Then for you, it's entirely fair to say you were tricked. And now I want to watch "Thank You for Smoking."
So is VG only bad for your health or what?
- Thread starter rival11
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Then for you, it's entirely fair to say you were tricked. And now I want to watch "Thank You for Smoking."
For those of you concerned about formaldehyde levels in ecigs, this article by Dr. Farsalinos may put your mind at ease:
German Cancer Research Center and the case of formaldehyde in e-cigarettes Countless mistakes, impressive misinformation
German Cancer Research Center and the case of formaldehyde in e-cigarettes Countless mistakes, impressive misinformation
The actual answer is, "we don't know".
Look, PG and VG both are rated as safe by every regulatory body out there. Planet wide. And the ingredients generally used for flavoring are food additives. You eat them all the time. Such as the DIY liquids folk (something I've been tinkering with a bit myself) order their flavorings from places that serve bakers and candy makers. Such as Lorann Oils. One of the companies that produce the flavors used by liquid DIYers.
But, vaping is not very old. As I understand, the first patent for a commercially viable device (I think Joyetech but don't quote me) was taken out around 2003. Tobacco use has a history centuries long and decades of study in the era of modern medicine. Vaping is... a baby. A decade old maybe. And I have read (but am not certain this is correct) that it came to the US only six years ago.
So what are the long term effects of vaporizing and inhaling PG and VG and flavorings and all? Dunno. There is no "long term" yet.
What we do know are the long term effects of inhaling tobacco smoke: death. And nasty deaths at that. Such as lung cancer. Which is not the least bit manageable. You get it, you suffer, you die. End of story.
Yes, we're playing the odds here. The chance that fairly benign substances such as PG and VG and bakery flavors are seriously dangerous is very small. There are risks in everything in life. I mean, I'm about to go to the grocery store. I may never come back. The highway I have to take to get into town? You should have seen the wreck that happened recently. The rubber skid marks are still all over the place and you can see the spot where the 18 wheeler crashed through the trees at the side of the road.
If you really thought about every risk you take every day, you'd probably go hide under your bed. Driving is horrifically dangerous stuff. People die. Every day. And we all just sort of accept and ignore those risks. Go figure.
The early studies out there (sorry, I don't have cites to hand but find CASAA, they have tons, just click the banner in my sig or others, it'll getcha there) show very little of anything significant coming out of a e-cig. There was one early study that found some amount of formaldehyde, yeah. But no more than what you get from the nicotine inhaler that the anti-smoking crowd pushes at smokers all the time.
Do we know the long term effects? No we don't. However, the chances of me finding out what those long term effects are have increased. Significantly. People my age who smoked long as I did and as much as I did tend to keel over within the next 10 to 15 years. Seen it happen a lot. Gives me the willies. Smokers who started young then quit in their 40s to 50s tend to die in their 60s. My 74 year old mother may out live me.
But at least I have stopped doing more damage. So I've increased the odds of living longer and finding out what the long term effects (if any) of vaping are.
The ideal is, of course, quit. In fact, the ultimate ideal is never start. If I could travel in time and stop myself from ever starting smoking, that'd be great. Thing is, we ain't got a time machine handy. And far as quitting, I tried. Over and over and over and over...
This is about reducing risk and harm. And probably a big, big reduction. Maybe even huge, massive, life extending reduction. It's not about "perfectly safe". Nothing is perfectly safe. Last I checked, 100% of everybody that's ever lived has died or will die. Life ain't safe.
So... I dunno. Take a chance on the thing that uses benign substances in a way that's a bit new and may or may not have some long term effects that are less than ideal or use the stuff that kills people left and right?
Hm.
Of course, in the mean time...
Remember the meteor that exploded over Russia? Those are more common than anybody realized before half the planet (and climbing) was carrying Internet connected cameras every where (aka "cell phones"). Larger ones are out there and we don't know where they are. We didn't see the last one coming. We probably won't see the next one coming. The big ones that can cause extinction level events (ala "Deep Impact" which was actually pretty accurate except for some spots where the reality wouldn't be as "dramatic")? We can see those coming.
