Slashdot Mirror
E-Cigarettes Emit Toxic Vapors, Says Study (upi.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from UPI: All electronic cigarettes emit harmful chemicals, and levels of those toxic compounds are affected by factors such as temperature, type and age of the device, a new study finds. In laboratory tests, scientists found that the heat-related breakdown of propylene glycol and glycerin -- two solvents found in most e-cigarette liquids -- causes emissions of toxic chemicals such as acrolein, acetaldehyde and formaldehyde. All three are either respiratory irritants or carcinogens, the investigators said. The researchers also found that levels of harmful chemicals in e-cigarette vapor increase between the first few puffs and later puffs as the device gets hotter, and with each use of the device.The new study was published July 27 in the journal Environmental Science and Technology. "Advocates of e-cigarettes say emissions are much lower than from conventional cigarettes, so you're better off using e-cigarettes," study corresponding author Hugo Destaillats said in a Berkeley news release. "I would say, that may be true for certain users -- for example, long-time smokers that cannot quit -- but the problem is, it doesn't mean that they're healthier. Regular cigarettes are super unhealthy. E-cigarettes are just unhealthy," he explained. The FDA will start regulating e-cigarettes like tobacco on August 8, 2016.
This is a device that was designed to emit toxic vapours. Hardly a groundbreaking discovery. It's like saying that fireplaces pose a fire hazard or that an electric outlet carries the risk of electrocution. It's what it's supposed to do.
Gee, that's a nice relatively free market ya got there. Be a shame if somethin happened to it. Yeah, I think we're going to step in and interfere with it, against the wishes of both the buyers and sellers. To protect you from yourselves, of course, and absolutely not because we can't stand to have something that we don't control.
Seriously, making any sort of health claims about e-cigs was already illegal.
That does not give the temp they are burning the e juice at.
Burning PG will give off harmfull chemicals. But ecigs dont get hot enough unless you are sitting there with the button pressed.
With the advent of temperature controll in ecigs the temperature does not get anywhere close to burning the PG.
Fuck you, capitalism
Good thing I vape at 3.3 volts.
Good morning millennial snowflakes! *
* I'm not the official millennial snowflakes guy. Just helping out. on vacation today, so trying to be as disruptive to society as possible. Have a nice day.
Thank the lord God Barack Hussein Obama that I have a government that loves me enough to protect me from my sinful ways. I will consult with Ms. de Rothschild regarding what penance I owe.
You think this type of thing started when Obama became President? What, are you 8 years old?
Clicking through to the article finds - for example - they are refering to Glycidol.
NIOSH in the USA recommends a limit of 25ppm over a 8 hour shift for workers.
The first link I find says 350l/hr are breathed, meaning 3000l/ work day.
This is about 4.5kg of air. 1ppm is 4.5mg, so 25ppm is 110mg.
It showed about 2 micrograms per puff in the graph at http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2016...
In order to exceed the NIOSH recommendations for worker safety for glycidol, you need to take _HALF_A_MILLION_ puffs.
PER DAY.
So, yes, they have found novel compounds in the vape, but at least some of these are considered 'safe' in other context at levels way above what is found in the smoke.
I am always amazed by the people "smoking" e-cigarettes in places where smoking is not allowed. I've seen people use them in restaurants where smoking is prohibited, inside a school, and I even saw someone use one on an airplane.
Just because it doesn't create smoke like a conventional cigarette doesn't mean that the vapors and your exhalations aren't harmful. Stop using them in places where smoking is banned. Thank you.
It's already covered in the UK govt report: https://www.gov.uk/government/...
Flip to page 75. The report is fairly well written, and surprisingly not someone trying to prove pre-defined results via poorly conducted experiments.
This is only applicable to mechanized vaping tests. Essentially, you need to burn the vaping chemicals rather than atomize them. As someone that quit vaping, I can testify that you know when your vaping unit get cranked to the max while being in your pocket and fried the coils, along with some of the nicotine liquid. It is extremely unpleasant. Theoretically a person could continue to try to inhale the results, but it would be a spectacularly unpleasant experience. It's extremely noticeable
. It's called a 'dry hit' and it's pretty rare under normal circumstances. I've had... three, maybe? It's certainly not good for you, but probably not as bad for me as my old pack a day of cigarettes would be if I continued smoking.
