www realfarmacy com/study-reveals-e-cigarettes-toxic#yrqGqk3LIRaQbWoi.01
Any comments on that?
Any comments on that?
Study Reveals E-Cigarettes Contain Formaldehyde and Produce Toxic Secondhand Smoke Comments??
- Thread starter Ardo
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
vaping is not "safe", nor is it good for you. It's harm reduction. We couldn't quit smoking so we vape instead. I doubt you were terribly worried about the thousands of chemicals in analogs(including formaldehyde). vaping is not perfect and anytime you put something foreign in your body it's a bad thing. I know this though, my smokers caugh is gone and I can run up and down the stairs without wheezing. It's 1000 times better than smoking and I get to have my cake and eat it to, I'm happy.
I can accept that it's not 100% safe, but I'd still like to understand a bit more that "Toxic Secondhand “Smoke” claim!
Latest Studies Confirm E-Cigarette Vapor Safety I prefer this article which sites many more sources and tests than the one up there. I appreciate you sharing this with me because I wouldn't have seen it otherwise, but one study isn't enough to make me buy into one study's results. There are too many variables. It is something to look further into though.
The reason I shared it here, I was hoping for someone smarter than me to give an insight into this claim and hopefully prove that wrong.
Here are a couple of articles from Siegel that discuss formaldehyde.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/12/new-study-confirms-that-electronic.html
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/10/new-study-provides-more-evidence-that.html
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/12/new-study-confirms-that-electronic.html
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/10/new-study-provides-more-evidence-that.html
"Bill Godshall of Smokefree Pennsylvania is quoted as stating: 'For more than 25 years Smokefree Pennsylvania has been advocating indoor smoking bans. Based on the results of this study I see no reason for e-cigarettes to be included in smoking bans.'"
Very interesting! Thank you for sharing!
First and foremost, they claim propylene glycol is a volatile organic substance. That's how you know it's a garbage article.
I'm pretty sure that entire list of "dangerous" chemicals are all byproducts of normal respiration. They also don't state what they actually analyzed to produce these results.
I'm pretty sure that entire list of "dangerous" chemicals are all byproducts of normal respiration. They also don't state what they actually analyzed to produce these results.
I assumed garbage science right from the word "smoke." You know fair and balanced investigation is not going to happen when the conclusion that vapor is the same as smoke is inferred in the headline.
I believe this is the study where most scientific reviewers stated the formaldehyde is a natural by-product of simply exhaling and has nothing to do with vapor from PV's.
"Volatile organic substance" sounds downright scary, doesn't it?! Well, the steam rising from my pasta pot is a volatile organic substance. The sultry perfume wafting your way from my delicate pulse point is a volatile organic substance. That wonderful smell of new-mown grass on a summer morn is a volatile organic substance. And, unfortunately, the formaldahyde-laden hot air exhaled by ANTZ is a volatile organic substance.
Red Series Tobacco Prevention and Tobacco Control Volume 19: Electronic Cigarettes – An Overview
Extract:
Health Effects
Extract:
Health Effects
- The liquids contain ingredients that on short-term use irritate airways and may lead to allergic reactions and which may be harmful to health when inhaled repeatedly over a prolonged period of time.
- The aerosol of some liquids contains harmful substances (formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, diethylene glycol, nickel, chromium, lead).
- The functionality of electronic cigarettes can vary considerably (aerosol production, nicotine delivery into aerosols).
- Adverse health effects for third parties exposed cannot be excluded because the use of electronic cigarettes leads to emission of fine and ultrafine inhalable liquid particles, nicotine and cancer-causing substances into indoor air.
Very true, seeing as volatile only means readily evaporates. And the pg being organic just means it's not petroleum based, which is a good thing.
If you ever need to quote an example of misleading language, selective interpretation of results, and "lying by omission," use this:
Last edited:
I seen this propaganda on my news feed yesterday from another site. LOL they also announced they "got hacked". They think it is Monsanto. All of their stories are just that: stories without cites or links to validate authenticity of their writings.
