Vapatul - pro si contra dpdv al sanatatii

Cateva sfaturi
User avatar
Valahul
veteran
Posts: 1056
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 5:05 pm
Location: Ardeal
Romania

Vapatul - pro si contra dpdv al sanatatii

Post by Valahul » Sat Nov 29, 2014 11:20 am

Cred ca se justifica si acest topic. Ar trebui sa fie una din preocuparile majore ale noastre, ale vaperilor. Nu ne-am lasat de tigari sa murim de la vapat. Exagerez, desigur, dar as dori ca in acest topic sa fim nepartinitori, sa incercam sa vedem doar adevarul, atat cat se cunoaste acum.
Cu ce vreau sa incep:
05 May 2014
Formaldehyde release in e-cigarette vapor. The New York Times story explained in detail
Dr Farsalinos

A study to be published in Nicotine and Tobacco Research was featured in the New York Times and has generated a lot of interest. The article mentioned that e-cigarette vapor can be the source of carcinogens, depending on the heating process.

The article is true and expected. We know that thermal degradation can lead to the release of toxic chemicals. And we know that formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and acrolein have been found in vapor. There is nothing new to it. However, this study found that levels may approach those present in tobacco cigarettes. Of course there some inaccuracies in the NYT article, such as that nicotine gets overheated (which means nothing).

Herein, I present with more detail the results of this study. Researchers used an EGO Twist battery (variable voltage) and a top-coil clearomizer (with unknown resistance, thus unknown wattage delivery). At 3.2 and 4.0 volts, formaldehyde levels were 13-807 times lower compared to tobacco cigarettes!! At 4.8 volts, formaldehyde levels were increased by up to 200 times, and reached to levels similar to tobacco cigarettes.

The main criticism to this study is that in my opinion it is highly unlikely that a top-coil atomizer like the one used in this study would be used at 4.8 volts. At a resistance of 2.2 Ohms that would represent 10.4 watts of energy delivery to the atomizer. I tried 10 watts with an EVIC battery in a Vivi Nova top-coil atomizer (for a clinical study i perfomed few months ago), and many vapers were unable to use it due to the dry puff phenomenon. Unfortunately, the researchers did not measure and could not provide any information about the resistance of the atomizers, thus it is unknown how much energy was delivered to the atomizer. In my opinion, this is crucial. Moreover, it is very important to examine new-generation (rebuildable or bottom coil) atomizers at similar conditions, since it is more likely for vapers to use such advanced atomizers for high-wattage vaping. I am certain that, due to better liquid resupply to the resistance and wick, the results will be much more favorable.

Another important point is that, although formaldehyde levels can be similar to tobacco, several other toxic chemicals are completely absent from e-cigarette vapor. For example, acrolein was completely absent although they used liquids with glycerol as the main ingredient. In fact, glycerin-based liquids had much lower formaldehyde levels in vapor compared to PG or PG/VG liquids, suggesting that they are much safer to use. As a general remark, finding few chemicals at similar levels does not mean that the risk is equivalent to tobacco cigarettes. Of course, all this information was not presented in the NYT article.

Concerning the remarks about dripping, we should admit that dripping does not allow the user to see how much liquid is present in the atomizer. The same happens with cartomizers. We currently do not know whether the elevation in formaldehyde levels happens just at the time of dry puff phenomenon, or it happens earlier (before being detected by the vaper). Clearomizer-type atomizers (also called tank systems) seem to be the future in e-cigarette use, giving consumers the ability to know when they need to resupply the atomizer with liquid.

SURSA.

Dupa cum bine observati, vapat la 3.2 si 4.0 volti, nivelul de formaldehida (iritant si cancerigen) este de 13-807 ori mai mic decai in tigarile clasice. In schimb la 4.8 volti, nivelul creste de 200 de ori, ajungand cat intr-o tigara clasica.
Deci atentie la vapatul extrem, precum se vede, vapatul poate fi bun sau rau, functie de ce parametrii de vapat alegi.

Partea a doua este un raspuns dat la recentul studiu japonez, nu foarte pozitiv la adresa vapatului. Raspunsul este oferit sa zic asa de partizanii vapatului, deci trebuie privit ca atare. Dar merita citit.