If you want to smoke, do it with its full consequences, instead of participating in a neutered, tightly controlled culture of being tame.
Same applies to food sweeteners, non-alcoholic beer, safe sex and so on. Today's anti-consumerist culture aims to inspire guilt in you for everything you do. There are no real consumers anymore, maybe except drug users and smokers. We want to experience things without their drawbacks, for everything to be strictly controlled. This is disgusting.
Gonna have to wait for the study to be pirated before I can read the full text.
Advocates of e-cigarettes say emissions are much lower than from conventional cigarettes, so you're better off using e-cigarettes. I would say, that may be true for certain users -- for example, long-time smokers that cannot quit -- but the problem is, it doesn't mean that they're healthier. Regular cigarettes are super unhealthy. E-cigarettes are just unhealthy.
Dude, if they're less unhealthy, that means that they're healthier. You just contradicted yourself.
Well, I guess he's from Berkeley, so they wouldn't have released it if it didn't involve at least some doublethink.
I too think e-cigarettes are an annoying and asinine way for people to keep doing something they know they shouldn't. And who knows what further problems we may eventually figure out they may cause. But that doesn't mean we get to lie about them. It makes it really hard to get behind a movement when its participants are spewing propaganda along with their actual science.
No comparison to tabocco smoke though, wonder why?
The patent on atomization technology for e-cigs will expire soon enough. Then there won't be a need to heat the liquid. The only question will be if the liquid can be preserved well enough that it doesn't harbor bacteria and thus cause pneumonia.
Just enjoy it. They're killing themselves while the exhaled stuff isn't killing you. Think of it as booze, just without the drunk puking on your shoes.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So dance clubs, concert venues, most Broadway shows - those are all death traps? Because most of those places go through *gallons* of propylene glycol a night - as where most eCig users are puffing 50ml every 3-6 months. THINK OF THE BROADWAY ACTORS
imagine a soft, buttery paw gently pressing down onto a sleeping soldier's face. forever.
I think one of the things smokers find unsatisfying about things like using a nicotine patch is that they also develop a physical habit. It’s like taking a caffeine pill vs. having a cup of coffee. Sitting down with breakfast with a nice cup of coffee with cream and sugar, as with any kind of eating or drinking, causes a release of dopamine, which enhances the positive effects of the drug. Something similar happens with smoking, I assume.
If you’re actually trying to break the habit, e-cigs seem like a reasonable temporary solution, as you ease off your dosage. However, there may be other ways of doing this. For instance, you can get L-dopa (a precursor to dopamine) from Mucuna Pruriens, directly boosting your dopamine levels. Or you can take low-dose naltrexone (LDN). Naltrexone is a dopamine receptor antagonist. Large doses can be used to block the effects of addictive drugs, while low doses trigger the brain to compensate by increasing dopamine levels. You can also take tyrosine, which is a precursor to several neurotransmitters, including serotonin, norepinepherine, and dopamine.
None of them probably has quite the same emotional satisfaction that people get from the act of smoking, however.
How come I've not seen a comparison of vaping risk vs cigs? Why is it when I tell a doctor I quit cigs for vaping they all respond VERY positively?
Vapers have done in two years what sin taxes haven't been able to do in two decades. Now that the state is missing their revenue they're going after whatever is next. It's not about the health of the population, it's about state funding and if smoking and vaping continue to decline they're going to look for those dollars elsewhere yet again, probably in more taxes for soda drinks. The health end of things is just to get the government fingers into the industry so they can further profit from it, nothing more. If they were serious about this level of public health they'd be taxing twinkies and big macs instead.
All kidding aside, people have been throwing hissy fits over second-hand smoke for years. Why isn't anyone complaining about (and legislating control of) second-hand pot smoke? Or are people too stoned to do anything about it?
Perhaps you don't know the difference between states and matter and different chemical species?