The ones that would be like a few hundred nukes going off over your city? We can't see those coming. One could headed for your town right now. You'll know when there's a blinding flash of light and then, well, you'll vaporize.
(By the way, the chance one will strike is unity. It will happen. The only question is when and where. Not if. So... guess I could worry about that all day. While I'm on the highway of DEATH!!!!!!
)
Last edited:
I have been also been moving more and more to VG because I feel some soreness in my elbows from PG. I understand that PG breaks down to lactic acid and I think that is what is giving me the soreness.
Does any one know if PG also breaks down to lactic acid? thanks if you can post some info.
Does any one know if PG also breaks down to lactic acid? thanks if you can post some info.
All I know is I would find it hard to believe vaping is as dangerous as burning tobacco. Now those that are sensitive or allergic to PG might have issues with long term use...maybe.
As a smoker and a vaper, I do not ever think the vapor might be bad for me. Every time I light a real cigarette I do think about it.
As mentioned, vaping is a new thing, and there will be studies down the road commissioned by big tobacco (which will certainly say it is bad to protect their turf), by FedGovCo (which will say whatever Big Tobacco's lobbyists want them to say, and hopefully by some independent researchers that might actually tell the truth. My guess is vaping will be found to be largely safe ...except for maybe some contaminated juices coming out of China or something (I personally avoid juices made anywhere else but in USA). Lets face it, if they will put toxins in baby formula, they will put it in anything. (2008 Chinese milk scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
As a smoker and a vaper, I do not ever think the vapor might be bad for me. Every time I light a real cigarette I do think about it.
As mentioned, vaping is a new thing, and there will be studies down the road commissioned by big tobacco (which will certainly say it is bad to protect their turf), by FedGovCo (which will say whatever Big Tobacco's lobbyists want them to say, and hopefully by some independent researchers that might actually tell the truth. My guess is vaping will be found to be largely safe ...except for maybe some contaminated juices coming out of China or something (I personally avoid juices made anywhere else but in USA). Lets face it, if they will put toxins in baby formula, they will put it in anything. (2008 Chinese milk scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
From Wikipaedia: Lactic acid is a normal metabolite of propylene glycol:
If you suspect your elbow problem is due to lactic acidosis, you should check with your doctor, but I'll be very surprised if 1) PG would be the cause, and 2) if you do have lactic acidosis, it would manifest itself *only* in your elbows.
I do appreciate all of the replies in this thread and it definitely seals the deal on the fact that for the most part.....most of us think VG only is pretty safe.
Yes, I know nothing is 100% for sure - I get that. I was mainly just seeing if someone had any concrete evidence that says 100% VG is harmful.
Oh and, this might actually be my last post here - got some weird PM that said I swore and the rules forbid it or something.....seems like they took it pretty personal so if this is my last post....I'll always be a lurker in this forum and thanks for all the help you guys and gals gave in my threads.
Yes, I know nothing is 100% for sure - I get that. I was mainly just seeing if someone had any concrete evidence that says 100% VG is harmful.
Oh and, this might actually be my last post here - got some weird PM that said I swore and the rules forbid it or something.....seems like they took it pretty personal so if this is my last post....I'll always be a lurker in this forum and thanks for all the help you guys and gals gave in my threads.
@ the op: above a certain temperature vg transforms into a toxic substance. a lot of people argue if our e-cig attys can reach 260 degrees celsius (or so), but seeing mine glowing red makes me think it's possible so i don't vape 100% vg juices anymore, only 30% or less vg.. or even better - 100% pg. also, i don't go anywhere below 1.8 ohm when ordering new attys. if you're alergic to pg, then go ahead and vape 100% vg, but i'm not alergic, plus i'm a paranoid so i go for pg. good luck.
I'm confused. I would have thought PG was worse? PG is basically Engine Coolant and toxic. How can vaping PG be safe? I'm going to all VG or 80/20.
Sent from my SCH-R760 using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my SCH-R760 using Tapatalk 2
No. That's ethylene glycol (EGW). PG is now used because its a non-toxic alternative. Meanwhile, there's no law that states that you MUST inhale vapor - and many don't. Just roll it around your mouth and exhale through nose and mouth. Personally I inhale, because I don't see even a glimmer of danger comparative to the arsenic, acetone, ammonia, tar and MAOI's in burning cigarettes. And I use 100% VG because PG is too harsh for my throat, and it makes me dry cough like crazy. There's a load of good information on the forum, so give yourself a little time and have a read as it will allay the fears of several commentators here.
PG or propylene glycol is what Engine Coolant is made of. Check the label on a gallon of antifreeze. I know antifreeze is toxic over time. People and pets have been killed by PG poisoning. So how can it be safe to inhale?
Sent from my SCH-R760 using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my SCH-R760 using Tapatalk 2
Check if the sender of the PM was a Moderator. If so then perhaps they sent you a RR (rule Reminder) - a polite request to read the rules and comply with them. Moderator's don't take things personally or they'd go nuts - ECF gets 4,000 posts a day and those range from scientists helping the community to people who haven't taken their meds for a month and need a vacation from here. The pressure can be intense and some members make a Mod's job much harder.
If the sender was not a Mod here then you can probably ignore the PM. Or, ask a Moderator to investigate for you.
And no one gets banned from here without a long history of pushing the boundaries, or a single incident of something like commercial spam.
I checked a label. It also listed water as an ingredient. Does that also mean water is deadly? I hope not, I just drank some. If I love long enough to finish this post, I'm going to go ca.....
All glycols can be used as engine coolant as they have the right characteristics, mainly that they have a super low freezing point, are cheap to make at industrial quality grade, and excellent diluents so that anything else in the mix is well-dispersed. Some glycols are highly toxic, some are slightly toxic, and some are so completely non-toxic they are used in medical inhalers and injections.
DEG, diethylene glycol, is the most toxic
EG, ethylene glycol, is slightly toxic
PEG, polyethylene glycol, is non-toxic (it's used in multiple medicines especially laxatives, the trade name is Macrogol)
PG, propylene glycol, is completely non-toxic and can be drank, inhaled or injected (and is, in multiple medicines) - it is excreted or metabolysed and excreted
PG is used for expensive antifreeze that may involve human contact (like RV toilet winterisation) or accidental or intended consumption by livestock (for example it can be added to water troughs in winter since consumption has no health impact for the animals). It is the most expensive of the glycols to manufacture but the least toxic (it is used in asthma inhalers and the nebulisers used by lung transplant patients, and also instead of water in some injectable medicines where the drug is immiscible with water, such as diazepam). Lung transplant patients can safely breathe PG, and do; anyone can be injected with PG safely.
No 'people and pets have been killed by PG', DEG is responsible for this (in fact the FDA was formed after more than 100 people died due to DEG in a medicine). However there is an issue for cats as they have an unusual blood chemistry that can be harmed by ingestion (of large amounts) of PG, therefore it is not used in cat food. There are no issues with vaping PG around cats as the possibility of any effect is minimal unless, perhaps, you exhale repeatedly down the cat's throat.
PG, incidentally, is a tremendously powerful bactericide and virucide - when dispersed as an aerosol at only 0.5 ppm it is reported to kill all airborne pathogens. For this reason it was used in original tests of surgical theatre air sprays, before the current hygiene system plus building aircon treatment was used. Because PG has a super-low freezing point and is a powerful bactericide and virucide, it is used as the water treatment chemical in the air-conditioning plant in large buildings. It's why you don't get Legionnaire's Disease from your local hospital: the air contains minute quantities of PG.
VG is slowly replacing PG in inhalable medicines because it doesn't have the throat/lung drying-out issue for about 1 in 10 people that PG has. VG cannot cause lipoid pneumonia as the chemistry does not support that, it is an alcohol not an oil. However it may elevate risk for regular pneumonia in patients with lungs severely compromised by smoking, such as those with emphysema; there are a couple of cases where this may have been a factor. However, one or two cases in 10 million users is not an issue, it appears to show that there is a 5 million to 1 chance you can experience an issue. (If you have emphysema or stage 4 COPD then the situation is very different: you MUST consult your pulmonary consultant about vaping. They would probably advise Snus instead.)
There is more info here:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/ecf-library/177551-pg-vg-peg.html
Last edited:
Thanks Rolygate! Excellent explanation and hopefully some of the sweeping statements above will calm down as folk research, and not rely on joke-science that ANTZ is always pushing.
For the newer to vaping members. there is a LOT of complete b-s nonsense and flat out lies propounded by ...... who are either directly paid by Pharma and Big tobacco, as well as sensation seekers and 15 minutes of famers. And let's not forget the realms of "WHAT? You're enjoying that? Right! We have GOT to ban it then!" nincompoops.
For the newer to vaping members. there is a LOT of complete b-s nonsense and flat out lies propounded by ...... who are either directly paid by Pharma and Big tobacco, as well as sensation seekers and 15 minutes of famers. And let's not forget the realms of "WHAT? You're enjoying that? Right! We have GOT to ban it then!" nincompoops.
For all the people that were asking where I found this information that VG vapor may turn into FormalDehyde, I am posting the link and the content:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/health-safety-e-smoking/391973-formaldehyde-e-vapor-2.html
Dr. Mike and those suspecting PG in the formation of formaldehyde appear to be wrong. The particular study mentioned here does not specify the specific makeup (or PG versus glycerin content) of the liquids studied.
BUT, many of the same authors are presenting a paper at the SRNT meeting in Boston this week that DOES. And from the following it is pretty clear that indeed it is glycerin, and not PG, that is associated with formaldhyde (and acrolein) being found in vapor:
SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN EMISSION OF SELECTED CARBONYLS
AND VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS FROM ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES
COMPARED TO TOBACCO CIGARETTES
Andrzej Sobczak, Ph.D.*1,2, Leon Kosmider1,2, Maciej L. Goniewicz, Ph.D.3,4, Jakub
Knysak2, Marzena Zaciera, Ph.D.5, and Jolanta Kurek5, 1Institute of Occupational
Medicine and Environmental Health, Sosnowiec, Poland; 2Medical University
of Silesia, Katowice, Poland;3Queen Mary University of London, UK; 4Roswell
Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, USA; 5Institute of Occupational Medicine and
Environmental Health, Sosnowiec, Poland
Significance: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are purported to deliver nicotine vapor
without any toxic substances generated from tobacco combustion. However, using
ECs involves heating a nicotine solution to high temperatures. This may induce
chemical reactions which result in the possible formation of carbonyl compounds
(CCs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Many CCs and VOCs are common
tobacco-specific toxicants with proven carcinogenic and cardiotoxic properties. Aim
of the study:The aim of the study was to quantify and compare the levels of selected
CCs (formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, acetone, propanal, butanal) and VOCs
(benzene, toluene, etylobenzene and ortho-, meta-, para-xylene) in EC nicotine
refill solutions, vapors generated from ECs,and mainstream smoke from tobacco
cigarettes. Methods: Six commercially available nicotine refill solutions for ECs
(Chic Group Ltd. Poland) were examined. Three solutions contained a mixture of
propylene glycol and glycerin (Volish brand) as a solvent for nicotine, while the
other three contained only propylene glycol (Mild brand). Thirtypuffs were taken
using an automatic smoking machine. Mainstream smoke was generated from
a3R4F reference tobacco cigarette. CCs were extracted from vapor and smoke to
solid phase with 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine, and analyzed using HPLC/DAD. VOCs
were absorbed on activated carbon and analyzed with GC/MS. Results:Traces of
acetaldehyde were detected in all examined EC solutions(0.081±0.042 μg/mL).
Acetaldehyde was found in all EC vapors (0.153±0.116 μg/30 puffs), but at levels
more than a thousand-fold lower than in tobacco smoke. Formaldehyde and acrolein
were only found in vapors generated from glycerin-based solutions (0.116±0.022
and0.110±0.190μg/30 puffs) and in tobacco smoke (12 and 32-fold higher levels,
respectively). None of the examined VOCs were detected in the vapors, while all
were found in tobacco smoke. Conclusions: In contrast to tobacco smoke, the
vapors generated from ECs does not contain VOCs. Exposure to CCs from ECs is
significantly reduced compared to tobacco smoke and may be attributable to the
glycerin content in the nicotine refill solution.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/health-safety-e-smoking/391973-formaldehyde-e-vapor-2.html
Dr. Mike and those suspecting PG in the formation of formaldehyde appear to be wrong. The particular study mentioned here does not specify the specific makeup (or PG versus glycerin content) of the liquids studied.
BUT, many of the same authors are presenting a paper at the SRNT meeting in Boston this week that DOES. And from the following it is pretty clear that indeed it is glycerin, and not PG, that is associated with formaldhyde (and acrolein) being found in vapor:
SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN EMISSION OF SELECTED CARBONYLS
AND VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS FROM ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES
COMPARED TO TOBACCO CIGARETTES
Andrzej Sobczak, Ph.D.*1,2, Leon Kosmider1,2, Maciej L. Goniewicz, Ph.D.3,4, Jakub
Knysak2, Marzena Zaciera, Ph.D.5, and Jolanta Kurek5, 1Institute of Occupational
Medicine and Environmental Health, Sosnowiec, Poland; 2Medical University
of Silesia, Katowice, Poland;3Queen Mary University of London, UK; 4Roswell
Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, USA; 5Institute of Occupational Medicine and
Environmental Health, Sosnowiec, Poland
Significance: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are purported to deliver nicotine vapor
without any toxic substances generated from tobacco combustion. However, using
ECs involves heating a nicotine solution to high temperatures. This may induce
chemical reactions which result in the possible formation of carbonyl compounds
(CCs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Many CCs and VOCs are common
tobacco-specific toxicants with proven carcinogenic and cardiotoxic properties. Aim
of the study:The aim of the study was to quantify and compare the levels of selected
CCs (formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, acetone, propanal, butanal) and VOCs
(benzene, toluene, etylobenzene and ortho-, meta-, para-xylene) in EC nicotine
refill solutions, vapors generated from ECs,and mainstream smoke from tobacco
cigarettes. Methods: Six commercially available nicotine refill solutions for ECs
(Chic Group Ltd. Poland) were examined. Three solutions contained a mixture of
propylene glycol and glycerin (Volish brand) as a solvent for nicotine, while the
other three contained only propylene glycol (Mild brand). Thirtypuffs were taken
using an automatic smoking machine. Mainstream smoke was generated from
a3R4F reference tobacco cigarette. CCs were extracted from vapor and smoke to
solid phase with 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine, and analyzed using HPLC/DAD. VOCs
were absorbed on activated carbon and analyzed with GC/MS. Results:Traces of
acetaldehyde were detected in all examined EC solutions(0.081±0.042 μg/mL).
Acetaldehyde was found in all EC vapors (0.153±0.116 μg/30 puffs), but at levels
more than a thousand-fold lower than in tobacco smoke. Formaldehyde and acrolein
were only found in vapors generated from glycerin-based solutions (0.116±0.022
and0.110±0.190μg/30 puffs) and in tobacco smoke (12 and 32-fold higher levels,
respectively). None of the examined VOCs were detected in the vapors, while all
were found in tobacco smoke. Conclusions: In contrast to tobacco smoke, the
vapors generated from ECs does not contain VOCs. Exposure to CCs from ECs is
significantly reduced compared to tobacco smoke and may be attributable to the
glycerin content in the nicotine refill solution.
Last edited:
Propylene glycol and vegetable glycerine (Glycerol) are NOT toxic per se .Propylene glycol's deleterious effect on lung and nasal tissue was documented .It dries lung tissue and causes inflammation.
vegetable glycerin causes much less lung(and nasal) tissue irritation but It serves as nutrient for bacteria.people who are prone to lung infections have higher risk of becoming sick if they vape pure vg without pg(which serves as antibacterial) mixed.
vegetable glycerin causes much less lung(and nasal) tissue irritation but It serves as nutrient for bacteria.people who are prone to lung infections have higher risk of becoming sick if they vape pure vg without pg(which serves as antibacterial) mixed.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