27 November 2014

By Dr Farsalinos

Today my e-mailbox is full of messages discussing about the great issue of carcinogens being at 10 times higher levels in e-cigarettes compared to tobacco cigarettes. There is a quote from Naoki Kunugita, a researcher at the Department of Environmental Health-National Institute of Public Health in Japan, about this: "In one brand of e-cigarette the team found more than 10 times the level of carcinogens contained in one regular cigarette".

Interestingly, while all news-media discuss about carcinogens (plural), the text mentions only formaldehyde. To tell the whole truth, this “substance found in building materials and embalming fluids” is in reality present everywhere in the environment, in every house, in every city, town, village, urban or rural area. So, all the noise in the newsmedia is about one carcinogen, not some carcinogens. Moreover, the title is nothing but misleading since they found the formaldehyde at “10 levels higher than cigarettes” in 1 of the 10 products tested, not in every case.

However, there is a more interesting story behind this. I immediately contacted Prof. Kunugita to ask the results of their studies. His response was immediate, mentioning the list of published studies from which he got the results. In fact, the results of analysis of 13 Japanese brands were presented in a table 1 in a recent review on carbonyls generated from e-cigarettes, published in International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. The results are shown in the table below.
Image
A study by Canadian researchers in 2008 evaluated the levels of formaldehyde in mainstream cigarette smoke. As shown below, the levels were on average 200μg/cigarette, which is 6 times higher than the highest value (34μg) found in e-cigarette aerosol by Kunugita. Moreover, the study showed a much higher level of formaldehyde in sidestream smoke (>800μg/cigarette).
Image
While we still need to see the levels of carbonyls generated from high-power e-cigarette use (using appropriate atomizers of course), the message concerning all this media frenzy is clear. Even in the worst-case Japanese product, e-cigarette aerosol contained 6 times lower formaldehyde levels compared to tobacco cigarette smoke. Where does the “10 times higher than smoking” statement comes from? I have no idea.

Of course, discussion about the maximum levels of a single product is scientifically inappropriate. We should examine the average levels of formaldehyde present in e-cigarette aerosol. The Japanese team of researcher present in the table (shown above) the number of samples (column 2) and the respective results. The average levels of formaldehyde found in all samples was calculated at 4.2μg/10 puffs. Therefore, on average, the levels of formaldehyde in e-cigarettes are up to 50 times lower compared to tobacco cigarette smoke.

Obviously, we have to realize that focusing the discussion on one of the tens of carcinogens present in tobacco cigarette smoke is misleading. Even if e-cigarettes contained similar, or higher, levels of formaldehyde, they do not contain the majority of other toxic and carcinogenic substances present in cigarette smoke. Overall, any residual risk from e-cigarette use is orders of magnitude lower than smoking. This is exactly what smokers need (and deserve) to know.

***************************** UPDATE ******************************

After my comment, Prof Kunugita contacted me again. He mentioned that the newsmedia reports refer to a recent evaluation of a newer-generation device, in which he found 1600μg formaldehyde per 15 puffs. It is true that this level is 10 times higher than what is present in tobacco cigarettes. However, this is an unpublished result, a single extreme case out of the many products he tested, and we do not know what went wrong in that case (e.g. high power levels, low levels of liquid inside, malfunctioning device etc). Still, the media frenzy is completely inappropriate.

This confusion shows why it is important for a new, systematic evaluation of aldehydes release, taking into consideration realistic conditions and puffing patterns together with evaluation of temperatures of evaporation. This is exactly what we are preparing to do, starting in a few days.

SURSA.

Cred ca e bine sa fim informati. Petru a sti cum ne putem proteja, daca putem.


"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."

User avatar
Valahul
veteran
Posts: 1056
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 5:05 pm
Location: Ardeal
Romania

Re: Vapatul - pro si contra dpdv al sanatatii

Post by Valahul » Sun Nov 30, 2014 12:31 am

Banuiesc ca ati remarcat si precizarile referitoare la VG, VPG si PG.
Am mai auzit pareri cum ca VG-ul ar fi mult mai nociv decat VPG-ul sau PG-ul, care au ceva punct de fierbere mai mic, etc.
Dupa cum spune studiul din mai, anul acesta, lucrurile stau exact invers:

Another important point is that, although formaldehyde levels can be similar to tobacco, several other toxic chemicals are completely absent from e-cigarette vapor. For example, acrolein was completely absent although they used liquids with glycerol as the main ingredient. In fact, glycerin-based liquids had much lower formaldehyde levels in vapor compared to PG or PG/VG liquids, suggesting that they are much safer to use.

