Good morning Tibs, Fran, Pepper, (?CES?, ?Gracie?, ?Mad?), snails.
Last edited:
Snails - Response on Threads Part 4
- Thread starter classwife
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Ramping up e-cigarette voltage produces more formaldehyde: study | Reuters
Not a bad article, more info in it than some of the other articles about this same study. However, still short on info....like ohms and watts. Focuses on voltage, which is misleading in itself unless you know the resistance.*
* = Not quite applicable to temp controlled devices a la Pepper's mod.
Last edited:
Gonna have to find the study. What I want are results at various wattages for stock coils. The other difference, of course, is that various wire may produce differing results at a particular wattage (voltage^2/ohms). Also, PG/VG ratio.
So I'm not sure these people "get" that yet.
So I'm not sure these people "get" that yet.
Good morning
Glad GF is doing OK, Atty
Take care in the snow Pepper
Have fun at the perio, Tibs
Good morning Fran and Lost and Mad
Constantine Farsalinos, the AVA, and Clive Bates responded to the formaldehyde story will it was still in press embargo. The bottom line of their responses was that to get that much formaldehyde it had to be a dry hit (the smoking machine had to be improperly operated, and the parameters weren't reported) , and no vaper would keep inhaling. They used the analogy of burnt toast or burnt meat, that you would do it, but no one would eat it. the other part was that the authors of the study tried to estimate the percent risk associated with formaldehyde in smoking, and compared only that estimated percent to the levels of formaldehyde in a dry hit.
Apparently there is no elevated risk at low temps, so temp control is still the way to go.
ETA, looks like Atty's quote summed up what i just wrote. so perhaps the news is getting it more right this time. (I haven't read teh paper since it was embargoed until 5pm yesterday)
Glad GF is doing OK, Atty
Take care in the snow Pepper
Have fun at the perio, Tibs
Good morning Fran and Lost and Mad
Constantine Farsalinos, the AVA, and Clive Bates responded to the formaldehyde story will it was still in press embargo. The bottom line of their responses was that to get that much formaldehyde it had to be a dry hit (the smoking machine had to be improperly operated, and the parameters weren't reported) , and no vaper would keep inhaling. They used the analogy of burnt toast or burnt meat, that you would do it, but no one would eat it. the other part was that the authors of the study tried to estimate the percent risk associated with formaldehyde in smoking, and compared only that estimated percent to the levels of formaldehyde in a dry hit.
Apparently there is no elevated risk at low temps, so temp control is still the way to go.
ETA, looks like Atty's quote summed up what i just wrote. so perhaps the news is getting it more right this time. (I haven't read teh paper since it was embargoed until 5pm yesterday)
Good morning
Glad GF is doing OK, Atty
Take care in the snow Pepper
Have fun at the perio, Tibs
Good morning Fran and Lost and Mad
Constantine Farsalinos, the AVA, and Clive Bates responded to the formaldehyde story will it was still in press embargo. The bottom line of their responses was that to get that much formaldehyde it had to be a dry hit (the smoking machine had to be improperly operated, and the parameters weren't reported) , and no vaper would keep inhaling. They used the analogy of burnt toast or burnt meat, that you would do it, but no one would eat it. the other part was that the authors of the study tried to estimate the percent risk associated with formaldehyde in smoking, and compared only that estimated percent to the levels of formaldehyde in a dry hit.
Apparently there is no elevated risk at low temps, so temp control is still the way to go.
ETA, looks like Atty's quote summed up what i just wrote. so perhaps the news is getting it more right this time. (I haven't read teh paper since it was embargoed until 5pm yesterday)
good morning, ces.
I'm feeling better about my temp control pv all the time.
Thanks CES. That's what I thought.
I want to see the GRAPH though. Line chart of formaldehyde production by wattage for a known PG/VG juice. Still misleading, but since most stock coiils are about the same gauge it may be a ballpark.
I want to see the GRAPH though. Line chart of formaldehyde production by wattage for a known PG/VG juice. Still misleading, but since most stock coiils are about the same gauge it may be a ballpark.
what temps are you using, Pepper?
I wonder if they actually made that graph Atty. I know i won't have access to teh NEJM from home, but i might be able to get to it from work. If not, I'm sure someone in the news subforum has managed to get access.
I wonder if they actually made that graph Atty. I know i won't have access to teh NEJM from home, but i might be able to get to it from work. If not, I'm sure someone in the news subforum has managed to get access.
And that's the thing, CES. Why I said any such graph is still misleading. We don't know the temp (except for Pepper...and he gets nickel contamination 
...joking I hope).
So we need to know watts per cubic mm of coil at a given gauge wire. It gets nasty to figure this stuff out. The devil is in the details. And don't forget evaporative cooling either. No dry wicks.
...joking I hope).So we need to know watts per cubic mm of coil at a given gauge wire. It gets nasty to figure this stuff out. The devil is in the details. And don't forget evaporative cooling either. No dry wicks.
Last edited:
Did you research when PG breaks down into formaldehyde? What temp is that?
with the context of temps that it takes to burn the liquid to a crisp, 410 doesn't sound too bad.
Does anyone remember what the estimates of temp were when people were truing to find whether the temps that PVs reached were sufficient to cause the VG to break down into acrolein? IIRC someone did similar tests here on ECF several years ago, and the data and consensus at the time was that dangerous temps were only reached with dry hits. (Katya? )
Does anyone remember what the estimates of temp were when people were truing to find whether the temps that PVs reached were sufficient to cause the VG to break down into acrolein? IIRC someone did similar tests here on ECF several years ago, and the data and consensus at the time was that dangerous temps were only reached with dry hits. (Katya? )
it's not like smokers aren't getting formaldehyde. correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that is one of the by-products of tobacco being burn't at such high temperatures (up to 1200 degrees)
I won't call it research, but I have read articles on it. I can't recall the exact temp., but I believe it was well above 410F.
gotta run. I have an atty that's reading at .34 with the pv set at 25 watts. I rarely hit temperature protection that's set at 410F... only when I chain vape (3-4 vapes in a row).
have a good one. talk to ya later.
have a good one. talk to ya later.
Heya Madd
Here's the discussion about the paper in the media and news subforum http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ormaldehype-junk-study-released-jan-21-a.html
Here's the discussion about the paper in the media and news subforum http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ormaldehype-junk-study-released-jan-21-a.html
Good morning, Fran, Tibs, CES, Pepper Atty and Mad......hope I didn't forget anyone.
Interesting discussion going on, but I'll have to read back later on........gotta git!
Interesting discussion going on, but I'll have to read back later on........gotta git!
- Status
