hard to find a lot of studies on nicotine without the burning plant material...
Depending on what article engine or library you use, you can simply exclude those studies that conduct work with "pyrolysis." any study that has to do with this is most likely burning the plant.
also has been shown to be non addictive...
I would like to read about that, have an article or something?
I guess we will have to wait for the data. I like many others on this forum are willing participants in the long term experiment.
well something I see missing from this community is a statistics engine. a lot of you talk, and that's great. but when it comes down to it, people will ask for the proof. basically I'm worried that we are waiting for data we are not collecting. we should start some polls and voluntary questionnaires, if new vapers come before their first ecig they can become part of a switchers program if they wish to gather data on their recovery. your main problem I think is that the tobacco industry will lobby hard against ecig tech and it is quite large, so of course it's going to be difficult to get the health departments to actually look at it.
in a world of fire bombs and terrorism threats these companies are the ones that tell the airlines not to take peoples lighters away! that's political power you should consider.
nice 
i always love more research, can't get enough. I'll look it through when I get a chance. thanks for posting the other links too, i was worried people wouldn't be able to get a hold of the actual article. I recommend to everyone to start gathering a small folder in your computer or file in your cabinet, and just collect articles like this.
arguments are much easier to win when you have the scientific community backing you up and people WILL ask you about it.
I like to brake things down to their simplest form.
me too, however, in this case it cannot be broken down into simple words but rather, one simple argument. the question I wanted to answer here was "is it nicotine that causes paralysis?"
to be effective, final and confident with the answer, the answer cannot contain the question it is posing, that would be circular logic.
example. someone asks if vaping is better than smoking. without proof the person will usually rely on personal experience, which is valid data but not proof in this case since it could be just as easily explained by some unknown improvement elsewhere in the persons health. therefore the person asking still has doubt. the logic is such:
"I want to vape to feel better than when I smoke", "I started vaping", "I feel better", "this proves that vaping makes you feel better".
this is circular logic. you cannot use your starting assumption as proof of your conclusion.
so what we do is inject an outside source, one that is blind and has no vested interest in the outcome. an experiment.
the logic becomes:
i want to vape to feel better than when I smoke, research shows lower health effects from nicotine alone, eliquid contains only flavoring, a type of glycol and nicotine, it correlates that the study is valid here. therefore this product is better than cigarettes. thus I will feel better using it.
you see how this method added two more conditions to our apriori information. making it easy to come to a valid and sound argument that cannot be broken unless one of the assumptions is proved to be false, the first being your emotions, and no one can prove you didn't want to quit, the other two being based on an experiment, and thus to prove you wrong, they would have to prove the experiments wrong, which is MUCH more difficult to do.
notice also we have a final statement. "thus..." this is what's called the link to the question. usually you can spot arguments that are inherently circular when they are missing this. because you need to somehow link your proof to your assumption.
this is why using scientific data is stronger than opinion and speculation. even if it is not simple, it provides a fortress where you need it. at your core beliefs.
BTW, your mother inhaled PG into her lungs every day that she went to work. Hospitals use it in their ventilation systems.
I don't doubt it, I'm aware asthma inhalers also use a form of it, but this is a different question to answer isn't it. are the doses the same? is the concentration the same? can it be compared to using a vaping device? i think i have a few on this subject but I'll have to check my article vault
I didn't really focus on this since I wasn't interested in the comparative effects of vaping devices with hospitals, merely the effects of this substance on the lungs.
... I only wonder if the flavorings carried in the PG/VG can do any long term bodily harm ...
I don't think so, of course the data I've collected is for specific brands, so we will have to build an article base of toxicology reports for all brands of liquid, but for the most part you can see the same ingredients in liquid.
TOXICOLOGY LABORATORY
GASTHUISBERG CAMPUS, O&N2
P8 922
"Super Smoker Toxicology Final Report"
29 June 2007
"EXPERT APPRAISAL AND ANALYSIS REQUESTED
• To determine which substances are present in the liquid with the above-mentioned label?
• To determine which substances are present in the smoke produced by the “SUPER SMOKER” cigarettes?
• To determine which substances are present in the smoke produced by the “SUPER SMOKER” cigar?
• To give a risk evaluation of the type of substances found.
On 28 February 2007 the following were forwarded to us by Dr. H. LERUT:
• a liquid labelled “TOBACCO AROMA TYPE”, “FS” Flavour, BSt 1/163-1, 02-2007, 50 g
• 2 plastic “SUPER SMOKER” cigarettes,
• 1 plastic “SUPER SMOKER” cigar;
• some accessories, including a battery, transformer, mouthpieces. On 30 May 2007 the following were also forwarded to us by Dr. H. LERUT:
• 4 x 4 cartridges with different nicotine concentrations;
• 1 “SUPER SMOKER” cigarette (new model);
• a battery charger."