Conform deci acestui studiu, VG-ul e mult mai sigur decat VPG-ul sau PG-ul.
"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."

User avatar
Iceman
utilizator experimentat
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 2:05 pm
Location: Constanta
Contact:

Re: Vapatul - pro si contra dpdv al sanatatii

Post by Iceman » Sun Nov 30, 2014 9:34 pm

Atata timp cat nivelurile nu le depasesc pe cele ale unei tigari clasice si numarul substantelor ramane incomparabil n ori mai mic decat cele emise de o tigara clasica, eu unu nu imi fac griji. In definitiv inseamna ca e mai ok vapatul...

Cand se va ajunge la concluzia clara si justificata prin studii credibile ca vapatul e mai daunator ca tigarile clasice,
atunci vom vedea fiecare ce decizie ia in aceasta privinta. Sau ma rog. fiecare poate lua decizii de pe acum daca e cazul. :)
Image

hitzuzu
utilizator junior
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2014 11:57 am

Re: Vapatul - pro si contra dpdv al sanatatii

Post by hitzuzu » Mon Dec 01, 2014 1:25 am

Ne este frica de formaldehida, ceea ce e prezenta si in tigara. Uitam de gudroane, cianuri care se depun pe vasele de sânge si cauzează majoritatea problemelor de sănătate: Insuficienta circulatorie, infarct, avc, intoxicare cronică cu substante din tutun, încârcarea alveolelor cu gudron, etc.

Problemele oncologice nu se stiu din ce cauza apar....doar teoria factori ereditari - predispozanți-declansatoru si favorizanti.

Daca s-ar cunoaște cauza atunci ar exista vaccin.

Asa ca ideea bine cunoscuta de fumători cum ca electronicele sunt mai cancerigene este.... habar nam ca nu imi este clar.

Studii care se contrazic....lipsa gudroanelor e mai cancerigenă?

User avatar
cristian
veteran
Posts: 2371
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 10:25 pm
Romania

Re: Vapatul - pro si contra dpdv al sanatatii

Post by cristian » Mon Dec 01, 2014 1:41 am

hitzuzu wrote: Studii care se contrazic....lipsa gudroanelor e mai cancerigenă?
:) buna asta...

Normal ca lipsa gudroanelor este un avantaj, cel mai mare avantaj este ca nu mai tragi hartie arsa in plamani cand vapezi.
Dar nu stiu daca e cazul sa ne imbatam cu apa rece, inca nu se stie ce urmari va avea vapatul in timp, totul e prea recent ca sa se poata trage o concluzie.
Din punctul meu de vedere, nu sunt convins ca chimicalele din arome sunt atat de neutre pe cat vrem noi sa credem. Ca sunt sigure ca produs alimentar, probabil, dar sincer nu cred nici asta atata timp cat sunt produse artificiale.
Dupa cum sigur ai mai citit prin forum, apare des afirmatia ca ne otravim cu hrana mai mult decat cu vapatul (eu nu cred, cred ca ne otravim putin cate putin cu amandoua). Hrana, care contine de multe ori elementele chimice pe care le contin si aromele.
Sincer argumentele de genul "aerul e poluat", "hrana are chimicale" nu imi par mature.
De ce? Pai cum adica, daca tot ma otravesc cu aerul si cu hrana, hai sa mai bag si niste aroma de vanilie chimica in plamani, ca ce mai conteaza.
Da, cu siguranta ca vaporii nostri sunt mai curati decat fumul lor de tigara. Dar chiar si asa, nu a cazul sa asimilam vaporii din atty cu aerosolii dpdv al sanatatii plamanilor nostri.

Dar pana una alta sa vapam sanatosi, pana ne-om lasa de tot si de vapat. Si ne mutam toti la munte, la aer curat :)
Everything on the internet is monitored.

User avatar
Valahul
veteran
Posts: 1056
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 5:05 pm
Location: Ardeal
Romania

Re: Vapatul - pro si contra dpdv al sanatatii

Post by Valahul » Mon Dec 01, 2014 3:38 pm

Seeing the effects of Tobacco Smoke and Ecig Vapor on Heart Cells
Un studiu interesant despre efectele tigarilor normale si electronice asupra celulelor.

