FDA says -- Juul Illegally Claimed That Its Products Were Safer than Cigarettes.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
27,025
587
126
if 30 year olds are dying from vaping its not safer then smoking. Sorry. We knew this years ago btw. The fda is clearly shit...


Industrial inhalants
There are many industrial inhalants that are known to cause various types of bronchiolitis, including bronchiolitis obliterans.[15]

Industrial workers who have presented with bronchiolitis:


  • nylon-flock workers[14]
  • workers who spray prints onto textiles with polyamide-amine dyes[14]
  • battery workers who are exposed to thionyl chloride fumes
  • workers at plants that use or manufacture flavorings, e.g. diacetyl butter-like flavoring [7][14][16]
popcorn lung was named for the flavoring manufacture. Its the same oil people are vaping. We live in a hellscape...

So....
 

woolfe9998

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2013
8,517
2,829
136
The problem with saying according to the research id that the FDA says otherwise...….
Then a representative of JUUL was caught saying at a school that eCigs are perfectly safe....s.ay what?? Perfectly safe!
Which "research by the FDA" are you referring to? Is it their toxicology study in 2010 where they found a carcinogen (nitrisamine) which is found in cigarettes, but in one ten thousandth the concentration found in cigarettes? The one which was widely touted by the media and various public health organizations as "proof there are carcinogens in electronic cigarettes!" Yes, with exclamation marks, but without any quantification of the comparison noted. You literally had to look into the data tables and footnotes in the FDA's report to discover this fact because it wasn't noted in their executive summary.

Or is it this summary of all e-cigarette research conducted by the National Academy of Sciences at the request of the FDA? The one which, amidst 750 pages of reviewing largely inconclusive evidence of possible but empirically unproven health effects, admits to this:

Using data available in the literature, Goniewicz and colleagues (2014) compared the content of harmful substances among several models of e-cigarettes and combustible tobacco cigarettes. To compare levels of selected toxicants in e-cigarette aerosol and combustible tobacco cigarette mainstream smoke, the authors assumed that e-cigarette users take an average of 15 puffs during one session of product use, which would correspond to smoking one combustible tobacco cigarette. As shown in Table 18-1, levels of selected toxic compounds found in combustible tobacco cigarette smoke were from 9- to 450-fold (my note: average is about 220:1) higher than levels in e-cigarette aerosol. The results of the study support the proposition that the aerosol emitted from an e-cigarette is less injurious than the smoke from combustible tobacco cigarettes. Thus, one would expect that if a person switched from combustible tobacco cigarettes to e-cigarettes, exposure to toxic chemicals and related adverse health effects would be reduced. This hypothesis has been confirmed in several studies involving people using e-cigarette devices.
Which leads one to wonder what is supposed to be causing these alleged health effects, which amount to no more than a hypothesis in the scientific sense. But the NAS' statement is also a remarkable admission. Those who've read the toxicology studies have known this for years. Most of the ~450 carcinogens and toxins found in cigarette smoke aren't found in the vapor, and those which are, are in quantities averaging more than two orders of magnitude less than cigarette smoke, and are consistent with what is found in many commonly consumed foods, not to mention the air you breath near any roadway.

But we never actually get real, quantified numbers out to the public. Instead, we only hear that certain things are found. At most, a media article will admit that there are "fewer carcinogens and toxins" in e-cig vapor than in cigarettes which is extremely misleading as "fewer" could mean 9/10's or 1 millionth, yet quantity means everything.

You can read the entire thing here.

This is why I keep telling people to go read the research itself. Because it's being very selectively represented to the public by the attention hungry media, NGO's, the certain government organization who want to regulate e-cigs. I'm also increasingly uninterested in having this kind of discussion with anyone unwilling to delve into the research - and this includes well meaning family and friends. So if you reply, please do so with direct links to research, preferably that which represents a fair summary of it, because contrary to popular belief, there's actually been quite a lot done. And don't bother with these emotionally compelling but empirically worthless news stories about a cluster of users getting sick from liquids which appear to have been contaminated by someone, whether mistakenly or purposefully.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Howdy and local

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
27,025
587
126
Which "research by the FDA" are you referring to? Is it their toxicology study in 2010 where they found a carcinogen (nitrisamine) which is found in cigarettes, but in one ten thousandth the concentration found in cigarettes? The one which was widely touted by the media and various public health organizations as "proof there are carcinogens in electronic cigarettes!" Yes, with exclamation marks, but without any quantification of the comparison noted. You literally had to look into the data tables and footnotes in the FDA's report to discover this fact because it wasn't noted in their executive summary.

Or is it this summary of all e-cigarette research conducted by the National Academy of Sciences at the request of the FDA? The one which, amidst 750 pages of reviewing largely inconclusive evidence of possible but empirically unproven health effects, admits to this:



Which leads one to wonder what is supposed to be causing these alleged health effects, which amount to no more than a hypothesis in the scientific sense. But the NAS' statement is also a remarkable admission. Those who've read the toxicology studies have known this for years. Most of the ~450 carcinogens and toxins found in cigarette smoke aren't found in the vapor, and those which are, are in quantities averaging more than two orders of magnitude less than cigarette smoke, and are consistent with what is found in many commonly consumed foods, not to mention the air you breath near any roadway.

But we never actually get real, quantified numbers out to the public. Instead, we only hear that certain things are found. At most, a media article will admit that there are "fewer carcinogens and toxins" in e-cig vapor than in cigarettes which is extremely misleading as "fewer" could mean 9/10's or 1 millionth, yet quantity means everything.

