What do we know for sure?

[Shortstuff116]

There has been so many threads by so many with so much information with so little sources for confirmation of truth, I feel very confused and ill-informed about what the facts really are.

The FDA (for example) has in the past approved Propylene Glycol for use in products we consume, but show concern if not caution in the inhaling of PG primarily due to the lack of study and investigation.

I like to make it known that I quit smoking with my PV and how much healthier I am for it. But at the same time I want to tell others with some sort of "authoritative proof" and "facts" that will help me in telling them how much safer PV's are to tobacco cigarettes.

So my question is, what do we know for sure as true, based on specific evidence and facts that someone like myself can convey to others who are interested, without misleading or misinforming them?

Thanks! Steve

 

[frogbmth]

Truth is, we know nothing for sure. This is true for many things, not just e-smoking. What we have is opinion and anecdotal evidence only.

Here are some links to studies

SuperSmoker eliquid toxicology report
http://www.supersmokerjp.com/images/...anslatiion.pdf

The Electronic Cigarette Co eliquid toxicology report
http://www.tobaccoharmreduction.org/tox1.pdf

Gamucci eliquid toxicology report
http://www.ecigaretteschoice.com/GamucciLabStudy.pdf

EcoPure report
http://www.intellicig.com/images/pdf...2009-04-14.pdf

Ruyan, NRT effectiveness
http://www.healthnz.co.nz/ecig_effect-2.pdf

Ruyan, eliquid analysis
http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartr...t30-Oct-08.pdf

Ruyan, summary of research
http://www.healthnz.co.nz/DublinBenchtopHandout.pdf

E-cig study for metals
Om de elektroniske cigaretter

Toxicology report on PVLiquid from e-cigs.co.uk
http://www.e-cigs.co.uk/docs/E249A.pdf

Research on long-term effect of nicotine inhalation
Long-term effects of inhaled nicotine. [Life Sci. 1996] - PubMed result

 

[TropicalBob]

Frog, I've spent two years of e-smoking keeping up with this -- and could not answer with anything other than "we know nothing for scientific certainty."

And that's what you did, while adding the papers on related content. Thanks.

 

[yvilla]

And here are some links to studies and information that specifically address the safety of propylene glycol:

The EPA, when reapproving PG for use as an air sanitizer in public establishments such as hospitals and restaurants in 2006:

"General Toxicity Observations
Upon reviewing the available toxicity information, the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol. This conclusion is based on the results of toxicity testing of propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol in which dose levels near or above testing limits (as established in the OPPTS 870 series harmonized test guidelines) were employed in experimental animal studies and no significant toxicity observed."

"Carcinogenicity Classification
A review of the available data has shown propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol to be negative for carcinogenicity in studies conducted up to the testing limit doses established by the Agency; therefore, no further carcinogenic analysis is required."
http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregist...glycol_red.pdf

The FDA inactive ingredients database for PG, listing the currently approved oral, dermal, nasal, intravenous and inhalation pharmaceutical products containing PG:
Inactive Ingredients in FDA Approved Drugs (type "propylene glycol" in search box on this page for results)

Studies conducted on PG safety for use in theatrical fogging applications:
http://www.esta.org/tsp/working_groups/FS/docs/HSE.pdf
http://www.esta.org/tsp/working_grou...docs/cohen.pdf