[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."

User avatar
Iceman
utilizator experimentat
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 2:05 pm
Location: Constanta
Contact:

Re: Vapatul - pro si contra dpdv al sanatatii

Post by Iceman » Mon Dec 01, 2014 5:21 pm

Cu putin efort poate apar lichide de folosit daca ai o anumita boala ! :)

Bineinteles ca glumesc, dar nu cred ca e imposibil, oricum totul arata ca nu e nimic rau la faza asta !
Si in definitiv ar fi mai putine contra indicatii decat la medicamente :lol:
Image

User avatar
dan1978
veteran
Posts: 893
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:47 am
Romania

Re: Vapatul - pro si contra dpdv al sanatatii

Post by dan1978 » Mon Dec 01, 2014 5:33 pm

Mda,ceva contra sinuzitei in cazul meu. Vise taica,vise.
Image Din 15-02-2011Image

User avatar
cristian
veteran
Posts: 2371
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 10:25 pm
Romania

Re: Vapatul - pro si contra dpdv al sanatatii

Post by cristian » Mon Dec 01, 2014 8:24 pm

Cu vitamine si altele.
"Healthcare e-liquid, In addition to containing Propylene glycol, pure water, glycerol, tobacco flavor, but also add a special ginseng, vitamin A, vitamin B, vitamin C and vitamin E, etc. and no nicotine. It is the best choice for smokers."
Everything on the internet is monitored.

User avatar
Iceman
utilizator experimentat
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 2:05 pm
Location: Constanta
Contact:

Re: Vapatul - pro si contra dpdv al sanatatii

Post by Iceman » Mon Dec 01, 2014 9:53 pm

Suna exact ca o reclama la asa zisele "cereale" cu vitamine pentru, atentie, copii !
Creda ca stiti cate rahaturi contin... ba si se vand si li se face si reclama la tv !
In conditiile in care copiii sunt copii, zici ca nu il duce capul...
Dar eu ca adult am optiunea clara sa ma las daca imi pare nociv...
Nu stiu dar parca mi-a ajuns pana peste cap sa isi umfle unii buzunarele
sub pretextul ca au grija de sanatatea mea...
Ma refer la cei ce vor sa preia controlul tigarilor electronice, industria tutunului, farmaceutica, etc...

Hai noapte buna ! :)
Image

User avatar
twain
utilizator junior
Posts: 189
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2014 1:25 pm
Location: Undeva, departe

Re: Vapatul - pro si contra dpdv al sanatatii

Post by twain » Fri Dec 05, 2014 7:11 pm

The Real Negative Side Effects of Vaping -IndoorSmokers
[youtube][/youtube]
Eu nu "vapez"... ci fumez!

hitzuzu
utilizator junior
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2014 11:57 am

Re: Vapatul - pro si contra dpdv al sanatatii

Post by hitzuzu » Fri Dec 05, 2014 7:33 pm

Ce nu suport figura omului.....

Tocmai pe el l-ai gasit? :))))

User avatar
twain
utilizator junior
Posts: 189
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2014 1:25 pm
Location: Undeva, departe

Re: Vapatul - pro si contra dpdv al sanatatii

Post by twain » Fri Dec 05, 2014 8:56 pm

hitzuzu wrote:Ce nu suport figura omului.....

Tocmai pe el l-ai gasit? :))))
Mie imi este destul de simpatic ca figura, dar mai presus de tot, imi place cum explica... :L)
Eu nu "vapez"... ci fumez!

User avatar
Drumetul
utilizator experimentat
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 6:36 pm
Location: Bucuresti
Romania

Re: Vapatul - pro si contra dpdv al sanatatii

Post by Drumetul » Fri Dec 05, 2014 9:00 pm

Are vocea aia de tzatza, ai impresia ca zbiara tot timpul. Mai e si fals in mimica si gesturi.

User avatar
cristian
veteran
Posts: 2371
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 10:25 pm
Romania

Re: Vapatul - pro si contra dpdv al sanatatii

Post by cristian » Fri Dec 05, 2014 9:02 pm

Si privirea aia de sticla, te infioara... :shock:
Everything on the internet is monitored.

Post Reply