No, it only means that to New-agers. To the scientific community, for many many years, "organic" means "contains carbon" and therefore INCLUDES petroleum chemicals. In fact, those are at the top of the list for organic compounds and organic chemicals.
When "organic" is used as a synonym for "natural" or "heirloom method" it is a completely different meaning, and it is very important to distinguish the two or you are open to all kinds of OTHER lies all over the place.
Typically, if you can smell something and it's got ANY carbon in it, which pretty much covers all life, all used-to-be-life including petroleum, it's a VOC. Please note that the same studies also list acetic acid as one of the "toxins" that might be given off by ecigs. That's vinegar. So, ecigs might not be safe, but if you REALLY want danger, try leaning over your salad!
What I really really want to see debunked is the "metals" claim because that is the one most-quoted these days by Glantz.
My habit is to question everything. If a statement such as "Long-term exposure to propylene glycol in indoor air may raise children’s risk of developing asthma (20)" is made, I want to know, "Where did that idea come from?" In this case, footnote 20 of the article link in Response #15 above led to this article:
Choi H, Schmidbauer N, Sundell J, Hasselgren M, Spengler J & Bornehag CG (2010) Common household chemicals and the allergy risks in pre-school age children. PLoS One 5: e13423 PLOS ONE: Common Household Chemicals and the Allergy Risks in Pre-School Age Children
So I tracked down that article. After reading "A natural-log unit of summed propylene glycol and glycol ethers (PGEs) in bedroom air (equal to interquartile range, or 3.43 – 15.65 µg/m3) was associated with 1.5-fold greater likelihood of being a case (95% CI, 1.1 – 2.1), 1.5-fold greater likelihood of asthma (95% CI, 1.0 – 2.3), 2.8-fold greater likelihood of rhinitis (95% CI, 1.6 – 4.7), and 1.6-fold greater likelihood of eczema (95% CI, 1.1 – 2.3), accounting for gender, secondhand smoke, allergies in both parents, wet cleaning with chemical agents, construction period of the building, limonene, cat and dog allergens, butyl benzyl phthalate (BBzP), and di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP)," I said "Huh?"
I then proceeded to find the portion where Propylene Glycol was discussed.
Considering that propylene glycol was the most common PGEs, we also examined whether the apparent risks were driven by this compound. A ln-unit propylene glycol concentration was associated with a significantly elevated likelihood of the case status (aOR = 1.5, 95% CI, 1.0–2.3), asthma (aOR = 2.1, 95% CI, 1.2–3.6), rhinitis (aOR = 2.4, 95% CI, 1.2–4.6), but, not eczema (aOR = 1.4, 95% CI, 0.8–2.3) compared to the control children, controlling for the same set of confounders as before. When the main exposure variable was alternatively defined as the sum of 16 glycol ethers, excluding propylene glycol, the likelihood of the four respective outcomes were essentially very similar to those posed by sum of 17 glycol ethers including propylene glycol (Table 4). When restricted to the cases only, a ln-unit exposure of the summed 16 glycol ether compounds was associated with a 1.4-fold greater likelihood of IgE-sensitization (95% CI, 1.0 – 1.90)."
If I understand this correctly, when they took air samples in units where children with asthma (and other allergic problems) lived, it was common to find high concentrations of a mix of various types of glycols. When they analyzed the cases where the air had high concentrations of PG, the relative risk for asthma was 2.1. When they excluded PG and summed the other glycol chemicals, the relative risk was 1.4. They concluded from this that the PG is the main culprit in causing asthma.
I find it strange that an experiment that exposed children to PG on purpose showed a beneficial effect instead:
"The report of the 3 years' study of the clinical application of the disinfection of air by glycol vapors in a children's convalescent home showed a marked reduction in the number of acute respiratory infections occurring in the wards treated with both propylene and triethylene glycols. Whereas in the control wards 132 infections occurred during the course of the three winters, there were only 13 such instances in the glycol wards during the same period." An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Also, PG is an ingredient in several air sanitizer products used in hospitals.
