VaperShark published test results on All Ejuice They Sell
- Thread starter Jonny5
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Free market will prevail. vape 'em if you got 'em. Knowledge is power. Popcorn lung is for wimps. 
Last edited:
The argument is that the world is not and has never been safe. And most likely never will be. Obsessing over one single unproved but avoidable danger should be suspicious. Especially when the perpetrators are using double standards (absolute vs reasonable safety) where one of the standards is known to be impossible to meet.
Last edited:
As for the argument "the world has never been safe": So don't fight hunger, war, discrimination ... or whatever, because there has always been evil in the world.
I know this is somewhat exeggareted, but firstly, English is not my native language to refine it as much as I would like to. Secondly, exeggerated as it is, it shows why this type of "generalized", nonspecific answer may be useless.
As for "obsessing" : I am willing to make informed choices when I buy something in order to consume it. So I try to do my best when I buy food as far as I am informed - and similarly, I try to do my best when I buy stuff for vaping, according to my information level. And my information level is much poorer than it could be the case because manufacturer are free to keep it this way - with the consent of many vapers who think being interested in more transparency is an obsession.
(And as for the discussion itself, I don't call others "careless", so I expect not to be called "obsessive" either
).
Tap water has been and is scrutinized by people who are qualified experts. You will find things like chlorine and flouride in tap water, both of which are deadly at very high levels, but harmless at the levels in water. Both of these chemicals provide a benefit -- a benefit that far outweighs any potential risk (killing bacteria and preventing cavities). So, we know what's in tap water -- your local water department tests it every so often and should make the results public (somewhere). Tap water is safe to drink (despite what bottled water companies tell you). All the tin-foil-hatters have zero scientific basis to say otherwise.
We don't know the safe amount of exposure to DA/AP but NIOSH has made recommendations for workers. They recommend 5 ppb (parts per billion) as a time weighted average over a 40 hour work week. Of course, we vapers don't inhale our e-cig with every breath like workers in a factory. Therefore, to translate the NIOSH figure to vaping will require some rough estimations, which is exactly what Dr. F. did in one of his papers. Dr. F. suggests that a daily exposure limit would be somewhere around 60 ug (60 micrograms). Some of these juices have 1800 ug per mL. (Do the math -- one puff would put you over the daily limit). In any case, based on what the science thus far says, it appears there is really no safe levels of these chemicals (for inhalation that is). It's similar to radioactive particles or heavy metals -- the less the better.
A popular argument against the diacetyl and popcorn lung connection is this: Since cigarettes have fairly high levels of DA, then why don't smokers get popcorn lung? It sounds like a good argument. Except it's not. Why? Three reasons:
1) Not every person exposed to diacetyl in popcorn plants, coffee roasting plants, or bakeries got popcorn lung. However, many of them did experience some sort of obstructive lung problem (based on spirometry tests). Therefore, it should be noted that even among these workers popcorn lung is rare (but still far higher than the general population). Much more common among the workers are milder cases of obstructive respiratory issues. To complicate matters, some long time workers never got popcorn lung while some people got it after months of being exposed. So, like many diseases, it seems risk is highly individualized and rather unpredictable (on an individual scale). This is why you hear doctors say things like "the risk of disease X is 50% greater if you do Y or Z." They are looking at it based on population data.
2) Cigarette smoke has, what, 4000 known chemical constituents? Whenever a smoker shows reduced lung function, no doctor I know of says "Oh that's because of chemical XYZ in the smoke." No, he will say "it's because of smoking." I don't think science knows exactly what chemicals (in that massive cocktail) causes lung problems or why, but the science is clear that something in the smoke is causing it. It would be interesting to know such a thing, but there's really no point as far as medicine is concerned when smoking is an avoidable risk.
3) Many smokers do have major lung problems. The symptoms of COPD are almost identical to popcorn lung. When a doctor sees a smoker with lung problems he isn't going to immediately think "popcorn lung." It's the old adage "When I hear hoofs on the street I think horse and not zebra." To actually diagnose popcorn lung takes a lot of testing and a lung biopsy (for a sure diagnosis). I doubt most smokers would ever have a reason to undergo such testing. They get diagnosed with COPD, put on Spiriva, handed an oxygen tank and told good luck. The only reason some of these factory workers got diagnosed with popcorn lung in the first place is because they weren't smokers (which forced the doctors to look at other causes).
