E-Cigarette Secondhand Smoke Study Finds Nicotine, But Few Toxins
This study while limited in scope shows they are safer than cigarettes.
This study while limited in scope shows they are safer than cigarettes.
Study on ecig second hand vapor.
- Thread starter havanowoncheese
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Look at where it was done and what they where looking at ???
What products they tested ??
Any thing can be slanted too what your looking for .
What products they tested ??
Any thing can be slanted too what your looking for .
I'd like to know more about this part of the study...
We generated e-cigarette vapor from 3 various brands of e-cigarette using a smoking machine and controlled exposure conditions. We also compared secondhand exposure with e-cigarette vapor and tobacco smoke generated by 5 dual users.
I think you will get vastly different results - especially for the nicotine - if you use a 'smoking machine' versus actual people vaping.
I'm not exactly sure how a 'smoking machine' works but if it's a machine that inhales/analyzes the vapor produced by an e-cig - well of course it will have nicotine. That's the same as the vapor we breathe in.
On the other hand, when humans vape, their bodies (lungs, mouths, whatever) absorb (some/much/all??) of the nicotine. So the vapor they exhale will have lower levels of nicotine (maybe even none - I don't know).
We generated e-cigarette vapor from 3 various brands of e-cigarette using a smoking machine and controlled exposure conditions. We also compared secondhand exposure with e-cigarette vapor and tobacco smoke generated by 5 dual users.
I think you will get vastly different results - especially for the nicotine - if you use a 'smoking machine' versus actual people vaping.
I'm not exactly sure how a 'smoking machine' works but if it's a machine that inhales/analyzes the vapor produced by an e-cig - well of course it will have nicotine. That's the same as the vapor we breathe in.
On the other hand, when humans vape, their bodies (lungs, mouths, whatever) absorb (some/much/all??) of the nicotine. So the vapor they exhale will have lower levels of nicotine (maybe even none - I don't know).
One thing to remember, they are talking about .00000082 to .00000623 grams per cubic meter or almost undetectable amounts 30 years ago.
Since there's no sidestream vapor (as opposed to sidestream smoke), any analysis of vapor vs. smoke has to make the distinction between the two as produced by a machine* (which measures the constituents of vapor or smoke as produced by a device) vs. "secondhand" vapor or smoke as filtered thru the lungs and exhaled by a human being.
So you need to compare the three things that could impact bystanders (which is what this is all about): 1. Components of sidestream smoke from burning tobacco (no machines or humans needed to produce sidestream smoke); 2. secondhand smoke as exhaled by a smoker and; and 3. secondhand vapor as exhaled by a vaper.
*I've always had my doubts about these "smoke machines." Are they using the same machine, that was designed to draw puffs from a tobacco cigarette, to draw vapor from an ecig? Or has a new "vaping machine" been designed. Seems to me the mechanics for drawing smoke from a cig vs. drawing vapor from an ecig would be quite different and require two different machines. Have not seen this distinction made in study results. So I wonder how accurate these results could be.
So you need to compare the three things that could impact bystanders (which is what this is all about): 1. Components of sidestream smoke from burning tobacco (no machines or humans needed to produce sidestream smoke); 2. secondhand smoke as exhaled by a smoker and; and 3. secondhand vapor as exhaled by a vaper.
*I've always had my doubts about these "smoke machines." Are they using the same machine, that was designed to draw puffs from a tobacco cigarette, to draw vapor from an ecig? Or has a new "vaping machine" been designed. Seems to me the mechanics for drawing smoke from a cig vs. drawing vapor from an ecig would be quite different and require two different machines. Have not seen this distinction made in study results. So I wonder how accurate these results could be.
Probably not terribly accurate for real world use, that's why they carry the proviso ' under laboratory conditions'.
Really test like this can only give comparison results so that where we have a product that we have real world data for they can create a benchmark on what to expect from the unknown product.
The problem is when we extrapolate from one to the other we need them to be close enough in real world use to do this. Smoking and vaping have a big difference as well as similarities. side stream smoke and nicotine absorption for example are different.
How to create a test from scratch is the conundrum because we would have to redo all the testing on smoke as well as vapor. Remember that smoke has been tested both in labs and real world for over 50 years.
Really test like this can only give comparison results so that where we have a product that we have real world data for they can create a benchmark on what to expect from the unknown product.
