Sleazy propaganda re diacetyl in e-cigs
- Thread starter CarolT
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I know you're just trolling but you might say to whom your troll is directed and what you mean by 'they'.
Sorry I can no longer just use the quote from the post, since the topic was closed down and stuck in z old stickies, which makes it non-quotable, (if I am understanding your statement correctly, Kent?)
Post 152
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/z-old-stickies/517858-donate-dr-farsalinos-new-study.html
"Bronchiolitis obliterans is not caused by smoking, you are right. But why? Because smoking exposes the lung to a large variety of different toxins, which all together cause another kind of disease: COPD.
The incidence of COPD in smokers is up to 15%. The incidence of bronchiolitis obliterans by diacetyl exposure is extremely low. In fact, only few cases have ever being documented. Most commonly, diacetyl exposure causes a decline in lung function which can be detected by a reduction in FEV1. This is much more common that development of bronchiolitis obliterans. However, this can be easily misdiagnosed as COPD.
Therefore, we absolutely disagree with the conclusions by Pierce et al........."
I believe he was answering a question from a previous poster who said:
"I see quantity, and no instance of 'popcorn lung' among smokers who inhaled larger quantities of diacetyl and whose health has been studied for generations, as the most important item here. I'm afraid I'm not seeing the non-sequitur, unless vaped diacetyl has a different effect than 'smoked' diacetyl..... I'd love to see a plausible hypothesis concerning the latter. .............<snip> It would follow that cigarette smokers, for whom we have much longitudinal data, would have developed the "popcorn lung" syndrome associated with diacetyl if inhalation of those higher amounts were indicated in that. There's no incidence of that disease among smokers that I know of..... "
So, basically, smoking and probably vaping will not cause B.O.
However it may very well cause a decline in lung function, which may also be diagnosed (or mis-diagnosed) as COPD.
AFAIC, I don't really want B.O. or COPD. Both diseases destroy lungs and are not reversible.
That is certainly your prerogative, but I don't know what your science background is, so right now I will give credibility to the chemist (Kurt) and the medical doctor (Dr. F.).
Everyone can make this decision for themselves, based on whatever knowledge or philosophy (scientific or "something else" ). I've already made mine.
Last edited:
If this is exactly what he said, then I would say he is speaking the rhetoric of ANTZ. This strikes me as a statement a zealot would make.
Racehorse:Sorry I can no longer just use the quote from the post, since the topic was closed down and stuck in z old stickies, which makes it non-quotable, (if I am understanding your statement correctly, Kent?)
On a quick search I found this but it is also listed many places elsewhere with more specifics - this from Mt. Baker:
"The Critical reviews in Toxicology 4 group conducted a study simply titled Diacetyl where they concluded,
Diacetyl exposures from cigarette smoking far exceeded occupational exposures for most food/flavoring workers. This suggests that previous claims of a significant exposure-response relationship between diacetyl inhalation and respiratory disease in food/flavoring workers were confounded. Further, smoking has not been shown to be a risk factor for bronchiolitis (popcorn lung)."
- See more at: The Truth About Diacetyl | Mt Baker Vapor
And I was only querying DC2's comment on popcorn lung and nothing else in that reply.
That is certainly your prerogative, but I don't know what your science background is, so right now I will give credibility to the chemist (Kurt) and the medical doctor (Dr. F.).
Everyone can make this decision for themselves, based on whatever knowledge or philosophy (scientific or "something else" ). I've already made mine.
Actually, I also take heed of both Kurt and Dr. F., but I base mine on my supplier Decadent Vapours who were the first (as far as I know) to go diacetyl/diketone free and validated by ECITA. The DV flavors vary widely - hence my lack of suspicion as to 'other flavors' some of which are common, although I don't vouch for any other vendor, and Kurt's pronouncements were more of a personal view (backed by general science and knowledge) wrt diluting other flavors, not any 'findings' like that was done for the certain diacetyl flavors, as he has clearly stated on a few occasions.
