ive always had my doubts with PG juices, they manage to give me throat issues and the dry hits from PG juices seem so much more harsh than a 100VG dry burn hit... just my experiences
Sub ohm toxin study
- Thread starter Brian Roche
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
ive always had my doubts with PG juices, they manage to give me throat issues and the dry hits from PG juices seem so much more harsh than a 100VG dry burn hit... just my experiences
There are people on here that have been vaping since 2008, 2009, by all accounts they seem to be doing pretty well. I know I feel great.
Patience.
How are ANTZ, BT and BP supposed to sell the FDA on dictating our lives if they cannot use Biased lopsided studies that only give desired results under strict controlled conditions?
I do not let these things bother me any more. I have come to realize They will do what they intend no matter how loud we scream.
I also realize we will scream louder with each and every lie and 1/2 truth they attempt to spread.
I would personally like to see the FDA say - Nope, not tobacco and NO BT you cannot become involved or monopolize this market.
Yea, when pigs fly. $$$$$$$$$$$$$
***Forgot - to the Op
We also have a Sub ohm concern warning on EFC - It is just dumb to deny for denial sake.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/rebuildable-atomizer-systems/562106-ecf-sub-ohm-advisory.html
I do not let these things bother me any more. I have come to realize They will do what they intend no matter how loud we scream.
I also realize we will scream louder with each and every lie and 1/2 truth they attempt to spread.
I would personally like to see the FDA say - Nope, not tobacco and NO BT you cannot become involved or monopolize this market.
Yea, when pigs fly. $$$$$$$$$$$$$
***Forgot - to the Op
We also have a Sub ohm concern warning on EFC - It is just dumb to deny for denial sake.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/rebuildable-atomizer-systems/562106-ecf-sub-ohm-advisory.html
Last edited:
Waow. That's a good one.
wikipedia
Somehow you lost the C for carbon, and the 8 for the 8 Hydrogens.
There are only 2 common stable hydroxides:
1: H2O which is water
and
2: H2O2 which is Hydrogen Peroxide
Carbon is very special, because it forms long chains unlike most other elements, and all life as we know it comes from this ability of carbon at our common temperatures. As a result, a lot of the complex compounds we see are carbon based; they are called "organic" chemistry.
did you look up "glycerin" on Wikipedia?? or PG? 2 different animals
wooops my bad, I was looking at glycerol I stand corrected....
Last edited:
Yes PG and VG will burn. I add 10% water to my sub ohm mixes. That lowers the boiling point, and actually keeps the pg and vg from burning. I use plenty of airflow. I feel safer using this method compared to my single coil atties that have smaller air holes. As long as we know how to build sub ohm correctly. It's no worse than anything else imo.
While we're at it, one of those compounds we keep hearing mentioned is acrolien:
wiki:
Like glycerin, it also is composed of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen.
Acrolein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Glycerol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ok, that part doesn't make sense to me; how could glycerol decompose to acrolein at 280 celcius, but the boiling point of glycerol is 290 celcius?
Something's wrong with the numbers there on wikipedia.
wiki:
Thought it worth checking the molecular formular.
Like glycerin, it also is composed of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen.
Acrolein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Glycerol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ok, that part doesn't make sense to me; how could glycerol decompose to acrolein at 280 celcius, but the boiling point of glycerol is 290 celcius?
Something's wrong with the numbers there on wikipedia.
Next time you ask yourself the question "why?!!", the answer is almost always "money."
Am with you there.
Usually, there is a weblink available to even the most outlandish nonsense.
So why not this one too ?
By the Same Logic, I know people who have Smoked Cigarettes since 2008. And are doing Pretty Great.
Does that mean that Cigarettes Aren't Harmful?
Because there was no study done, it's just a lie they decided to put out there in the press. You can look for this study all you want, and I doubt you will ever find it. Who did this study? Where's the link to it? The FDA didn't do it, they don't have the means, they farm that stuff out to the people who have a stake in the outcome of the study, and if that sounds like a conflict of interest that's because it is.
Let's not try to dismiss everything that doesn't agree with our preferred position that vaping is harmless.