But the real question should be, what does this have to do with electronic cigarettes? The only way children could be exposed to PG vapor from e-cigarettes would be to use the products themselves. If they did, and it triggered an asthma attack, chances are they wouldn't continue vaping for very long.
Exhaled vapor dissipates very quickly. German researchers found very little PG in an eight cubic meter chamber where an e-cigarette was being used. They had to collect the vapor in a 10L glass jar to find measure than 1 microgram per cubic meter of PG. Does e-cigarette consumption cause passive vaping? [Indoor Air. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI
Choi H, Schmidbauer N, Sundell J, Hasselgren M, Spengler J & Bornehag CG (2010) Common household chemicals and the allergy risks in pre-school age children. PLoS One 5: e13423 PLOS ONE: Common Household Chemicals and the Allergy Risks in Pre-School Age Children
So I tracked down that article. After reading "A natural-log unit of summed propylene glycol and glycol ethers (PGEs) in bedroom air (equal to interquartile range, or 3.43 – 15.65 µg/m3) was associated with 1.5-fold greater likelihood of being a case (95% CI, 1.1 – 2.1), 1.5-fold greater likelihood of asthma (95% CI, 1.0 – 2.3), 2.8-fold greater likelihood of rhinitis (95% CI, 1.6 – 4.7), and 1.6-fold greater likelihood of eczema (95% CI, 1.1 – 2.3), accounting for gender, secondhand smoke, allergies in both parents, wet cleaning with chemical agents, construction period of the building, limonene, cat and dog allergens, butyl benzyl phthalate (BBzP), and di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP)," I said "Huh?"
I then proceeded to find the portion where Propylene Glycol was discussed.
Considering that propylene glycol was the most common PGEs, we also examined whether the apparent risks were driven by this compound. A ln-unit propylene glycol concentration was associated with a significantly elevated likelihood of the case status (aOR = 1.5, 95% CI, 1.0–2.3), asthma (aOR = 2.1, 95% CI, 1.2–3.6), rhinitis (aOR = 2.4, 95% CI, 1.2–4.6), but, not eczema (aOR = 1.4, 95% CI, 0.8–2.3) compared to the control children, controlling for the same set of confounders as before. When the main exposure variable was alternatively defined as the sum of 16 glycol ethers, excluding propylene glycol, the likelihood of the four respective outcomes were essentially very similar to those posed by sum of 17 glycol ethers including propylene glycol (Table 4). When restricted to the cases only, a ln-unit exposure of the summed 16 glycol ether compounds was associated with a 1.4-fold greater likelihood of IgE-sensitization (95% CI, 1.0 – 1.90)."
If I understand this correctly, when they took air samples in units where children with asthma (and other allergic problems) lived, it was common to find high concentrations of a mix of various types of glycols. When they analyzed the cases where the air had high concentrations of PG, the relative risk for asthma was 2.1. When they excluded PG and summed the other glycol chemicals, the relative risk was 1.4. They concluded from this that the PG is the main culprit in causing asthma.
I find it strange that an experiment that exposed children to PG on purpose showed a beneficial effect instead:
"The report of the 3 years' study of the clinical application of the disinfection of air by glycol vapors in a children's convalescent home showed a marked reduction in the number of acute respiratory infections occurring in the wards treated with both propylene and triethylene glycols. Whereas in the control wards 132 infections occurred during the course of the three winters, there were only 13 such instances in the glycol wards during the same period." An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Also, PG is an ingredient in several air sanitizer products used in hospitals.
But the real question should be, what does this have to do with electronic cigarettes? The only way children could be exposed to PG vapor from e-cigarettes would be to use the products themselves. If they did, and it triggered an asthma attack, chances are they wouldn't continue vaping for very long.
Exhaled vapor dissipates very quickly. German researchers found very little PG in an eight cubic meter chamber where an e-cigarette was being used. They had to collect the vapor in a 10L glass jar to find measure than 1 microgram per cubic meter of PG. Does e-cigarette consumption cause passive vaping? [Indoor Air. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI
Last edited:
- Status