You can read the entire thing here.

This is why I keep telling people to go read the research itself. Because it's being very selectively represented to the public. I'm also increasingly uninterested in having this kind of discussion with anyone unwilling to delve into the research - and this includes well meaning family and friends. So if you reply, please do so with direct links to research, preferably that which represents a fair summary of it, because contrary to popular belief, there's actually been quite a lot done. And don't bother with these emotionally compelling but empirically worthless news stories about a cluster of users getting sick from liquids which appear to have been contaminated by someone, either mistakenly or purposefully.
Given the relatively short time that e-cigarettes have been in use, it is understandable that the evidence base regarding their effects is limited. There is a great need for more evidence, as other research groups have documented (Walton et al., 2015). Manufacturers will need to produce this research in a short amount of time if current statutory deadlines remain in place. Researchers from academia will also be involved directly (in contracts with manufacturers and in grants from government and others) in the generation of these data. Some types of research involve a long-term horizon; other important and informative research requires much less time to conduct. One type of research does not substitute for the other; a complete portfolio of research is needed. The committee understands that, in any new field, researchers struggle to conduct optimal research due to limitations of knowledge. Also, researchers feel the urgency to study a new important question and adapt what they know, without complete adjustments in research design or methods sufficient to address the nuances of the problem. Finally, the rapidly changing nature of the devices has made comparisons among studies difficult.
The committee identified many gaps in the literature during its review and identified dozens of specific research needs that are important for understanding the effects of e-cigarettes and for FDA regulatory action. The committee identified two overarching research needs: addressing gaps in substantive knowledge and improving research methods and quality. Specific items for consideration identified by the committee are noted for each of these and are not listed in any priority order.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
27,025
587
126
Bottom line is there is no conclusive evidence either way due to the seemingly newness of eCigs!

With that said -- that supposd report said what exactly?? Nothing!! It shed no light on whether eCigs are dangerous or are safe!
So when you get a report like that you must go to plan B -- which is first hand or hands on evidence - which in this case is the deaths and hospitalization due to eCigs of many people!!
I hate to say this but way back when people were claiming cigarettes were safe using supposed studies...lol

Plus this report was written in 2018.....it is 2019.....a lot can happen in a year.....
 
Last edited:

woolfe9998

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2013
8,517
2,829
136
Given the sudden and rapid onset of lung disease related to vaping, these products need to come off store shelves ASAP.
There is no "sudden and rapid onset of lung disease related to vaping." That is utter bullshit and a total misrepresentation of what is in the news, biased though the reporting has been. E-cigs have been around for nearly 20 years with tens of millions of worldwide users and AFAIK this has never been noted before. This is a recent cluster (as in the past few months), very likely of a small number of users vaping liquids from the same contaminated source. This reminds me of the 80's anti-drug hysteria where someone cuts a batch of cocaine with strict-nine and 10 people get sick and 2 die, then it's "cocaine has strict-nine in it! It will kill you!"

Not sure how anyone thought it was smart idea to miniaturize a fog machine as a “safe” alternative to smoking, or questioned that the vaping industry used the same exact marketing playbook as big tobacco did.
You're not sure, huh? Let me ask you sir, do you know what the chemical relationship is between smoke, any smoke, and the substance which was burned to produce said smoke? Do you know why smoke contains hundreds of carcinogens and toxins not present in the unburned substance and is very harmful regardless of what was burned to produce it? Do you know that when you vaporize a liquid, the vapor is nearly chemically identical to the liquid which produced it?

Yeah, what an idiotic idea that Hon Lik came up with back in 2000. Don't worry, the city of San Francisco agrees with you. They just banned e-cig sales entirely within the city limits, but cigarettes remain perfectly legal. And there's very convincing survey data which says that millions of smokers aren't bothering to switch because of this "news." Smoke up, Johnny!
 

woolfe9998

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2013
8,517
2,829
136
Bottom line is there is no conclusive evidence either way due to the seemingly newness of eCigs!

With that said -- that supposd report said what exactly?? Nothing!! It shed no light on whether eCigs are dangerous or are safe!
So when you get a report like that you must go to plan B -- which is first hand or hands on evidence - which in this case is the deaths and hospitalization due to eCigs of many people!!
I hate to say this but way back when people were claiming cigarettes were safe using supposed studies...lol
You couldn't have read any of that report in this time and you have no idea what is in it other than the small portion I quoted. And did you just seriously say that where research is largely inclusive, you'll rely on localized anecdotes to draw broad conclusions? No, just no. You stick with the research and ignore the anecdotes. All this anecdote proves is that a liquid that is sold and to be ingested by people could be contaminated. Wow, that never occurred to me. Then again, Tylenol was contaminated with cyanide some years back, yet I never heard anyone claiming that acetaminophen is poisonous.

What this new media anecdote suggests is that some people got poisoned, either intentionally or mistakenly. Broadly, there is an absence of evidence that anyone else among the tens of millions of worldwide users is experiencing what these people experienced, and in this area, the absence of evidence is strong evidence in and or itself.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
27,025
587
126
You couldn't have read any of that report in this time and you have no idea what is in it other than the small portion I quoted. And did you just seriously say that where research is largely inclusive, you'll rely on localized anecdotes to draw broad conclusions? No, just no. You stick with the research and ignore the anecdotes. All this anecdote proves is that a liquid that is sold and to be ingested by people could be contaminated. Wow, that never occurred to me. Then again, Tylenol was contaminated with cyanide some years back, yet I never heard anyone claiming that acetaminophen is poisonous.

