phys.org/wire-news/161727820/study-of-third-hand-nicotine-from-e-cigarette-exposure-wins-nih.html
Study of third hand nicotine from e-cigarette
- Thread starter TomCatt
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
1. Nicotine doesn't hurt anyone, especially in these sorts of concentrations. It will be well below a microgram and the body gets rid of it in a couple of hours.
2. "Significantly increased". From zero? Or was there nicotine there before? Why? Are we talking significantly increased from background, because if so we have less than nothing to worry about. When will these people give us numbers?
Who am I trying to kid. They won't ever give us numbers, because there is nothing to worry about. As soon as they find the smoking gun, we will hear about it. But I'm not holding my breath, because I don't believe there is a gun, let alone a smoking one.
2. "Significantly increased". From zero? Or was there nicotine there before? Why? Are we talking significantly increased from background, because if so we have less than nothing to worry about. When will these people give us numbers?
Who am I trying to kid. They won't ever give us numbers, because there is nothing to worry about. As soon as they find the smoking gun, we will hear about it. But I'm not holding my breath, because I don't believe there is a gun, let alone a smoking one.
Here's the announcement, straight from the horse's (NIH) mouth: nih.gov/news/health/may2014/nida-16.htm (The phys dot org appears to be a straight cut and paste, but the NIH one has pictures! 
)
I find this curious at best:
This is text direct from an NIH source, so I find this description of her methodology dodgy to say the least. Who did the vaping? The syringe? Huh... Were human lungs or oral/nasal cavities involved, or was the vapor "applied" directly from the ecig to surface?
Still puzzling over that...
ETA: TomCatt, great minds etc....
)I find this curious at best:
This is text direct from an NIH source, so I find this description of her methodology dodgy to say the least. Who did the vaping? The syringe? Huh... Were human lungs or oral/nasal cavities involved, or was the vapor "applied" directly from the ecig to surface?
Still puzzling over that...
ETA: TomCatt, great minds etc....
Sounds like Lee drew vapor from an ecig using a syringe then ejected the vapor. Of course there's going to be nicotine - it doesn't sound like a person vaped these ecigs so whatever was present in the juice is now in the environment. THIS won first place?!?
I guess she won first place for propaganda. Hopefully someone else won for methodology!
Last edited:
NIDA Director Nora D. Volkow, M.D. stated that non-users can be exposed to nicotine residue from just one e-cigarette. Exactly what does she mean by "one e-cigarette"? There is not a one-to-one correlation between a conventional cigarette and an e-cigarette.
At the very least, each e-cigarette device contains sufficient liquid to produce 150 puffs--the equivalent of 10 to 20 conventional cigarettes, depending on puff duration and puff frequency.
At the very least, each e-cigarette device contains sufficient liquid to produce 150 puffs--the equivalent of 10 to 20 conventional cigarettes, depending on puff duration and puff frequency.
I feel so sorry for the second and third place winners. They seem to have done actual scientific work. No disrespect to the winner, but what award did she win, the Stanton Glantz award?
I imagine that she won the award for designing the apparatus. It's just a pity that the experiment was fatally flawed.
Yet another example of someone in authority pretending to understand ecigs while actually knowing very little.
This suggests that raising the age limit for junk science to 21 is a good idea.
The studies show that virtually all practitioners of junk science and junk statistics became addicted, long before adulthood.
Thousands of future clinicians, scientists, and pubilc health professionals could be saved from having their intellects perish prematurely from junk-science-related conceptual maladies, such as the inabiity to recognize the distinction between causation and correlation.
The studies show that virtually all practitioners of junk science and junk statistics became addicted, long before adulthood.
Thousands of future clinicians, scientists, and pubilc health professionals could be saved from having their intellects perish prematurely from junk-science-related conceptual maladies, such as the inabiity to recognize the distinction between causation and correlation.
How totally and absolutely absurd. I think Lily Lei Wei had the special ANTZ device implanted at birth. We should be on the lookout for more Zombies.
Perhaps if we all just started living in mobile plastic bubbles, perhaps that would satisfy everyone's paranoia? 
This only summarizes what she did so I don't know how she actually did her experiment. Did she stand in a kitchen or lab with each individual e-cig and let them suck vape with a syringe and push out a puff and then measure the residue from the surfaces after each one was depleted? Was it the same kitchen/lab? Was the kitchen/lab completely cleaned and tested for prior residue before performing the second and third test? Did she use 3 separate kitchens/lab areas? There's just not enough in this summary to determine whether her test is scientifically correct or not.
ANTZ Science does not have to be correct in any way shape or form....they have proved this over and over again. For them it is enough to have found a negative outcome....then comes the headline and the BS.
I've got my fingers crossed with the billion that the FDA is investing into tobacco centers for research that maybe they'll expand from engineers to architects or plumbers or HVAC professionals and give them a shot at it.
Lol. That must come with a miniature statuette of the Golden Gusher.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