There was a study published last year that examined the whole diacetyl in cigarette smoke issue. The author's contention is that all popcorn workers diagnosed with BO were smokers and cigarette smoke contains far more diacetyl than found in the ambient air in the factories. Therefore, smoking in theory should be a bigger risk factor for BO, but no smoker has ever been diagnosed with BO. So, basically, the authors of that paper are making the same argument I just argued against (no smokers get BO, therefore diacetyl isn't to blame in the factories).
But they're wrong. First of all, it is not true (as they say in the paper) that all factory workers diagnosed with BO were also smokers. This is demonstrably false and makes me wonder how they are ignorant of this fact when even specious research will dig up studies on the workers showing clearly some of them were non-smokers. (There is a man in his 30's who never smoked and exercised regularly who got popcorn lung after only months working in a coffee plant. And he isn't the only one -- there are numerous other cases of non-smoking workers getting the disease). This simple error alone is enough to totally discount this paper and throw it in the trash (I am amazed it passed peer review).
To summarize, some smokers may well indeed be walking around with undiagnosed cases of BO (popcorn lung) and not know it. I've seen some long time smokers in pretty bad shape -- carting around oxygen tanks and the like. But I've seen others smoke until a ripe old age without many obvious problems. I've seen people in their 30's and 40's with full blown COPD, while others in their 60's or 70's with relatively normal lung function. (I am not a doctor, just talking about people I know in life).
But, you're right. All we have now are correlations (strong correlations, but still not direct proof). But, as Dr. Farsilinos says, we probably never will have direct proof because to conduct a double blind study on this topic would be unethical and would never be allowed. You can't subject humans to harmful chemicals for science (though there are people I wouldn't mind subjecting to such experiments). That's why we have animal studies, and such animal studies have already been done on this topic. Animals exposed to diacetyl vapors have gotten the animal equivalent of popcorn lung (or other respiratory problems depending on dosage) in every study I have read. Same goes for animals exposed to AP.
My annual municipal water report at my last house and published biohazard warnings urging the locals to refrain from using their water for at least 3 days to a week after large rain falls suggest otherwise.
This was from a revamped facility that was praised for its efforts and at last count won 3 awards for being well above and beyond ideal conditions.
My well water test results suggest this is far from true as well. Even after softening and filtering through a whole house system.
My family will always filter our drinking water via reverse osmosis and remineralize.
Tapatyped
i have relatives in the suburb of Oakdale MN. who receive free bottled water for life.
contaminated aquifer and all that.
regards
mike
Good example.
Not to mention the 50 to 100 yr old plumbing infrastructure across the nation. Bacteria build up and small cracks in our source water piping leading to unwanted nasties that aren't found at the source water location.
And municipalities rarely test at the end user location often enough to spot a spike.
Even when they do, those results aren't published to be known or considered.
For example, my old neighborhood underwent a feed water pipe cleaning and repair a few years back. They layed above ground pipes to deal with supplying homes. Though they put flyers on every door urging us not to use the water for consumption of any sort.
During this time the nitrite level alone in the water maintained pretty much over twice the ld-50 level for infants. A serious risk for SIDS.
I was collecting rain water in barrels for my fish tanks. I lost quite a few fish with a single scheduled water change from the tap. Learned that lesson fast.
My grandmother's neighborhood recently had all their source water piping replaced as well. I don't have details on that but I'm certain there was good reason. From what I understand the water quality in that neighborhood has been suspect for some decades.
Just some examples of why we shouldn't assume and take our water sources for granted. Though in most cases, I don't think bottled water is the solution given the sources of most bottled water, plastic leaching from bottles sitting on shelves and the additional tons of waste created that we currently have no fix for.
Tapatyped
Last edited:
I love the fact that Flavour Crafters has all of their juices analysed regularly and posts analysis reports on every juice on their site. Just shows they are looking out for their customers and have no problem being transparent about their products.
I love the fact that they care enough, even if it's for their own interests, to have that information available to their customers.