What this new media anecdote suggests is that some people got poisoned, either intentionally or mistakenly. Broadly, there is an absence of evidence that anyone else among the tens of millions of worldwide users is experiencing what these people experienced, and in this area, the absence of evidence is strong evidence in and or itself.
You have no clue....first of all there are NOT tens of millions using eCigs.
Second of all if I didn`t read the report how did I pick out a section of the report that basuically says that eCigs are too new for there to be conclusive facts concerning the the safety of eCigs??
Actually the lungs were never meant to be substitute fog machines!!
But I gather that your an eCig smaker and as such have at it!!
Back in the day there was proof that cigarettes were not bad for you!
You appear to be a smart person -- hoe can you ssy that ingesting something other than air is good for you??
 

woolfe9998

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2013
8,517
2,829
136
Given the relatively short time that e-cigarettes have been in use, it is understandable that the evidence base regarding their effects is limited. There is a great need for more evidence, as other research groups have documented (Walton et al., 2015). Manufacturers will need to produce this research in a short amount of time if current statutory deadlines remain in place. Researchers from academia will also be involved directly (in contracts with manufacturers and in grants from government and others) in the generation of these data. Some types of research involve a long-term horizon; other important and informative research requires much less time to conduct. One type of research does not substitute for the other; a complete portfolio of research is needed. The committee understands that, in any new field, researchers struggle to conduct optimal research due to limitations of knowledge. Also, researchers feel the urgency to study a new important question and adapt what they know, without complete adjustments in research design or methods sufficient to address the nuances of the problem. Finally, the rapidly changing nature of the devices has made comparisons among studies difficult.
The committee identified many gaps in the literature during its review and identified dozens of specific research needs that are important for understanding the effects of e-cigarettes and for FDA regulatory action. The committee identified two overarching research needs: addressing gaps in substantive knowledge and improving research methods and quality. Specific items for consideration identified by the committee are noted for each of these and are not listed in any priority order.
Yes, there is plenty more research to be done. And I support it. But three things should be noted here. First, the research so far isn't nearly as concerning as its often represented to be in the media. Second, there's been a lot more of it than most people believe (over 15,000 toxicology studies alone). And third, whatever the future research turns out to be needs to be accurately and thoroughly explained to the public, not mined for bits and pieces to make e-cigs look more unhealthy than they are.

This isn't cigarettes where if you exaggerated the bad health affects somewhat it might not be such a bad thing because we know they're terrible regardless. This is something which in the vast majority of cases people are substituting for cigarettes, and if you exaggerate the risk of this substitute, people won't make the switch. This has already happened on a very large scale. Millions more are smoking today because of this propaganda. Not being careful in how you explain this research to the public kills people.
 

woolfe9998

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2013
8,517
2,829
136
You have no clue....first of all there are NOT tens of millions using eCigs.
Second of all if I didn`t read the report how did I pick out a section of the report that basuically says that eCigs are too new for there to be conclusive facts concerning the the safety of eCigs??
Actually the lungs were never meant to be substitute fog machines!!
But I gather that your an eCig smaker and as such have at it!!
Back in the day there was proof that cigarettes were not bad for you!
You appear to be a smart person -- hoe can you ssy that ingesting something other than air is good for you??
The report is 750 pages long. You replied, what, 30 minutes after I posted the link? Sure, you may have read a paragraph or two. I never said you couldn't have read a microscopic portion of it.

As to your last comment, I never said e-cigs are "good for you." Straw man.

But since you mention "air," it really does depend on what air you're breathing, doesn't it? Air anywhere near roads, oil refineries or heavy industry also contains relatively low levels of carcinogens (compared to cigarette smoke) likely not very different than e-cig vapor. And I would agree that clean air is better to breath then either. But then again, it isn't so simple as a conscious choice because the nicotine people got hooked on when they smoked is very hard for about half the smokers to kick. Under those circumstances, it isn't unreasonable to get your fix from an alternative which so far looks to be substantially less harmful than cigarettes.

For years, people having been wearing nic patches or chewing nic gum on a long term basis, and guess what, those products also contain tiny amounts of carcinogens. I know one guy who's been sucking on nicotine lozenges for 8 years now. Yet no ones seems concerned that they're doing this. Why? Because they just don't look like cigarettes and that superficial similarity is an emotional trigger. People see people vaping and they think it looks an awful lot like smoking. Would you validate that as a scientific approach to the comparison?

This attitude that every smoker must quit nicotine entirely and should never pursue a harm reduced alternative, no matter how reduced the harm, is a product of zealotry brought on by decades of anti-smoking messaging which turned the issue into one of morality, when it's really just an issue of individual and public health. A solid review of the research combined with a little critical thinking leads to the conclusion that while more research is clearly needed, so far things don't actually look too bad for e-cigs, and that a lot of this is alarmism or worse, intentional misrepresentation of the science to the public.

PS: there are 10.8 million users in the US alone. Don't know the exact number worldwide, but they've been available in China since 2000, and Europe since about 2005, in the US since 2008. Ad they're available almost everywhere in the word now. Our country of 10.8 million users is what, 4% of the world's population? Yeah, I'd say there has to be in the tens of millions. Might have reached 100 million + by now.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Burpo

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
26,167
2,958
126
The report is 750 pages long. You replied, what, 30 minutes after I posted the link? Sure, you may have read a paragraph or two. I never said you couldn't have read a microscopic portion of it.

