Iqos contains tar?

[jack1010]

'HNB no less harmful than cigarettes'

How did the filter remains pure white after usage if it contains tar?

This video is showing some test conducted with nic out filter which is known to filter off large amount of tar. But shows nothing. Who is right?

 

[Kickingthesticks]

Probably, not just as much as when you are burning.

 

[ScottP]

Probably, not just as much as when you are burning.

I agree. My assumption is that since HNB still uses real tobacco the tar is still present, but since it isn't burning, much less of it is released. What is NOT clear in the article is if they were analyzing the smoke from the HNB products or if they were analyzing the raw tobacco inside it, to see what was in it. If they only looked at what was in the unheated tobacco, then they didn't really accomplish anything. They need to analyze what is released when heating vs what is released when burning since that is what the user is actually exposed to. If they did not, the study is 100% useless.

 

[Topwater Elvis]

Doesn't surprise me, but you also have to consider the source.

There are many countries that rely on tobacco for various avenues of income, even in the US the Govt lies & uses fuzzy 'science' to distract & misinform.

 

[stols001]

I wouldn't be shocked if there were some tar released, but I equally wouldn't be shocked if it was far less, or none. It's a little hard to determine given the current climate.

I will say, there are (known) safer alternatives like Swedish snus, or even WTA.

I am not dying to test out the IQOS, for many reasons, but including I don't really wish or desire to be Big Tobacco's first "heat not burn" test subject, also it's not clear (nor will it be, it's under patent) exactly WHAT is in those heat sticks, including additives, which (IMHO) tobacco got so much LESS healthy after the started adding everything under the sun to tobacco.

I smoked 3 ppd by the end and I for SURE was not healthy, but I did smoke organic tobacco (no guarantees there, either really, as to whether it was completely additive free, although one of my docs rather seems to feel the fact that it was additive free probably saved my life. IDK about that.

But, I do know that I'm not lining up to try the IQOS.

Anna

 

[Nate5700]

Depending on what you call "tar" I think. I remember reading something that described the tar in cigarettes as being a particular mix of chemicals in tobacco smoke, including nicotine. I don't understand that to be the same as what people think of when they hear the word "tar", as in the sticky black stuff that comes in a can.

Words matter and how you define them makes all the difference. Until I see a real study that defines what they're calling "tar" I'd be skeptical. When it's as ambiguous as it is you can call whatever you want "tar" to advance whatever particular argument you're trying to make.

 

[denali_41]

There is zero tar in vaping !! tar is result of smoke,smoke is unburnt fuel

 

[bombastinator]

Depending on what you call "tar" I think. I remember reading something that described the tar in cigarettes as being a particular mix of chemicals in tobacco smoke, including nicotine. I don't understand that to be the same as what people think of when they hear the word "tar", as in the sticky black stuff that comes in a can.

Words matter and how you define them makes all the difference. Until I see a real study that defines what they're calling "tar" I'd be skeptical. When it's as ambiguous as it is you can call whatever you want "tar" to advance whatever particular argument you're trying to make.

Iirc cigarette tar and roofing tar aren’t all that dissimilar. They’re both a random mix of really long hydrocarbons.

Ps don’t eat roofing tar.

 

[denali_41]

Iirc cigarette tar and roofing tar aren’t all that dissimilar. They’re both a random mix of really long hydrocarbons.

Ps don’t eat roofing tar.

bah ha ha ha ,thats funny to me ,i am a 4th gen roofer although i got out of it along time ago !!

Everybody always chewed tar,does a dam good job cleaning your teeth[really], and an even better job of pulling fillings

and one other thing,roofing asphalt [tar] has high levels of sulfur in it
so none of this monkey see monkey do ,like in the ol days

 

[bobwho77]

It would be interesting to see the lab reports from the MRTP application.
I don't expect anything that would change my mind at this point though.
I'm happy where I am, and don't see any need to try them "Real tobacco" or not.
Vaping was/is such a big improvement from traditional cigarettes that I'm not sure that anything they can come up with would be any better

 

[Tomasius74]

As I understand it, The IQOS has tobacco but processed to a point that it is pulverized and then turned into a paste with PG and VG and other constituents. Then they make a very thin film and roll it like a spiral. The device heats the blend to a point that it releases an aerosol similar to vapour but without solid particles and the filter catches the ones that get into the aerosol. The device roasts the tobacco but doesn’t burn it. My guess is that there is no tar or, at least to a minimal quantity. I saw a lecture where it is said that HnB reduces harm (not to the point ecigs do, but the reduction is considerable)

I’m not sure I want to try it, but if HnB is also a harm reduction product I guess it must be welcomed as it can help to save smokers lives

 

[bombastinator]

It would be interesting to see the lab reports from the MRTP application.
I don't expect anything that would change my mind at this point though.
I'm happy where I am, and don't see any need to try them "Real tobacco" or not.
Vaping was/is such a big improvement from traditional cigarettes that I'm not sure that anything they can come up with would be any better

Especially at the prices they are charging. Yeek

 

[bombastinator]

• 'HNB no less harmful than cigarettes'
  
  How did the filter remains pure white after usage if it contains tar?
  
