Third-hand vapor .. causes cancer?

[jiff]

Know what else is dangerous to our health? Oxygen.

The FDA needs to start regulating our oxygen inhalation and exposure. The rest of the time we must hold our breath and be in a vaccuum enviroment... or they need to have oxygen as a medication and everyone must get a perscription to breath... yesss...

 

[Kurt]

Trying again to attach this...

 

[TropicalBob]

Back to reality ...

Yes, the Health New Zealand study was funded by Ruyan, but the results were NOT. Dr. Murray Laugesen is a renowned researcher -- and won't be bought when his work must be subjected to intense peer review.

So .. here's where we stand:

Dr. Laugesen found that 90% of the nicotine in the vapor from a 16mg cart is absorbed in the upper airways (not the lungs). It is a miniscule amount, roughly 10% of what tobacco smoke delivers.

Dr. Eissenberg found that inconsequential nicotine is absorbed from the vapor of 10 puffs from a 16mg cart.

So where's the problem? If it works for some, it works. But taking these two studies as valid results from the protocols used, we can conclude that we don't get any meaningulf nicotine from 16mg carts. So we can't exhale any either.

No nicotine means no physiological impact; psychological impact would be the same as a placebo. So this is not a drug product, proven by these two tests. And it can't be a cancer concern from third-hand vapor if the vapor contains virtually no nicotine content, eh?

Sadly, I think discussions here will have ramifications none of us want. We've now convinced a respected researcher that we must modify standard devices and/or use toxic levels of nicotine to satisfy our addiction. He will go forth and spread the word about what he learned on ECF. Please explain to me how that is a good thing!

 

[ThePuck]

New e-cig labeling to come...

WARNING: The Surgeon General has determined that e-cigs may or may not contain substances that may or may not cause cancer. We don't know if they do or not but want to make sure you and everyone else believes they do. We're from the government and we're here to help you.

 

[Kurt]

cpcp68, this is from the paper:

This work was supported by the University
of California tobacco-Related Diseases Research Program (Project
16RT-0158). Experimental work was carried out at LBNL under US Department
of Energy Contract DE-AC02-05CH11231. Laboratory resources at
University of California San Francisco were supported by the Flight Attendant
Medical Research Institute and by National Institutes of Health
Grant DA012393.

Realize that while funding is done by approving a particular project's proposal, papers are only published after a favorable peer-review process, and the reviewers are always anonymous...even the authors don't know how they are. Without seeing the reviewers' comments, which only the authors will see, we do not know what was considered positive or negative, nor will we.

BTW, that slight film of PG or VG will evaporate given enough air flow or dryness of environment. The film on your windshield when it is very cold outside will likely be completely gone the next day. That is not the case with smoke tars. There is a huge difference between nic stuck in a tar matrix, and nic loosely bound to PG or VG which is continually in the process of evaporating, thus liberating the nic into the air. I simply do not see this as applicable to vaping, but then the amount of fundamental understanding of the inherent chemistry that is required means it could be applied to vaping anyway, by the media.

It is the relative amounts that the media chooses not to address in any of the vaping issues, because they know the general public has no feel for them, only fear of buzz words. And the way they would do it, even if a study doesn't address it outright, is to sort of innocently ask during the news spot:

"Hmmm, do you think, Beth, that this could mean those ecigs are not as safe as one might think?"

"Bill, that's a great question, and we just don't know, but the FDA has said that the vapor does contain cancer-causing nitrosamines."

And with that, the seed is planted. They didn't lie, they simply quoted previous distortions and influenced, and Joe Average now doesn't want to even think about ecigs.

 

[ChipCurtis]

Sadly, I think discussions here will have ramifications none of us want. We've now convinced a respected researcher that we must modify standard devices and/or use toxic levels of nicotine to satisfy our addiction. He will go forth and spread the word about what he learned on ECF. Please explain to me how that is a good thing!

You're absolutely right about this. Yet, this is the internet. The positives of our free speech and ability to get the word out is equally negated by the ability of trolls, spies, and saboteurs to do their dirty work on these same free-speech highways.

I think I gave the good Dr. E. the benefit of the doubt for a good length of time. Now that more reports based on his research have surfaced, and the way the discussion evolved since his early posts, that we were probably duped.