As to your last comment, I never said e-cigs are "good for you." Straw man.

But since you mention "air," it really does depend on what air you're breathing, doesn't it? Air anywhere near roads, oil refineries or heavy industry also contains relatively low levels of carcinogens (compared to cigarette smoke) likely not very different than e-cig vapor. And I would agree that clean air is better to breath then either. But then again, it isn't so simple as a conscious choice because the nicotine people got hooked on when they smoked is very hard for about half the smokers to kick. Under those circumstances, it isn't unreasonable to get your fix from an alternative which so far looks to be substantially less harmful than cigarettes.

For years, people having been wearing nic patches or chewing nic gum on a long term basis, and guess what, those products also contain tiny amounts of carcinogens. I know one guy who's been sucking on nicotine lozenges for 8 years now. Yet no ones seems concerned that they're doing this. Why? Because they just don't look like cigarettes and that superficial similarity is an emotional trigger. People see people vaping and they think it looks an awful lot like smoking. Would you validate that as a scientific approach to the comparison?

This attitude that every smoker must quit nicotine entirely and should never pursue a harm reduced alternative, no matter how reduced the harm, is a product of zealotry brought on by decades of anti-smoking messaging which turned the issue into one of morality, when it's really just an issue of individual and public health. A solid review of the research combined with a little critical thinking leads to the conclusion that while more research is clearly needed, so far things don't actually look too bad for e-cigs, and that a lot of this is alarmism or worse, intentional misrepresentation of the science to the public.

PS: there are 10.8 million users in the US alone. Don't know the exact number worldwide, but they've been available in China since 2000, and Europe since about 2005, in the US since 2008. Ad they're available almost everywhere in the word now. Our country of 10.8 million users is what, 4% of the world's population? Yeah, I'd say there has to be in the tens of millions. Might have reached 100 million + by now.
what do you do for a living?
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
27,025
587
126
The report is 750 pages long. You replied, what, 30 minutes after I posted the link? Sure, you may have read a paragraph or two. I never said you couldn't have read a microscopic portion of it.

As to your last comment, I never said e-cigs are "good for you." Straw man.

But since you mention "air," it really does depend on what air you're breathing, doesn't it? Air anywhere near roads, oil refineries or heavy industry also contains relatively low levels of carcinogens (compared to cigarette smoke) likely not very different than e-cig vapor. And I would agree that clean air is better to breath then either. But then again, it isn't so simple as a conscious choice because the nicotine people got hooked on when they smoked is very hard for about half the smokers to kick. Under those circumstances, it isn't unreasonable to get your fix from an alternative which so far looks to be substantially less harmful than cigarettes.

For years, people having been wearing nic patches or chewing nic gum on a long term basis, and guess what, those products also contain tiny amounts of carcinogens. I know one guy who's been sucking on nicotine lozenges for 8 years now. Yet no ones seems concerned that they're doing this. Why? Because they just don't look like cigarettes and that superficial similarity is an emotional trigger. People see people vaping and they think it looks an awful lot like smoking. Would you validate that as a scientific approach to the comparison?

This attitude that every smoker must quit nicotine entirely and should never pursue a harm reduced alternative, no matter how reduced the harm, is a product of zealotry brought on by decades of anti-smoking messaging which turned the issue into one of morality, when it's really just an issue of individual and public health. A solid review of the research combined with a little critical thinking leads to the conclusion that while more research is clearly needed, so far things don't actually look too bad for e-cigs, and that a lot of this is alarmism or worse, intentional misrepresentation of the science to the public.

PS: there are 10.8 million users in the US alone. Don't know the exact number worldwide, but they've been available in China since 2000, and Europe since about 2005, in the US since 2008. Ad they're available almost everywhere in the word now. Our country of 10.8 million users is what, 4% of the world's population? Yeah, I'd say there has to be in the tens of millions. Might have reached 100 million + by now.
what I read of the report was a lot of these and thous and nothing but legal speak for the most part!
Your a freaking idiot if you want me to believe that you read thr whole report and did not skim through it just picking things out..or for that matter you could have googled. But hey at least I know a bogus report that does not come to any definitive conclusions.....so your report is basically meaningless!!
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
27,025
587
126
You could always go to the American Lung Association website and check things out --- ahh I get it, your afraid they will disagree with your contention that eCigs are harmless! UUmm OK!!

More Information on E-Cigarettes

The Surgeon General reports e-cigarette use among youth is a significant public health concern and steps must be taken by parents, educators and especially policymakers to discourage use of e-cigarettes. Learn more about e-cigarettes lung health risks and get downloadable resources for parents, schools and teens.


The Impact of E-Cigarettes on the Lung
There's evolving evidence about the health risks and impact of e-cigarettes on the lungs.


What Parents Should Know about E-Cigarettes
Information for parents to learn more about e-cigarettes, "vaping" and JUULS and the health effects on kids.


What Schools Should Know about E-Cigarettes
Information on e-cigarettes, "vapes" and JUULs for schools to learn more about what they are, why kids use them and health risks.


What Teens Should Know about E-Cigarettes
Information for teens on e-cigarettes, "vapes" and JUULs, including what they are and health effects.


Additional E-Cigarette Resources
Links other websites, reports educational materials, toolkits and more information on e-cigarettes.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
27,025
587
126
Various types of e-cigarettes including "vape pens" and a JUUL.