Tapatyped
If companies want to test their juice and post the results, that's great.
But please don't turn this into a way to take away my choices. Apparently I LIKE the taste of diacetyl, since I make my own and have tried the DX and V 2 versions of a few flavors and did NOT like them as much as the originals.
But please don't turn this into a way to take away my choices. Apparently I LIKE the taste of diacetyl, since I make my own and have tried the DX and V 2 versions of a few flavors and did NOT like them as much as the originals.
the good doctor was commenting on the test results if
in fact they are accurate and what it means.
he in no way endorsed vapershark nor condemned
the vendors involved.
i thought he made that quite clear.
regards
mike
Actually, I do believe Dr. Farsalinos did indeed indirectly condemn VaporShark, and directly condemn certain vendors, in this interview here:
The Vaporshark Lab Testing Saga Continues - A Roundup Of The Latest News | The Grumpy Vaper
He states "Diacetyl is an added ingredient. Having it in the liquid is like intentionally wanting to cause harm. It is unacceptable, period."
In the same article, in an interview with Brandon Leidel, CEO of Vaporshark, Brandon was asked if VaporShark will be removing the juices with elevated levels of DA or AP from their stock. Brandon's reply was "No. Our objective was to quietly create transparency between manufacturers and consumers."
So, when you consider Dr. Farsalinos' statement then the only conclusion you can make is that VaporShark is intentionally wanting to cause harm by continuing to sell juices with elevated DA or AP.
I also find Brandon's comment about "quietly create transparency" rather suspect. Did he seriously think this would be quiet? VaporShark is a large, and very popular company. I find it very hard to believe that they actually thought this would be a "quiet" issue.
OK.... As I mentioned about Flavour Crafters above, I think it is awesome for companies to be transparent about what is in their products, and I do commend any company that does so. But if there are ulterior motives behind the transparency then it become disingenuous. I'm beginning to lean toward the side of those who think this may be a market move on the part of VaporShark, and I'm also wondering if Enthalpy Analytic may have some part in the scheme as well. After all, they do stand to make a LOT of money should testing become mandatory by legislation.
good point.
the doctor has always said that these were avoidable risk's.
he seems to have cranked up the rhetoric with this last statement.
i totally agree with you about Brandon's comments.
regards
mike
Oh my.
I got through the whole dry burning scare relatively unscathed, thanks to some quality posts here on ECF.
The level of risk as I understood the issue was within my tolerence, so I'll keep dry burning.
This DA, AP, issue has me completely confused
I just can't seem to quantify the risk from the available information.
In addition one of my favourite juices has just been reported to have a DA of well over 500ppm, but as I say I'm still unsure as to what this means.
From previous theads I also read that synthetic flavours were preferred as organic components had unknow possible risks.
Then again my ADV is Castle Long, and I believe that all Five Pawns liquids are made with propriatory infusions. Are these not organics?
Castle Long Reserve, which I've been vaping today, is oak casked. Surely that's as organic as it gets!
I made the decision when I started vaping to only buy American juice. Not always the easiest option here in Malaysia, but I thought that would cover me on juice quality.
Even if I wanted to be DA / AP free, the Vaper Shark list is far from exhaustive.
Now totally confused.
I got through the whole dry burning scare relatively unscathed, thanks to some quality posts here on ECF.
The level of risk as I understood the issue was within my tolerence, so I'll keep dry burning.
This DA, AP, issue has me completely confused
I just can't seem to quantify the risk from the available information.
In addition one of my favourite juices has just been reported to have a DA of well over 500ppm, but as I say I'm still unsure as to what this means.
From previous theads I also read that synthetic flavours were preferred as organic components had unknow possible risks.
Then again my ADV is Castle Long, and I believe that all Five Pawns liquids are made with propriatory infusions. Are these not organics?
Castle Long Reserve, which I've been vaping today, is oak casked. Surely that's as organic as it gets!
I made the decision when I started vaping to only buy American juice. Not always the easiest option here in Malaysia, but I thought that would cover me on juice quality.
Even if I wanted to be DA / AP free, the Vaper Shark list is far from exhaustive.
Now totally confused.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
