Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

E-Cigarettes Emit Toxic Vapors, Says Study (upi.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the lung-cancer dept.

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.

46 of 312 comments (clear)

  1. Always question a study... by Izuzan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Always question a study... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 5, Informative

      There are good points all around this discussion, and a lack of organization. Let's try to clear this up a bit.

      Different e-cigarette juices contain different carriers. Some specifically exclude chemicals which produce formaldehyde or, particularly, acetaldehyde, largely because acetaldehyde is known to cause popcorn lung in chronic, high exposure. Most high-quality formulations list their contents in full; and the content of lower-quality formulations is often known, but not readily-listed. High-quality formulations often don't contain chemicals producing acetaldehyde, and use propylene glycol as a carrier; lower-quality formulations also often omit those compounds, but frequently do not.

      Different e-cigarettes have different temperatures and control mechanisms as well. They may prevent overheating, or they may reach high temperatures, or they may be designed for brief activation intervals with no temperature controls. Fast-reaction circuits necessarily draw high current, and will overheat without temperature management; thus cheap, fast-reaction circuits intended for brief activation will most often overheat and cause reactions, converting benign substances such as propylene glycol into dangerous substances such as formaldehyde.

      Finally, gaseous vapors produce visual distortion when diluted. If you suck in 2cc of suspended smoke or vaporized PPG and then blow it out into the air, it will expand to a liter or more and demonstrate itself as a gray cloud. The real measures are temperature and mass of substance; the substance changes its standard volume at pressure and becomes diluted when diffusing through atmosphere, and so these are poor measurements.

      Thus it is wholly-possible to engineer a substantially-safe e-cigarette, if examining specific concerns of e-cigarettes (conversion of chemicals to dangerous chemicals; high-temperature vapor irritating the throat and lungs; basic chemical content). This requires engineering of the compound itself and the delivery device.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    2. Re:Always question a study... by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 2

      First, tobacco companies didn't put these devices out. Second, the "assumption" is correct based on previous studies. If they are using an actual working, properly used e-cig then I'm sure that's in the study and will be made clear. If they're not, then the study is worthless.

    3. Re:Always question a study... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      If not, then it sounds like the solution is to regulate the industry to only permit safe(r) products, along with studies so that safe(r) is based on the best known facts at any given time.

      There are good and bad forms of regulation; it's not a matter of more or less. Regulation goes out of date, either becoming inadequate or hindering beneficial actions.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    4. Re:Always question a study... by Pubstar · · Score: 2

      The eCig is regularly put into conditions where no sane human would use them. The issue when using a device to do a 5 second draw (try it, its not easy when trying to inhale out of something with almost no air flow), with no word of factors like coil resistance, how hard the air was drawn through the system (inhale too hard, it wont wick fast enough), coil metal type, etc. Combine that with the fact that nobody uses that style anymore (eGo with a cardo tank, which require a much higher level of PG so it can wick properly), and you have a study that is entirely worthless.

  2. Re:It's a feature by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a device that was designed to emit toxic vapours.

    Nicotine may be a toxin, but in the amounts in which it's consumed, that's the least concern about the effects upon the body. However, these devices weren't intended to emit other toxic vapors.

    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.

    False. A fire hazard is an uncontrolled fire. A fireplace is designed to control a fire. An electric outlet is not designed to electrocute you. It's designed to deliver power to an appliance. Granted, some of them are not very well designed to explicitly not electrocute you, but that's a separate issue.

    The idea of the vaporizer is to deliver as clean a smoking experience as possible. If you put water-based herbal extracts into them, that's what you're doing. What's interesting is that these other things aren't that clean, either. Anyone remember transparent cigarette papers? They were everywhere for a while, I went through a couple of packs myself on the basis that I was already smoking tobacco so who cares, but what was found is that only the center of the cherry is hot enough to burn the combustion byproducts into something harmless, which meant that you were getting a bunch of toxics from them even worse than smoking paper.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. 'Carcinogenic compounds'. by queazocotal · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:'Carcinogenic compounds'. by queazocotal · · Score: 2

      Weelll. The evidence for butter being actually bad for you is surprisingly thin.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... - for example.
      Is a systematic review of the literature that concludes:
      "This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests relatively small or neutral overall associations of butter with mortality, CVD, and diabetes. These findings do not support a need for major emphasis in dietary guidelines on either increasing or decreasing butter consumption, in comparison to other better established dietary priorities; while also highlighting the need for additional investigation of health and metabolic effects of butter and dairy fat."