Download PDF

En Español

E-cigarettes are a relatively new tobacco product that have been sold in the U.S. for about a decade The e-cigarettes currently in the U.S. marketplace have not been systemically reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration to determine their impact on lung health. While much remains to be determined about the lasting health consequences of these products, the American Lung Association is very troubled by the evolving evidence about the impact of e-cigarettes on the lungs.

The Inhalation of Harmful Chemicals Can Cause Irreversible Lung Damage and Lung Disease
In January 2018, the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine1 released a consensus study report that reviewed over 800 different studies.

That report made clear: using e-cigarettes causes health risks. It concluded that e-cigarettes both contain and emit a number of potentially toxic substances. The Academies' report also states there is moderate evidence that youth who use e-cigarettes are at increased risk for cough and wheezing and an increase in asthma exacerbations.

  • A study from the University of North Carolina found that the two primary ingredients found in e-cigarettes—propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin—are toxic to cells and that the more ingredients in an e-liquid, the greater the toxicity.2
  • E-cigarettes produce a number of dangerous chemicals including acetaldehyde, acrolein, and formaldehyde. These aldehydes can cause lung disease, as well as cardiovascular (heart) disease.3
  • E-cigarettes also contain acrolein, a herbicide primarily used to kill weeds. It can cause acute lung injury and COPD and may cause asthma and lung cancer.4
  • Both the U.S. Surgeon General and the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine have warned about the risks of inhaling secondhand e-cigarette emissions, which are created when an e-cigarette user exhales the chemical cocktail created by e-cigarettes.
  • In 2016, the Surgeon General concluded that secondhand emissions contain, "nicotine; ultrafine particles; flavorings such as diacetyl, a chemical linked to serious lung disease; volatile organic compounds such as benzene, which is found in car exhaust; and heavy metals, such as nickel, tin, and lead."
  • The Food and Drug Administration has not found any e-cigarette to be safe and effective in helping smokers quit. If smokers are ready to quit smoking for good, they should call 1-800-QUIT NOW or talk with their doctor about finding the best way to quit using proven methods and FDA-approved treatments and counseling.
  • Sources
    1. NAM Report - https://www.nap.edu/resource/24952/012318ecigaretteConclusionsbyEvidence.pdf
    2. Sassano MF, Davis ES, Keating JE, Zorn BT, Kochar TK, Wolfgang MC, et al. (2018) Evaluation of e-liquid toxicity using an open-source high-throughput screening assay. PLoS Biol 16(3): e2003904. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2003904
    3. Ogunwale, Mumiye A et al. (2017) Aldehyde Detection in Electronic Cigarette Aerosols. ACS omega 2(3): 1207-1214. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.6b00489].
    4. Bein K, Leikauf GD. (2011) Acrolein - a pulmonary hazard. Mol Nutr Food Res 55(9):1342-60. doi: 10.1002/mnfr.201100279.
    5. The report is 750 pages long. You replied, what, 30 minutes after I posted the link? Sure, you may have read a paragraph or two. I never said you couldn't have read a microscopic portion of it.

      As to your last comment, I never said e-cigs are "good for you." Straw man.

      But since you mention "air," it really does depend on what air you're breathing, doesn't it? Air anywhere near roads, oil refineries or heavy industry also contains relatively low levels of carcinogens (compared to cigarette smoke) likely not very different than e-cig vapor. And I would agree that clean air is better to breath then either. But then again, it isn't so simple as a conscious choice because the nicotine people got hooked on when they smoked is very hard for about half the smokers to kick. Under those circumstances, it isn't unreasonable to get your fix from an alternative which so far looks to be substantially less harmful than cigarettes.

      For years, people having been wearing nic patches or chewing nic gum on a long term basis, and guess what, those products also contain tiny amounts of carcinogens. I know one guy who's been sucking on nicotine lozenges for 8 years now. Yet no ones seems concerned that they're doing this. Why? Because they just don't look like cigarettes and that superficial similarity is an emotional trigger. People see people vaping and they think it looks an awful lot like smoking. Would you validate that as a scientific approach to the comparison?

      This attitude that every smoker must quit nicotine entirely and should never pursue a harm reduced alternative, no matter how reduced the harm, is a product of zealotry brought on by decades of anti-smoking messaging which turned the issue into one of morality, when it's really just an issue of individual and public health. A solid review of the research combined with a little critical thinking leads to the conclusion that while more research is clearly needed, so far things don't actually look too bad for e-cigs, and that a lot of this is alarmism or worse, intentional misrepresentation of the science to the public.

      PS: there are 10.8 million users in the US alone. Don't know the exact number worldwide, but they've been available in China since 2000, and Europe since about 2005, in the US since 2008. Ad they're available almost everywhere in the word now. Our country of 10.8 million users is what, 4% of the world's population? Yeah, I'd say there has to be in the tens of millions. Might have reached 100 million + by now.
  • So do we believe your report or the American Lung Association...…
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
11,223
1,036
126
There is no "sudden and rapid onset of lung disease related to vaping." That is utter bullshit and a total misrepresentation of what is in the news, biased though the reporting has been. E-cigs have been around for nearly 20 years with tens of millions of worldwide users and AFAIK this has never been noted before. This is a recent cluster (as in the past few months), very likely of a small number of users vaping liquids from the same contaminated source. This reminds me of the 80's anti-drug hysteria where someone cuts a batch of cocaine with strict-nine and 10 people get sick and 2 die, then it's "cocaine has strict-nine in it! It will kill you!"



