process before it comes out. Vapor merely goes into the lungs and then comes out seconds later. Surely you don't really believe somehow all the nicotine vapor gets absorbed by your lungs while the pg vapor, vg vapor and flavoring vapor for some reason doesn't.

Breathing in oxygen and expelling carbon dioxide (which I mentioned) is a closer comparison of course, but the point is that things happen within the body and changes the nature of what is expelled. Could some of the same stuff exist but in lower quantities - sure. Could some stuff be absorbed totally or near totally not to be measured in any significant quantity - yes.