      In other words, butter consumption has a small and uncertain correlation at most with dying early, heart disease and as small a protective effect for diabetes.
      This is not to say overconsumption is healthy.

    2. Re:'Carcinogenic compounds'. by chiefcrash · · Score: 5, Informative

      there is nothing healthy about butter

      FALSE

      Butter is rich in fat-soluble vitamins
      Butter contains short and medium chain fats, which are the healthy fats
      Butter is an excellent source of the 4-carbon fatty acid butyrate
      Dutch researchers found that raw butter fat protects against calcification of the joints — degenerative arthritis — as well as hardening of the arteries, cataracts and calcification of the pineal gland

      The list goes on. There's plenty healthy about butter, so long as it's in moderation...

      --
      Show me on the 1st Amendment bobblehead where the moderator touched you...
  4. If a cigarette doesn't "smoke", is it harmful? by drunken_boxer777 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:If a cigarette doesn't "smoke", is it harmful? by drunken_boxer777 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      With a nick like this I have to ask: Pissed that they banned public drinking but public smoking is still ok?

      Nick was inspired by one of my favorite Jackie Chan flicks, not two of my pastimes rolled into one.

      Strawman: I'm not advocating for a ban on e-cigs in public. I only ask e-cig users not to vape in places where smoking is banned.

      False equivalence: If the mere act of drinking was harmful to others, then it would be equivalent and I'd certainly have no basis to oppose bans in restaurants and airplanes. (I'm indifferent that public drinking is not allowed in most places.)

    2. Re: If a cigarette doesn't "smoke", is it harmful? by sjames · · Score: 2

      Actually, it disperses much quicker and is devoid of particulates. Do you get choked up at concerts or parties where they use a fog machine?

    3. Re:If a cigarette doesn't "smoke", is it harmful? by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 2

      Just because it doesn't create smoke like a conventional cigarette doesn't mean that the vapors and your exhalations aren't harmful.

      Fun fact, human exhalations contain carbon dioxide which contributes to global warming and is poisonous in high concentrations.

      Maybe you could be a little more considerate of the rest of us and stop breathing?

    4. Re:If a cigarette doesn't "smoke", is it harmful? by kqs · · Score: 3, Informative

      Second-hand cigarette smoke has not reliably been shown to increase cancer risk or cause respiratory damage to healthy individuals even when those individuals are children raised in smoker households.

      I'm no scientist, but whenlots of scientists say something sciencey, and statisticians back them up, I tend to believe it, even if it's something I wish were untrue. You may make different choices. (I picked that link because I've been using Politifact a lot the last few months and while I sometimes disagree with their results I like that they explain their process and carefully list their sources.)

      The secondhand smoke numbers are not as solid as, say, measurements of gravity; it's a very hard thing to measure directly, so the studies are mostly doing indirect statistical analyses. So it's always possible that there is another factor there that we are overlooking. But the vast preponderance of evidence points one way, and it's not the way you say it does.

    5. Re:If a cigarette doesn't "smoke", is it harmful? by wierd_w · · Score: 2

      ecig vapor does not smell like nicotine.

      even high nicotine ejuice is what, 12mg/ml?

      that is in the liquid phase, in the bottle. when it aerosolizes, the nicotine is radically diluted as it is drawn into the vaper's lungs (a sigificant component of the vapor is air drawn through the pipe.). some nontrivial amount then sticks to the walls of the lungs. The now less nicotine laden vapor is exhaled, and dilutes even more.

      that 12mg\ml is now less than 1 microgram per cubic meter. nicotine does not have a strong odor. the realistic chances of you smelling the nicotine from the scenario you describe are beyond implausible.

      Dont be an idiot. What you are really smelling are the chemical constituents of the flavoring, and only the flavoring. I could put the straight liquid flavoring (food grade, like from the supermarket. Food flavorings are almost always propylene glycol based, and would aerosolize fine in an ecig) and it would smell exactly the same.