You're not sure, huh? Let me ask you sir, do you know what the chemical relationship is between smoke, any smoke, and the substance which was burned to produce said smoke? Do you know why smoke contains hundreds of carcinogens and toxins not present in the unburned substance and is very harmful regardless of what was burned to produce it? Do you know that when you vaporize a liquid, the vapor is nearly chemically identical to the liquid which produced it?

Yeah, what an idiotic idea that Hon Lik came up with back in 2000. Don't worry, the city of San Francisco agrees with you. They just banned e-cig sales entirely within the city limits, but cigarettes remain perfectly legal. And there's very convincing survey data which says that millions of smokers aren't bothering to switch because of this "news." Smoke up, Johnny!
That’s all fine and dandy, but I have a problem with the vaping industry targeting minors, and there was a time when society embraced tobacco for it medicinal properties. When you’re lungs fail you, at least they will smell like cotton candy!
 

PhatoseAlpha

Platinum Member
Apr 10, 2005
2,125
5
81
  • A study from the University of North Carolina found that the two primary ingredients found in e-cigarettes—propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin—are toxic to cells and that the more ingredients in an e-liquid, the greater the toxicity.2
I see bits like this, look into it, find this on the CDC https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem.asp?csem=12&po=14


Propylene glycol toxicity has been reported only rarely and in unusual circumstances. For example, toxicity may result from

  • excessively large or rapidly infused intravenous injections of propylene glycol-containing medications, excessively large or rapidly infused intravenous injections of propylene glycol-containing medications (Louis, Kutt et al. 1967; Seay, Graves et al. 1997; Yorgin, Theodorou et al. 1997; Wilson, Reardon et al. 2000)
  • prolonged dermal contact during treatment of burns

...so, it's toxic to cells, and dangerous - if you're either hooking yourself up to an IV of it, or bathing in it.
 

Homerboy

Lifer
Mar 1, 2000
27,512
1,485
126
Who would have thought that habitually inhaling fine particulates (of any sort) into you soft, squishy, pink lungs would have adverse effects?!
I'm going to guess hitting yourself in the head with a pillow is less dangerous than doing it with a brick, but over time, that pillow is going to cause damage too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bitek

Viper1j

Platinum Member
Jul 31, 2018
2,058
748
96
The key word is SAFER...they probably are safer....but define safer? I am sure they have helped a lot of people quir smoking cigarettes....yet I would bet they are NOT exactly safer than cigarettes!! Just my uneducated take on the subject! The older you get the more you realize you do not know!!

Juul illegally marketed its e-cigarettes as less harmful than tobacco cigarettes, and must find a way to correct that violation, according to a warning letter from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).


E-cigarettes like Juuls, which heat liquid nicotine instead of burning tobacco, are thought to be less dangerous than cigarettes because they produce fewer cancer-causing chemicals. But “regardless of where products like e-cigarettes fall on the continuum of tobacco product risk, the law is clear that, before marketing tobacco products for reduced risk, companies must demonstrate with scientific evidence that their specific product does in fact pose less risk or is less harmful,” Acting FDA Commissioner Dr. Ned Sharpless said in a statement Monday. “JUUL has ignored the law, and very concerningly, has made some of these statements in school to our nation’s youth.”


E-cigarettes, including the ones made by Juul, are not currently FDA-approved. Juul has until spring 2020 to apply for approval as a new tobacco product.


“We are reviewing the letters and will fully cooperate,” a Juul spokesperson told TIME. The letter requires Juul to submit a plan of correction within 15 business days. If it fails to comply with FDA policy, the agency could resort to fines or injunctions against the company.


The warning letter cites several accusations made in a July Congressional hearing relating to Juul—among them, the allegation that a Juul representative on a school visit told students that the product “was much safer than cigarettes” and “totally safe.” A letter from the CEO posted on Juul’s website also argued that Juul devices “deliver smokers the satisfaction that they want without the combustion and the harm associated with it,” according to the FDA’s statement.
The FDA is also investigating Juul’s use of nicotine salts, a formulation that makes nicotine more palatable to consume and may allow users to take in higher doses at a time, and its high nicotine concentrations, which may be particularly addictive.


As by far the most popular e-cigarette on the market, Juul has been at the center of the FDA’s efforts to curb an epidemic of underage vaping. Last year, the agency carried out an unannounced inspection of its San Francisco headquarters and seized thousands of pages of documents related to its marketing and advertising activity, some of which has been criticized for illegally targeting youth. At the end of 2018, just ahead of proposed FDA regulations to limit the sale of flavored vaping products, Juul elected to stop selling many of its flavored pods in most retail stores, and to suspend its U.S. Instagram and Facebook accounts.


The FDA’s warning comes amid mounting reports of serious lung diseases associated with vaping. Many cases, however, appear to be related to vaping marijuana, not the nicotine contained in Juul pods.
As a former smoker of over 40 years, I can state I equivocally that E cigarettes are safer than "analog cigarettes". I haven't touched tobacco in over 13 years, 100% due to electronic cigarettes.

I started out on high nicotine, after five months dropped to mid nicotine, three months after that, to low nicotine.

On 12/6/2006, I want to zero nicotine, and I've been there ever since. It used to be commonly said that former smokers are more "self-righteous" then people that have never smoked. And I always said I would never be one of those people, I had ashtrays in my house for many years. But right now, if I'm around someone that smokes, it makes me physically ill.

As a nine year cancer survivor, I take high offense when anyone slams E cigarettes.

Who would have thought that habitually inhaling fine particulates (of any sort) into you soft, squishy, pink lungs would have adverse effects?!
I'm going to guess hitting yourself in the head with a pillow is less dangerous than doing it with a brick, but over time, that pillow is going to cause damage too.
I guess that means that you hold your breath the entire time you take a hot shower, or hold your breath when you're drinking coffee.

Because you're inhaling water vapor, the same thing that comes out of an e-cigarette.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PhatoseAlpha

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
11,223
1,036
126
Various types of e-cigarettes including "vape pens" and a JUUL.


Download PDF

En Español

E-cigarettes are a relatively new tobacco product that have been sold in the U.S. for about a decade The e-cigarettes currently in the U.S. marketplace have not been systemically reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration to determine their impact on lung health. While much remains to be determined about the lasting health consequences of these products, the American Lung Association is very troubled by the evolving evidence about the impact of e-cigarettes on the lungs.

The Inhalation of Harmful Chemicals Can Cause Irreversible Lung Damage and Lung Disease
In January 2018, the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine1 released a consensus study report that reviewed over 800 different studies.

That report made clear: using e-cigarettes causes health risks. It concluded that e-cigarettes both contain and emit a number of potentially toxic substances. The Academies' report also states there is moderate evidence that youth who use e-cigarettes are at increased risk for cough and wheezing and an increase in asthma exacerbations.

  • A study from the University of North Carolina found that the two primary ingredients found in e-cigarettes—propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin—are toxic to cells and that the more ingredients in an e-liquid, the greater the toxicity.2
  • E-cigarettes produce a number of dangerous chemicals including acetaldehyde, acrolein, and formaldehyde. These aldehydes can cause lung disease, as well as cardiovascular (heart) disease.3
  • E-cigarettes also contain acrolein, a herbicide primarily used to kill weeds. It can cause acute lung injury and COPD and may cause asthma and lung cancer.4
  • Both the U.S. Surgeon General and the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine have warned about the risks of inhaling secondhand e-cigarette emissions, which are created when an e-cigarette user exhales the chemical cocktail created by e-cigarettes.
  • In 2016, the Surgeon General concluded that secondhand emissions contain, "nicotine; ultrafine particles; flavorings such as diacetyl, a chemical linked to serious lung disease; volatile organic compounds such as benzene, which is found in car exhaust; and heavy metals, such as nickel, tin, and lead."
  • The Food and Drug Administration has not found any e-cigarette to be safe and effective in helping smokers quit. If smokers are ready to quit smoking for good, they should call 1-800-QUIT NOW or talk with their doctor about finding the best way to quit using proven methods and FDA-approved treatments and counseling.
  • Sources
    1. NAM Report - https://www.nap.edu/resource/24952/012318ecigaretteConclusionsbyEvidence.pdf
    2. Sassano MF, Davis ES, Keating JE, Zorn BT, Kochar TK, Wolfgang MC, et al. (2018) Evaluation of e-liquid toxicity using an open-source high-throughput screening assay. PLoS Biol 16(3): e2003904. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2003904
    3. Ogunwale, Mumiye A et al. (2017) Aldehyde Detection in Electronic Cigarette Aerosols. ACS omega 2(3): 1207-1214. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.6b00489].
    4. Bein K, Leikauf GD. (2011) Acrolein - a pulmonary hazard. Mol Nutr Food Res 55(9):1342-60. doi: 10.1002/mnfr.201100279.

  • So do we believe your report or the American Lung Association...…
You’re witnessing the mental gymnastics people will go through to rationalize their addictions, coupled with the oddly obsessive hobby appeal that seems to go with vaping.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bitek

Viper1j

Platinum Member
Jul 31, 2018
2,058
748
96
lolroflfuckno.

It's more addictive than most opiates.
But not as addictive as the #1 drug in the world today.

In its natural state, it is a dry white powder. There are only three genetic differences that make it different than cocaine. It is used daily by over three billion people globally.

And it's 100% legal.

Its common name? Caffeine.

You think people lose it when they think the government is coming for their guns?

Wait until they come for your coffee.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
96,892
11,681
136
But not as addictive as the #1 drug in the world today.

In its natural state, it is a dry white powder. There are only three genetic differences that make it different than cocaine. It is used daily by over three billion people globally.

And it's 100% legal.

Its common name? Caffeine.

You think people lose it when they think the government is coming for their guns?

Wait until they come for your coffee.
TIL that chemical molecules have genes. :D

But yes, Caffeine is horribly addictive. ...in my earlier days doing lab work, we actually worked with purified caffeine and nicotine (survivability studies or something with insects. Not really drug relevant, those were just the tools). Those things are effing potent. The nicotine especially was quite vile when mixed with the standard food that we used, and heated it up. I think a shotglass of that stuff would be enough to kill a human.
 
Mar 11, 2004
19,095
1,681
126
I see bits like this, look into it, find this on the CDC https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem.asp?csem=12&po=14


Propylene glycol toxicity has been reported only rarely and in unusual circumstances. For example, toxicity may result from

  • excessively large or rapidly infused intravenous injections of propylene glycol-containing medications, excessively large or rapidly infused intravenous injections of propylene glycol-containing medications (Louis, Kutt et al. 1967; Seay, Graves et al. 1997; Yorgin, Theodorou et al. 1997; Wilson, Reardon et al. 2000)
  • prolonged dermal contact during treatment of burns
...so, it's toxic to cells, and dangerous - if you're either hooking yourself up to an IV of it, or bathing in it.
So, its toxic just when exposed to your skin, and also being toxic when internal, and you think it wouldn't be toxic to your lungs? Just wow...