It's good that research is being done, but it would be nice if they were a bit more complete and helpful with their findings. Simply listing the toxic constituents is meaningless without content. Is 7 micrograms of acetol per puff actually harmful? Tomatoes contain nicotine, Apples contain cyanide. These are toxic chemicals, too. Burning a steak creates all kinds of nasty toxic chemicals too.. the question is are they actually harmful? Secondly, "Shown here are emission rates of seven of the most toxic chemicals from a single-coil e-cigarette operated at 3.8V" is a very useless metric. Is it a 2Ohm coil? 1.5? Sub Ohm? 3.8V will produce vastly different results in each case. I would love to see a study that gives actionable conclusions, such as operating a standard single coil e-cigarette with a 1.2Ohm coil at 3V produces dangerous level of (pick a toxic constituent.)
I really hate the fact that these devices are called e-cigarette; you don't have to use an e-juice that contains nicotine.
Are dry herb vaporizers going to be regulated as well?
I went from smoking 2 packs a day for 10 years to, nothing. Started vaping a couple of years ago, gradually moved the niccottene content lower and lower, and now i dont even vape anymore. The concept that somene just CANNOT quit is plain wrong.
All e-liquid is not created equal, and what these 'studies' often leave out is that with well made products, the levels of these 'toxins' is so low that person would be in more danger using an asthma inhaler (those produce formaldyhyde, too) or breathing polluted air, and there is a great deal MORE research (easily googlable) supporting that assertion. It is just more propaganda. Regulations? Yes. But the FDA is flat out trying to kill it, and I can't help but feel Pfizer and their ilk are at the forefront. Trust me from my own and countless others' experiences: their drugs are much, much, much worse.
They havent been researched PROPERLY. All these doom saying "studies" have one thing in common. They dont say WHAT they did with the juice to get those results. And if they do, the temp they heat it to is enough to burn the e juice. No sane vaper burns their e juice, it tastes like shit.
It is not worth shit. It is like smoking bunk weed. You crave it or you can't function. Over a lifetime when you are stuck on it, it disables your ability to cope with life.
Stay away from both. If you didn't call them cigarettes (little cigars) and just called them Nicotine and Carcinogens would you still smoke them?
Who isn't complaining? The last concert I went to - even though smoking was prohibited and dope was still illegal - you couldn't go near the floor without getting a nasty cloud of pot smoke. The previous concert was even worse.
Aaaand, nobody who could DO anything about it gave a f***.
Bouncers=no care
Management=no care
So yeah, no concerts for me now that I've got a little one. I don't need her inhaling lungfuls of smoke because nobody cares to enforce the f***ing rules or even the laws.
It's a drug delivery device, that was clear from the first time I ever heard of such a thing, and as such, anyone is surprised that it 'emits toxic vapors'?
They need to be outlawed, plain and simple. They're no 'healthier' than regular smoking, just more complicated, and now we see that people in your vicinity aren't safe from them either, which makes them no better than cigarettes or any other flaming, nuisance. Just outlaw them, and keep trying to educate apparently self-destructive people that smoking is one of the worst things you can do to your body, and maybe, eventually, it'll go away completely. Although I'm cynical enough to believe that smoking will go away about the same time people stop believing in irrational things like 'god' and 'religion'.
Smokers with moderation points, and others who will now defend the totally irrational and highly self-destructive act of 'smoking' can kiss my ass. You don't have a leg to stand on. Modding this post down just proves you're irrational and can't possibly defend your disgusting, self-destructive habit. Trying to argue to me that it's your 'freedom of choice' likewise confirms that you're irrational and self-destructive, and perhaps someone should actively stop you from your self-destructive habit; you're mentally ill.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
They saying vaping is safe indoors, but this leads me to believe that they are exhaling dangerous chemicals as well.
You burn ANYTHING and inhale the fumes and it's gonna be bad for you. The problem is it's also bad for anyone around you. Fuck up your own health all you want but leave mine the hell alone, asshole.
But hey, at least it's a great way to tell the world "LOOK AT ME, I'M AN IDIOT WHO DESPERATELY WANTS TO FIT IN", right? Then you're on the fast track to meeting lots of equally pathetic "individuals".
Regular cigarettes are super unhealthy. E-cigarettes are just unhealthy. So healthier than regular cigarettes in author's own words. We should encourage as many people as possible to switch.
Don't like it? Too fucking bad. I need them to put up with your shit. Your controlling nature. Your assholeness. I don't smoke to fit in. I don't want to fit in to your shitpile. Fuck all control freaks. It is my life. Go live your own and leave me alone.
When you drive on the highway in traffic that sour smell is acetaldehyde. But nobody talks about that......
Good post.
To those who are upset over this....
If you are really so worried about aspartame, don't drink it! It is trivially easy to avoid, since all products that include it are clearly labeled as such.
Same goes for e-cigs. If you don't like their side effects, don't use them! You will be better off all-around if you avoid addictive substances anyway.
Vote with your wallet, and don't expect any sympathy from me if you voluntarily choose an unhealthy lifestyle.
... temperature controlled e-cigs.
Just come out with powdered nicotine for snorting or throw it into some saline and mainline it instead. Problem solved.
it doesn't mean that they're healthier. Regular cigarettes are super unhealthy. E-cigarettes are just unhealthy
That's like saying "a millimeter is not longer than a nanometer. A nanometer is super short, and a millimeter is just short".
E-cigarettes can still be healthier than cigarettes, even though they are unhealthy. Cigarettes can be healthier than drinking bleach even though they are unhealthy.
This isn't a political debate. This is how English works.
"it doesn't mean that they're healthier. Regular cigarettes are super unhealthy. E-cigarettes are just unhealthy" ...
I feel bad for all of you "addicts" who cannot get by without smoking or vaping. I am including weed here as well. What is the point? Do you still gain the same amount of enjoyment as from the first month or so when you started? I'll answer that for you since I used to smoke both tobacco and weed. No. No you do not. Why not just quit?
argue with me that my interest in precise temperature control systems is not useful to society. HAHA
Overall, as a guy vaping in place of years of smoking, I'm seeing benefits for sure. I no longer stink like an ashtray, I seem to have better breath support (less huffing and puffing), and in general I don't miss cigarettes at all. I have no desire for them, which is yuuuuuuuge, IMO.
But have you ever accidentally taken a hit off of a tank that is essentially dry? I've done it a few times, and the taste and "lung hit" seriously feels like I just inhaled burning metal. That can't be good for you. Easy enough to avoid, unless you're absent-minded like me.
I wonder what would be the toxicity of using Log Vap (only air contact is through glass not plastic or electronic) with organic tobacco.
ITS NOT SMOKE!
Your lungs emit toxic vapors. And contribute to global warming too!
Research reports like this on e-cigarettes annoy me. Ordinarily I might suggest that the press releases are making things appear more shocking than the paper, but it seems like the paper writers have also overemphasised the results of this study. This research appears to be a presence/absence experiment, rather than an actual harm experiment. The thought process seems to follow something like the following:
The problem is that studies of this sort aren't actually demonstrating harm. It's like saying that air contains carbon monoxide, so we shouldn't breathe it. In the paper, there are a few weasel words used that encourage thoughts like this:
Chemical analysis of e-liquids and vapors emitted by e-cigarettes led to the identification of several compounds of concern due to their potentially harmful effects on users and passively exposed nonusers... compounds are considered possible or probable carcinogens
The researchers say that they'll do the actual harm testing as an additional step:
The researchers are working on a follow-up study focusing on the health and environmental impacts of e-cigarettes.
Or, in the paper:
These chemical emissions are associated with both cancer and noncancer health impacts that will be quantitatively evaluated in an ensuing paper.
But until that's done (and has meaningful results) it's difficult to make a good case that E-cigarettes are doing the wrong thing and should be avoided.
Ask me about repetitive DNA
I hope all the idiots suck it up
I'm not a smoker, and I don't vape. I hate being around cigarette smoke.
I still think the anti-vaping hysteria is bullshit.
