Credeati ca doar lichidele ridica probleme din punct de vedere al sanatatii?
Ei bine, va inselati profund.
Unele clone facute de chinezoi sunt cu mult mai periculoase.
Vizionare placuta:
Kayfun v4, Kayfun 3.1, Russian v2, Danger of rust. - IVOGO
Are you sure you smoke without danger?
you know, the material of the hidden parts of your device? and visible parts too.
Do not trust anyone!
The rust on the steam is a killer weapon with silencer.
Suspected danger when the non-return valve:
1- is difficult to fill the tank
2- Feel that sometimes does not open easily.
Cautati pe google despre ce se spune in finalul filmului, pericolul inhalarii, respirarii ruginei.
[youtube][/youtube]
Vapatul - pro si contra dpdv al sanatatii
Re: Vapatul - pro si contra dpdv al sanatatii
"Un om care se intelege bine cu toata lumea este lipsit de personalitate"
"Cu cat cunosc mai bine oamenii, iubesc mai mult cainii."
"Am invatat de la animale lucruri mai multe si mai profunde decat de la oameni."
"Cu cat cunosc mai bine oamenii, iubesc mai mult cainii."
"Am invatat de la animale lucruri mai multe si mai profunde decat de la oameni."
-
twain
- utilizator junior
- Mesaje: 191
- Membru din: Joi Oct 23, 2014 1:25 pm
- Localitate: Undeva, departe
Re: Vapatul - pro si contra dpdv al sanatatii
Nici nu ma asteptam sa fie vapatul o treaba curata, fara efecte adverse, fara nocivitate. Insa, parerea mea, dintre doua rele am ales-o pe cea mai putin rea. Probabil exista un video in care sa se arate ce rezulta din arderea unei tigari de tutun... Exista insa un video unde se arata ce ramane dupa fierberea unei sticle de Coca Cola... daca ai sti... n-ai mai bea! Ce facem, nu mai bem?!? Dar se bea in draci!
[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]
Eu nu "vapez"... ci fumez!
-
SamGold
Re: Vapatul - pro si contra dpdv al sanatatii
Adica asta...?twain scrie:Probabil exista un video in care sa se arate ce rezulta din arderea unei tigari de tutun...
[youtube][/youtube]
(nu mai stiu sa pun cu preview...)
Ce nu inteleg eu...kayfun-ul ala e original sau clona/replica?Sa-mi fie cu iertare dar am rupt legatura cu ET o perioada destul de lunga...
Daca vorbim de original nu inteleg de ce un moder ca Svoemesto (care a facut o gramada de bani...deci nu se pune problema lor) nu a folosit (inca) Titanium...
-
twain
- utilizator junior
- Mesaje: 191
- Membru din: Joi Oct 23, 2014 1:25 pm
- Localitate: Undeva, departe
Re: Vapatul - pro si contra dpdv al sanatatii
Adica asta...?SamGold scrie:twain scrie:Probabil exista un video in care sa se arate ce rezulta din arderea unei tigari de tutun...
[youtube][/youtube]
(nu mai stiu sa pun cu preview...)
Mda, si asta e destul de edificator... noi singuri ne alegem otrava! De ce? Ne obliga cineva? Nu, dar daca tot ne "otravim", alegem solutia mai placuta, nu!?
Apropo, ca sa pui preview, sterge litera "s" de la "https" din linkul YT...
Eu nu "vapez"... ci fumez!
Re: Vapatul - pro si contra dpdv al sanatatii
Hai sa continuam lista noutatilor. E important sa fim la curent cu cercetarile din domeniu, e sanatatea noastra, se poate ca un studiu sa faca diferenta dintre un risc major sau lipsa lui.
Precum se pare, cel mai important aspect in vapat e temperatura de vaporizare, iar controlul ei va fi viitorul. Aici trebuie lucrat.
Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos este autorul, un medic grec care are multe cercetari in domeniu.
Culmea, daca va uitati la cei care doneaza bani pentru studiile dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos, aici si aici, sunt chiar firme din China, de exemplu SMOK a donat $2500, sunt utilizatori donori, firme de comercializare tigari electronice, multe din America, dar trist, niciun producator de baze, arome sau lichide...
E-cigarette research: temperature of evaporation
Temperature of evaporation, liquid consumption and vapor analysis in realistic conditions.
Athens, Greece Health
Short Summary
Dear all,
We are introducing Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos, a well-known and respected researcher on electronic cigarettes safety/risk profile.
A previous crowdfunding campaign (" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) proved to be extremely important and crucial in confirming the less harmful potential of e-cigarettes but also in identifying an avoidable risk (much smaller than smoking). That study has been already published in a peer-reviewed medical journal (http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/e ... 6.abstract" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) and we are certain that it will contribute significantly to the development of even safer products without restricting acceptability, variability and pleasure.
Continuing our commitment for unbiased research on e-cigarettes, we are now launching a new campaign for what we consider to be THE MOST IMPORTANT aspect in e-cigarette safety and future development: TEMPERATURE OF EVAPORATION. Although e-cigarettes do not combust any material, heat is necessary to generate the vapor (aerosol) which is subsequently inhaled by the users. This can result in thermal decomposition of some e-cigarette ingredients, releasing potentially toxic chemicals (most commonly aldehydes, such as formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and acrolein). Until now, no study has systematically evaluated temperatures inside the wick, while we have observed several methodological mistakes in assessing aldehydes release (e.g. ingoring that higher wattage is associated with less puff duration in realistic use). Our team has initiated this research, and has already completed preliminary experiments evaluating temperature of evaporation in realistic settings, by introducing a sensor inside the wick, and by having the atomizer fully assembled and used by a vaper.
We now initiate this crowdfunding campaign to expand our research. This is probably the most exciting field in e-cigarette research that will generate valuable information not only for scientists and regulators but also for consumers (vapers) who will be provided with information on the best way to use the devices (especially the new generation devices), without sacrificing pleasure. Temperature evaluation is one of the most crucial factors in determining safety of e-cigarette use, and any improvements in this field will further reduce any small residual risk associated with e-cigarette use.
The main goals of this research project are:
Measure temperatures of evaporation under various puffing conditions (different wattage levels and puff duration).
Determining puffing patterns which would result in less thermal load but maintain level of pleasure and vapor production.
Determine the emission of potentially toxic chemicals in relation to the thermal load.
Determine the development of dry-puff conditions, and how the temperature load is altered in dry-puff conditions.
Evaluate all of the above utilizing numerous resistance levels and wicking materials.
Key issues:
Our goal is to test temperature elevation under variable settings of puff duration and power delivery (wattage) to the atomizer (including high-wattage vaping).
Temperature evaluation is one of the most crucial factors in determining safety of e-cigarette use, and any improvements in this field will further reduce any residual risks associated with e-cigarette use.
THE MORE FUNDS WE RAISE, THE MORE WE WILL BE ABLE TO EXPAND OUR RESEARCH. This is a complex protocol, with a variety of laboratory and clinical studies performed in order to fully explore this research field.
We have the equipment to measure temperatures inside the wick, at a rate of 1 measurement every 0.4 seconds. We have already initiated the experiments (a video will be uploaded in the next few days).
Besides testing temperature in laboratory conditions, we plan to proceed with a clinical study, evaluating the patterns of e-cigarette use in a group of dedicated vapers and the interaction between puff duration and wattage delivery to the atomizer. This will give us realistic information, avoiding conditions such as dry puffs which are detected by the users but cannot be detected in laboratory conditions. We believe it is a crucial mistake to evaluate e-cigarette use at higher wattage by keeping the same puff duration as in lower wattage levels. This does not represent realistic conditions.
We plan to associate the temperatures measured under realistic conditions with the release of potentially hazardous chemicals (aldehydes). For this, a laboratory study will be organized, replicating the e-cigarette use patterns observed in the clinical study and evaluating the presence of selected chemicals in the aerosol (vapor).
We will evaluate dry-puff conditions separately, to determine the magnitude of elevation in toxic emissions.
As always, all results will be compared with the relative exposure from smoking.
The study will also assess novel methods of reducing the temperature of evaporation without restricting the use patterns and the pleasure experienced by vapers.
The study will expand to sub-ohm vaping, which is very popular among dedicated users.
An important goal of this research project is to try to determine dry-puff conditions in any atomizer through a simple predictive model, without the need for complex and expensive experiments and tests.
The purpose of the study is NOT to restrict e-cigarette use and variability of devices, atomizers and power delivery-potential, but to provide valuable information to vapers so that they make informed decisions on how to use their devices. We strongly believe that variability in devices, atomizers and liquids are crucial factors in satisfying every individual need. We believe that new-generation devices are the future in e-cigarette use.
The Impact
THIS IS A HEALTH-RELATED ISSUE.
Temperature evaluation is one of the most important areas of research in e-cigarettes, since it is a major determinant in thermal decomposition of e-liquid ingredients.
This research will evaluate methods of further reducing exposure to thermal decomposition products.
We believe that it is not just the peak temperature that matters but the integral of temperature over time of puff.
It may be preferable to vape at higher wattage with shorter puff duration rather than take prolonged puffs at lower wattage levels.
We want to address crucial methodological errors observed in many studies, where the realistic puffing patterns in relation to wattage use are not taken into consideration.
The assessment will be expanded to sub-ohm vaping, evaluating the patterns of use of experienced-advanced users.
The level and quality of information will contribute to the understanding of e-cigarette function and properties.
This study will provide valuable information to regulators and the scientific community. Our preliminary experiments confirm once again the significantly lower risk potential of e-cigarettes compared to smoking, and show that evolution and development of new products should NOT be restricted by tough regulations. On the contrary, we think that new-generation products not only contribute to the pleasure perceived by consumers but could potentially be a safer way to vape relative to the efficacy of the devices as smoking substitutes.
The study will allow vapers make informed decisions on how to use the devices.
The study will address any methodological errors of previous publications on toxin release to the vapor, by ensuring measurements will be performed in realistic conditions, avoiding overheating (which is easily detected by the user).
Other Ways You Can Help
Some people may not be able to contribute, but that doesn’t mean you can’t help:
The crowdfunding campaign is addressed mostly to professionals and not e-cigarette consumers
We encourage you to get the word out and make some noise about our campaign, especially to e-cigarette professionals.
Please use social media and Indiegogo sharing tools.
All professionals (as well as individuals) can mention in their website that they have contributed to this crowdfunding campaign.
Thank you.
*UPDATE
Many of you know that some new devices with the ability to control temperature of evaporation have ben developed. Two such devices have been announced. We have already obtained one of these devices, and we expect to get the other device soon.
We are going to test these devices, not only to see that temperature control is indeed a reality, but also (and most importantly) to see the levels of vapor production (which is a measure of satifaction for the vaper) and the effect of temperature control on aldehyde emissions to the vapor. The latter will show the true impact of temperature control on safety...
Sursa.
Auxiliar1:
Introduction. The purpose of this study was to evaluate sweet-flavoured electronic cigarette (EC) liquids for the presence of diacetyl (DA) and acetyl propionyl (AP), which are chemicals approved for food use but are associated with respiratory disease when inhaled.
Methods. In total, 159 samples were purchased from 36 manufacturers and retailers from 7 countries. Additionally, three liquids were prepared by dissolving a concentrated flavour sample of known DA and AP levels at 5%, 10% and 20% concentration in a mixture of propylene glycol and glycerol. Aerosol produced by an EC was analyzed to determine the concentration of DA and AP.
Results. DA and AP were found in 74.2% of the samples, with more samples containing DA. Similar concentrations were found in liquid and aerosol for both chemicals. The median daily exposure levels were 56μg/day (IQR: 26-278μg/day) for DA and 91μg/day (IQR: 20-432μg/day) for AP. They were slightly lower than the strict NIOSH-defined safety limits for occupational exposure and 100 and 10 times lower compared to smoking respectively; however, 47.3% of DA and 41.5% of AP-containing samples exposed consumers to levels higher than the safety limits.