The problem is when we extrapolate from one to the other we need them to be close enough in real world use to do this. Smoking and vaping have a big difference as well as similarities. side stream smoke and nicotine absorption for example are different.
How to create a test from scratch is the conundrum because we would have to redo all the testing on smoke as well as vapor. Remember that smoke has been tested both in labs and real world for over 50 years.
Excellent questions! Does the smoke machine have a damp sponge (tongue, inner cheeks, roof of mouth) to capture the smoke machines vapor, & if so, how often is the sponge suctioned of excess moisture (swallowed), flushing possible buildups of moisture filled with goodies (saliva with Oreo Flavors and nicotine dancing like mad).
Just read that report and it's fairly positive, nothing we didn't expect. The data on nic and susceptible population groups must exist from cigarette research and smokeless products so it shouldn't be that hard to make an informed judgment.
The problem is the 'no safe level' mantra. Any deviation from this will not go down well.
The problem is the 'no safe level' mantra. Any deviation from this will not go down well.
Don't think we would have to redo smoke tests. Just design a machine for vapor that equally simulates comparable "laboratory conditions."
Disclaimer: I am not a scientist. But I am a thinker, capable, at certain times of the day, of thinking logically about something from start to finish. And I'm knowledgeable about both cigarettes and ecigs, something I think is lacking in far too many researchers on the subject.
I found another article about this that kind of tweeked my ANTZ detectors
Study Documents Secondhand Exposure to Nicotine from Electronic Cigarette Vapor - Press Release - Digital Journal
This is why:
Wasn't third hand smoke a load of fear mongering garbage? Seems to me it came and went as a scare tactic.
I wonder if the journalist is taking liberties or if that's in the study conclusions.
It's not said in the abstract - Secondhand Exposure to Vapors From Electronic Cigarettes
Study Documents Secondhand Exposure to Nicotine from Electronic Cigarette Vapor - Press Release - Digital Journal
This is why:
I wonder if tomato sauce results in "reinforcement of nicotine addiction." Eggplant Parmesan might need to be regulated.
Wasn't third hand smoke a load of fear mongering garbage? Seems to me it came and went as a scare tactic.
I wonder if the journalist is taking liberties or if that's in the study conclusions.
It's not said in the abstract - Secondhand Exposure to Vapors From Electronic Cigarettes
Would somebody please explain this to me? As I read it, if vaper A is exposed to vaper B's secondhand vapor, vaper A's nicotine addiction is "reinforced"? If that's possible (uh...) then wouldn't it follow that vaper B's secondhand vapor would also "addict" non-vaper C? Or is there some "addiction threshhold"? Maybe secondhand vapor can reinforce an existing addiction but not *cause* addiction in the non-addicted...?
And how can an addiction be "reinforced"? What does that even mean?
This has totally confused me. :going for a vape:
ETA: And never mind that I don't agree with using "addiction," but that's my personal view.
"Thirdhand vapor" is the steam that collects on your bathroom mirror during a shower... Beware! BEWARE! 
I had a feeling the ANTZ would have a field day with this. 
I wonder if Dr. Mike has covered it yet...
Okay, I found a smoking machine demo. The smoke is not flushed (swallowed), but rather it is allowed to accumulate into a healthy amount of emission. Going up in smoke | Nuffield Foundation. I imagine they use the same "modern technology" (lol) with vaping.
I wonder if Dr. Mike has covered it yet...
Okay, I found a smoking machine demo. The smoke is not flushed (swallowed), but rather it is allowed to accumulate into a healthy amount of emission. Going up in smoke | Nuffield Foundation. I imagine they use the same "modern technology" (lol) with vaping.
They need to lock half a dozen ANTZ in a room of a dozen chain vapers for a week and check their blood every 24 hours as well as having them fill out a questionaire as to how they're feeling. Then they need to do the same using chain smokers. I'm sure they can find enough "for the cause" ANTZ to participate.
I say again, though, that since there is NO sidestream vapor, the use of a machine to analyze the constituents of vapor has no place in a discussion of secondhand vapor, which is what is exhaled from the lungs of a HUMAN BEING (unless, as Uma points out, the machine is designed to duplicate the functioning of a human lung).
Not just questionnaires. Laboratory tests: blood, urine, the whole enchilada. With needles. Lots of needles.
They should add a third experiment and use an idling car instead of vapers or smokers.
- Status
Similar threads