Vaping is tobacco harm reduction, not elimination. There are certain risks, not all of them are known or have been thoroughly studied. I trust Dr. Farsalinos and his research--and even he warns about possible risks.
To the OP--if you want to minimize your risks while further studies are being conducted, vape at lower wattages and avoid dry hits, don't overheat your coils and eliquids, and try to vape clear, clean juices with as little flavoring as possible. Also, if you could learn how to vape without inhaling, or inhaling deeply, like one would smoke a pipe or a cigar, that would probably cut your risk to zero.
Here's Dr. Farsalinos's response to the study about formaldehyde in vapor (discussed in the NYT article, among other places).
Formaldehyde release in ecigarette vapor The New York Times story explained in detail
Dr. Farsalinos also recently found diacetyl and related diketones in 69% of eliquids he randomly tested. The paper will be published soon.
https://soundcloud.com/vp-live/smoke-free-radio-episode-3
Summary:
Out of 159 liquids tested, 69% of liquids were found to contain diacetyl. Even from vendors that claimed their e-liquids were diacetyl free. The levels of diacetyl found were not discussed.
Last edited:
Let's not try to dismiss everything that doesn't agree with our preferred position that vaping is harmless.
Vaping is tobacco harm reduction, not elimination. There are certain risks, not all of them are known or have been thoroughly studied. I trust Dr. Farsalinos and his research--and even he warns about possible risks.
To the OP--if you want to minimize your risks while further studies are being conducted, vape at lower wattages and avoid dry hits, don't overheat your coils and eliquids, and try to vape clear, clean juices with as little flavoring as possible. Also, if you could learn how to vape without inhaling, or inhaling deeply, like one would smoke a pipe or a cigar, that would probably cut your risk to zero.
Here's Dr. Farsalinos's response to the study about formaldehyde in vapor (discussed in the NYT article, among other places).
Formaldehyde release in ecigarette vapor The New York Times story explained in detail
Dr. Farsalinos also recently found diacetyl and related diketones in 69% of eliquids he randomly tested. The paper will be published soon.
https://soundcloud.com/vp-live/smoke-free-radio-episode-3
Summary:
Out of 159 liquids tested, 69% of liquids were found to contain diacetyl. Even from vendors that claimed their e-liquids were diacetyl free. The levels of diacetyl found were not discussed.
well that's lovely all our ejuice has diacetyl in it.... really makes u wonder just how much safer vaping is
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Xparent Skyblue Tapatalk 2
Why do you think Many of Us DIY?
So at least we can Control/Know what is going into that Big Fat Tank on a Persons MOD.
It is safer. There are plenty of studies proving that it is much safer. Even Glantz and Zeller agree that vaping is safer.
Cigarette smoke is full of diacetyl--and millions smoke 1-2 PAD or more and nobody developed popcorn lung from smoking, AFAIK. We don't even know how dangerous diacetyl really is and in what concentrations.
The more you know...
E-cigarette research, studies and papers
For more information, get involved, join CASAA, read:
http://casaa.org/
Last edited:
Ok my OP sucked as a comparison, you guys are right actually. Let me try again to articulate myself.
Actually I shoulda known better. I transfer heat for a living and I do it all through propylene glycol, if anybody knows that was flawed it should be me.
This one boiling point I refer to, I don't believe it applies to the entire compound of eliquid. Eliquid is complex, it will fractionate and break up. That is, on a molecular level, different components if it's make up may boil at different temperatures. If you didn't atomize and instead just boiled, it would gradually break down into a little burned sludge pile.
But in atomizing were only concerned with that element that boils first, since that element carries everything else with it.
This is my uneducated understanding of that process- Liquid reaches the coil, having been dragged via capillary action. Once at the coil, the lowest layer of the thick e- liquid flashes to gas.
Because the liquid is so thick, the vapor particles must pass an outter layer of liquid as they violently expand and leave the coil. Vapor is much much larger then liquid.
As the vaporized bottom layer explodes through the upper layer, the upper layer mixes in and goes along for the ride.