Is vaping absolutely, totally, 100% safe? Of course not. Neither is dihydrogen monoxide, which (in large quantities) often causes death, is found in all cancer cells, can cause severe burns, and is the primary component of acid rain.
Just take a look at its MSDS! It's all here in black & white -- http://dhmo.org/msdsdhmo.html
(spoiler: dihydrogen monoxide is commonly known by its non-scientific name, "water")
Is vaping several orders of magnitude better than smoking cigarettes? Unquestionably. It doesn't bother me AT ALL when friends vape in my car. If they've been smoking cigarettes, though, I won't even let them get in until 30 seconds after taking their final draw from the cigarette (otherwise, they'll just exhale cigarette smoke into my car).
The real-world alternative to vaping isn't abstinence... it's cigarette-smoking. Unless, of course, we want to extend the disastrous 80+ year miserably-failed social experiment known as "prohibition" to include cigarettes, too.
If the FDA eliminates most currently-available e-cigarette products from American markets, the result won't be smoke-free Americans who don't vape... it'll be more Americans who smoke, plus a lot of Americans buying e-cig juice online by the gallon from China, with literally ZERO regulation and not even IMPLIED guarantees about safety or ingredients.
Is the cigarette industry opposed to e-juice? Not really. It's resisted them the same way all established industries try to fight off disruptive change, but if vaping became the overwhelmingly preferred method for getting nicotine, we'll just have Marlboro-branded $299 vaporizers, with screw-on (branded & visible) tanks of Marlboro e-juice (and lots of parts designed to be proprietary and require frequent replacement). Remember, most non-synthetic nicotine comes from... the same companies that make cigarettes. And at the end of the day, their profit per usage-minute for selling that pure nicotine to the e-cig industry is about the same as their net profit from cigarettes after you factor out the taxes.
IMHO, the REAL source of the panic over e-cigs lies with state governments that have come to depend upon the steady stream of revenue from cigarette taxes. They're doing their best to try and build up a case for taxing e-cig and vaping supplies as much as they currently tax cigarettes.
One, they must have been using ancient devices. They are talking about variable voltage settings on the devices. Modern ecigs are set in terms of wattage (they measure resistance and compute the voltage setting). It would be more helpful if they would report on coil temperature directly since that appears to be the actual significant factor. The voltage tells us practically nothing about the actual temperature (that would vary GREATLY based on the coil).
Since most good e-cigs (read, not the ones produced by the tobacco companies or advertised on TV) have temperature control, knowing the temperatures involved would obviously be useful.
Note that while 'cloud chasers' inhale for 5 seconds, others are closer to 3 or less. I observed myself today and found I inhale for about 3 seconds for the first puff (and sometimes the second) after letting it sit for a while and then take a few additional puffs of a bit less than a second each. Sometimes the followup puffs don't reach my lungs at all.
Next, they show that the worst case was 1/4th the level of a cigarette. That certainly sounds safer to me. Nobody I know of has claimed e-cigs to be perfectly safe, just significantly safer than smoking. It is known that many far more potent carcinogens in cigarette smoke are absent from e-cigs.
It would be useful to know the levels emitted by other common activities likely to involve decomposition, such as cooking or exposure to auto exhaust.
Heard a commercial on the radio today asking to inform your politicians about local vaping legislation, calling it. "life saving technology".
Yeah, I am pretty sure it is straight up illegal to make that claim.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
http://blog.thedripclub.com/no...
I like how I got modded down for telling my own personal experience with e-ciggs.
Do people now have to provide a note from their doctor to be believed on the internet? I get that trolls are a problem, but it's insulting that a slashdot user for more than 10 years gets meta-moderated down for a comment involving personal experience.
Hell I even have to wonder now if those doing the moderating aren't socks suppressing information that is inconvenient to them. I haven't done studies, or research, nor do I know anything about eciggs other than what I stated: I tried one for a few months and yes, my lungs hurt and I coughed blood.
I had the same problem when I tried switching to smoking a pipe (not the blood, but it did make my chest hurt more). Am I now anti pipe for stating that experience?
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so