  This video is showing some test conducted with nic out filter which is known to filter off large amount of tar. But shows nothing. Who is right?
  
  

  
  
  Filters are a con. Low tar cigarettes don’t have different filters they have paper treated with chemicals to burn faster and holes poked in the sides to let more air in.
• They were invented to convince people they make smacking less dangerous, but they don’t. Most filters are made of fiberglass which actually makes it worse. Does some tar stick to the fiberglass? Sure enough to color it, but not enough to make a difference

 

[Rossum]

Depending on what you call "tar" I think.

It's the stuff that turned the filters on cigarettes brown when you smoked and your walls yellow. Everything I've seen seems to indicate that HnB products produce far less of this than combustibles.

 

[Nate5700]

It's the stuff that turned the filters on cigarettes brown when you smoked and your walls yellow. Everything I've seen seems to indicate that HnB products produce far less of this than combustibles.

No doubt. The point I was trying to make though is that it's composed of a certain mix of chemicals which needs a more specific definition. If one wants to write an article critical of HNB, all you have to do is say "OMG it has just as much tar as cigarettes" and if your definition of "tar" is broad enough you can say that, "truthfully", of just about any smoking alternative.

 

[Zakillah]

You have to understand what the word "tar" means first.
Tar is EVERYTHING that comes out of the mouthpiece that is not water or nicotine. Thats the technical definition. You weight what comes out, analyse water and nicotine amount and subtract it. The word "tar" doesnt tell anything about WHAT it exactly is. Could be 90% harmless PG/VG as well.

The statement that hnb products produce as much tar as cigarettes is meaningless.

 

[ScottP]

You have to understand what the word "tar" means first.
Tar is EVERYTHING that comes out of the mouthpiece that is not water or nicotine. Thats the technical definition. You weight what comes out, analyse water and nicotine amount and subtract it. The word "tar" doesnt tell anything about WHAT it exactly is. Could be 90% harmless PG/VG as well.

Except that tar is gummy and sticky and clings to the walls of the lungs and builds up over time, causing all sorts of issues. Thus reduced tar or no tar will ALWAYS cause less damage.

 

[Zakillah]

Except that tar is gummy and sticky and clings to the walls of the lungs and builds up over time, causing all sorts of issues. Thus reduced tar or no tar will ALWAYS cause less damage.

I know what cigarette tar is like. Prolly better then anyone else here. Its my job to meassure "tar" in cigarettes and hnb products. And I had to clean this gunk off smoke machines hundreds of times.

Please read my post again. I was explaining the technical definition. And by that definition I could make a statement that E-Cigs produce twice as much "tar" as cigarettes and it would be 100% technically accurate. Of course it will raise alarm bells, because when he hear "tar" we think brown, stinky, sticky stuff.
That's not what matters, though. What matters is what does this "tar" consist of. Is it filled with nasty organic and carcinogenic substances, or is it just PG and VG? The question is kinda important (don't you think?) and they didn't give the answer to that in this garbage article.

HNB are not as harmful as cigarettes. So they found *some* analytes that dont get reduced. What about the thousand others?
And just because you can meassure miniscule amounts of CO, doesnt make them as bad as cigarettes. They left the fact out that its reduced by a factor of at least 100.

 

[ScottP]

I know what cigarette tar is like. Prolly better then anyone else here. Its my job to meassure "tar" in cigarettes and hnb products. And I had to clean this gunk off smoke machines hundreds of times.

Please read my post again. I was explaining the technical definition. And by that definition I could make a statement that E-Cigs produce twice as much "tar" as cigarettes and it would be 100% technically accurate. Of course it will raise alarm bells, because when he hear "tar" we think brown, stinky, sticky stuff.
That's not what matters, though. What matters is what does this "tar" consist of. Is it filled with nasty organic and carcinogenic substances, or is it just PG and VG? The question is kinda important (don't you think?) and they didn't give the answer to that in this garbage article.

HNB are not as harmful as cigarettes. So they found *some* analytes that dont get reduced. What about the thousand others?
And just because you can meassure miniscule amounts of CO, doesnt make them as bad as cigarettes. They left the fact out that its reduced by a factor of at least 100.

I agree the article is rubbish. My point is the"stuff" (how ever you wish to define it) from cigarettes is dark brown and very sticky and sticks to the lung walls, the "stuff" in vapor is clear and does not stick.

Strictly speaking "tar" is a dark brown or black bituminous usually odorous viscous liquid obtained by destructive distillation of organic material consisting of a mixture of hydrocarbons, resins, alcohols, and other compounds. No where can I find a definition of tar that includes terms like "clear", "low-viscosity", or "non-destructive". The output of an ecig is clear, no where near as viscous or sticky as tar and is NOT derived by destructive means. Therefore any claim that there is "tar" in eliquid or vapor (by any reasonable definition), would be 100% FALSE. You may as well be claiming gasoline is fruit juice "if defined the right way".

 

[Zakillah]

I didn't come up with the definition, I am just telling you. You can rave about how dumb it is all day long and I agree; but it doesn't change it.
I *think* the term for E-Cigs changed to "total aersolic matter" a year or so ago, but I am sure they used the, in this case misleading, term "tar" for the hnb products. Which was what I tried to explain in the first place.