So- the vapor particles contain heat from the coil (the heat that changed their state). This heat is quickly diluted however, by the cool liquid being carried by the vapor bubble.
The coil temperature stays in check because of the vapor, which carries off the heat. The process requires movement to continue, a steady supply of liquid. As eliquid leaves the coil it drags more behind it, a vacuum forms within the wick and through capillary action a supply of fresh liquid continues to bath the coil.
This is my uneducated take on atomizing. Nothing burns, it flashes and leaves.
Dry hit- If the coil temperature slips out of control (like, there's not sufficient juice flow to cool it) the whole process goes into a tailspin. Whole new animal. Without the volume of juice the coil cooling process dies, the coil temperature increases exponentially and rapidly, and juice flow stops.
That other element in the mix, the one that burns before it boils....that part has to fend for itself now. In atomizing, vapor was carrying that stuff off before it could reach burn temps but now it's laying there till it boils. By the time that stuff boils were in dry hit city.
So- when were atomizing we know it. When there is burning taking place we know it. There is not, IMO, this middle ground where it tastes like rich crisp juice but since our coil was too hot were being poisoned. We're atomizing or burning....
Actually I shoulda known better. I transfer heat for a living and I do it all through propylene glycol, if anybody knows that was flawed it should be me.
This one boiling point I refer to, I don't believe it applies to the entire compound of eliquid. Eliquid is complex, it will fractionate and break up. That is, on a molecular level, different components if it's make up may boil at different temperatures. If you didn't atomize and instead just boiled, it would gradually break down into a little burned sludge pile.
But in atomizing were only concerned with that element that boils first, since that element carries everything else with it.
This is my uneducated understanding of that process- Liquid reaches the coil, having been dragged via capillary action. Once at the coil, the lowest layer of the thick e- liquid flashes to gas.
Because the liquid is so thick, the vapor particles must pass an outter layer of liquid as they violently expand and leave the coil. Vapor is much much larger then liquid.
As the vaporized bottom layer explodes through the upper layer, the upper layer mixes in and goes along for the ride.
So- the vapor particles contain heat from the coil (the heat that changed their state). This heat is quickly diluted however, by the cool liquid being carried by the vapor bubble.
The coil temperature stays in check because of the vapor, which carries off the heat. The process requires movement to continue, a steady supply of liquid. As eliquid leaves the coil it drags more behind it, a vacuum forms within the wick and through capillary action a supply of fresh liquid continues to bath the coil.
This is my uneducated take on atomizing. Nothing burns, it flashes and leaves.
Dry hit- If the coil temperature slips out of control (like, there's not sufficient juice flow to cool it) the whole process goes into a tailspin. Whole new animal. Without the volume of juice the coil cooling process dies, the coil temperature increases exponentially and rapidly, and juice flow stops.
That other element in the mix, the one that burns before it boils....that part has to fend for itself now. In atomizing, vapor was carrying that stuff off before it could reach burn temps but now it's laying there till it boils. By the time that stuff boils were in dry hit city.
So- when were atomizing we know it. When there is burning taking place we know it. There is not, IMO, this middle ground where it tastes like rich crisp juice but since our coil was too hot were being poisoned. We're atomizing or burning....
nytimes .com/2014/05/04/business/some-e-cigarettes-deliver-a-puff-of-carcinogens.html
some-e-cigarettes-deliver-a-puff-of-carcinogens
More heat to the VG, more formaldehyde is produced, which isnt safe and can cause cancer!
formaldehyde
Conclusion: Dripping on really high power with 100% VG juice is the worst thing that vaper can do
some-e-cigarettes-deliver-a-puff-of-carcinogens
More heat to the VG, more formaldehyde is produced, which isnt safe and can cause cancer!
formaldehyde
Conclusion: Dripping on really high power with 100% VG juice is the worst thing that vaper can do
Last edited by a moderator:
For pity's sake, rawr. Have you read the thread? Several of us have spent hours of our own time carefully debunking this myth and here you go declaiming the original, and horribly flawed, ANTZ claim together with an unbroken URL. If you didn't have 386 posts under your belt, I'd call troll.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