I'm not going to post the whole this here and this is just one of a few that I have, but you'll get the idea... this information IS out there. you just need to know how to look for it
Methodology was two methods, Erlenmeyer flask under low pressure to simulate sucking
and a gas chromatographic analysis.
"On the basis of the above the following results were obtained:
• presence of 2-methyl propanal: approx. 0.42 nanolitre per millilitre of liquid; converted to the corresponding weight this means approx. 420 nanograms per millilitre.
• presence of 2-methyl butanal: approx. 0.46 nanolitre per millilitre of liquid, converted to the corresponding weight this means approx.. 460 nanograms per millilitre
• presence of 2-(-methyl ethyl)-4-methyl-1,3-dioxolane: approx. 27 nanolitres per millilitre of liquid; converted to the corresponding weight, this means approx. 27 micrograms per millilitre.
• presence of 2 (1 methyl propyl)-4-methyl-1,3-dioxolane: approx. 35 nanolitres per millilitres of liquid; converted to the corresponding weight this means approx. 35 micrograms per millilitre...
...• maximum presence of 2-methyl propanal: approx. 420 nanograms x 1000 = approx.. 0.420
milligrams in total.
• maximum presence of 2-methyl butanal: approx.. 460 nanograms x 1000 = approx.. 0.460
milligrams in total."
these toxocology reports take into account commun sense as well saying:
"It is evident that the above-mentioned suction volume cannot be considered, in its entirety for
determining absorption (through inhalation or orally), for it may be assumed that most of it is
removed again by “blowing out” the smoke, possibly together with the 2-methyl propanal and 2-
methyl butanal (if this does not react away in the mouth). The calculated values may therefore
be regarded as the clear upper limit. We also note that the suction volume may variably quite
considerably (as a function of normal use), as can the number of cigarettes per day."
im not sure what use these would do but the discussion does have some interesting points about pre and post atomisation composition.
"DISCUSSION
Nicotine is present in all the samples examined. The nicotine concentration determination, using deuterated nicotine, will be carried out as soon as this standard is available (it has been ordered). An interesting, correlated presence of the following substances was found:: proplyene glycol, acetals (2 types), 2-methyl propanal and 2-methyl butanal
• the presence of the acetals was clearly greater in the liquid and smaller in the smoke;
• on the other hand the presence of propylene glycol was clearly smaller in the liquid compared to that in the smoke;
• this observation may indicate the (reaction) mechanism that takes place during atomisation (or thereafter): acetals which can hydrolyse, under the influence of water (e.g. moisture in the mouth) and acidity (pH), to propylene glycol and the corresponding aldehydes, namely 2- methyl propanal and 2 methyl butanal;
• the fact that no aldehydes could be demonstrated in the “smoke samples” may be due to their high reactivity (e.g. they can react away immediately in the mouth with basic groups such as amides).
The essential oils may derive from the tobacco plant (i.e. to create a similar aroma). The presence of the essential oils, ethanol (= consumption alcohol) and acetone amounts to trace amounts."
and finally the analysis and identification of food and/or toxins.
"Toxicity data (summary):
• propylene glycol: proposal of the “Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives” ADI (“Acceptable Daily Intake”) in humans = 0 to 25 mg/kg of body weight, by the “Food and Drug Administration”, generally assumed to be safe (“GRAS” Statute = Generally Recognised as Safe”)
[See also the appendix to INCHEM – WHO FOOD ADDITIVES SERIES No. 5]
• 2-methyl propanal: no exposure limits established, i.e. no MAC (“Maximal Allowable Concentration”) or TLV (“Threshold Limited Value”) values, inhalation may give rise to a sore throat, coughing, a burning sensation, shortness of breath and difficulty in breathing,; contact with the skin and eyes may give rise to pain, redness and burns. The following standards have been published:
Acute oral toxicity LD-50 (rat) = 960 mg/kg, other study = 3700 mg/kg;
Acute dermal toxicity LD-50 (rabbit) = 7130 mg/kg;
Acute toxicity after inhalation LC-50 (mouse, 2 u) = 39.5 mg/L
Note: a LD-50 value is a statistically derived value, in particular a total dose which 50% deaths in the experimental animals used: a LC-50 value is comparable but does not express the lethal concentration.
[See also the appendix to INCHEM – SUMMARY JOINT FAO/WHO COMMITTEE]
[See also the appendix to MSDS – isobutyraldehyde – 2-methyl propanal]
Taking account of the calculated upper limit of 0.420 milligram of 2-methyl propanal per cigarette, i.e. expressed per litre and per use of one cigarette, this value is approx. 100 x lower than the LC-50 value.
If we assume that 2-methyl propanal is considered for oral absorption, we see, for a person weighing 60 kg, that we must have 60 x 960 – 57.6 grams of 2-methyl propanal to expect 50% deaths (when extrapolating from rat to human, in fact). The value found, 0.420 milligram of 2-methyl propanal, is approx. 100,000 x lower than the reported LD-50 value. We should mention that this substance is known as a “flavouring agent”.