      You are just having a psychosomatic reaction to the IDEA that there could possibly be nicotine in the vapor. Not all ejuice does. Some formulations contain 0% nicotine, and are just flavoring. But you already knew that, because your superhuman olfactory powers can detect miniscule quantities of a nearly odorless chemical in high dilution, so you obviously could tell the difference.

      Oh, wait, you really cant, can you?

      Didnt think so.

    6. Re:If a cigarette doesn't "smoke", is it harmful? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Counterpoint. This is only the largest study; there are a lot of less-interesting studies that try to reproduce a lot of studies which, as you pointed out, do exist and do show a lot of good data that second-hand smoke causes health issues. My problem is with this:

      the vast preponderance of evidence points one way, and it's not the way you say it does.

      There *is* a vast preponderance of evidence pointing one way, in the same way that there's a vast preponderance of evidence that video games make kids into murderers or that homosexuality can be cured by therapy akin to torture. There's also a significant failure rate in reproducing those same studies; a full examination of the evidence shows only weak statistical linkage, if any.

      I actually rewrote that claim multiple times before posting. It would be incorrect to say that second-hand cigarette smoke has been shown *not* to cause any health effects, in spite of the rather large and statistically-sound study released recently; it has *not* *reliably* been shown to cause any health effects. There is no overwhelming body of evidence; there is a lot of difficult analysis that's hard to control for, and a lot of outcomes that don't reproduce well. The level of certainty is about even with chance.

      There is also a lot of evidence that high-carbohydrate diets (above 40% of calories) cause arterial build-up, and high-fat diets do not. The original consensus is based on flawed statistics, and current studies don't yet reconcile a concrete position.

      There is also emerging literature suggesting AHA-recommended levels of sodium cause heart attacks. Below 1350mg/day will likely cause your heart to stop (too much potassium will do this, too); while high levels of sodium (up to 6,000mg/day) have no detrimental effect after about 3 days. Your kidneys release hormones to restore homeostatic balance and pump all that sodium out of your blood, but it takes a few days and you have high blood pressure until then. Keeping people on diets long-term is hard, and flaky; modern research looks at high-sodium-intake societies and compares heart attack rates with low-sodium-intake societies, which has its own problems.

      The thing is we have cancer groups, the USDA, CDC, and AHA ignoring new literature and doubling-down on old literature. We also have economists contradicting the BLS on things like minimum wage. Every large organization takes a position and uses evidence to back it up; the whole of evidence necessarily outpaces them, because shifting your position as a large entity requires a much stronger degree of certainty than doing it as a small entity.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    7. Re: If a cigarette doesn't "smoke", is it harmful? by sjames · · Score: 2

      Apparently, you have an allergy to PG. There will be a number of foods and drinks you will want to avoid.

      If it makes you feel better, by the time a vaper exhales, they have absorbed a significant portion of the nicotine the vape contained.

  5. Sigh, this again by RevDisk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Sigh, this again by CaptnCrud · · Score: 2

      Yea, the taste is sort of like lighting the wrong end of a cig (anyone who has ever smoked for a while has done that at least once or twice). Its horrible and nasty, and you're definitely not going to just keep puffing on it like the lab machine is.

      Nice on quitting, I myself am down to 0 for the last few months and about to quit. I never thought I would quit smoking (15 years), vaping really did help me kick the habit (quit smoking 2 years ago for vaping). I think vaping helps re-wire your brain from wanting a "break" every hour. You can still have a break but after a few weeks you just don't feel the urges anymore. I can go days and not even think of vaping at this point.

    2. Re:Sigh, this again by lawaetf1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's really interesting how vaping is different from cigs in terms of addiction. I switched from cigs to 12mg vaping and that was fine for a while.. but then, oddly, I found I could no longer handle 12mg! I couldn't understand it, I would walk to work, puffing along the way like I always do, and then find I was having trouble swallowing, terribly anxious amongst other symptoms. Looked up "nicotine overdose" and bingo. Switched to 6mg and now down to 3. Every attempt I made to "cut down" with cigs failed miserably. Somehow vaping gives you a glide path away from the addiction.

      --
      CommentBot 0.7a running with args "-module irritate,disagree -target random"
    3. Re:Sigh, this again by CaptnCrud · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem with the gum and patches is that they don't really cover the physical/tactile aspect of smoking.

      The real acid test is having a few beers and see if you crave a smoke. With gum and patches....no way, and I think most people that smoke can tell you that. Vaping on the other hand lets you follow through the motions if you feel the urge. Honestly after 2 years, I can walk through a cloud of cigarette smoke and not even be phased (to either smoke or vape), its really pretty awesome if you had a hard time quitting.

  6. Hitler kicked one million dogs by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Hitler kicked one million dogs by swb · · Score: 2

      I too think e-cigarettes are an annoying and asinine way for people to keep doing something they know they shouldn't.

      This is where the magic is.

      You probably "shouldn't" do something if it is extremely harmful to you, although even then there are some cases where it doesn't matter (ie, a patient with late-stage terminal brain cancer can do most everything, including smoking, since smoking isn't what's going to end their life).

      If smoking tobacco cigarettes has a harm score of 95 on a scale of 1-100 and vaping has a harm score of 10 on the same scale, does vaping still count as "something I know I shouldn't do"? What's the socially acceptable harm threshold where something can be harmful but somehow morally acceptable?

      I feel like the whole e-cig debate is kind of dominated by a standard of safety that is unobtainable for what vaping physically represents, simply because it is a pleasure-providing drug experience.

  7. Re:So in other words... by Izuzan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What these companies dont have the right to do is make claims about a product when their "testing" procedures far exceed any normal use.

    Standard use of a ecig will NOT burn the e juice which is required to produce these chemicals. Notice they dont give the temperature they are pushing the units to ? Should tell you that they are burning the ejuice and not just vapourizing it.

  8. Re:It's a feature by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    My grandpa was smoking and rolled his tobacco in normal newspaper paper, complete with ink and all.

    Granted, back then people died from other diseases before the cancer had a chance to get them, so...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. Concert Venues? by Fluffymuffin+Cocobut · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  10. Pill, patch, or anti-drug drug? by Theovon · · Score: 2

    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.

  11. Re:So in other words... by damn_registrars · · Score: 2

    against the wishes of both the buyers and sellers.

    Against the wishes of the sellers? Sure, the sellers would prefer no regulation at all.

    Against the wishes of the buyers? Possibly. There are certainly some buyers who bought into the e-cigs in the belief that these were somehow health alternatives to regular cigarettes. However so far there has been no research and no regulation to prove or disprove that. In fact the majority of what is sold is completely free of regulations, inspections, etc. We generally don't know what is actually in the liquids that are going in to these devices, and these liquids often coming from places that don't tend to place any significant regulations on much of anything.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  12. And in other news: Water is wet by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 3

    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?

    1. Re:And in other news: Water is wet by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      Wait, doesn't the old smoking ban apply to pot? Surly, the culture has changed enough that people are not being allowed to smoke that stuff indoors?

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  13. Re:So in other words... by rickb928 · · Score: 2

    Thalidomide.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  14. Re:So in other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    >Replying to myself: remember, these are the people who approved aspartame

    You do realize that the LD50 of aspartame is high enough that you will die of water poisoning (or possibly caffiene poisoning) before you die from aspartame poisoning from drinking Diet Coke.

    >by firing the FDA employee who cared about the studies and replacing him with someone who would play ball

    Sounds like the FDA did the right thing. Based on its use as a sweetener, it's safer than the water it sweetens.

    Here, you can do your own verification:

    http://web.uvic.ca/~saroy20/chem361/aspartame.pdf
    LD50 Oral - rat - > 10,000 mg/kg

    http://static.diabetesselfmanagement.com/pdfs/DSM0310_012.pdf
    Diet Coke contains 125 mg per 236 ml (or 530 mg/l)

    http://www.newsmax.com/US/average-weight-man-woman-obese/2015/06/15/id/650546/
    Average weight of American female: 166 lbs (75 kg)

    Aspartame required to reach LD50: 750 grams
    Litres of Diet Coke required to cause aspartame based death: 1415 litres. Same sitting.

    http://www.medicaldaily.com/water-intoxication-just-how-much-h2o-does-it-take-kill-person-312958
    LD50 of water: 6L / 165 lbs (75 kg), or 80 mg/kg.

    Death would occur from water intoxication before 0.5% of the required total is consumed.

  15. Everyone can quit even long time smokers by dadelbunts · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  16. Re:It's a feature by MightyYar · · Score: 2

    Granted, back then people died from other diseases before the cancer had a chance to get them, so...

    Like lead poisoning from newsprint ink? :)

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  17. Re:So in other words... by Socguy · · Score: 2

    Did you read the article? That was the point of the article. Standard use of the ecig WILL produce these chemicals. Further, the amount and type of chemcials changes according to things like how much you're using the device, how old the device is and so on.

  18. Re:It's a feature by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    In the area I'm from, it was more liver cirrhosis from too much alcohol. You know what they say, in Winter, you can only code... or drink. And back when my grandpa lived, we didn't have computers, hell, we didn't have electricity. Or shoes. And the snow was THIS high, all the times. Especially in Winter!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  19. Re:So in other words... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So you're disparaging an organisation that wants to restrict something for both 1) wanting to restrict freedom 2) for not having restricted the same freedoms for two different things in the past?

    Well, he's right. The commonality here being what the pharmaceutical companies want. If big pharma wants to sell something, the FDA says it's safe. If big pharma wants something off the market, the FDA says it's dangerous and needs regulations so strict it's effectively a ban.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  20. Re:So in other words... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

    The body is really good and getting rid of excess water. Aspartame and its constituents, not so much.

    Aspartame is broken down into three components in the blood stream: Phenylalanine, Aspartic Acid, and methanol. Phenylalanine enters the brain, and it can build up there. Some people have a reduced capacity for metabolizing Phenylalanine and are at increased risk of harmful side effects (headaches, depression, and schizophrenia). Aspartic Acid is similar to MSG, and also builds up in the blood stream over time. It's considered an excitotoxin and can cause problems in the high amounts than can result from common consumption of soda with aspertame.

    Inside the body, methanol breaks into formic acid and formaldehyde. Both of these products are toxic and symptoms of poisoning include headaches and nausea. Methanol poisoning can also result in retinal damage leading to vision problems including blurring and blindness. In addition, formaldehyde is both a neurotoxin and a carcinogen. These severe effects of methanol poisoning were seen in a study of the effects of aspartame on humans.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  21. Re:It's a feature by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 4, Funny

    He had her at least once.

    --

    -WolfWithoutAClause

    "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  22. Re:So in other words... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2
    What's rather disturbing about your comment is that you obviously don't realize that these same words in the Constitution were consistently interpreted in a much more narrow way for the first 150 years or so of the U.S. It was only the in late 1930s (after the switch in time that saved nine) that the federal government assumed more-or-less plenary power with no constraints.

    Maybe if you had read the Constitution you wouldn't be spouting such crap. The power starts in the Preamble:

    We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    As noted repeatedly by the Supreme Court, the preamble of the Constitution does NOT grant any powers which are not explicitly already mentioned elsewhere in the Constitution. See, for example, Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905): " Although that Preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."

    In other words, Congress has been granted the power to pass legislation of any kind, which includes regulating things.

    False. And there's nothing in Section 1 which implies that. Instead, Section 8 clearly enumerates the exact powers granted to Congress, while the 10th Amendment makes clear (which the Founders already intended, even without the Bill of Rights) that all others not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution are granted to the states or to the people.

    Again, Congress passes legislation and the President approves or vetoes it. This includes regulating things.

    I don't see any mention of a plenary power to "regulate" anything, especially not in Section 7, which is just about legislative process. What are you talking about??

    Article 1, Section 8:

    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    The general welfare. In other words, the power to use taxes to inform people of the crap their ingesting or smoking to let them make an informed decision. It's also called regulation.

    Uh, again, please note that this clause was significantly more restricted in interpretation before 1937 or so. It was generally accepted only as a power to tax, and there was great debate in the 1800s over whether it allowed taxation beyond the enumerated powers or only directly in relation to the enumerated powers. Eventually, it was interpreted more broadly, but still ONLY as an ability to TAX for "general welfare." Hence, for example, in the early 1900s alcohol couldn't be regulated or prohibited generally without a Constitutional amendment. But the federal government nevertheless attempted to tax it in various ways, e.g., the Harrison Act as a proxy for more general regulation. Anyhow, the "general welfare" clause here only relates to taxation (and has always been interpreted as such), not a broad power to regulate generally.

    The last sentence of Section 8:

    To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the go

  23. Re:So in other words... by buck-yar · · Score: 2

    So wrong. You've rewritten the Constitution in your head to mean the opposite of its intended meaning by the founders.

    Madison:
    "With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

    "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."

    Jefferson:
    "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

    Madison again. Full text: http://www.constitution.org/jm...
    "To the House of Representatives of the United States:

    Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled "An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements," and which sets apart and pledges funds "for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense," I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.

    The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation with the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.

    "The power to regulate commerce among the several States" can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce without a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.

    To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision."

  24. Re:It does mean they are healthier by JustNiz · · Score: 2

    > Regular cigarettes are super unhealthy. E-cigarettes are just unhealthy

    Since vaping is still a relatively new phenomenon, and as far as I can tell there is no regulation over quality or healthiness of liquids on sale, so It wouldn't surpise me if after a few studies get done, they show that vaping is as at least as bad if not worse than tobacco (for the user).

    As a non-smoker I do prefer vapers over cig smokers though, since there isn't any disgusting ash/ashtrays/butt-litter everywhere or apparently as much 2nd-hand smoke.

  25. Your lungs... by maharvey · · Score: 2

    Your lungs emit toxic vapors. And contribute to global warming too!

  26. Yet Another Study in Mental Acrobatics by gringer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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:

    1. E-cigarettes contain some nasty toxic chemicals in detectable quantities
    2. These toxic chemicals are nasty and toxic, and cause damage in high concentrations
    3. Therefore, E-cigarettes are bad and shouldn't be used

    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
  27. Re:It's a feature by netwiz · · Score: 3, Informative

    These studies suck. What was the coil temp? 3.8v? What was the power level? I'll say this, for most light-use coils, 3.8v will torch the ever living hell out of the fluids, burn the wick, and impart a foul taste so bad you'll throw the coil/wick assembly away if it's a replaceable unit. Example, I have a 0.16 ohm quad-coil unit set to 75w, and it's putting 3.46v through the coil to get that rated power. They've got to be pushing over 450F on the coil, and at that temp, it will burn a cotton wick, rendering the coil useless unless it's rebuildable. These studies are funded by people that have a vested interest in either A) government overreach, B) the tobacco industry itself, or C) the nanny state (but I repeat myself).

    None of this is valid. I've run the output of my vaporizer (a Wismec Reuleaux RX200 with a SMOK TFV4 tank) through the local gas spectrometer at the college around here, and damn if there aren't all of five chemicals: water, vegetable glycerin, flavor, menthol, and nicotine. Exactly what's on the label. Surprised? I'm not.

    Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

  28. Re:It's a feature by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

    In fact, that will be your only option after the FDA is finished getting all the e-cigarettes and all their component parts off the market with their regulations.

    How are they going to manage that? I can buy a device to unlock your car or rewrite its immo codes straight outta China, probably via Paypal, even though owning such a device is outright illegal if you're not a locksmith, dealer or otherwise providing service. I can buy any gun I want even though I live in California. How is the FDA successfully going to prevent me from buying a vape?

    Black markets are difficult to control, you're right. But buying on the black market can be more expensive and more trouble than most people are willing to deal with, and that's what they are counting on. The FDA has certainly been very aggressive dealing with black market online pharmacies that ship to the US, they have seized shipments of contraband at the docks when they suspected someone was importing regulated goods, and they have been seizing shipments of e-cigarettes since 2009.

    So, yea, if you're willing to pay the inflated black market prices for the devices and supplies, you'll probably be able to find a way to do so. But wouldn't it be better if they had some reasonable regulations that businesses can actually deal with, rather than send it all underground and encourage people to buy them (with who-knows-what kind of manufacturing and safety issues) from criminals?

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia