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.
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.'"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
He had her at least once.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"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