Kurt in one thread:
"Synthetic flavors are better risk wise, but I still advocate minimal flavor, at least until more toxicology studies are done."
I have decreased some flavors even though they are diacetyl free, but mainly because with the small box PV's and vaping at some higher wattages have increased flavor to a point of annoyance
If I recall we were at one time agreed that there should be no forced regulation, so we should be good with either of our viewpoints as you graciously point out.
On a quick search I found this but it is also listed many places elsewhere with more specifics - this from Mt. Baker:
"The Critical reviews in Toxicology 4 group conducted a study simply titled Diacetyl where they concluded,
Diacetyl exposures from cigarette smoking far exceeded occupational exposures for most food/flavoring workers. This suggests that previous claims of a significant exposure-response relationship between diacetyl inhalation and respiratory disease in food/flavoring workers were confounded. Further, smoking has not been shown to be a risk factor for bronchiolitis (popcorn lung)."
- See more at: The Truth About Diacetyl | Mt Baker Vapor
And I was only querying DC2's comment on popcorn lung and nothing else in that reply.
That is certainly your prerogative, but I don't know what your science background is, so right now I will give credibility to the chemist (Kurt) and the medical doctor (Dr. F.).
Everyone can make this decision for themselves, based on whatever knowledge or philosophy (scientific or "something else" ). I've already made mine.
Actually, I also take heed of both Kurt and Dr. F., but I base mine on my supplier Decadent Vapours who were the first (as far as I know) to go diacetyl/diketone free and validated by ECITA. The DV flavors vary widely - hence my lack of suspicion as to 'other flavors' some of which are common, although I don't vouch for any other vendor, and Kurt's pronouncements were more of a personal view (backed by general science and knowledge) wrt diluting other flavors, not any 'findings' like that was done for the certain diacetyl flavors, as he has clearly stated on a few occasions.
Kurt in one thread:
"Synthetic flavors are better risk wise, but I still advocate minimal flavor, at least until more toxicology studies are done."
I have decreased some flavors even though they are diacetyl free, but mainly because with the small box PV's and vaping at some higher wattages have increased flavor to a point of annoyance
If I recall we were at one time agreed that there should be no forced regulation, so we should be good with either of our viewpoints as you graciously point out.
EXCELLENT outfit, as a matter of fact, I think I learned of them from ........ you. Glad that you put their name out there, they really are top notch.
I have decreased some flavors even though they are diacetyl free, but mainly because with the small box PV's and vaping at some higher wattages have increased flavor to a point of annoyance
As I remember, we vape "somewhat" similarly.
For the most part....but I am looking for more improvements though, mainly because I feel that being proactive, keeping a clean house keeps the cleaning crews from having to come in. On that we are not in agreement. We are all entitled to our viewpoints though, on that we agree.
Forced is not a good word to me. It isn't to anyone, is it? My elderly mom refuses to live in a ground floor apartment, hence, she will be forced to move the day she is unable to get down the stairs (which in many ways, has already happened, but she has the luxury of a family member care-giver so the "problem" is less apparent to her, even though the rest of us are on the edge of our seat. She will be kicking and screaming I can tell you that, but she seems to be in some denial about how she will cause this by not being proactive.
Last edited:
Some data about diacetyl effects recorded in workers handling heated butter flavors.
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2004-110/pdfs/2004-110.pdf
As regards to cigarette/tobacco smoking the comparison is probably incorrect cause the burned (From smoking tobacco)diacetyl would be different from hot diacetyl.
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2004-110/pdfs/2004-110.pdf
As regards to cigarette/tobacco smoking the comparison is probably incorrect cause the burned (From smoking tobacco)diacetyl would be different from hot diacetyl.
i believe the good doctor said that diketones are an avoidable risk.
what i think he was saying was if they turn out to be a problem
we can simply eliminate them if need be and should not be a
reason to through the baby out with the bath water.
he acknowledged some flavors might disappear but seemed
certain that suitable work around's would be found.
mike
NIOSH submits letter to the editor concerning our diacetyl study
So they should be avoided... Is he ANTZ?
Geez... this sounds like you're describing my diabetic mom's intake of sugar and probably-imminent need for injectable insulin. It's because her body is letting her down, donchaknow, nothing at all to do with the fact that she refuses to even consider modifying her diet.
She's going to be having several teeth pulled soon, and I told her she needs to line up some soft-food and liquid food choices for the weeks immediately following. Her response? "I'd just as soon drink milkshakes." I foresee needles in her future quite soon.
Andria
Racehorse:EXCELLENT outfit, as a matter of fact, I think I learned of them from ........ you. Glad that you put their name out there, they really are top notch.
Peter Cole (aka Nick O'Teen) has more chemistry knowledge (in this area) than some actual chemists. It was his posts here that got me interested - then, later he started DV. My DIY eliquid from DV is the same as their premixed because I use the same ingredients and formula. I've since lowered some of the flavoring parts on some flavors for reasons stated...
As I remember, we vape "somewhat" similarly.
I think we do. I vape mainly from 6.5W to 10W and because of the newer box mods and the size of the coils in those 'over' my regular T3S types - the Aero/Geni/Emow and Subtank - one can vape at 12-15W (although 15 is rare for me) which increases flavor without burning. I also have the rDNA 40 VS mod with temp control (at 1.2Ω not .5 And I have the temp control set lower than the default 430° .
For the most part....but I am looking for more improvements though, mainly because I feel that being proactive, keeping a clean house keeps the cleaning crews from having to come in. On that we are not in agreement. We are all entitled to our viewpoints though, on that we agree.
Forced is not a good word to me. It isn't to anyone, is it? My elderly mom refuses to live in a ground floor apartment, hence, she will be forced to move the day she is unable to get down the stairs (which in many ways, has already happened, but she has the luxury of a family member care-giver so the "problem" is less apparent to her, even though the rest of us are on the edge of our seat. She will be kicking and screaming I can tell you that, but she seems to be in some denial about how she will cause this by not being proactive.[/QUOTE]
I know that most don't want to acknowledge the 'forced' or coerced part of your philosophy but it exists whether you like the word or not. There's only two basic ways to deal with people - through force or through consent. Because they are humans who survive/live through reason and volition, I choose the later and reject the former - even though using force may be considered, by some, to be 'for their own good'.
There are exceptions - when reason and/or volition are not operative - children, (but only to a certain point), some mentally disabled (not all) and seniors with forms of senility, but not just some form of 'stubbornness' where they still elect some aspects on their own volition for whatever reason. I would likely handle your mother situation (and have with others) differently. Allowing them their choice until they realize that some other accommodations would be better. Of course, criminals, invaders - other rights violators should be handled with force and then justice.
Peter Cole (aka Nick O'Teen) has more chemistry knowledge (in this area) than some actual chemists. It was his posts here that got me interested - then, later he started DV. My DIY eliquid from DV is the same as their premixed because I use the same ingredients and formula. I've since lowered some of the flavoring parts on some flavors for reasons stated...
As I remember, we vape "somewhat" similarly.
I think we do. I vape mainly from 6.5W to 10W and because of the newer box mods and the size of the coils in those 'over' my regular T3S types - the Aero/Geni/Emow and Subtank - one can vape at 12-15W (although 15 is rare for me) which increases flavor without burning. I also have the rDNA 40 VS mod with temp control (at 1.2Ω not .5
And I have the temp control set lower than the default 430° . For the most part....but I am looking for more improvements though, mainly because I feel that being proactive, keeping a clean house keeps the cleaning crews from having to come in. On that we are not in agreement. We are all entitled to our viewpoints though, on that we agree.
Forced is not a good word to me. It isn't to anyone, is it? My elderly mom refuses to live in a ground floor apartment, hence, she will be forced to move the day she is unable to get down the stairs (which in many ways, has already happened, but she has the luxury of a family member care-giver so the "problem" is less apparent to her, even though the rest of us are on the edge of our seat. She will be kicking and screaming I can tell you that, but she seems to be in some denial about how she will cause this by not being proactive.[/QUOTE]
I know that most don't want to acknowledge the 'forced' or coerced part of your philosophy but it exists whether you like the word or not. There's only two basic ways to deal with people - through force or through consent. Because they are humans who survive/live through reason and volition, I choose the later and reject the former - even though using force may be considered, by some, to be 'for their own good'.
There are exceptions - when reason and/or volition are not operative - children, (but only to a certain point), some mentally disabled (not all) and seniors with forms of senility, but not just some form of 'stubbornness' where they still elect some aspects on their own volition for whatever reason. I would likely handle your mother situation (and have with others) differently. Allowing them their choice until they realize that some other accommodations would be better. Of course, criminals, invaders - other rights violators should be handled with force and then justice.
Last edited:
judging by what he has said in the past i am not convinced
he is dead set against diketones. he has said until more is
known they can be avoided. in the link he says they should.
i think he's stuck between a rock and a hard place. the people
he's addressing are dead set against vaping and are looking
for the smoking gun. even though he points that maybe 1 in 1000
people exposed may develop lung disease after 45 years which
is an incredibly low risk,he just says avoid it. that takes the
diketone issue off the table and the ANTZ are back to the
drawing board. i don't think he's an ANTZ. i believe he's just
using an ANTZ like tactic.so we avoid it,what else you got.
mike
judging by what he has said in the past i am not convinced
he is dead set against diketones. he has said until more is
known they can be avoided. in the link he says they should.
i think he's stuck between a rock and a hard place. the people
he's addressing are dead set against vaping and are looking
for the smoking gun. even though he points that maybe 1 in 1000
people exposed may develop lung disease after 45 years which
is an incredibly low risk,he just says avoid it. that takes the
diketone issue off the table and the ANTZ are back to the
drawing board. i don't think he's an ANTZ. i believe he's just
using an ANTZ like tactic.so we avoid it,what else you got.
mike
I see. ANTZ speak to appease the masses...
Dr. F. is saying "they should be removed" (by manufacturers).
You are saying that Dr. F. said "they should be avoided" (by consumers).
If Dr. F. can be quoted as saying the latter, I would be willing to tell him, very directly, that such rhetoric is the type of thing an anti-tobacco and/or nicotine zealot would make. When a thread where Dr. F. was posting existed previously, I didn't hold back in making this sort of assertion. Took another person from the scientific team to come forth and explain what Dr. F. was really saying and how it is not aligned with ANTZ rhetoric. Yet, here you are trying to change what Dr. F. was saying.
So, do you want to go on record in this thread and say that you are certain Dr. F. is telling vapers that diacetyl should be avoided by them (the consumer)?
If only this were another type of forum, I'd love to address these points. Especially the parts I chose to bold, and especially as they can be seen to relate to the political vaping game. But alas, this is not the thread.
Kent - what would you make out of a statement like "smokers are mentally impaired (by the substances / addiction / whatever in their smokes) and thus need force to be applied to them - for their own good"?
now i am confused. i think perhaps the good doctor may
be more adept then we give him credit for.
a 1 in 1000 chance of harm over a 45 year exposure
translates to .022 percent chance per year.
those are damn good odds. i'm thinking if they
bite on this bone its proof they (the ANTZ) don't
understand even the basics of what they are trying
to do. i believe Doctor F may just be willing to concede
this point just to dump all the political garbage that
goes with it. it the future it can always be revisited
once the risks are better understood.
remember he isn't the one to make that call,they are.
there is a risk(potential for harm) so lets just avoid it
and move on. the doctor is right in assuming this risk
should be avoided considering the mind set of the
opponents.
mike
A statist justification to apply to all smokers when it is found to be a factor in only a few - schizophrenics. You could make a similar argument about those who so assert this while drinking martinis
- Status
Similar threads