Conclusions. DA and AP were found in a large proportion of sweet-flavoured EC liquids, with many of them exposing users to higher than safety levels. Their presence in EC liquids represents an avoidable risk. Proper measures should be taken by EC liquid manufacturers and flavouring suppliers to eliminate these hazards from the products, without necessarily limiting the availability of sweet flavours.
Auxiliar2:
Electronic cigarette liquids analysis-evaluating potentially harmful ingredients
cientific research for the detection of potentially harmful ingredients in e-cigarette liquids. Examining the extent of the problem and providing the solution
Short Summary
Dear all,
This is Dimitris from Vapeteam introducing Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos, a well-known and respected researcher on electronic cigarettes safety/risk profile. For those not knowing him, he has been involved in electronic cigarette research since late 2011 and has published several studies in peer-reviewed medical journals as well as made several presentations of his work in international medical conferences. He strongly believes that electronic cigarettes are a revolution in tobacco harm reduction and supports that with further ressearch we can develop better quality products.
A recent study performed by Dr Farsalinos revealed the presence of some potentially harmful-to-inhale ingredients in electronic cigarette liquids. In order to define the magnitude of the problem and provide the solution for the safety of all vapers, we decided to organize this fund-raising campaign and obtain as many e-liquid samples as possible that will be tested in an experienced and highly-specialized laboratory.
What We Need & What You Get
Our goal is to test more than 100 e-cigarette liquids from manufacturers all over the world. Funds are needed for the cost of obtaining all e-liquids that need to be tested and (mostly) for covering the costs of the specialized laboratory which will perform the analysis.
The liquids and flavorings tested are extremely popular, therefore this research concerns all the vaping community as well as the industry.
THE MORE FUNDS WE RAISE, THE MORE LIQUIDS WILL BE TESTED. This will allow us to define the extent of the problem as accurately as possible and will provide a definite solution.
We believe this research will provide crucial information and will induce necessary changes in the electronic cigarette market to make the products as safe as they can possibly be.
The issue that will be studied is absolutely AVOIDABLE. These are ingredients that should definitely be avoided and can be easily removed. There is a method to make sure that they will not ever be present in e-cigarette liquids.
This research will be the perfect opportunity for the INDUSTRY to show its responsibility towards health-related issues. They should also SUPPORT this research project.
Vapers will be reassured about the quality and safety of e-cigarette liquids available in the market.
Unfortunately there are no gifts that we can give. Detailed information and proper scientific research is all we can offer.
The study and all details will be published in an international medical journal.
The Impact
THIS IS A HEALTH-RELATED ISSUE.
The problem is complex, because the vast majority of e-liquid manufacturers and suppliers are NOT aware that these chemicals are present in their liquids (or, even worse, they have been falsely informed that they are not present).
This research will contribute to making e-cigarette liquids safer.
Dr Farsalinos and his research team are renowned for their efforts and contributions to electronic cigarette research.
E-cigarette liquids will only become BETTER and SAFER after this research project is concluded.
Other Ways You Can Help
Some people may not be able to contribute, but that doesn’t mean you can’t help:
We encourage you to get the word out and make some noise about our campaign.
Please use social media and Indiegogo sharing tools.
Thank you.
P.S - DECI ATENTIE UN PIC LA AROMELE DULCI.
Precum se pare, cel mai important aspect in vapat e temperatura de vaporizare, iar controlul ei va fi viitorul. Aici trebuie lucrat.
Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos este autorul, un medic grec care are multe cercetari in domeniu.
Culmea, daca va uitati la cei care doneaza bani pentru studiile dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos, aici si aici, sunt chiar firme din China, de exemplu SMOK a donat $2500, sunt utilizatori donori, firme de comercializare tigari electronice, multe din America, dar trist, niciun producator de baze, arome sau lichide...
E-cigarette research: temperature of evaporation
Temperature of evaporation, liquid consumption and vapor analysis in realistic conditions.
Athens, Greece Health
Short Summary
Dear all,
We are introducing Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos, a well-known and respected researcher on electronic cigarettes safety/risk profile.
A previous crowdfunding campaign (" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) proved to be extremely important and crucial in confirming the less harmful potential of e-cigarettes but also in identifying an avoidable risk (much smaller than smoking). That study has been already published in a peer-reviewed medical journal (http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/e ... 6.abstract" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) and we are certain that it will contribute significantly to the development of even safer products without restricting acceptability, variability and pleasure.
Continuing our commitment for unbiased research on e-cigarettes, we are now launching a new campaign for what we consider to be THE MOST IMPORTANT aspect in e-cigarette safety and future development: TEMPERATURE OF EVAPORATION. Although e-cigarettes do not combust any material, heat is necessary to generate the vapor (aerosol) which is subsequently inhaled by the users. This can result in thermal decomposition of some e-cigarette ingredients, releasing potentially toxic chemicals (most commonly aldehydes, such as formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and acrolein). Until now, no study has systematically evaluated temperatures inside the wick, while we have observed several methodological mistakes in assessing aldehydes release (e.g. ingoring that higher wattage is associated with less puff duration in realistic use). Our team has initiated this research, and has already completed preliminary experiments evaluating temperature of evaporation in realistic settings, by introducing a sensor inside the wick, and by having the atomizer fully assembled and used by a vaper.
We now initiate this crowdfunding campaign to expand our research. This is probably the most exciting field in e-cigarette research that will generate valuable information not only for scientists and regulators but also for consumers (vapers) who will be provided with information on the best way to use the devices (especially the new generation devices), without sacrificing pleasure. Temperature evaluation is one of the most crucial factors in determining safety of e-cigarette use, and any improvements in this field will further reduce any small residual risk associated with e-cigarette use.
The main goals of this research project are:
Measure temperatures of evaporation under various puffing conditions (different wattage levels and puff duration).
Determining puffing patterns which would result in less thermal load but maintain level of pleasure and vapor production.
Determine the emission of potentially toxic chemicals in relation to the thermal load.
Determine the development of dry-puff conditions, and how the temperature load is altered in dry-puff conditions.
Evaluate all of the above utilizing numerous resistance levels and wicking materials.
Key issues:
Our goal is to test temperature elevation under variable settings of puff duration and power delivery (wattage) to the atomizer (including high-wattage vaping).
Temperature evaluation is one of the most crucial factors in determining safety of e-cigarette use, and any improvements in this field will further reduce any residual risks associated with e-cigarette use.
THE MORE FUNDS WE RAISE, THE MORE WE WILL BE ABLE TO EXPAND OUR RESEARCH. This is a complex protocol, with a variety of laboratory and clinical studies performed in order to fully explore this research field.
We have the equipment to measure temperatures inside the wick, at a rate of 1 measurement every 0.4 seconds. We have already initiated the experiments (a video will be uploaded in the next few days).
Besides testing temperature in laboratory conditions, we plan to proceed with a clinical study, evaluating the patterns of e-cigarette use in a group of dedicated vapers and the interaction between puff duration and wattage delivery to the atomizer. This will give us realistic information, avoiding conditions such as dry puffs which are detected by the users but cannot be detected in laboratory conditions. We believe it is a crucial mistake to evaluate e-cigarette use at higher wattage by keeping the same puff duration as in lower wattage levels. This does not represent realistic conditions.
We plan to associate the temperatures measured under realistic conditions with the release of potentially hazardous chemicals (aldehydes). For this, a laboratory study will be organized, replicating the e-cigarette use patterns observed in the clinical study and evaluating the presence of selected chemicals in the aerosol (vapor).
We will evaluate dry-puff conditions separately, to determine the magnitude of elevation in toxic emissions.
As always, all results will be compared with the relative exposure from smoking.
The study will also assess novel methods of reducing the temperature of evaporation without restricting the use patterns and the pleasure experienced by vapers.
The study will expand to sub-ohm vaping, which is very popular among dedicated users.
An important goal of this research project is to try to determine dry-puff conditions in any atomizer through a simple predictive model, without the need for complex and expensive experiments and tests.
The purpose of the study is NOT to restrict e-cigarette use and variability of devices, atomizers and power delivery-potential, but to provide valuable information to vapers so that they make informed decisions on how to use their devices. We strongly believe that variability in devices, atomizers and liquids are crucial factors in satisfying every individual need. We believe that new-generation devices are the future in e-cigarette use.
The Impact
THIS IS A HEALTH-RELATED ISSUE.
Temperature evaluation is one of the most important areas of research in e-cigarettes, since it is a major determinant in thermal decomposition of e-liquid ingredients.
This research will evaluate methods of further reducing exposure to thermal decomposition products.
We believe that it is not just the peak temperature that matters but the integral of temperature over time of puff.
It may be preferable to vape at higher wattage with shorter puff duration rather than take prolonged puffs at lower wattage levels.
We want to address crucial methodological errors observed in many studies, where the realistic puffing patterns in relation to wattage use are not taken into consideration.
The assessment will be expanded to sub-ohm vaping, evaluating the patterns of use of experienced-advanced users.
The level and quality of information will contribute to the understanding of e-cigarette function and properties.
This study will provide valuable information to regulators and the scientific community. Our preliminary experiments confirm once again the significantly lower risk potential of e-cigarettes compared to smoking, and show that evolution and development of new products should NOT be restricted by tough regulations. On the contrary, we think that new-generation products not only contribute to the pleasure perceived by consumers but could potentially be a safer way to vape relative to the efficacy of the devices as smoking substitutes.
The study will allow vapers make informed decisions on how to use the devices.
The study will address any methodological errors of previous publications on toxin release to the vapor, by ensuring measurements will be performed in realistic conditions, avoiding overheating (which is easily detected by the user).
Other Ways You Can Help
Some people may not be able to contribute, but that doesn’t mean you can’t help:
The crowdfunding campaign is addressed mostly to professionals and not e-cigarette consumers
We encourage you to get the word out and make some noise about our campaign, especially to e-cigarette professionals.
Please use social media and Indiegogo sharing tools.
All professionals (as well as individuals) can mention in their website that they have contributed to this crowdfunding campaign.
Thank you.
*UPDATE
Many of you know that some new devices with the ability to control temperature of evaporation have ben developed. Two such devices have been announced. We have already obtained one of these devices, and we expect to get the other device soon.
We are going to test these devices, not only to see that temperature control is indeed a reality, but also (and most importantly) to see the levels of vapor production (which is a measure of satifaction for the vaper) and the effect of temperature control on aldehyde emissions to the vapor. The latter will show the true impact of temperature control on safety...
Sursa.
Auxiliar1:
Introduction. The purpose of this study was to evaluate sweet-flavoured electronic cigarette (EC) liquids for the presence of diacetyl (DA) and acetyl propionyl (AP), which are chemicals approved for food use but are associated with respiratory disease when inhaled.
Methods. In total, 159 samples were purchased from 36 manufacturers and retailers from 7 countries. Additionally, three liquids were prepared by dissolving a concentrated flavour sample of known DA and AP levels at 5%, 10% and 20% concentration in a mixture of propylene glycol and glycerol. Aerosol produced by an EC was analyzed to determine the concentration of DA and AP.
Results. DA and AP were found in 74.2% of the samples, with more samples containing DA. Similar concentrations were found in liquid and aerosol for both chemicals. The median daily exposure levels were 56μg/day (IQR: 26-278μg/day) for DA and 91μg/day (IQR: 20-432μg/day) for AP. They were slightly lower than the strict NIOSH-defined safety limits for occupational exposure and 100 and 10 times lower compared to smoking respectively; however, 47.3% of DA and 41.5% of AP-containing samples exposed consumers to levels higher than the safety limits.
Conclusions. DA and AP were found in a large proportion of sweet-flavoured EC liquids, with many of them exposing users to higher than safety levels. Their presence in EC liquids represents an avoidable risk. Proper measures should be taken by EC liquid manufacturers and flavouring suppliers to eliminate these hazards from the products, without necessarily limiting the availability of sweet flavours.
Auxiliar2:
Electronic cigarette liquids analysis-evaluating potentially harmful ingredients
cientific research for the detection of potentially harmful ingredients in e-cigarette liquids. Examining the extent of the problem and providing the solution
Short Summary
Dear all,
This is Dimitris from Vapeteam introducing Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos, a well-known and respected researcher on electronic cigarettes safety/risk profile. For those not knowing him, he has been involved in electronic cigarette research since late 2011 and has published several studies in peer-reviewed medical journals as well as made several presentations of his work in international medical conferences. He strongly believes that electronic cigarettes are a revolution in tobacco harm reduction and supports that with further ressearch we can develop better quality products.
A recent study performed by Dr Farsalinos revealed the presence of some potentially harmful-to-inhale ingredients in electronic cigarette liquids. In order to define the magnitude of the problem and provide the solution for the safety of all vapers, we decided to organize this fund-raising campaign and obtain as many e-liquid samples as possible that will be tested in an experienced and highly-specialized laboratory.
What We Need & What You Get
Our goal is to test more than 100 e-cigarette liquids from manufacturers all over the world. Funds are needed for the cost of obtaining all e-liquids that need to be tested and (mostly) for covering the costs of the specialized laboratory which will perform the analysis.
The liquids and flavorings tested are extremely popular, therefore this research concerns all the vaping community as well as the industry.
THE MORE FUNDS WE RAISE, THE MORE LIQUIDS WILL BE TESTED. This will allow us to define the extent of the problem as accurately as possible and will provide a definite solution.
We believe this research will provide crucial information and will induce necessary changes in the electronic cigarette market to make the products as safe as they can possibly be.
The issue that will be studied is absolutely AVOIDABLE. These are ingredients that should definitely be avoided and can be easily removed. There is a method to make sure that they will not ever be present in e-cigarette liquids.
This research will be the perfect opportunity for the INDUSTRY to show its responsibility towards health-related issues. They should also SUPPORT this research project.
Vapers will be reassured about the quality and safety of e-cigarette liquids available in the market.
Unfortunately there are no gifts that we can give. Detailed information and proper scientific research is all we can offer.
The study and all details will be published in an international medical journal.
The Impact
THIS IS A HEALTH-RELATED ISSUE.
The problem is complex, because the vast majority of e-liquid manufacturers and suppliers are NOT aware that these chemicals are present in their liquids (or, even worse, they have been falsely informed that they are not present).
This research will contribute to making e-cigarette liquids safer.
Dr Farsalinos and his research team are renowned for their efforts and contributions to electronic cigarette research.
E-cigarette liquids will only become BETTER and SAFER after this research project is concluded.
Other Ways You Can Help
Some people may not be able to contribute, but that doesn’t mean you can’t help:
We encourage you to get the word out and make some noise about our campaign.
Please use social media and Indiegogo sharing tools.
Thank you.
P.S - DECI ATENTIE UN PIC LA AROMELE DULCI.
"Un om care se intelege bine cu toata lumea este lipsit de personalitate"
"Cu cat cunosc mai bine oamenii, iubesc mai mult cainii."
"Am invatat de la animale lucruri mai multe si mai profunde decat de la oameni."
"Cu cat cunosc mai bine oamenii, iubesc mai mult cainii."
"Am invatat de la animale lucruri mai multe si mai profunde decat de la oameni."
-
SamGold
Re: Vapatul - pro si contra dpdv al sanatatii
Un studiu legat de noul trend de vapat la >30w nu gasesti...?
Nu mi se pare chiar "user-friendly", dar n-am gasit nimic concret...
Nu mi se pare chiar "user-friendly", dar n-am gasit nimic concret...
Re: Vapatul - pro si contra dpdv al sanatatii
Un lucru bun - se pare ca vapatul pasiv (nivelul de nicotina absorbit) nu prezinta riscuri pentru sanatate, spre diferenta de fumatul pasiv care este extrem de nociv.
Nicotine absorbed from “passive vaping” is minimal and with no health implications
By Dr Farsalinos
A new study evaluating passive vaping has recently been published in the journal Environmental Research. The study evaluated nicotine levels in the house of vapers and smokers (compared to non-smokers), and measured salivary and urinary cotinine levels in non-smokers who were exposed to tobacco and electronic cigarette use at their homes. The main finding of the study was that “passive vaping” results in nicotine absorption from non-smokers non-vapers, at similar levels as those exposed to smoke from tobacco cigarettes. Those exposed to more than 7 tobacco cigarettes per day had higher cotinine levels (thus, more nicotine was absorbed through passive exposure).
First of all, there is no surprise that nicotine is released to the environment. Since there is a lot of vapor exhaled, and considering that nicotine absorption is lower compared to smoking, nicotine is probably exhaled by the user (I say probably, because we need more evidence to be certain about that). However, we should assess the health implications of exposure to nicotine at such levels.
Does it mean that passive vaping may lead to nicotine dependence?
Does it mean that nicotine is absorbed to such levels that it may cause harm to bystanders?
The answer to both questions is NO. Passive exposure to electronic cigarette resulted in median salivary cotinine levels of 0.24ng/ml, while in the control group (no exposure to tobacco or electronic cigarette) it was 0.05ng/ml. In smokers, levels of salivary cotinine exceed 300ng/ml, especially in smokers of >20 cigarettes per day. Therefore, the level of cotinine in “passive vapers” is approximately 1200 times lower than active smokers. The same research group measured cotinine levels in smokers few years ago, finding 146ng/ml in smokers of 15 cigarettes per day. This is 610 times higher than the levels in “passive vapers”. Since cotinine is directly associated with the total amount of daily nicotine intake, and assuming that smokers of 15 cigarettes per day get 15mg of nicotine and show 146ng/ml cotinine levels, we can calculate that passive vaping leads to daily nicotine intake of 0.025mg. Such a levels is not only harmless but has absolutely no biological effect, even according to the strictest regulatory definitions.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has defined the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) of nicotine. This limit has a TOXICOLOGICAL ENDPOINT OF HEART RATE ACCELERATION, which is wrong because heart rate acceleration does not imply any long-term adverse effect. According to the definition, NOAEL (which is a much lower level compared to LOAEL) is defined as: ““An exposure level at which there are no statistically or biologically significant increases in the frequency or severity of adverse effects between the exposed population and its appropriate control. Some effects may be produced at this level, but they are not considered as adverse, nor precursors to adverse effects”. Thus, the definition by EFSA it is not in reality a LOAEL (or even a NOAEL), but much lower than that. The level set by EFSA was 0.008mg/kg body weight for ingestion, derived from calculations of intravenous nicotine injections, which found that administering 0.0035mg/kg body weight produced an acute acceleration in heart rate. For an average 75kg human, that is 0.26mg (10 times higher than the calculated 0.025mg/day intake from passive e-cigarette exposure).
In conclusion, the levels of nicotine absorbed from “passive vaping” are not only harmless but do not even produce any biological effect (not even heart rate acceleration). Considering the possibility that allowing e-cigarette use in public places may motivate smokers to switch to e-cigarette use, there is no scientific basis for any bans on e-cigarette use in public places.
Sursa.
Nicotine absorbed from “passive vaping” is minimal and with no health implications
By Dr Farsalinos
A new study evaluating passive vaping has recently been published in the journal Environmental Research. The study evaluated nicotine levels in the house of vapers and smokers (compared to non-smokers), and measured salivary and urinary cotinine levels in non-smokers who were exposed to tobacco and electronic cigarette use at their homes. The main finding of the study was that “passive vaping” results in nicotine absorption from non-smokers non-vapers, at similar levels as those exposed to smoke from tobacco cigarettes. Those exposed to more than 7 tobacco cigarettes per day had higher cotinine levels (thus, more nicotine was absorbed through passive exposure).
First of all, there is no surprise that nicotine is released to the environment. Since there is a lot of vapor exhaled, and considering that nicotine absorption is lower compared to smoking, nicotine is probably exhaled by the user (I say probably, because we need more evidence to be certain about that). However, we should assess the health implications of exposure to nicotine at such levels.
Does it mean that passive vaping may lead to nicotine dependence?
Does it mean that nicotine is absorbed to such levels that it may cause harm to bystanders?
The answer to both questions is NO. Passive exposure to electronic cigarette resulted in median salivary cotinine levels of 0.24ng/ml, while in the control group (no exposure to tobacco or electronic cigarette) it was 0.05ng/ml. In smokers, levels of salivary cotinine exceed 300ng/ml, especially in smokers of >20 cigarettes per day. Therefore, the level of cotinine in “passive vapers” is approximately 1200 times lower than active smokers. The same research group measured cotinine levels in smokers few years ago, finding 146ng/ml in smokers of 15 cigarettes per day. This is 610 times higher than the levels in “passive vapers”. Since cotinine is directly associated with the total amount of daily nicotine intake, and assuming that smokers of 15 cigarettes per day get 15mg of nicotine and show 146ng/ml cotinine levels, we can calculate that passive vaping leads to daily nicotine intake of 0.025mg. Such a levels is not only harmless but has absolutely no biological effect, even according to the strictest regulatory definitions.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has defined the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) of nicotine. This limit has a TOXICOLOGICAL ENDPOINT OF HEART RATE ACCELERATION, which is wrong because heart rate acceleration does not imply any long-term adverse effect. According to the definition, NOAEL (which is a much lower level compared to LOAEL) is defined as: ““An exposure level at which there are no statistically or biologically significant increases in the frequency or severity of adverse effects between the exposed population and its appropriate control. Some effects may be produced at this level, but they are not considered as adverse, nor precursors to adverse effects”. Thus, the definition by EFSA it is not in reality a LOAEL (or even a NOAEL), but much lower than that. The level set by EFSA was 0.008mg/kg body weight for ingestion, derived from calculations of intravenous nicotine injections, which found that administering 0.0035mg/kg body weight produced an acute acceleration in heart rate. For an average 75kg human, that is 0.26mg (10 times higher than the calculated 0.025mg/day intake from passive e-cigarette exposure).
In conclusion, the levels of nicotine absorbed from “passive vaping” are not only harmless but do not even produce any biological effect (not even heart rate acceleration). Considering the possibility that allowing e-cigarette use in public places may motivate smokers to switch to e-cigarette use, there is no scientific basis for any bans on e-cigarette use in public places.
Sursa.
"Un om care se intelege bine cu toata lumea este lipsit de personalitate"
"Cu cat cunosc mai bine oamenii, iubesc mai mult cainii."
"Am invatat de la animale lucruri mai multe si mai profunde decat de la oameni."
"Cu cat cunosc mai bine oamenii, iubesc mai mult cainii."
"Am invatat de la animale lucruri mai multe si mai profunde decat de la oameni."
Re: Vapatul - pro si contra dpdv al sanatatii
Cred ca e bine sa fim informati despre toate modalitatile de vapat existente pe piata. Unele pot fi simple povesti de marketing, unele pot fi reale.
Dupa cum stiti, noua electronica de la Evolv, DNA 40, permite controlul temperaturii, pentru mai multa siguranta (peste o anumita temperatura lichidul se pare ca se descompune si in cateva substante nocive) si evitarea gusturilor de ars, dry hits.
Dar pentru a putea folosi aceasta facilitate, rezistenta trebuie facuta cu Nikel200. Incep sa apara tot mai multe voci care spun ca este o problema de sanatate cu acest Ni200, si nu ar trebui niciodata facut dry burn rezistentei.
O sa vedem in partea a doua si raspunsul lui Brandon de la Evolv vis a vis de aceste ingrijorari cu privire la Ni200, dar trebuie tinut seama ca el este obiectiv.
Concluziile le trage fiecare.
Ni-200 wire safety info (some info on dna 40 and explaining why you should NOT dry burn ni-200 wire)
[youtube][/youtube]
Problema:
Nickel is relatively chemically unreactive to some things, but not to others. It reacts very rapidly with carbon monoxide. And nickel carbonyl is really evil crap. And heating any organic flavour is going to resul in some carbon monoxide production. http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/20 ... rbonyl.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Brandon Ward from Evolv replied on this point:
"We agree Nickel Carbonyl is truly evil crap. Fortunately, there isn't any being generated here.
We aren't generating carbon monoxide. The whole point of temperature protection is to, well, protect from elevated temperatures. Heating doesn't generate carbon monoxide. You have to be getting combustion or pyrolysis. And you have to be combusting in a fuel-rich (less oxygen that stoichiometric) environment. Like a cigarette. We never get anywhere near combustion temperature, and even if we did (say, one turned the temperature limit up to 2000 degrees) the environment in an atomizer is oxygen rich, not fuel rich. So you would get carbon dioxide, not monoxide. To get pyrolytic decomposition of the fluid into carbon monoxide and hydrogen, we would want a coil temperature of about 1500F and you'd need to have it sealed off from air completely. No published analysis of ecigarette vapor we are aware of has ever found any carbon monoxide.
If this was a problem, we would have already seen it. The Mond process you describe (nickel ore to nickel carbonyl to nickel metal) is how one refines nickel from ore. The commercial coils are already 80% nickel and run at higher temperatures when they dry out. If we were getting nickel carbonyl production, that would refine the nickel out and we would end up with a porous wire with only 20% chromium left. That's not what happens.
Given that all the real research, vapor analysis and longer term studies that have been done to this point have been done with commercial cigalikes, the vast majority of which use nichrome coils (80% nickel and not at all protected from overheating) if there was a substance as toxic as nickel carbonyl in the vapor, the anti-ecig forces would be screaming that from every rooftop. Nobody has found any, even in devices that aren't temperature controlled. "
Problema:
So in your opinion using nickel or nichrome as heating wire for vaping is dangerous? I don't know enough about it to judge if you're right or wrong. I hope you're wrong because I think this about to be the next big thing in vaping. This technology is going to start popping up in mass market devices very soon and some premade atties are going to come with nickel rather than nichrome.
I know from my own experience that I do not react at all well to nickel exposure through nichrome or heated steel wicks, so I can only imagine that the reaction from a pure nickel coil would be much worse.
Evolv also replied to this concern:
"Speaking of real research, I'm attaching the Goniewicz research paper which is one often cited by those on both sides of the e-cigarette safety debate. The study looked at commercial products, all of which use nichrome heating coils. And yes, they measured nickel. The study also looked for carbon monoxide in the vapor stream and found none. The following excerpt is from the study:
"The amounts of toxic metals and aldehydes in e-cigarettes are trace amounts and are comparable with amounts contained in an examined therapeutic product."
From Dr. Michael Siegel's blog:
"The most important finding in this study (that the authors failed to acknowledge) was that all of the trace levels of metals they found in e-cigarette aerosol were within permissible exposure limits for FDA approved inhalable drugs and devices (e.g. nicotine inhaler, asthma inhalers) per Pharmacopeial Convention."
Dr. Michael Siegel:
"The other health concern related to e-cigarette use is the risks associated with long-term inhalation of propylene glycol. If an excipient can be found which allows vaporization of nicotine but avoids propylene glycol and limits the formation of carbonyl compounds such as formaldehyde, it will be a huge advance and may lead to the development of an electronic cigarette product that is not merely safer than smoking, but is essentially safe as well (comparable to a medicinal nicotine product). "
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2013...vapor.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A 100% VG juice used with temperature limited vaporizer based on our new DNA 40 or 25 is exactly such a device. Avoiding genuine health advances because of extensively studied and debunked hypothetical risks is the sort of thinking that leads anti-vaccine zealots to misguidedly return polio and measles to the world.
Basically it boils down to anything a nickel 200 coil would do, a nichrome coil would already be doing (and worse due to higher peak temperatures) and nichrome coils are the only ones that have been studied in any meaningful detail by the real scientists, labs and doctors. What Kanthal is or is not doing, we cannot say as we haven't really studied it.
On the other hand, what is a problem with the commercially available nickel 200 wire is they use a particularly foul tasting oil in the drawing process. So if you roll a new coil without degreasing the wire first, you initially get a nasty taste from that oil. A good washing with acetone or simple green, followed by rinsing in water, solves that problem. But that is something worth pointing out if people are reporting weird chemical tastes when they first try it.
Thanks,
Brandon
Evolv, LLC"
Sursa.
Cum am spus, concluziile le trage fiecare. Important e sa fim informati pentru a decide cat mai bine.
Dupa cum stiti, noua electronica de la Evolv, DNA 40, permite controlul temperaturii, pentru mai multa siguranta (peste o anumita temperatura lichidul se pare ca se descompune si in cateva substante nocive) si evitarea gusturilor de ars, dry hits.
Dar pentru a putea folosi aceasta facilitate, rezistenta trebuie facuta cu Nikel200. Incep sa apara tot mai multe voci care spun ca este o problema de sanatate cu acest Ni200, si nu ar trebui niciodata facut dry burn rezistentei.
O sa vedem in partea a doua si raspunsul lui Brandon de la Evolv vis a vis de aceste ingrijorari cu privire la Ni200, dar trebuie tinut seama ca el este obiectiv.
Concluziile le trage fiecare.
Ni-200 wire safety info (some info on dna 40 and explaining why you should NOT dry burn ni-200 wire)
[youtube][/youtube]
Problema:
Nickel is relatively chemically unreactive to some things, but not to others. It reacts very rapidly with carbon monoxide. And nickel carbonyl is really evil crap. And heating any organic flavour is going to resul in some carbon monoxide production. http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/20 ... rbonyl.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Brandon Ward from Evolv replied on this point:
"We agree Nickel Carbonyl is truly evil crap. Fortunately, there isn't any being generated here.
We aren't generating carbon monoxide. The whole point of temperature protection is to, well, protect from elevated temperatures. Heating doesn't generate carbon monoxide. You have to be getting combustion or pyrolysis. And you have to be combusting in a fuel-rich (less oxygen that stoichiometric) environment. Like a cigarette. We never get anywhere near combustion temperature, and even if we did (say, one turned the temperature limit up to 2000 degrees) the environment in an atomizer is oxygen rich, not fuel rich. So you would get carbon dioxide, not monoxide. To get pyrolytic decomposition of the fluid into carbon monoxide and hydrogen, we would want a coil temperature of about 1500F and you'd need to have it sealed off from air completely. No published analysis of ecigarette vapor we are aware of has ever found any carbon monoxide.
If this was a problem, we would have already seen it. The Mond process you describe (nickel ore to nickel carbonyl to nickel metal) is how one refines nickel from ore. The commercial coils are already 80% nickel and run at higher temperatures when they dry out. If we were getting nickel carbonyl production, that would refine the nickel out and we would end up with a porous wire with only 20% chromium left. That's not what happens.
Given that all the real research, vapor analysis and longer term studies that have been done to this point have been done with commercial cigalikes, the vast majority of which use nichrome coils (80% nickel and not at all protected from overheating) if there was a substance as toxic as nickel carbonyl in the vapor, the anti-ecig forces would be screaming that from every rooftop. Nobody has found any, even in devices that aren't temperature controlled. "
Problema:
So in your opinion using nickel or nichrome as heating wire for vaping is dangerous? I don't know enough about it to judge if you're right or wrong. I hope you're wrong because I think this about to be the next big thing in vaping. This technology is going to start popping up in mass market devices very soon and some premade atties are going to come with nickel rather than nichrome.
I know from my own experience that I do not react at all well to nickel exposure through nichrome or heated steel wicks, so I can only imagine that the reaction from a pure nickel coil would be much worse.
Evolv also replied to this concern:
"Speaking of real research, I'm attaching the Goniewicz research paper which is one often cited by those on both sides of the e-cigarette safety debate. The study looked at commercial products, all of which use nichrome heating coils. And yes, they measured nickel. The study also looked for carbon monoxide in the vapor stream and found none. The following excerpt is from the study:
"The amounts of toxic metals and aldehydes in e-cigarettes are trace amounts and are comparable with amounts contained in an examined therapeutic product."
From Dr. Michael Siegel's blog:
"The most important finding in this study (that the authors failed to acknowledge) was that all of the trace levels of metals they found in e-cigarette aerosol were within permissible exposure limits for FDA approved inhalable drugs and devices (e.g. nicotine inhaler, asthma inhalers) per Pharmacopeial Convention."
Dr. Michael Siegel:
"The other health concern related to e-cigarette use is the risks associated with long-term inhalation of propylene glycol. If an excipient can be found which allows vaporization of nicotine but avoids propylene glycol and limits the formation of carbonyl compounds such as formaldehyde, it will be a huge advance and may lead to the development of an electronic cigarette product that is not merely safer than smoking, but is essentially safe as well (comparable to a medicinal nicotine product). "
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2013...vapor.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A 100% VG juice used with temperature limited vaporizer based on our new DNA 40 or 25 is exactly such a device. Avoiding genuine health advances because of extensively studied and debunked hypothetical risks is the sort of thinking that leads anti-vaccine zealots to misguidedly return polio and measles to the world.
Basically it boils down to anything a nickel 200 coil would do, a nichrome coil would already be doing (and worse due to higher peak temperatures) and nichrome coils are the only ones that have been studied in any meaningful detail by the real scientists, labs and doctors. What Kanthal is or is not doing, we cannot say as we haven't really studied it.
On the other hand, what is a problem with the commercially available nickel 200 wire is they use a particularly foul tasting oil in the drawing process. So if you roll a new coil without degreasing the wire first, you initially get a nasty taste from that oil. A good washing with acetone or simple green, followed by rinsing in water, solves that problem. But that is something worth pointing out if people are reporting weird chemical tastes when they first try it.
Thanks,
Brandon
Evolv, LLC"
Sursa.
Cum am spus, concluziile le trage fiecare. Important e sa fim informati pentru a decide cat mai bine.
"Un om care se intelege bine cu toata lumea este lipsit de personalitate"
"Cu cat cunosc mai bine oamenii, iubesc mai mult cainii."
"Am invatat de la animale lucruri mai multe si mai profunde decat de la oameni."
"Cu cat cunosc mai bine oamenii, iubesc mai mult cainii."
"Am invatat de la animale lucruri mai multe si mai profunde decat de la oameni."
Re: Vapatul - pro si contra dpdv al sanatatii
Daca ne referim la fumatul clasic,exista deja o cazuistica de cel putin 40-50 ani.
Se pot estima statistic eventuale riscuri.
Daca cineva zice : "am fumat kent lung 20 ani" poate fi 'incadrat' intr-o anumita 'schema de risc'.
DESIGUR:cineva poate fuma 70 de ani si sa moara la 120 iar altcineva poate muri de cancer la 20 fiind nefumator.
Din punctul meu de vedere,vaping-ul este la inceput.
Device-urile sunt prea noi pe piata pentru a se putea trage niste concluzii 'exacte'.
Practic,noi,cei care vapam ,suntem pionierii pe 'spatele' carora se vor trage niste concluzii.
Din cat am studiat fenomenul (si inca o fac) vapatul ar fi mai 'safe' decat fumatul clasic,dar nu 100% safe (de fapt asa ceva nu ti poate garanta nimeni niciodata referitor la nici un produs).
Cercetarea pentru vaping din cate 'percep' eu fenomenul n ar trebui sa vizeze bazele si aromele ci mai degraba materialele rezistentelor (modul cum temperatura rez.'altereaza' chimia lichidului si etc)
Am dubiile mele personale vizavi de vapatul in 0.3 sau mai jos (vapat home made cum se poate vedea pe youtube).
Ideea e ca suntem baieti mari,vaccinati,NU ne obliga nimeni sa vapam si ca orice om matur ne asumam si riscurile.
ORICUM:
Daca vapatul ar fi sa zic la fel de daunator ca fumatul clasic,as opta TOT pentru vapat.
Macar e o 'imbolnavire' cu gust/aroma de struguri ,nu de mahoarca invelita in ziar si dat foc!
Sanatate!
Se pot estima statistic eventuale riscuri.
Daca cineva zice : "am fumat kent lung 20 ani" poate fi 'incadrat' intr-o anumita 'schema de risc'.
DESIGUR:cineva poate fuma 70 de ani si sa moara la 120 iar altcineva poate muri de cancer la 20 fiind nefumator.
Din punctul meu de vedere,vaping-ul este la inceput.
Device-urile sunt prea noi pe piata pentru a se putea trage niste concluzii 'exacte'.
Practic,noi,cei care vapam ,suntem pionierii pe 'spatele' carora se vor trage niste concluzii.
Din cat am studiat fenomenul (si inca o fac) vapatul ar fi mai 'safe' decat fumatul clasic,dar nu 100% safe (de fapt asa ceva nu ti poate garanta nimeni niciodata referitor la nici un produs).
Cercetarea pentru vaping din cate 'percep' eu fenomenul n ar trebui sa vizeze bazele si aromele ci mai degraba materialele rezistentelor (modul cum temperatura rez.'altereaza' chimia lichidului si etc)
Am dubiile mele personale vizavi de vapatul in 0.3 sau mai jos (vapat home made cum se poate vedea pe youtube).
Ideea e ca suntem baieti mari,vaccinati,NU ne obliga nimeni sa vapam si ca orice om matur ne asumam si riscurile.
ORICUM:
Daca vapatul ar fi sa zic la fel de daunator ca fumatul clasic,as opta TOT pentru vapat.
Macar e o 'imbolnavire' cu gust/aroma de struguri ,nu de mahoarca invelita in ziar si dat foc!
Sanatate!
Re: Vapatul - pro si contra dpdv al sanatatii
DACA ar exista de exemplu o Asociatie a Vaperilor Romani (statut juridic) s-ar putea initia actiuni/cereri de cercetare medicala in domeniu si in Romania.
Cand spun statut juridic,vreau sa zic ca una e sa merg eu PF la Ministerul Sanatatii sau la un laborator sa cer teste specifice si alta e sa vina din partea unei entitati legale.
Cel putin,in cazul unor refuzuri/probleme intampinate pe parcurs la demersurile astea ,MS sau un laborator au obligatia de a 'da in scris' o explicatie.
Altceva:
Cand faci demersuri legale pentru ceva, se poate ajunge si la alte chestii.
Am fost membru pe multe forumuri de a lungul timpului (de la acvaristica la motociclism si etc).
In principiu,toti userii sunt zmei in spatele unor id-uri,avatare,postari.
Intrebarea ar fi :
Daca vreti sa faceti ceva pentru vapingul din Romania,cati ati fi dispusi sa va cereti de exemplu drepturile intr-o forma organizata?
Sa va prezentati in carne si oase la un miting sau ceva similar?
Cand spun statut juridic,vreau sa zic ca una e sa merg eu PF la Ministerul Sanatatii sau la un laborator sa cer teste specifice si alta e sa vina din partea unei entitati legale.
Cel putin,in cazul unor refuzuri/probleme intampinate pe parcurs la demersurile astea ,MS sau un laborator au obligatia de a 'da in scris' o explicatie.
Altceva:
Cand faci demersuri legale pentru ceva, se poate ajunge si la alte chestii.
Am fost membru pe multe forumuri de a lungul timpului (de la acvaristica la motociclism si etc).
In principiu,toti userii sunt zmei in spatele unor id-uri,avatare,postari.
Intrebarea ar fi :
Daca vreti sa faceti ceva pentru vapingul din Romania,cati ati fi dispusi sa va cereti de exemplu drepturile intr-o forma organizata?
Sa va prezentati in carne si oase la un miting sau ceva similar?
Re: Vapatul - pro si contra dpdv al sanatatii
Latest e-cig data is positive
An independent study of ecigarettes published in the Cochrane Library has said battery-powered products could help traditional smokers cut down or even quit the habit completely. The Cochrane review looked at two trials involving 662 current smokers, and 11 observational studies. It found one in 10 smokers who switched to ecigarettes gave up approximately one year later, while a third significantly cut down. The trial data showed no serious adverse effects, although this was based on short to medium term use only.
The findings come just a few months after the World Health Organisation (WHO) said the next-generation products were as dangerous as traditional cigarettes, not only for smokers but passive smokers as well. There are concerns the proliferation of ecigarettes could 'normalise' the habit again, making it popular again with young people. However, some medical professionals have promoted ecigarettes as a tool to help people quit traditional tobacco, particularly if other techniques such as patches and chewing gum haven't helped. But the Cochrane review said any conclusions about the efficacy of ecigarettes as a quitting tool were difficult, due to the limited number of studies on the subject.
Roughly 2m people in Britain already use ecigarettes and in 2014, they outsold sports nutrition drinks to become the best-selling British supermarket product. Around two-thirds of ecigarette buyers are smokers trying to quit, while the remainder are ex-smokers returning to the habit.
But the regulatory outlook for new ecigarette products hitting the market is far from in clear. From 2016, products must be regulated as medicines in the UK. But Welsh health legislators will consider banning the use of ecigarettes in enclosed public places altogether. Some countries, including Western Australia, Brazil and Norway, have banned the products altogether due to safety concerns.
London's two largest tobacco companies - British American Tobacco (BATS) and Imperial Tobacco (IMT) - will pay close attention to the latest research findings. Both companies are busy developing and launching next-generation products. But the rise of ecigarettes will inevitably hurt their traditional brands, which have been in decline for some time in established western markets.
IC view:
The market won't know how to react to ecigarettes until the regulatory outlook starts to clear up. But Imperial has managed to snap up blu, the leading ecigarette product in the US, as part of the merger between tobacco giants Reynolds and Lorillard. This could give them a competitive edge in the next-generation market.
SURSA
An independent study of ecigarettes published in the Cochrane Library has said battery-powered products could help traditional smokers cut down or even quit the habit completely. The Cochrane review looked at two trials involving 662 current smokers, and 11 observational studies. It found one in 10 smokers who switched to ecigarettes gave up approximately one year later, while a third significantly cut down. The trial data showed no serious adverse effects, although this was based on short to medium term use only.
The findings come just a few months after the World Health Organisation (WHO) said the next-generation products were as dangerous as traditional cigarettes, not only for smokers but passive smokers as well. There are concerns the proliferation of ecigarettes could 'normalise' the habit again, making it popular again with young people. However, some medical professionals have promoted ecigarettes as a tool to help people quit traditional tobacco, particularly if other techniques such as patches and chewing gum haven't helped. But the Cochrane review said any conclusions about the efficacy of ecigarettes as a quitting tool were difficult, due to the limited number of studies on the subject.
Roughly 2m people in Britain already use ecigarettes and in 2014, they outsold sports nutrition drinks to become the best-selling British supermarket product. Around two-thirds of ecigarette buyers are smokers trying to quit, while the remainder are ex-smokers returning to the habit.
But the regulatory outlook for new ecigarette products hitting the market is far from in clear. From 2016, products must be regulated as medicines in the UK. But Welsh health legislators will consider banning the use of ecigarettes in enclosed public places altogether. Some countries, including Western Australia, Brazil and Norway, have banned the products altogether due to safety concerns.
London's two largest tobacco companies - British American Tobacco (BATS) and Imperial Tobacco (IMT) - will pay close attention to the latest research findings. Both companies are busy developing and launching next-generation products. But the rise of ecigarettes will inevitably hurt their traditional brands, which have been in decline for some time in established western markets.
IC view:
The market won't know how to react to ecigarettes until the regulatory outlook starts to clear up. But Imperial has managed to snap up blu, the leading ecigarette product in the US, as part of the merger between tobacco giants Reynolds and Lorillard. This could give them a competitive edge in the next-generation market.
SURSA
"Un om care se intelege bine cu toata lumea este lipsit de personalitate"
"Cu cat cunosc mai bine oamenii, iubesc mai mult cainii."
"Am invatat de la animale lucruri mai multe si mai profunde decat de la oameni."
"Cu cat cunosc mai bine oamenii, iubesc mai mult cainii."
"Am invatat de la animale lucruri mai multe si mai profunde decat de la oameni."
Re: Vapatul - pro si contra dpdv al sanatatii
January 22nd 2015, 12:32 am
Before You Vape: High levels of Formaldehyde Hidden in E-Cigs
Formaldehyde, a known human carcinogen found in cigarette smoke, also dwells in the vaporized liquid of popular electronic or e-cigarettes, researchers said Wednesday.
E-cigarette sales are booming in the United States and many hoped so- called "vaping" would replace tobacco smoking and be a panacea for the nearly 160,000 lung cancer deaths associated with conventional cigarettes.
But according to an analysis published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, the exposure to formaldehyde from e-cigarettes, based on similar chronic use as tobacco, could be five to 15 times higher than from smoking cigarettes.
"It's way too early now from an epidemiological point of view to say how bad they are," said co-author James F. Pankow, professor of chemistry and engineering at Portland State University in Oregon. "But the bottom line is, there are toxins and some are more than in regular cigarettes. And if you are vaping, you probably shouldn't be using it at a high-voltage setting."
5 facts about e-cigarettes
Pankow and his colleagues analyzed aerosolized e-liquid in "tank system" e-cigarettes to detect formaldehyde-releasing agents in "hidden" form at various voltages.
They found that vaping 3 milligrams of e-cigarette liquid at a high voltage can generate 14 milligrams of loosely affiliated or "hidden" formaldehyde. Researchers estimated a tobacco smoker would get .15 milligrams of formaldehyde per cigarette or 3 milligrams in a 20-pack.
Pankow told NBC News those numbers "may be conservative."
"We are not saying e-cigarettes are more hazardous than cigarettes," he said. "We are only looking at one chemical. … The jury is really out on how safe these drugs are."
There are more than 8,000 chemicals in tobacco smoke, so it's hard to pinpoint whether formaldehyde is the main culprit in cigarette-related cancers.
"A lot of people make the assumption that e-cigarettes are safe and they are perfectly fine after using for a year," said Pankow. "The hazards of e-cigarettes, if there are any, will be seen 10 to 15 years from now when they start to appear in chronic users."
E-cigarettes were first invented in China in 2003, but they started appearing in the United States around 2006. A five-pack of flavor cartridges costs about the same as a pack of cigarettes and starter kits can cost between $30 and $100.
A cartridge or tank contains a liquid of propylene glycol, glycerol, or both, as well as nicotine and flavoring. These chemicals are heated to the boiling point with a battery-operated atomizer, creating a smokeless vapor that is inhaled.
But formaldehyde-containing chemical compounds can be released during the "vaping" process as the liquid is heated. Pankow said some e-cigarettes can burn hotter than 1,000 degrees fahrenheit.
"The difference in e-cigarettes is the material that is heated and turns into hot gas as it cools is not tobacco, but two main chemicals," he said. "When it gets really hot, unwanted reactions occur."
Pankow said the same risks likely do not occur when vaping dry marijuana or hash oil, which typically does not use those chemicals. "But it's totally likely that some people dilute hash oil with propylene glycol and glycerol, which we know can form formaldehyde," he said.
Formaldehyde is a colorless, strong-smelling gas used in embalming fluid, building materials and some medicines and cosmetics. It can also be produced as a byproduct of cooking and smoking.
According to the American Cancer Society, exposure to formaldehyde has been shown to cause cancer in laboratory animals and has also been linked to some cancers in humans.
When gaseous formaldehyde, found in funeral homes and other occupational settings, is inhaled, it breaks down in the mouth, nose, throat, and airways. Exposure has been linked to throat and nasal cancers and leukemias.
SURSA.
Before You Vape: High levels of Formaldehyde Hidden in E-Cigs
Formaldehyde, a known human carcinogen found in cigarette smoke, also dwells in the vaporized liquid of popular electronic or e-cigarettes, researchers said Wednesday.
E-cigarette sales are booming in the United States and many hoped so- called "vaping" would replace tobacco smoking and be a panacea for the nearly 160,000 lung cancer deaths associated with conventional cigarettes.
But according to an analysis published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, the exposure to formaldehyde from e-cigarettes, based on similar chronic use as tobacco, could be five to 15 times higher than from smoking cigarettes.
"It's way too early now from an epidemiological point of view to say how bad they are," said co-author James F. Pankow, professor of chemistry and engineering at Portland State University in Oregon. "But the bottom line is, there are toxins and some are more than in regular cigarettes. And if you are vaping, you probably shouldn't be using it at a high-voltage setting."
5 facts about e-cigarettes
Pankow and his colleagues analyzed aerosolized e-liquid in "tank system" e-cigarettes to detect formaldehyde-releasing agents in "hidden" form at various voltages.
They found that vaping 3 milligrams of e-cigarette liquid at a high voltage can generate 14 milligrams of loosely affiliated or "hidden" formaldehyde. Researchers estimated a tobacco smoker would get .15 milligrams of formaldehyde per cigarette or 3 milligrams in a 20-pack.
Pankow told NBC News those numbers "may be conservative."
"We are not saying e-cigarettes are more hazardous than cigarettes," he said. "We are only looking at one chemical. … The jury is really out on how safe these drugs are."
There are more than 8,000 chemicals in tobacco smoke, so it's hard to pinpoint whether formaldehyde is the main culprit in cigarette-related cancers.
"A lot of people make the assumption that e-cigarettes are safe and they are perfectly fine after using for a year," said Pankow. "The hazards of e-cigarettes, if there are any, will be seen 10 to 15 years from now when they start to appear in chronic users."
E-cigarettes were first invented in China in 2003, but they started appearing in the United States around 2006. A five-pack of flavor cartridges costs about the same as a pack of cigarettes and starter kits can cost between $30 and $100.
A cartridge or tank contains a liquid of propylene glycol, glycerol, or both, as well as nicotine and flavoring. These chemicals are heated to the boiling point with a battery-operated atomizer, creating a smokeless vapor that is inhaled.
But formaldehyde-containing chemical compounds can be released during the "vaping" process as the liquid is heated. Pankow said some e-cigarettes can burn hotter than 1,000 degrees fahrenheit.
"The difference in e-cigarettes is the material that is heated and turns into hot gas as it cools is not tobacco, but two main chemicals," he said. "When it gets really hot, unwanted reactions occur."
Pankow said the same risks likely do not occur when vaping dry marijuana or hash oil, which typically does not use those chemicals. "But it's totally likely that some people dilute hash oil with propylene glycol and glycerol, which we know can form formaldehyde," he said.
Formaldehyde is a colorless, strong-smelling gas used in embalming fluid, building materials and some medicines and cosmetics. It can also be produced as a byproduct of cooking and smoking.
According to the American Cancer Society, exposure to formaldehyde has been shown to cause cancer in laboratory animals and has also been linked to some cancers in humans.
When gaseous formaldehyde, found in funeral homes and other occupational settings, is inhaled, it breaks down in the mouth, nose, throat, and airways. Exposure has been linked to throat and nasal cancers and leukemias.
SURSA.
"Un om care se intelege bine cu toata lumea este lipsit de personalitate"
"Cu cat cunosc mai bine oamenii, iubesc mai mult cainii."
"Am invatat de la animale lucruri mai multe si mai profunde decat de la oameni."
"Cu cat cunosc mai bine oamenii, iubesc mai mult cainii."
"Am invatat de la animale lucruri mai multe si mai profunde decat de la oameni."
Re: Vapatul - pro si contra dpdv al sanatatii
Raspunsul la cele de mai sus:
The counterfactual
What's the right thing to do? Analytical advocacy – getting beyond the rhetoric of campaigners
CommentsPosts
Annual quiz on e-cigarettes and harm reduction »
Spreading fear and confusion with misleading formaldehyde studies
formaldehyde
Another alarmist and deeply misleading story about formaldehyde and e-cigarettes has now emerged in the New England Journal of Medicine: Hidden Formaldehyde in E-cigarette Aerosols. I have written to the corresponding authors, and I would like to share my open letter.
Open letter to authors
Hidden Formaldehyde in E-cigarette Aerosols – some questions and concerns
21 January 2015
Dear Dr Peyton, Dr Pankow
I write with reference to the forthcoming letter “Hidden Formaldehyde in E-cigarette Aerosols” to be published in the New England Journal of Medicine, under a 5pm EST 21 January 2015 embargo.
Given the great potential for these findings and the related cancer-risk calculations to cause damaging confusion and fear among smokers and vapers, I would be grateful if you could clarify the following:
1. What care was taken to ensure that the puff regime used was a reasonable proxy for human use and exposure? The letter does not detail any attempt to calibrate the puffing regime used in the experiment to match real-world vaping behaviour. The levels of formaldehyde detected suggest it was a highly unrealistic regime.
2. What, if any, precautions were taken to avoid measuring and reporting on ‘dry puff’ conditions – i.e. through use of such high voltage and high intensity puffing that the coil becomes so hot that it creates vapour of such acrid taste and harshness that human users would not use it in that way? It is under these conditions that high levels of formaldehyde and related compounds would be expected to form – but no human would ever be exposed to them. Humans have control over the sensory experience that puffing machines do not.
3. In making your newsworthy claims about cancer risk, what confidence do have that the puffing regime used appropriately represents human vaping behaviour, and therefore human cancer risk? There is a danger that naive reporting of your findings will characterise these risks as integral to vaping products, whereas they are a feature of the operating regime, which appears to be extreme in this case. These findings are only appropriate as cancer risk communication if the operating regime is realistic. However, the letter does not detail how you have assured this is the case – and no caveat has been provided to highlight that serious and probably fatal weakness in this work.
4. In the calculations of cancer risk, it is assumed that “inhaling formaldehyde-releasing agents carries the same risk per unit of formaldehyde as the risk associated with inhaling gaseous formaldehyde“. Can you provide a citation to support this assumption, given that the attention-grabbing findings in the letter rest entirely on it? As you will be aware, formaldehyde-releasing preservatives are used as an alternative to formaldehyde in many preparations for safety reasons.
5. The letter claims that the incremental lifetime cancer risk associated with long term vaping “is 5 times as high … or even 15 times as high … as the risk associated with long-term smoking“. Can you clarify that this comparison refers to only that part of the smoking cancer risk that arises from formaldehyde exposure? In order not to confuse readers with the idea that long term vaping may carry 5-15 times the risk of smoking, would it be possible to provide an appropriate context: for example, what proportion of the smoking cancer risk is attributable to formaldehyde? I think it is a small fraction of the total, and it would have been prudent to state this. Formaldehyde is not the most important carcinogen in cigarette smoke by some distance and just one of many. The Surgeon General’s 2010 report Chapter 5 provides a useful guide, but does not go as far as your letter does in attributing cancer risk to individual carcinogens. The Surgeon General also reminds us that:
Aldehydes such as formaldehyde and acetaldehyde occur widely in the human environment and are endogenous metabolites found in human blood
It is possible therefore that the estimation of cancer risk from formaldehyde is more complicated than your simple model allows for.
To be more direct, I am concerned that:
This study uses a completely unrealistic puffing regime to create the conditions in which formaldehyde forms with no attempt to calibrate the machine to reflect realistic human use.
That it presents results from extreme and unrealistic operating conditions which are then built into a ‘back of the envelope’ calculation of cancer risk.
That this contrived and artificial cancer risk is misleadingly compared to real human cancer risks associated with smoking.
That the statements about vaping having 5-15 times the incremental cancer risk associated with smoking are provided without context and could easily be misread as implying that vaping is more dangerous than smoking. It would not be the first time that misreporting of formaldehyde findings have created this impression.
This study may repeat the harm done through mischaracterisation of ‘light’ cigarettes by use of unrealistic puffing regimes that did not reflect real human behaviour. The same is likely to apply here, but instead of understating risk of a harmful product, the effect will be to grossly overstate the risk of a relatively benign product – with equally damaging results.
Many smokers have a great opportunity to switch from smoking to vaping, and to reduce their incremental risk of disease by 95-99%. However, studies like this and the reporting that has followed, are gradually persuading smokers that e-cigarettes are much more risky than they are, and that they might as well continue to smoke. A study published in 2014 found the following:
In 2010, 84.7% of smokers surveyed believed e-cigarettes were less harmful than traditional cigarettes, but according to this new study in 2013, that number dropped to just 65% [link].
This is a trend that should shame the public health community and the academics that are fuelling consumers’ misunderstanding with misleading studies that misrepresent risk. I am sure it is not your aim to protect the cigarette trade and prolong the epidemic of smoking related disease, but it may well be the effect.
I hope you will take great care to ensure your findings are described in context and with appropriate caveats about whether these results are realistic for human exposure and that the calculations of cancer risk are remotely meaningful..
Yours sincerely
Clive Bates
Counterfactual
London / Harare
http://www.clivebates.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[No competing interests]
These two wrote about e-cigarettes in November 2014 (Chemists break down e-cigarette research) and in doing so haplessly demonstrated that they are basically clueless:
Peyton agreed with Pankow. He also pointed out that the high temperatures to which the element heated e-cigarette additives—over 600 degrees celsius—resulted in the creation of molecules not previously seen.
Vaping is typically done at 200-260 degrees celsius, with dry puff conditions developing at around 280 degrees.
Commentary and analysis on this study
Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos: The deception of measuring formaldehyde in e-cigarette aerosol: the difference between laboratory measurements and true exposure
The scientific community must realize that variable wattage devices cannot be used at any wattage levels with any available atomizer. Even for naïve users, the harsh taste of the dry puff phenomenon is unbearable. … In fact, it is very easy to produce as much aldehydes as you want in the lab with an e-cigarette device. However, this has nothing to do with exposure from e-cigarette use.
Dr Michael Siegel: New Study Reports High Levels of Formaldehyde in Electronic Cigarette Aerosols
Essentially, what this study demonstrates is that if you overheat a vaping system, it will produce high levels of formaldehyde. However, such conditions are not realistic, as they could not be tolerated by an actual vaper. Therefore, extrapolating from this study to a lifetime of vaping is meaningless.
Norbert Zillatron: Freaking Formaldehyde
…you can’t just simply select an arbitrary puffing regime and expect it to represent an applicable model of real vaping
Tom Pruen (ECITA) First burn the barrel, then scrape it – commentary on a letter published in the NEJM
Consumers are extremely unlikely to voluntarily inhale high concentrations of formaldehyde; formaldehyde is characterized by its unpleasant smell, and at concentrations of as little as 5 parts per million causes burning sensations in the respiratory tract, and breathing difficulty
Professor Peter Hajek: Formaldehyde in e-cigarettes: expert responds
When a chicken is burned, the resulting black crisp will contain carcinogens but that does not mean that chicken are carcinogenic. Without overheating the e-liquid, no formaldehyde was detected. Vaping may not be as safe as breathing clear mountain air, but it is much safer than smoking. It would be a shame if this study persuaded smokers who cannot or do not want to stop smoking and contemplate vaping that they might as well stick to their deadly cigarettes.
Professor Brad Rodu: Bogus research of formaldehyde in e-cig vapor
R. Paul Jensen and colleagues at Portland State University produced the new results by overheating an e-cigarette, a condition (called dry puffing) that is familiar to vapers; the resulting product tastes so bad it cannot be inhaled. In other words, the formaldehyde produced under abusive conditions is not “hidden” at all, because it is in vapor that users find intolerable. Enough data is extracted from the authors to confirm the the measurements were made in extreme and unrealistic ‘dry puff’ conditions. Konstantinos Farsalinos has the science: Verified: formaldehyde levels found in the NEJM study were associated with dry puff conditions. An update.
Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos figures out what they actually did: Verified: formaldehyde levels found in the NEJM study were associated with dry puff conditions. An update.
It is more than obvious that the findings of very high levels of formaldehyde are a result of overheating. Lack of experience on e-cigarettes and no contact with vapers can result in such erroneous and unrealistic results, which can create confusion and misinformation both in the scientific community and among users and potential users of e-cigarettes.
Dr Michael Siegal follows: Confirmed: Formaldehyde Study Conducted Under Implausible Conditions; Conclusions Invalid
Unfortunately, the alarmist (and incorrect) conclusions of this study have already been widely disseminated in the media. Even if the information is corrected, it appears that the damage is done. I believe that the damage is substantial because many smokers will now become convinced that there is no advantage to switching from tobacco cigarettes to electronic cigarettes.
Conclusion
This study is so poorly designed and inherently misleading that it should not have been conducted, should not have been written up, should not have been published in the NEJM or anywhere, should not have been pitched to the media, and its findings should be completely ignored as worthless.
Oh but wait… it was well received and acclaimed by some in the high command of tobacco control.
Screen Shot 2015-01-22 at 07.00.34
Technical note: dry puff phenomenon
Professional researchers, peer reviewers and editors designing and publishing experiments on vaping devices should, as in any field, acquaint themselves with the peer-reviewed literature already published. This would help them avoid designing hopelessly flawed experiments and rushing into print with misleading results and bogus estimates of cancer risk. If Jensen et al had applied this most elementary discipline, they would have found this description of the dry puff phenomenon and its implications for experimental protocols (Farsalinos et al 2013):
3.4.1. Vaping vs. Smoking Topography
Vaping topography may have significant implications in production and delivery of potentially harmful substances. The EC evaporation rate and thermal load are directly dependent on the puff duration and interpuff interval. If the device is activated before the temperature is significantly decreased and/or before the wick is sufficiently supplied with liquid, the device will get overheated. This causes a phenomenon called “dry puff”. It is an unpleasant, burning taste that forces the user to lower puff duration and increase interpuff interval. It is also reproduced when the atomizer has very low amounts of liquid, signalling that it should be refilled. This phenomenon occurred in some experienced users when they were asked to use the “eGo-C” atomizer in this study. They had to lower puff duration and interpuff interval in order to avoid “dry puff”, while no such problems occurred with the “Epsilon” atomizer. Although not tested yet, there is a theoretical concern that overheating the EC may lead to production of significant amounts of toxic substances like acrolein or formaldehyde, which can be formed from thermal degradation of glycerol in a closed chamber [21,22]. The “dry-puff” phenomenon, although easily detected and avoided by the user, cannot be detected in the laboratory setting. Therefore, if this occurs during a laboratory experiment, it will significantly undermine the value of the study results and their applicability to real use. It should be emphasized that each type of atomizer has different cooling and liquid-supply abilities, depending on the design and material used. This should be taken into consideration when preparing laboratory research protocols.
Farsalinos KE, Romagna G, Tsiapras D, Kyrzopoulos S, Voudris V. Evaluation of electronic cigarette use (vaping) topography and estimation of liquid consumption: implications for research protocol standards definition and for public health authorities’ regulation. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2013; 10: 2500–14.
Notice the title: implications for research protocol standards definition. They should have known.
The Japanese Formaldehyde Fiasco
Also, it is worth mentioning that this is not the first time an overhyped formaldehyde story has made its way into print rather than the bin. Excellent blogs by Konstantinos Farsalinos [Electronic cigarette aerosol contains 6 times LESS formaldehyde than tobacco cigarette smoke] and Brad Rodu [Formaldehype vs. Fact: Levels Are Far Lower in E-Cigarettes Than In Cigarettes] give the full story of the Japanese rogue result that made headlines worldwide. At the time, I also wrote to the author of this study, Dr. Naoki Kunugita, to point out the irresponsibility of his statements. Here is the letter from November 2014.
Date: 29 November 2014 at 14:31
To: “Dr. Naoki Kunugita M.D. Dr.Med.Sci.” <kunugita@niph.go.jp>
Dear Dr Kunugita
I hope you are aware of the impact that your comments on e-cigarette formaldehyde exposure has caused in the press, and therefore in public perception of risk of e-cigarettes relative to smoking. You can read some of it here: http://goo.gl/1rOyDu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The impression that has been left is exactly the opposite of a realistic appraisal of exposure to carcinogens in general and formaldehyde in particular that a responsible authority would wish to communicate to the public. Your remarks appear to be based on a single unpublished measurement: “In one brand of e-cigarette the team found more than 10 times the level of carcinogens contained in one regular cigarette” as quoted by AFP. Can you provide the data that supports this argument? I have been unable to locate it in the published literature.
A more realistic appraisal across the range of measurements would suggest formaldehyde exposures far lower than for smoking – at least six times lower based on your own data and perhaps fifty times lower would be an appropriate characterisation. I hope you have seen the critique of your work and communication by Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos (here)
However, you have chosen to communicate an extreme result that is not open to scrutiny. Because it is not published or replicable, we cannot know for sure: but is likely that this device was running very hot and/or dry to generate emissions like this. No human user would continue with this mode of operation as the taste would provide immediate feedback to behaviour (something that does not happen with machines). It follows that the result (even if accurate) you have communicated to the public is:
1. an artefact of the machine testing regime and device settings;
2. not a realistic risk for human exposure.
Whether or not it was the aim of your communication, the effect has been to cast doubt in the minds of many smokers about the benefits of switching to e-cigarettes, which would be immensely positive to their health. The perception of risk arising from e-cigarette use is already hugely exaggerated by the public and this will make the misalignment of perception and reality even it worse.
It is not sufficient to argue that your statement was technically correct (yes, you may have a result like this). It is essential that when respected institutions and experts make comments they take care to ensure the effect it has on perception is balanced and proportional, does not spread false alarm and helps people understand the risks rather than mislead them. You have a responsibility to be both truthful and to ensure you work is placed properly in context.
Given this has not happened with this statement, I am writing to ask you to make a proper balancing statement that would put this in context and restore some reality to the discussion of e-cigarette risks.
I hope to hear from you soon and that you will take this request seriously – I am sure you do not want to be responsible for supporting continued cigarette use by confusing people about e-cigarette risk.
Yours sincerely
Clive Bates
Disclosure: I am a long standing supporter of harm reduction techniques for reducing tobacco related disease. I have no competing interests. For further reading please see my publication: WHO Position on ENDS (e-cigarettes): a critique of the use of science and risk communication
Of course, as with many academics and bureaucrats, he felt no compulsion to reply or to be in any way accountable for the sorry mess he created.
SURSA.
The counterfactual
What's the right thing to do? Analytical advocacy – getting beyond the rhetoric of campaigners
CommentsPosts
Annual quiz on e-cigarettes and harm reduction »
Spreading fear and confusion with misleading formaldehyde studies
formaldehyde
Another alarmist and deeply misleading story about formaldehyde and e-cigarettes has now emerged in the New England Journal of Medicine: Hidden Formaldehyde in E-cigarette Aerosols. I have written to the corresponding authors, and I would like to share my open letter.
Open letter to authors
Hidden Formaldehyde in E-cigarette Aerosols – some questions and concerns
21 January 2015
Dear Dr Peyton, Dr Pankow
I write with reference to the forthcoming letter “Hidden Formaldehyde in E-cigarette Aerosols” to be published in the New England Journal of Medicine, under a 5pm EST 21 January 2015 embargo.
Given the great potential for these findings and the related cancer-risk calculations to cause damaging confusion and fear among smokers and vapers, I would be grateful if you could clarify the following:
1. What care was taken to ensure that the puff regime used was a reasonable proxy for human use and exposure? The letter does not detail any attempt to calibrate the puffing regime used in the experiment to match real-world vaping behaviour. The levels of formaldehyde detected suggest it was a highly unrealistic regime.
2. What, if any, precautions were taken to avoid measuring and reporting on ‘dry puff’ conditions – i.e. through use of such high voltage and high intensity puffing that the coil becomes so hot that it creates vapour of such acrid taste and harshness that human users would not use it in that way? It is under these conditions that high levels of formaldehyde and related compounds would be expected to form – but no human would ever be exposed to them. Humans have control over the sensory experience that puffing machines do not.
3. In making your newsworthy claims about cancer risk, what confidence do have that the puffing regime used appropriately represents human vaping behaviour, and therefore human cancer risk? There is a danger that naive reporting of your findings will characterise these risks as integral to vaping products, whereas they are a feature of the operating regime, which appears to be extreme in this case. These findings are only appropriate as cancer risk communication if the operating regime is realistic. However, the letter does not detail how you have assured this is the case – and no caveat has been provided to highlight that serious and probably fatal weakness in this work.
4. In the calculations of cancer risk, it is assumed that “inhaling formaldehyde-releasing agents carries the same risk per unit of formaldehyde as the risk associated with inhaling gaseous formaldehyde“. Can you provide a citation to support this assumption, given that the attention-grabbing findings in the letter rest entirely on it? As you will be aware, formaldehyde-releasing preservatives are used as an alternative to formaldehyde in many preparations for safety reasons.
5. The letter claims that the incremental lifetime cancer risk associated with long term vaping “is 5 times as high … or even 15 times as high … as the risk associated with long-term smoking“. Can you clarify that this comparison refers to only that part of the smoking cancer risk that arises from formaldehyde exposure? In order not to confuse readers with the idea that long term vaping may carry 5-15 times the risk of smoking, would it be possible to provide an appropriate context: for example, what proportion of the smoking cancer risk is attributable to formaldehyde? I think it is a small fraction of the total, and it would have been prudent to state this. Formaldehyde is not the most important carcinogen in cigarette smoke by some distance and just one of many. The Surgeon General’s 2010 report Chapter 5 provides a useful guide, but does not go as far as your letter does in attributing cancer risk to individual carcinogens. The Surgeon General also reminds us that:
Aldehydes such as formaldehyde and acetaldehyde occur widely in the human environment and are endogenous metabolites found in human blood
It is possible therefore that the estimation of cancer risk from formaldehyde is more complicated than your simple model allows for.
To be more direct, I am concerned that:
This study uses a completely unrealistic puffing regime to create the conditions in which formaldehyde forms with no attempt to calibrate the machine to reflect realistic human use.
That it presents results from extreme and unrealistic operating conditions which are then built into a ‘back of the envelope’ calculation of cancer risk.
That this contrived and artificial cancer risk is misleadingly compared to real human cancer risks associated with smoking.
That the statements about vaping having 5-15 times the incremental cancer risk associated with smoking are provided without context and could easily be misread as implying that vaping is more dangerous than smoking. It would not be the first time that misreporting of formaldehyde findings have created this impression.
This study may repeat the harm done through mischaracterisation of ‘light’ cigarettes by use of unrealistic puffing regimes that did not reflect real human behaviour. The same is likely to apply here, but instead of understating risk of a harmful product, the effect will be to grossly overstate the risk of a relatively benign product – with equally damaging results.
Many smokers have a great opportunity to switch from smoking to vaping, and to reduce their incremental risk of disease by 95-99%. However, studies like this and the reporting that has followed, are gradually persuading smokers that e-cigarettes are much more risky than they are, and that they might as well continue to smoke. A study published in 2014 found the following:
In 2010, 84.7% of smokers surveyed believed e-cigarettes were less harmful than traditional cigarettes, but according to this new study in 2013, that number dropped to just 65% [link].
This is a trend that should shame the public health community and the academics that are fuelling consumers’ misunderstanding with misleading studies that misrepresent risk. I am sure it is not your aim to protect the cigarette trade and prolong the epidemic of smoking related disease, but it may well be the effect.
I hope you will take great care to ensure your findings are described in context and with appropriate caveats about whether these results are realistic for human exposure and that the calculations of cancer risk are remotely meaningful..
Yours sincerely
Clive Bates
Counterfactual
London / Harare
http://www.clivebates.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
[No competing interests]
These two wrote about e-cigarettes in November 2014 (Chemists break down e-cigarette research) and in doing so haplessly demonstrated that they are basically clueless:
Peyton agreed with Pankow. He also pointed out that the high temperatures to which the element heated e-cigarette additives—over 600 degrees celsius—resulted in the creation of molecules not previously seen.
Vaping is typically done at 200-260 degrees celsius, with dry puff conditions developing at around 280 degrees.
Commentary and analysis on this study
Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos: The deception of measuring formaldehyde in e-cigarette aerosol: the difference between laboratory measurements and true exposure
The scientific community must realize that variable wattage devices cannot be used at any wattage levels with any available atomizer. Even for naïve users, the harsh taste of the dry puff phenomenon is unbearable. … In fact, it is very easy to produce as much aldehydes as you want in the lab with an e-cigarette device. However, this has nothing to do with exposure from e-cigarette use.
Dr Michael Siegel: New Study Reports High Levels of Formaldehyde in Electronic Cigarette Aerosols
Essentially, what this study demonstrates is that if you overheat a vaping system, it will produce high levels of formaldehyde. However, such conditions are not realistic, as they could not be tolerated by an actual vaper. Therefore, extrapolating from this study to a lifetime of vaping is meaningless.
Norbert Zillatron: Freaking Formaldehyde
…you can’t just simply select an arbitrary puffing regime and expect it to represent an applicable model of real vaping
Tom Pruen (ECITA) First burn the barrel, then scrape it – commentary on a letter published in the NEJM
Consumers are extremely unlikely to voluntarily inhale high concentrations of formaldehyde; formaldehyde is characterized by its unpleasant smell, and at concentrations of as little as 5 parts per million causes burning sensations in the respiratory tract, and breathing difficulty
Professor Peter Hajek: Formaldehyde in e-cigarettes: expert responds
When a chicken is burned, the resulting black crisp will contain carcinogens but that does not mean that chicken are carcinogenic. Without overheating the e-liquid, no formaldehyde was detected. Vaping may not be as safe as breathing clear mountain air, but it is much safer than smoking. It would be a shame if this study persuaded smokers who cannot or do not want to stop smoking and contemplate vaping that they might as well stick to their deadly cigarettes.
Professor Brad Rodu: Bogus research of formaldehyde in e-cig vapor
R. Paul Jensen and colleagues at Portland State University produced the new results by overheating an e-cigarette, a condition (called dry puffing) that is familiar to vapers; the resulting product tastes so bad it cannot be inhaled. In other words, the formaldehyde produced under abusive conditions is not “hidden” at all, because it is in vapor that users find intolerable. Enough data is extracted from the authors to confirm the the measurements were made in extreme and unrealistic ‘dry puff’ conditions. Konstantinos Farsalinos has the science: Verified: formaldehyde levels found in the NEJM study were associated with dry puff conditions. An update.
Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos figures out what they actually did: Verified: formaldehyde levels found in the NEJM study were associated with dry puff conditions. An update.
It is more than obvious that the findings of very high levels of formaldehyde are a result of overheating. Lack of experience on e-cigarettes and no contact with vapers can result in such erroneous and unrealistic results, which can create confusion and misinformation both in the scientific community and among users and potential users of e-cigarettes.
Dr Michael Siegal follows: Confirmed: Formaldehyde Study Conducted Under Implausible Conditions; Conclusions Invalid
Unfortunately, the alarmist (and incorrect) conclusions of this study have already been widely disseminated in the media. Even if the information is corrected, it appears that the damage is done. I believe that the damage is substantial because many smokers will now become convinced that there is no advantage to switching from tobacco cigarettes to electronic cigarettes.
Conclusion
This study is so poorly designed and inherently misleading that it should not have been conducted, should not have been written up, should not have been published in the NEJM or anywhere, should not have been pitched to the media, and its findings should be completely ignored as worthless.
Oh but wait… it was well received and acclaimed by some in the high command of tobacco control.
Screen Shot 2015-01-22 at 07.00.34
Technical note: dry puff phenomenon
Professional researchers, peer reviewers and editors designing and publishing experiments on vaping devices should, as in any field, acquaint themselves with the peer-reviewed literature already published. This would help them avoid designing hopelessly flawed experiments and rushing into print with misleading results and bogus estimates of cancer risk. If Jensen et al had applied this most elementary discipline, they would have found this description of the dry puff phenomenon and its implications for experimental protocols (Farsalinos et al 2013):
3.4.1. Vaping vs. Smoking Topography
Vaping topography may have significant implications in production and delivery of potentially harmful substances. The EC evaporation rate and thermal load are directly dependent on the puff duration and interpuff interval. If the device is activated before the temperature is significantly decreased and/or before the wick is sufficiently supplied with liquid, the device will get overheated. This causes a phenomenon called “dry puff”. It is an unpleasant, burning taste that forces the user to lower puff duration and increase interpuff interval. It is also reproduced when the atomizer has very low amounts of liquid, signalling that it should be refilled. This phenomenon occurred in some experienced users when they were asked to use the “eGo-C” atomizer in this study. They had to lower puff duration and interpuff interval in order to avoid “dry puff”, while no such problems occurred with the “Epsilon” atomizer. Although not tested yet, there is a theoretical concern that overheating the EC may lead to production of significant amounts of toxic substances like acrolein or formaldehyde, which can be formed from thermal degradation of glycerol in a closed chamber [21,22]. The “dry-puff” phenomenon, although easily detected and avoided by the user, cannot be detected in the laboratory setting. Therefore, if this occurs during a laboratory experiment, it will significantly undermine the value of the study results and their applicability to real use. It should be emphasized that each type of atomizer has different cooling and liquid-supply abilities, depending on the design and material used. This should be taken into consideration when preparing laboratory research protocols.
Farsalinos KE, Romagna G, Tsiapras D, Kyrzopoulos S, Voudris V. Evaluation of electronic cigarette use (vaping) topography and estimation of liquid consumption: implications for research protocol standards definition and for public health authorities’ regulation. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2013; 10: 2500–14.
Notice the title: implications for research protocol standards definition. They should have known.
The Japanese Formaldehyde Fiasco
Also, it is worth mentioning that this is not the first time an overhyped formaldehyde story has made its way into print rather than the bin. Excellent blogs by Konstantinos Farsalinos [Electronic cigarette aerosol contains 6 times LESS formaldehyde than tobacco cigarette smoke] and Brad Rodu [Formaldehype vs. Fact: Levels Are Far Lower in E-Cigarettes Than In Cigarettes] give the full story of the Japanese rogue result that made headlines worldwide. At the time, I also wrote to the author of this study, Dr. Naoki Kunugita, to point out the irresponsibility of his statements. Here is the letter from November 2014.
Date: 29 November 2014 at 14:31
To: “Dr. Naoki Kunugita M.D. Dr.Med.Sci.” <kunugita@niph.go.jp>
Dear Dr Kunugita
I hope you are aware of the impact that your comments on e-cigarette formaldehyde exposure has caused in the press, and therefore in public perception of risk of e-cigarettes relative to smoking. You can read some of it here: http://goo.gl/1rOyDu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The impression that has been left is exactly the opposite of a realistic appraisal of exposure to carcinogens in general and formaldehyde in particular that a responsible authority would wish to communicate to the public. Your remarks appear to be based on a single unpublished measurement: “In one brand of e-cigarette the team found more than 10 times the level of carcinogens contained in one regular cigarette” as quoted by AFP. Can you provide the data that supports this argument? I have been unable to locate it in the published literature.
A more realistic appraisal across the range of measurements would suggest formaldehyde exposures far lower than for smoking – at least six times lower based on your own data and perhaps fifty times lower would be an appropriate characterisation. I hope you have seen the critique of your work and communication by Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos (here)
However, you have chosen to communicate an extreme result that is not open to scrutiny. Because it is not published or replicable, we cannot know for sure: but is likely that this device was running very hot and/or dry to generate emissions like this. No human user would continue with this mode of operation as the taste would provide immediate feedback to behaviour (something that does not happen with machines). It follows that the result (even if accurate) you have communicated to the public is:
1. an artefact of the machine testing regime and device settings;
2. not a realistic risk for human exposure.
Whether or not it was the aim of your communication, the effect has been to cast doubt in the minds of many smokers about the benefits of switching to e-cigarettes, which would be immensely positive to their health. The perception of risk arising from e-cigarette use is already hugely exaggerated by the public and this will make the misalignment of perception and reality even it worse.
It is not sufficient to argue that your statement was technically correct (yes, you may have a result like this). It is essential that when respected institutions and experts make comments they take care to ensure the effect it has on perception is balanced and proportional, does not spread false alarm and helps people understand the risks rather than mislead them. You have a responsibility to be both truthful and to ensure you work is placed properly in context.
Given this has not happened with this statement, I am writing to ask you to make a proper balancing statement that would put this in context and restore some reality to the discussion of e-cigarette risks.
I hope to hear from you soon and that you will take this request seriously – I am sure you do not want to be responsible for supporting continued cigarette use by confusing people about e-cigarette risk.
Yours sincerely
Clive Bates
Disclosure: I am a long standing supporter of harm reduction techniques for reducing tobacco related disease. I have no competing interests. For further reading please see my publication: WHO Position on ENDS (e-cigarettes): a critique of the use of science and risk communication
Of course, as with many academics and bureaucrats, he felt no compulsion to reply or to be in any way accountable for the sorry mess he created.
SURSA.
"Un om care se intelege bine cu toata lumea este lipsit de personalitate"
"Cu cat cunosc mai bine oamenii, iubesc mai mult cainii."
"Am invatat de la animale lucruri mai multe si mai profunde decat de la oameni."
"Cu cat cunosc mai bine oamenii, iubesc mai mult cainii."
"Am invatat de la animale lucruri mai multe si mai profunde decat de la oameni."
Re: Vapatul - pro si contra dpdv al sanatatii
[youtube][/youtube]
"Un om care se intelege bine cu toata lumea este lipsit de personalitate"
"Cu cat cunosc mai bine oamenii, iubesc mai mult cainii."
"Am invatat de la animale lucruri mai multe si mai profunde decat de la oameni."
"Cu cat cunosc mai bine oamenii, iubesc mai mult cainii."
"Am invatat de la animale lucruri mai multe si mai profunde decat de la oameni."
Re: Vapatul - pro si contra dpdv al sanatatii
Se zice ca Diacetyl-ul care da aroma ar fi cu ceva probleme. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5RzMPCnWbc