Toxins.

[Satans_Monkey]

Ok so we all know the FDA has said they found "toxins" in e-cigs (or e-liquid)... But if that's true why can't I find them in a chemical comparison. Now admittedly I can only find for and against comparisons... Can anyone give me an unbiased full chemical comparison (e-cigs VS cigarettes)? The FDA mention anti-freeze but again I can only find one sided comparisons.

 

[StormFinch]

See if these help; CASAA.org:Resources:Labs. Granted, they're studies done by independent labs for particular brands of e-cigs, but considering that the ingredients are the same from one brand to the other, short of someone getting the bright idea of adding an ingredient, you can pretty well assign these reports to every other brand out there. The actual lab report from the FDA is there as well. What they don't tell you is that the "anti-freeze" is DEG in an amount that you would have to vape something like 1000s of cartridges in a single day to poison yourself, and is also an ingredient in cigarettes.

 

[daisyd]

Gotta love it when they do that. They once announced that cranberries caused cancer in rats. They didn't mention that a human would have to eat like 6 truck loads to have the same effect. Kinda makes you wonder how they got all of that into the rats in the first place.

 

[Satans_Monkey]

so wait. The chemicals in vaping could kill you much like you can OD on ............ The catch being that you'd have to smoke 10x your body weight... Same principle here? I think the reason e-liquid is illegal in Australia is purely tax reasons (I could be wrong) I don't know if other countries have taxes on their cigarettes but if they did I doubt it would be as high priced as it here, Brandon (Red packaging) 16mg 40pk $19.90. Now I could be wrong but I see no other reason for nicotine mixed liquid to be outlawed here? Am I far off?

 

[StormFinch]

so wait. The chemicals in vaping could kill you much like you can OD on ............ The catch being that you'd have to smoke 10x your body weight... Same principle here? I think the reason e-liquid is illegal in Australia is purely tax reasons (I could be wrong) I don't know if other countries have taxes on their cigarettes but if they did I doubt it would be as high priced as it here, Brandon (Red packaging) 16mg 40pk $19.90. Now I could be wrong but I see no other reason for nicotine mixed liquid to be outlawed here? Am I far off?

I'm not all that familiar with the economics behind the Aussie ban, but I doubt you're far off. Here in the U.S. those of us that have taken the time to follow the money believe that it's the pharmaceutical industry behind the push to make them drug delivery devices, which would mean many years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to ever get them approved for market. NRTs are on average expensive, and since the quit rate with them is a whopping 7% and smokers tend to try to quit over and over again... well, you get the picture. The pharmaceutical companies pay the FDA large fees to approve their products and offer ex FDA employees jobs. The health associations that are also on the ban wagon get large donations from pharma every year. Basically, everyone is in somebody else's pocket, and we're expected to toe the line and die from it.

 

[JackSam]

There's a link to the FDA report at the bottom of the CASAA report

Whole Cartridge: Diethylene Glycol by GC-MS
Diethylene Glycol was detected in one sample (Smoking Everywhere 555 High cartridge) at
approximately 1%.

this is specifically what they were talking about.

 

[StormFinch]

Yes JackSam, and the DEG was found in one sample out of 18.

Just for S&G I pulled the DEG amount from Phillip Morris USA. It's listed in the non tobacco ingredients at 0.3 per cigarette, as apposed to the 0.01 found in that single cartridge. Funny how they didn't mention that, huh?

 

[JackSam]

Yes JackSam, and the DEG was found in one sample out of 18.

Just for S&G I pulled the DEG amount from Phillip Morris USA. It's listed in the non tobacco ingredients at 0.3 per cigarette, as apposed to the 0.01 found in that single cartridge. Funny how they didn't mention that, huh?

Thanks, in haste I forgot to mention it was only 1 cartridge.

 

[Satans_Monkey]

Ok but I've read topics where people have mentioned it being used to possibly deliver insulin and since (from what I imagine) it's designed off the asthma vaporizer couldn't the e-cig be used for that too? I mean they're looking at a whole new and easier way to get this done. Imagine what this would mean for diabetics! No more needles, no more needle depository boxes in public toilets (in australia at least has them) but where do the tobacco companies stand in regards to the e-cig?

 

[StormFinch]

You're going a bit beyond my understand here but from what few studies we have, it's my understanding that we absorb nicotine with the e-cig through the mucosa in our mouths rather than our lungs like cigarettes. I'm not really sure if that would be a viable delivery system for diabetics, especially since we are only absorbing a fraction of the amount we intake. I'm not a scientist nor a medical professional though, so you can take that for what it's worth.

As to the tobacco companies, according to someone from the boards who knew someone, (you know how that goes) at least one tobacco company was working on their own design of e-cigarette. Whether that worked out for them, or they're waiting for the FDA to make a determination as to tobacco product or drug delivery device before they market, I have no idea.

 

[DaveP]

Here's a link to the New Zealand lab testing that is one of the few lab results we have. It's independent of the FDA test and is a good comparison since it was done in another country. The trace nitrosamines are about equal to that contained in a piece of Nicorette gum. These will be there since the nicotine is extracted in the same way from tobacco. You also obtain nitrosamines from cooked bacon. This is what they are referring to under the carcinogen label.

New Zealand test:
Ecigarette mist harmless, inhaled or exhaled

The FDA test is here:
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ScienceResearch/UCM173250.pdf