WHOA?! We have GOT to find this reference!

[Yankee802]

In this news story, there is this statement:

"Electronic cigarettes are also proving to be much safer. According to the Food and Drug Administration, an electronic cigarette has 3.87 nanograms of carcinogens compared to 4,300 in a Marlboro cigarette."

First, can anyone find where this statement can be verified?

Second, if this is a fact, how can the FDA justify trying to ban ecigs?

 

[TheBoogieman]

The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: Comparison of Carcinogen Levels Shows that Electronic Cigarettes are Much Safer Than Conventional Ones

Spend some time there, and read up. Its always good to go there after reading all the BS going on. It clears your head. Shows that common sense isn't dead.

TheBoogieman

 

[MsSki]

Wow Making sure this thread goes back to the top. Is this true?
Tara

 

[DaliMama]

Good looking out! Hopefully this will prove to be a credible source rather than an attempt at publicity or a marketing stunt.

I am going to write the author of the article to see where he got his information...keeping my fingies crossed!

 

[Vocalek]

It looks as if the writer just grabbed the numbers from the first column of Siegel's table, not noticing the the entire row adds up to 8.183 for e-cigarettes, and 11,190 for Marlboros.

BTW, there are footnotes in Siegel's article that show where those numbers originated. The first row came from Dr. Laugesen's tests on Ruyan e-cigarettes.

http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf

Trust the original sources, from the folks who actually did the tests, not what someone else reported. It turns out that Seigel reported accurately, but Aaron Martin made a mistake when looking at Seigel's table.

 

[DaliMama]

Thank you Vocal...I have not yet had a response from Aaron Martin.

I did find this same comparison between e.cigs and marlboros in numerous other articles and arguments supporting e.cigs.

 

[kristin]

The 8.183 found in Health New Zealand's testing of the Ruyan e-cig is pretty significant, as well, considering that the FDA-approved nicotine patch has nearly identical levels.

 

[Thulium]

I believe the 8.183 number is a TOTAL ng/g TSNA's discovered, so perhaps the 3.87 represents the actual amount detected in a cartridge or (since it appears to point to the same study) perhaps 3.87ng/g does not include non-carcinogenic nitrosamines? If I remember correctly, Cotinine is the tobacco related nitrosamine that was detected in the vapor along with nicotine, but neither is a carcinogen or significantly toxic.

 

[DaliMama]

Here is the response I got from the author of the article...nothing we haven't already heard or surmised...Hard to believe that his "source" is an e.cig company. I would have hoped that a professional journalist would have found a more credible source for information. Nice guy, nothing personal against him, just think that if we are to have any hope of gaining support we will need to have credible sources of information.


Hi Amanda,

From what the health department told me no health organization is going to strongly endorse them until the long term effects are understood. A lot of the information I got is from the company's website ecigsteamer.com and from the health department. If there's anything else I can help with let me know.

Aaron Martin
TV6 News Reporter
906-362-3412
Latest news, weather, high school sports for Michigan?s Upper Peninsula - Powered by WLUC TV6

 

[Vicks Vap-oh-Yeah]

I believe the 8.183 number is a TOTAL ng/g TSNA's discovered, so perhaps the 3.87 represents the actual amount detected in a cartridge or (since it appears to point to the same study) perhaps 3.87ng/g does not include non-carcinogenic nitrosamines? If I remember correctly, Cotinine is the tobacco related nitrosamine that was detected in the vapor along with nicotine, but neither is a carcinogen or significantly toxic.

I thought cotinine was the byproduct of nicotine's breakdown in the body? That's what the insurance companies are testing for in urine to determine if there's been nicotine usage?

 

[CES]

DaliMama,

Thanks for communicating with the reporter. I'm not so much worried that the health organizations don't actively support vaping- but I would like them to stop actively campaigning AGAINST vaping.

Did you send any additional references/information? Even though the reporter didn't want to do much initial research, there could be a great follow up story about the disconnect between health organizations actually protecting health and using misinformation to protect their and BP's bottom lines.

 

[Thulium]

I thought cotinine was the byproduct of nicotine's breakdown in the body? That's what the insurance companies are testing for in urine to determine if there's been nicotine usage?

Good catch, Vicks. I was just guessing on the Cotinine, but I was actually thinking of B-Nicotyrine. From the portion of the FDA Report where they reported results of simulated use testing on the vapor:

Screening for the possible tobacco specific impurities cotinine, nicotine-N-oxide, nornicotine, anabasine and myosmine was negative. β-Nicotyrine was detected in all Njoy cartridges but was not detected in the Smoking Everywhere cartridges.

 

[ECGuy]

The really scary thing here goes far beyond ecigs. We trust the press to bring us info and accurate info. Yet look at this article "fda found" and his info is from a start up company that doesn't even have a product yet? No offense to the new company, i'm sure they are sincere but there's no shortage of real info on the web and everytime I see articles like this it just scares the **** out of me that 90% of people get 90% of their info from these "journalists" who seem to spend 90% of their time doing anything but research and even spell check these days.

No wonder the anti smokers message gets through more and more, journalists just rehash it cause it's easy and available, no need to fact check it.

Imagine what they do with other news... really important stuff???

 

[Janetda]

Actually, I thought it was a fairly positive piece. Not completely accurate, but we've all seen much worse. God forbid the reporter actually go to his state government for advice. Here's what MI has to say about e-cigs:

The FDA has concluded that e-cigarettes pose acute health risks and contain detectable levels of carcinogens and toxic chemicals. The carcinogenic substances diethylene glycol and nitrosamines have been found in FDA tested samples, as well as other tobacco-specific impurities that may be harmful to humans.

The vapor emitted into a room, either from exhalation or the vapor emitted from the e-cigarette itself, may not be safe. E-cigarettes contain varying levels of nicotine, a toxic substance known to contribute to heart disease and heart attacks.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdch/E_cig_factsheet_for_SF_law_website_FINAL_320296_7.pdf

Not only does the FDA misrepresent their own report, but health departments are exaggerating even further. It's like a perverted game of public health Whisper.

 

[Grenage]

I wonder if the carcinogen count includes all those melted cart tips and fillers.