As a former smoker of over 40 years, I can state I equivocally that E cigarettes are safer than "analog cigarettes". I haven't touched tobacco in over 13 years, 100% due to electronic cigarettes.

I started out on high nicotine, after five months dropped to mid nicotine, three months after that, to low nicotine.

On 12/6/2006, I want to zero nicotine, and I've been there ever since. It used to be commonly said that former smokers are more "self-righteous" then people that have never smoked. And I always said I would never be one of those people, I had ashtrays in my house for many years. But right now, if I'm around someone that smokes, it makes me physically ill.

As a nine year cancer survivor, I take high offense when anyone slams E cigarettes.



I guess that means that you pulled your breath the entire time you take a hot shower, or hold your breath when you're drinking coffee.

Because you're inhaling water vapor, the same thing that comes out of an e-cigarette.
Its nice that it helped you kick your tobacco and apparently nicotine addiction, but sorry you're being blinded because of that.

As someone that gets physically ill from people smoking around me (it irritates the shit out of my sinuses; as does people spraying much of anything that's aerosolized beyond just water vapor; I don't get full blown asthma but I might over time), I take high offense to your attitude that there couldn't possibly be any issue with vaping. Its absurd and resembles the behavior of smokers when the evidence that cigarettes were harmful started to come out.

You're inhaling more than water vapor when you vape, that's true unless you're vaping just water which I guarantee you are never doing and almost no one else is. Which that actually likely might would even be beneficial (I think there's studies that seem to indicate that people that regularly use saunas seem to have healthier respiratory systems), and in some areas (dry regions with pollution, say Southern California or Phoenix) it could maybe even be possible that vaping might provide benefits that outweigh the negatives. That does not mean there's no potential (and even likely) issues. For instance, spray in flavorings in food processing is known to be cancer causing (known as popcorn lung, where even someone that just consumed a lot of microwave popcorn had it happen to them). That is in a lot of vaping liquids.

Another potential issue is simple contamination (i.e. inhaling from something that most people don't likely clean terribly often).

But not as addictive as the #1 drug in the world today.

In its natural state, it is a dry white powder. There are only three genetic differences that make it different than cocaine. It is used daily by over three billion people globally.

And it's 100% legal.

Its common name? Caffeine.

You think people lose it when they think the government is coming for their guns?

Wait until they come for your coffee.
I'm having a hard time believing that caffeine is more addictive than nicotine (and before you try and jump to nonsense claims, I'm not saying either is healthy, both are known to not be and I think both have even used outright as pesticides in high quantities because they can be toxic). And caffeine is nowhere close to being as destructive.

Plus, sugar would've been a far better argument to make there. Its far more destructive than caffeine is in the quantities that average humans are consuming. And its not even classified as a drug, despite some study seeming to indicate its close to cocaine in addictiveness.

And you know what, the government should be doing something to try and regulate its use.
 
Last edited:

PhatoseAlpha

Platinum Member
Apr 10, 2005
2,125
5
81
So, its toxic just when exposed to your skin, and also being toxic when internal, and you think it wouldn't be toxic to your lungs? Just wow...
Dosage, dosage, dosage. Toxicity is entirely meaningless without considering dosage. Literally everything is toxic in sufficient doses. That's showing that you need huge, direct dosages for PG to show negative effects. And yeah, I absolutely think something can be entirely safe to breathe in low concentrations with no problems while being toxic in large dosages or injected directly into your bloodstream.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maxima1

Viper1j

Platinum Member
Jul 31, 2018
2,058
748
96
So, its toxic just when exposed to your skin, and also being toxic when internal, and you think it wouldn't be toxic to your lungs? Just wow...



Its nice that it helped you kick your tobacco and apparently nicotine addiction, but sorry you're being blinded because of that.

As someone that gets physically ill from people smoking around me (it irritates the shit out of my sinuses; as does people spraying much of anything that's aerosolized beyond just water vapor; I don't get full blown asthma but I might over time), I take high offense to your attitude that there couldn't possibly be any issue with vaping. Its absurd and resembles the behavior of smokers when the evidence that cigarettes were harmful started to come out.

You're inhaling more than water vapor when you vape, that's true unless you're vaping just water which I guarantee you are never doing and almost no one else is. Which that actually likely might would even be beneficial (I think there's studies that seem to indicate that people that regularly use saunas seem to have healthier respiratory systems), and in some areas (dry regions with pollution, say Southern California or Phoenix) it could maybe even be possible that vaping might provide benefits that outweigh the negatives. That does not mean there's no potential (and even likely) issues. For instance, spray in flavorings in food processing is known to be cancer causing (known as popcorn lung, where even someone that just consumed a lot of microwave popcorn had it happen to them). That is in a lot of vaping liquids.

Another potential issue is simple contamination (i.e. inhaling from something that most people don't likely clean terribly often).



I'm having a hard time believing that caffeine is more addictive than nicotine (and before you try and jump to nonsense claims, I'm not saying either is healthy, both are known to not be and I think both have even used outright as pesticides in high quantities because they can be toxic). And caffeine is nowhere close to being as destructive.

Plus, sugar would've been a far better argument to make there. Its far more destructive than caffeine is in the quantities that average humans are consuming. And its not even classified as a drug, despite some study seeming to indicate its close to cocaine in addictiveness.

And you know what, the government should be doing something to try and regulate its use.
Obviously, you've never had to "cram" for finals. In college, I knew guys that would grind caffeine pills called No-Doze, and snort them like coke to stay awake for days to study.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY