Sleazy propaganda re diacetyl in e-cigs

[AndriaD]

I agree that the non-smoking/non-vaping participant is not necessarily providing reasonable answers. IMO, that point matters most.

Yet, we talk about "avoidable risk" like it is something that can be objectively quantified. We also talk like diketone-free liquids are inherently safer, without having 30+ years of studies to back that claim up. Just a hunch we have, I guess.

Hard to agree that stopping something leads back to another thing. That takes choice and desire. Take it from a dual user who is "lead back." Tis not my (former) addiction that leads me back. You have that choice right now. You choose not. I disagree that moderate use is "far more hazardous." Therefore, you must be saying you'd go back to heavy smoking / abusive smoking. Would seem more reasonable to consider other options than that if the hatred for that is so strong. And here's where we may disagree on whether or not there are other options. I think I could name 5 options at least, without thinking much about it.

Now I'm wondering if ex-smoking/BT hating persons have a reasonable dog in this hunt. I'm thinking that they think they do, but it rarely shows up to me as reasonable.

Well... for the last 10 yrs or so, I wasn't really a heavy smoker, because I couldn't afford to be -- pk a day was all I could afford, and going outdoors meant that in really cold weather, it was something less than a pk a day. But I do have asthma, which has its own burden of bronchial congestion; smoking multiplied that by probably a factor of ten.

If you also consider that my father died of lung cancer, the genetic component of my own risk is definitely present (like you, I don't think smoking is the sole cause of lung cancer, but that it's a multiplicity of risk factors that contribute to it). So for me, given my asthma, my risk factors, and the fact that I'm a 100% addict... there is no such animal as non-abusive smoking. If I smoked one... I'd most likely finish the pack before the day was out.

Andria

PS: I'm not really a BT hater... I figure they've been doing what any company does, namely, try to make a profit and continue doing that. It steams me how they're trying to corner the market with all their talk of "open systems are hazardous," but that's a profit motive too. I don't see them as our biggest threat though; that dubious honor falls to BP... and our own gov't.

 

[Jman8]

See, moonshine and bathtub gin.

Eventually the government cracked down on those distilling without paying the taxes.
But if word got out that your shin was laced (like using old car radiators) you were pretty much done for. No one would but you stuff.
With the return of micro brew, home brew and homemade wines, the issues arise again, but most are honest and trying to make a safe product. It's not in their interest to harm their customers.

I was referring to article I found that dealt with modern day alcohol drinks. Was essentially addressing the point of why certain drinks affect you differently and what is happening at a chemical level within the body as a result of those differences. I only skimmed the article, but I think it was saying that certain types of alcoholic beverages have different type of chemicals that product more riskier scenarios to the human body. Kinda came across to me as common sense. Also came across to me as regulator types could have a field day with this if they applied their black magic to this instead of vaping. With all the flavor combinations, existence of underage use and the toxic chemical being promoted for consumption, what's not to love from a regulator's perspective? I get that it is already regulated, but also seems very tame compared to tobacco regulations.

Sorry, I may not have been clear. I think Most vendors will go diketone free. A few will keep diketones, labeled, for the flavors that work better/best with them. And a few will not bother to say, getting most of their business from ignorant (new, don't know about it yet) or apathetic (those who don't care about diketones) users/

I see all vendors having some degree of diketones in their liquids. I think a certain amount will be deemed negligible and not even able to be detected by most testing, thus not worth any consideration of harm to consumers. I think the whole acceptable level thing will be where the debate is more or less settled and most vendors will move to within that limit. I think those claiming they want diketone-free liquids will change their tune when science weighs in more, and will then be about the limit, not the complete absence of diketones. If zealotry persists around this issue (seeking lowest amount possible, zero being sought after), then I think an underground market might exist for ones that match what we have now, as I think FDA, ANTZ will capitalize on fear of some (zealous) vapers who see it as necessary for industry to get rid of it all, regardless of what some businesses (or scientists) deem acceptable limits.

 

[Jman8]

So for me, given my asthma, my risk factors, and the fact that I'm a 100% addict... there is no such animal as non-abusive smoking. If I smoked one... I'd most likely finish the pack before the day was out.

Andria

I still have trouble understanding this from dual use perspective. If you were to stop vaping (consciously or otherwise), I can see how you might return to abusive smoking. But we were talking about stopping vaping. So, I'm thinking if there exists other options to get nicotine right now into your system (vaping currently being number one), then if you stopped vaping, you could pick one of those up and smoke as well (like a dual user) and that it would be possible to moderately smoke, rather than abusively.

At same time, I realize that I can't win this argument; if you are convinced you will smoke abusively, then you probably will. Just doesn't seem reasonable to me, when there are other options, and you are one that has sworn off smoking. My dual using bias shines through here. I do tend to think us dual users are a little more objective cause we aren't (or at least I'm not) convinced that I must go back to abusive smoking if I can no longer vape. And being one who knows a black market will exist for vaping, I know vaping will always be around. So, the reason for stopping vaping to say avoid a risk contained in vaping would mean that you are either going to stop nicotine use altogether, or find another way to get your nicotine. I can think of many options whereby you are smoking, but not necessarily smoking abusively. You seem to suggest if you are smoking it is only going to be done abusively. Hence, I'm not sure what reasonable discussion can be had with that being the only point that ultimately matters.

 

[AndriaD]

I still have trouble understanding this from dual use perspective. If you were to stop vaping (consciously or otherwise), I can see how you might return to abusive smoking. But we were talking about stopping vaping. So, I'm thinking if there exists other options to get nicotine right now into your system (vaping currently being number one), then if you stopped vaping, you could pick one of those up and smoke as well (like a dual user) and that it would be possible to moderately smoke, rather than abusively.

At same time, I realize that I can't win this argument; if you are convinced you will smoke abusively, then you probably will. Just doesn't seem reasonable to me, when there are other options, and you are one that has sworn off smoking. My dual using bias shines through here. I do tend to think us dual users are a little more objective cause we aren't (or at least I'm not) convinced that I must go back to abusive smoking if I can no longer vape. And being one who knows a black market will exist for vaping, I know vaping will always be around. So, the reason for stopping vaping to say avoid a risk contained in vaping would mean that you are either going to stop nicotine use altogether, or find another way to get your nicotine. I can think of many options whereby you are smoking, but not necessarily smoking abusively. You seem to suggest if you are smoking it is only going to be done abusively. Hence, I'm not sure what reasonable discussion can be had with that being the only point that ultimately matters.

For me, it's really not the nicotine that's the problem; I'm fairly certain that I could give it up with only minor discomfort, though my ability to focus on anything would definitely take a big hit -- I do have ADD, and growing up/older doesn't mitigate that problem. WTA on the other hand can only be had by vaping... or by smoking, and the latter is arguably a far richer source of the minor alkaloids and MAOIs than WTA ever thought about being. And without the MAOIs... I'd almost certainly fall right back into depression -- apparently my "natural" state. I hate SSRIs and don't ever intend to take them again, but my wayward brain chemicals require *something*; WTA keeps things at least on an even keel. Don't even suggest SNUS, because I wouldn't put that crap in my mouth if you paid me.

Back in the summer when I briefly went back to smoking, I had a lot of thoughts about why it was necessary to do either (smoke or vape) so much that it harmed me -- smoking in all the obvious ways, vaping by worsening my ongoing and seemingly permanent dehydration/electrolyte issues. And at first, those seemed very sound thoughts. But getting free of cigarettes a second time proved much harder than the first time, when it was essentially just an experiment to *see* if it could work for me. What I proved to myself, inescapably, is that my addictive nature has no particular preference about the actual substance -- if something is possible to abuse, to use in an addictive fashion, my brain will find it, and cling to it like it's the last boat on the Titanic, which makes divorcing myself from it damn near impossible. And that, I fear, is incurable.

Everyone who "knows" me here, sees me talk about having been sober for 22 yrs, joking about drinking and drunkenness, etc, as if my sobriety was somehow easy. Because now, it is, but I assure you, 22 yrs ago, I absolutely agonized, each and every day that went by without a drink nevermind my customary drunk, and it took probably a year before it became anything other than a daily agonizing struggle. It took probably 5 yrs before I stopped reaching, in my mind, for the thought of drinking, when I was stressed out. And it took probably a decade before sobriety became as much a habit as drunkenness had once been. I still hate being around drunk people; they're loud, obnoxious, nerve-wracking, clumsy, brainless, and often belligerent animals, and I always wonder, was I like that? I don't *think* so, but I probably was, at least sometimes. Believe me -- this body is an addict. This mind is an addict. I cannot lose sight of that fact for even a moment, because if I forget it, I may fall right back into the behaviors and attitudes of an addict -- the aspects of our addicted selves with which 12-step programs seek to deal -- we have to change ourselves from the inside out and the outside in, because to remain the same person as the one actively drinking or using is a sure means of reverting, relapsing, and losing whatever we may have gained. This, for me, is every bit as true about smoking, as about drinking or any other drug. Thus, I can't have even one -- smoke, drink, doesn't matter.

Andria

 

[ST Dog]

I only skimmed the article, but I think it was saying that certain types of alcoholic beverages

Sounds interesting. If you bookmarked it, pm the link to me.

I see all vendors having some degree of diketones in their liquids. ...
then I think an underground market might exist for ones that match what we have now

By free I meant below some limit considered negligible, be it based on risk or technology.

With the current path the FDA is taking, I expect a lot of vaping to become a black market.

 

[Stosh]

Been following this thread, reading along and it's created a few questions in my mind.....

Many posters are saying our eliquid should be diketone free and tested as such.
Ok, to what level? Do you test to parts per thousand, parts per million, parts per billion, parts per trillion?
What level is acceptable, makes a difference.

Are we concerned about any added diketones, or also naturally occurring ones if coffee, fruit, and other flavors?

The FDA regulates the labeling of trans-fats in products. It requires anything with 0.5 grams per serving be labeled, if it has 0.449 grams it can be labeled trans-fat FREE. Is it? Producers can manipulate the serving size to come in under the wire....is this acceptable?

The studies of popcorn workers found that smokers were no more affected than non-smokers by their exposure to the workplace diketones. We know cigarettes are supplying them at 100 times that vaping does, but the cigarettes didn't show a statistical effect. WHY??

 

[AndriaD]

Been following this thread, reading along and it's created a few questions in my mind.....

Many posters are saying our eliquid should be diketone free and tested as such.
Ok, to what level? Do you test to parts per thousand, parts per million, parts per billion, parts per trillion?
What level is acceptable, makes a difference.

My answer to that would be "none whatever" -- which is what I strive for, knowing all the while that I may not reach that goal, but my efforts at least keep my exposure down to a bare minimum.

Are we concerned about any added diketones, or also naturally occurring ones if coffee, fruit, and other flavors?

Eating/drinking diketones poses no known risk; inhaling them in a different matter entirely. Would I worry about inhaling some of them from an occasional bag of popcorn? Nope. But something I'm going to purposely inhale hundreds of times a day, that's a very different animal.

The studies of popcorn workers found that smokers were no more affected than non-smokers by their exposure to the workplace diketones. We know cigarettes are supplying them at 100 times that vaping does, but the cigarettes didn't show a statistical effect. WHY??

My own guess, and I think someone alluded to this, perhaps in Dr F's study, not sure... is that cigarettes cause so many problems, it may be difficult to discern which are related to what substance -- cancer may very well "get you" before b. obliterans or even COPD; and what may be diagnosed as COPD or asthma, may in fact be b. obliterans. I think the only definitive way to diagnose b. obliterans is via endoscopy -- running a camera down into your lungs. You'd have to be pretty dang sick to make that a worthwhile or reasonable endeavor, but that definitive diagnosis would be required in order to get on a waiting list for a new lung. It may also be true that something in cigarette smoke, maybe even one of the toxins that does its own damage, somehow exerts a protective influence against the damage of diacetyl.

Andria

 

[Stosh]

My answer to that would be "none whatever" -- which is what I strive for, knowing all the while that I may not reach that goal, but my efforts at least keep my exposure down to a bare minimum.

That would be a problem for the current level of reported testing I have seen from vendors. The lower the level of a substance, the higher cost to test to the parts per trillion level. Our nicotine concentrate and PG, VG doesn't have this level of purity.

Eating/drinking diketones poses no known risk; inhaling them in a different matter entirely. Would I worry about inhaling some of them from an occasional bag of popcorn? Nope. But something I'm going to purposely inhale hundreds of times a day, that's a very different animal.

I'm talking about inhaled....from coffee flavoring, fruit flavorings, etc. It's not just creamy flavors that contain them.

My own guess, and I think someone alluded to this, perhaps in Dr F's study, not sure... is that cigarettes cause so many problems, it may be difficult to discern which are related to what substance -- cancer may very well "get you" before b. obliterans or even COPD; and what may be diagnosed as COPD or asthma, may in fact be b. obliterans. I think the only definitive way to diagnose b. obliterans is via endoscopy -- running a camera down into your lungs. You'd have to be pretty dang sick to make that a worthwhile or reasonable endeavor, but that definitive diagnosis would be required in order to get on a waiting list for a new lung. It may also be true that something in cigarette smoke, maybe even one of the toxins that does its own damage, somehow exerts a protective influence against the damage of diacetyl.

All the popcorn workers were closely studied, any problems diagnosed to death. The occurrence of popcorn lung in the workers, smokers and non-smokers were the same. The scientists are at a loss to explain this result.

 

[caramel]

M It may also be true that something in cigarette smoke, maybe even one of the toxins that does its own damage, somehow exerts a protective influence against the damage of diacetyl.

Andria

We lost decades of research due to ANTZ obsession with nicotine.

 

[AndriaD]

I look at it this way: not everyone who smokes, gets lung cancer -- but a fairly sizable contingent DOES. Therefore, "not smoking" is one of the best ways to minimize that risk -- not eliminate, because people who've never smoked in their lives can and do get lung cancer. Likewise, not everyone who repeatedly inhales diketones does or will get bronchiolitis obliterans -- but the potential is most definitely there. Since it is absolutely possible to make tasty flavors/ejuice *without* diketones, why take the risk?

Dr F put it very well -- it's an avoidable risk. That doesn't mean that everyone will avoid it; it's risky to drive at double the speed limit, but some people do -- and some of them die of it, and take others with them who had not engaged in that risky behavior. Inhaling diketones, at least, endangers no one except the person doing it. If someone is ok with the idea that what he/she is doing may destroy his/her lungs, then they should go right ahead -- hopefully with good life insurance.

Survival of the fittest, and all that.

Andria

 

[caramel]

Well some people may prefer a pleasurable diet for 80 years instead of broccoli for 100.

 

[ST Dog]

Producers can manipulate the serving size to come in under the wire....is this acceptable?

Could. Recent changes now require more realistic serving sizes.
No more calling one bottle of soda 2 or 3 servings. Or the many different "small" bags of chip being called multiple servings.

Not sure how pervasive the changes are, but they did change a lot.

 

[Stosh]

Dr F put it very well -- it's an avoidable risk. That doesn't mean that everyone will avoid it; it's risky to drive at double the speed limit, but some people do -- and some of them die of it, and take others with them who had not engaged in that risky behavior. Inhaling diketones, at least, endangers no one except the person doing it. If someone is ok with the idea that what he/she is doing may destroy his/her lungs, then they should go right ahead -- hopefully with good life insurance.

Survival of the fittest, and all that.

Andria

I agree with you, avoiding risks is the way to go, avoiding smoking most of all....

You mentioned speed limits....so are you proposing cutting them in half, so double the limit wouldn't be so bad, or just mandating all cars to be limited to the speed they can attain?

I only fear regulations or certifications of being "diketone free" will lead to a total ban of most flavors. It's a naturally occurring substance, and is present in many unexpected places. Organic juice producers could be completly put out of business, or their flavor offerings vastly restricted.

I know you are very careful in what you vape due to your asthma, and there's likely a plethora of additives in eliquid that would negatively affect you. The diketone debate seems to be centered on one substance for total eradication (a physical impossibility), while ignoring many other possible problems.

 

[Kent C]

Smoking's Many Myths Examined

Surprisingly, fewer than 10 percent of lifelong smokers will get lung cancer. Fewer yet will contract the long list of other cancers, such as throat or mouth cancers.

That the majority of smokers beat cancer doesn't make for effective anti-smoking campaigning. So the statistics are turned around: Smoking accounts for 30 percent of all cancer deaths and 87 percent of lung cancer deaths; the risk of developing lung cancer is about 23 times higher in male smokers compared to non-smokers; smoking is associated with increased risk of at least 15 types of cancer; or that smoking causes millions of deaths worldwide.

Cancer Q&A | Why do some smokers never get lung cancer, and others who don

About one in 10 smokers will get lung cancer, depending upon how much they have smoked. (About one in three smokers will die of a smoking-related illness—lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, etc.)

 

[AndriaD]

I agree with you, avoiding risks is the way to go, avoiding smoking most of all....

You mentioned speed limits....so are you proposing cutting them in half, so double the limit wouldn't be so bad, or just mandating all cars to be limited to the speed they can attain?

I only fear regulations or certifications of being "diketone free" will lead to a total ban of most flavors. It's a naturally occurring substance, and is present in many unexpected places. Organic juice producers could be completly put out of business, or their flavor offerings vastly restricted.

I know you are very careful in what you vape due to your asthma, and there's likely a plethora of additives in eliquid that would negatively affect you. The diketone debate seems to be centered on one substance for total eradication (a physical impossibility), while ignoring many other possible problems.

Heck no I'm not suggesting halving the speed limits, they're too slow already. I may not drive at *double* the posted limit, but I've always considered speed limits as suggestions, rather than imperatives. And yeah, I have a few times paid for that interpretation, but it's still how I drive.

I agree that a ban on diketones would probably play merry hell with the ejuice market as we know it, which is why I'm not at all in favor of any further regulations than are already in place for the protection of consumers. Some *people* choose their behaviors and their ingredients with some discretion, some don't, but putting it in the hands of lawmakers is a sure path to disaster, as those smiling idiots couldn't find their posteriors with both hands, a map, a flashlight, and a crotch-sniffing dog!

Let me be quite plain: I wish Big Nanny would go do something profane with itself, and leave us alone! My offhand remark about 'survival of the fittest' is my understanding of the fact that extremely stupid people don't tend to live to grow old -- there are exceptions, *of course*, there are always exceptions to everything, but in general, most people who live to enjoy their senior discounts have managed to wise up and learn a few things along the way. (the senior discount is uppermost in my mind at the moment, since we just got the documents from the property tax assessor about filing for the Sr exemption(s) -- my husband is 62 now!) Anyway, it's my firm belief that the one thing that no one can be protected against is themselves, and the lawmakers trying to do it for us is driving me insane, it's so dumb, it's like a dog chasing its tail, all the subsidiary laws that then become necessary when something so damn dumb is attempted.

Andria

 

[AndriaD]

Well some people may prefer a pleasurable diet for 80 years instead of broccoli for 100.

I've eaten broccoli with great lip-smacking gusto since I was old enough to pitch a fit in the grocery store for mommy to buy me some trees! I also dearly love black tea, salmon, and garlic. I should be dang near immortal.

Andria

 

[AndriaD]

Smoking's Many Myths Examined

Surprisingly, fewer than 10 percent of lifelong smokers will get lung cancer. Fewer yet will contract the long list of other cancers, such as throat or mouth cancers.

That the majority of smokers beat cancer doesn't make for effective anti-smoking campaigning. So the statistics are turned around: Smoking accounts for 30 percent of all cancer deaths and 87 percent of lung cancer deaths; the risk of developing lung cancer is about 23 times higher in male smokers compared to non-smokers; smoking is associated with increased risk of at least 15 types of cancer; or that smoking causes millions of deaths worldwide.

Cancer Q&A | Why do some smokers never get lung cancer, and others who don

About one in 10 smokers will get lung cancer, depending upon how much they have smoked. (About one in three smokers will die of a smoking-related illness—lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, etc.)

Good info. I think there's also some stats about the type of lung cancer that is most deadly, and also seems to be the type that smokers get -- small-cell. Apparently it's more metastatic than other types, and considering it's the lungs, metastasis is already a huge problem. I knew when my father told me his was small-cell that it was almost certainly a death sentence, and it was; radiation was attempted, but it only made the tumor grow larger, and considering it was grown into the wall of the aorta.... no surgery was possible.

Andria

 

[caramel]

I've eaten broccoli with great lip-smacking gusto since I was old enough to pitch a fit in the grocery store for mommy to buy me some trees! I also dearly love black tea, salmon, and garlic. I should be dang near immortal.

Andria

Oh well. I ate, drank and inhaled so much "bad stuff" that I will probably die quite soon of some internal organ failure. If you were to give me now the opportunity to start it from scratch again, eat only "diet", drink water only and no inhaling, for 20 extra years with Alzheimer or something..... I'm not sure I would want to go through it again....

 

[AndriaD]

Oh well. I ate, drank and inhaled so much "bad stuff" that I will probably die quite soon of some internal organ failure. If you were to give me now the opportunity to start it from scratch again, eat only "diet", drink water only and no inhaling, for 20 extra years with Alzheimer or something..... I'm not sure I would want to go through it again....

Got that right. My eating habits used to be the pits, I admit; I thought a bag of nacho cheese doritos and a 6-pk of beer was a perfectly lovely dinner. But I was always interested in nutrition, and I began to see the consequences of that kind of diet, around my mother's waist, arms, neck, hips, and I didn't want it, so I gradually switched over to a near-"granola kid" type of diet. Not extreme; I still love fat and salt and sugar and meat, but I do try to watch it.

Andria

 

[caramel]

According to zealots of all colors we all took unnecessary risks, didn't we? What I don't understand is why these anti-risk zealots are not going themselves to some secluded convent with fresh air, clean water, organic food and no modern life stress, instead of killing themselves in smog with processed food, contaminated water and stress - for what? saving the people that don't want to be saved?