 

[Kurt]

TB, I agree. It was also puzzling to me why people would be upset that Dr. E's study found that PVs don't deliver significant nic. It certainly does not add strength to anything the FDA would be arguing...in fact, I would think its a huge embarrassment to them, and something that SE and NJoy, especially, should be playing up in the court case. Of course, they would not want to play it up to their customers, but in court I would think this would be egg on the FDA's face.

 

[ChipCurtis]

They're all improvising as they go along. There isn't really a single point-of-law that any of the anti's can work with. They're simply throwing everything and anything at us that they can. Whatever type of mud sticks. If all this wrangling reveals a little egg on FDA's face, they'll just wipe that off and continue their campaign.

 

[cpcp68]

cpcp68, this is from the paper:

This work was supported by the University
of California Tobacco-Related Diseases Research Program (Project
16RT-0158). Experimental work was carried out at LBNL under US Department
of Energy Contract DE-AC02-05CH11231. Laboratory resources at
University of California San Francisco were supported by the Flight Attendant
Medical Research Institute and by National Institutes of Health
Grant DA012393.

Realize that while funding is done by approving a particular project's proposal, papers are only published after a favorable peer-review process, and the reviewers are always anonymous...even the authors don't know how they are. Without seeing the reviewers' comments, which only the authors will see, we do not know what was considered positive or negative, nor will we.

Kurt,

I think the sources of funding are well-respectable and mean well (the AC contract is just a mandatory quote labbies have to put on their papers.

I am well aware of the peer review process (I am editor of a scientific journal myself). The comments from the reviewers have to be addressed in order for the paper to be published (provided the comments make sense!). If something is fishy in the method, chances are it will be caught and the paper will not be published unless all problems are resolved. Well, for serious peer-reviewed journals at least.

What I am saying is that the research is likely valid and the researchers respectable. They may have emphasized the 3rd hand smoking issue in their manuscript because this is a health topic that has the potential of being 'catchy' for the general public. This way, they can show the sponsor their money's worth through important scientific publications and appearance in the news.
Does this research apply to vaping? Sure. Is it consequential? I cannot say at this time and this is not really my field. From what I read and the little I know, probably not much.

 

[DC2]

Seems to me the idea that there is no nicotine being delivered sort of paves the way for the FDA to say fine, you aren't getting any nicotine so you clearly don't need it to be in the liquid, so we will ban liquid containing nicotine and we will leave you alone and everybody will be happy.

 

[maureengill]

Nope...you missed a couple things....

I spent massive time as a baby crawling all over floors and eating things off of it, slobbering on it and I'm sure eating carpet and the like at one point or another....I'd bet the the 20 minutes of stop dead traffic that I sit in every day is way worse....damn sun roof.

Maureen

Let me see if I understand the science.

According to FDA, we may get too much nicotine from electronic cigarettes and overdose. According to the UK's MPHA, we won't get enough nicotine, which will spoil our attempts to stop smoking as well as prejudice us against using their much more effective NRT products. And according to the VCU study, we aren't getting any nicotine at all.

Now, according the the Californians, I have second hand smoke lying around everywhere (guess I should get around to doing a little house-cleaning), and I am likely to go out and get a gas furnace to install in my all electric home and get cancer from the ambient nicotine reacting with the Nitrous Acid.

My father smoked. I smoked for 45 years and also had a husband smoking in the same house for 30+ years. I lived in homes with gas furnaces for half my life. Hmmm....

Actually, I died of cancer 20 years ago and my ghost is writing this.



Does that about cover it?

 

[DVap]

Yes, there is a study that says we don't exhale noticeable nic, but that was a paid-for study. Our own Exo and Dvap were experimenting on this very question, and I believe the end result was, on a 'primer-puff' we exhale somewhere from 30-50% of the nicotine - not so much on a complete inhale/exhale.

Actually, neither Exo (last time I checked with him) nor I have done any testing of nicotine exhalation due to the very limiting factor of exhaled carbon dioxide affecting the results of a titrimetric determination (due to it's acidic nature). We've tossed some ideas around to deal with the carbon dioxide, but so far, neither of us has put rubber to the road and done anything to run the question to ground.