Without reading the whole content of the studies - if one used a machine and the other real people only vaping - all else constant, then I would expect a difference in their findings.
And there are a lot of people named Jesus
Secondhand Exposure to Vapors From Electronic Cigarettes
- Thread starter ctkid57
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Without reading the whole content of the studies - if one used a machine and the other real people only vaping - all else constant, then I would expect a difference in their findings.
And there are a lot of people named Jesus
Our lungs absorb about 25% of the oxygen that we breath in. Air is about 20% oxygen and we exhale about 14 to 16 % oxygen.
Right, so if you breath in 3.6% nicotine, you are exhaling 2.7% nicotine, assuming vapor molecules are as small as oxygen molecules, which they aren't.
Which brings me to Something that has Puzzled me for a Couple of Years.
Why is it that after 5 Years or so that there is So Little Verified Information regarding e-Cigarettes?
It just doesn't seem that Hard to Analyze the Vapor Coming out of a Carto/Clearo/RBA under Various Voltages/Wattages and determine what is in the Vapor?
Screw the Inhalation and Exhale things for a Second. I'm talking about Quantitative Analysis of the Vapor Going into a Users Mouth.
You would think that since there are BILLIONS of Dollars of Sales Involved, and Hundreds of Millions of Tax Dollars Involved, and of course, FDA Regulations, that there would be Mountains of Data Available?
You can bet that BT and BP have done lots of studies. There is no way the tobacco companies would be releasing products without doing their homework...
Now if you want to discuss why the results are not publicly available...
Now if you want to discuss why the results are not publicly available...
Here's what the study said:
"It’s extremely difficult to discuss about the reasons
for these results. We could suppose that there
is a different absorption kinetics for nicotine. Or
maybe the amount in play is extremely low, when
compared to the nicotine amount released during
traditional smoking. However beyond all these hypotheses,
which have not been verified, there is one
fact: 5 vapers using e-cigarettes for 5 h in a small
room without renewal of indoor air do not produce
detectable levels of nicotine in the air."
Also, there were detectable levels of glycerine, pg, acrolein and other stuff like CO2, flavoring components. The nic level vaped was @17mg.
I tend to agree. But like all things there's a 'public awareness level' where only at a certain point do people (and scientists) get interested in whatever reaches that point.
And there should be more studies on both - what we inhale and what we exhale. But again... from earlier posts... it's what we exhale that should only be the concern of gov't.
Well like I said, you can show me a million studies but if they go against my own common sense I'm not going to believe them. I have no problem with their being nicotine in the vapor that I exhale. I don't vape around people who don't want me to, so it's not an issue for me. As much as I enjoy vaping, I'm not trying to convince myself that it is absolutely risk free, just that it's a lot less risky than smoking analogs. And I would note that just because it's not "in the air" doesn't mean it's not there. It went somewhere, like onto your food and your rug and the skin of individuals you're standing around. Basically gravity pulled it down and landed it somewhere. It didn't just vanish.
Last edited:
To your credit, you didn't quantify the amounts and all I pointed out that for my common sense, there's an absorption that takes place or I wouldn't vape. Like I said in my first reply to you - how much is the question. I never said I thought it was a thorough absorption - the study did. The other study that said there was nicotine present - just used a smoking machine - ie 'mainstream vapor' and all that says is why we vape. (or why we started to vape - now, for me, vapor is king, flavor second, then nicotine).
To give some scale:
What Goneiwicz et al detected were 0.82 to 6.23 µg/m3
That range goes from less than one whole 'micro-gram' to just over 6 'micro-grams' per cubic metre of air
There are 1,000,000 (1 million) 'micro-grams' in 1 Gram
Even at the high reading that's 6 - 1 millionths of a gram, in a cube of air measuring 1mx1mx1m (about the size of a washing machine)
And the reason for lack of study material probably relates to cost, and the fact that when your studying something as small relative to harm profile-is there urgency/will ? ,
it has been said over and over again (by scientists, specialists in the field and experts-who do know what they are talking about) that vaping (for the user) is "Orders of magnitude safer than smoking",
For bystanders that "Magnitude" is going to be quite a lot bigger.
What Goneiwicz et al detected were 0.82 to 6.23 µg/m3
That range goes from less than one whole 'micro-gram' to just over 6 'micro-grams' per cubic metre of air
There are 1,000,000 (1 million) 'micro-grams' in 1 Gram
Even at the high reading that's 6 - 1 millionths of a gram, in a cube of air measuring 1mx1mx1m (about the size of a washing machine)
And the reason for lack of study material probably relates to cost, and the fact that when your studying something as small relative to harm profile-is there urgency/will ? ,
it has been said over and over again (by scientists, specialists in the field and experts-who do know what they are talking about) that vaping (for the user) is "Orders of magnitude safer than smoking",
For bystanders that "Magnitude" is going to be quite a lot bigger.
Thanks for the chat, I enjoyed it. I'll move on so that I'm not hijacking the thread. Have a great day.
I'm not so much Talking about People and Scientists, I'm more talking about BT and e-Liquid OEM's.
If I was heading up the Altria Group or the head of Lorillard, I would tell some Underling VP to...
"Take 50,000 Bucks and a Handful of Cartos/e-Liquids and have some University hook them up to a Fish Tank Aerator Pump. And then come back and tell me Exactly what is Coming out of the End of a Carto before I buy Blu for $135,000,000."
I've been surprised that the FDA hasn't thoroughly tested and evaluated ecigs using widely gathered and labeled samples from sources where the public obtains their vaping supplies. They do that with just about everything we buy to eat or rub on our skin, why not the controversial ecig? Maybe it's not nearly as bad as some think and actually publishing the truth would hinder the fight to eradicate them.
OTOH, cigarette companies are developing ecig products and marketing them. Do you think that they would move from one product that will kill you to another version that kills you, but more slowly? Maybe, given their track record, but they are looking for a relatively safe product that won't put them in the situation they've been in for decades. Why develop and market ecigs if the government is going to nay say them quickly. I'd want something to market that had some extended staying power in the face of the opposition.
There's been no information on either side of the argument that would make me stop vaping. If the cruel facts were there to prove ANTZ, wouldn't they be plastering the facts all over the nation? Instead, they walk around with antifreeze stories and secondhand nic comments.
OTOH, cigarette companies are developing ecig products and marketing them. Do you think that they would move from one product that will kill you to another version that kills you, but more slowly? Maybe, given their track record, but they are looking for a relatively safe product that won't put them in the situation they've been in for decades. Why develop and market ecigs if the government is going to nay say them quickly. I'd want something to market that had some extended staying power in the face of the opposition.
There's been no information on either side of the argument that would make me stop vaping. If the cruel facts were there to prove ANTZ, wouldn't they be plastering the facts all over the nation? Instead, they walk around with antifreeze stories and secondhand nic comments.
Last edited:
Please tell me that the Safety and Potential Harm Reduction for the User of an e-Cigarette is Not somehow getting Lost in all this Passive Vape Issue?
Correct me if I'm Wrong.
But does the FDA do Any in House Testing? Or do they Rely on Outside Testing from people like OEM's and Possibly Universities?
The gov't should be protecting us against ourselves. So if all that is being lost, then good! I know you don't agree, so we should end on that
The gov't should be protecting us against ourselves. So if all that is being lost, then good! I know you don't agree, so we should end on that
Yeah... That is a Great Topic for Debate. And Many Shades of Gray can be Considered verses a Pure Black and White Position.
But the Issue of Tax Revenues complicates things.
It is One thing to Stand Back and watch someone Hurt Themselves. It is Another to Tax them while they Do It. And EVERYONE know that e-Liquids in whatever form they are going to sold Will Be Taxed.
It Also becomes Problematic if the Justification for a Tax is to Spend Money on those who were Harmed because of Passive Vapor if Passive Vapor is shown to be Relatively Harmless.
The CASAA website has several studies, I suggest you spend some time reviewing them. The latest one is the Burstyn/Drexel study which recently has been peer-reviewed.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