• 2-methyl butanal: assumed to be “slightly” toxic after inhalation; despite the fact that no MAC
value is established there are the following standards.
Acute oral toxicity LD-50 (rat) = 6920 mg/kg;
Acute dermal toxicity LD-50 (rabbit) – 5440 mg/kg;
Acute toxicity after inhalation LC-50 (rat, 4 u) = 50 mg/L.
Absorption via the skin, eyes and after oral intake can give rise to sore throat, coughing, a burning sensation, shortness of breath, difficulty in breathing, redness and burns.
[See also the appendix to INCHEM – SUMMARY JOINT FAO/WHO COMMITTEE]
[See also the appendix to MSDS – 2-methyl butyraldehyde = 2-methylbutanal]
Taking account of the calculated upper limit of 0.460 milligram of 2-methyl butanal per cigarette, i.e. expressed per litre and per use of one cigarette, this value is approx. 100 x lower than the LC-50 value.
If we assume that 2-methyl butanal is considered for oral absorption, we see, for a person weighing 60 kg, that we must have 60 x 6920 = 415.2 grams of 2-methyl butanal to expect 50% deaths (when extrapolating from rat to human). The value found, 0.40 milligram of 2- methyl butanal, is approx. 1,000,000 x lower than the reported LD-50 value. We should mention that this substance is known as a “flavouring agent”.
• Acetals: this relates here to 2-(1-methyl ethyl)-4-methyl-1,3-dioxolane and 2-(1-methyl propyl)(-4-methyl-1,3-dioxolane; although 1,3-dioxolane is itself classified as toxic (probably because formaldehyde is formed), this does not mean that substituted dioxolanes are also toxic; it may generally be stated that it is assumed that 4-methyl-1,3-dioxolanes are permitted as a “flavouring agent” in food and present no safety risk in normal use.
[See also the appendix to INCHEM – SUMMARY JOINT FAO/WHO COMMITTEE]
Regarding the quantity of 2-(1-methyl ethyl)-4-methyl-1,3-dioxolane and 2-(1-methyl propyl)- 4-methyl-1,3-dioxolane, it may be stated that this will be very low in the “smoke” because of the hydrolysis (in other words there presence was observed mainly in the liquid).
• phenol: 5 pm (“parts per million”) permitted as “TWA” (- time-weighted average); since this substance was only detected in the cigar analysis, and in a very low concentration, we consider that this substance is not relevant in the analysis and discussion.
• 1,2,3-propane triol: assumed to be a very slightly toxic substance, mainly because it is not a xenobiotic (in the conversion from fat to energy glycerine is released in the circulation and finally converted to glucose)."
So not only a qualitative analysis but a quantitative one, that's why I liked this report a lot. in alot of cases the LC-50 value was as low as 100x higher than the amount found in the vapor AND that is even if you inhale and obsorb 100% of the vapor, which is highly unlikely. remember because of this they described it as a clear upper limit. so your are obsorbing much less than 1/100 the LC-50 value for most of these.
The resulting conclusion of the lab is then discussed:
"Based on the one hand on a declaration by Dr. Th. Golz, dated. 19 June 2007, according to which tryptophane and glutaminic acid are not present in the formulation of “Borgwaldt Flavour” products, and on the other hand on a certificate forwarded to us from the same company, dated 30 May 2007, according to which i) all “tobacco flavours” are produced according to the German tobacco legislation, ii) all “flavouring ingredients” conform to the food and tobacco legislation (such as the German TVO), iii) these substances are also regarded as “Generally Recognised as Safe” (the so-called “GRAS” Statute, according to the “Food and Drug Administration”, FDA), and iv) the products made by the e ...... conform to the quality guarantee and ISO 9001:2000 standards..."
and of course the most important bit:
"
there are no scientific reasons for assuming the presence or formation of heterocyclic amines. Moreover, it may be added that the short-term temperature at which evaporation takes place in the products of “SUPER SMOKERS”, namely approx. 100 to 130°C, is much lower than in the case of pyrolysis in a classic cigarette (where temperatures of several hundred degrees Celsius are reached), so that here there are no elements leading to the assumption of heterocyclic amines. Taking account of the elements summarised above, it may also be concluded that there is no reason to assume the presence of metals (such as nickel, cadmium, arsenic, etc.)."
I dunno about you guys, but i like that kind of conclusion for things i put in my body.
Does that translate to night angel?
it can be interpreted as night or darkangel your choice. it's a name I've had for many years.
I switched because removing the "smoke" from smoking has to be an improvement.
yeah considering what's in cigarette smoke, and considering you're only after the nicotine, it's actually amazing people didn't figure something like ecigs out sooner. how inefficient smoking 3000 chemicals to get one!
Too all the rest, thanks for your comments, glad to see people getting some piece of mind.
along the way.....(LOL)
