ELR Home   Create recipe   Resource page   My recipes/favorites

Free access article discussing the cell toxicity of eliquid flavouring


#21

Well, unfortunately, this one has a little truth to it as it relates to vape juice that might be made form ‘artificial coffee flavoring’ We discussed this in a previous post here. However, in NET coffee extracts made form real beans the hazard is negligible.


#22

I suppose I’ll stop when the MRI reveals cancerous growths inside my body. With today’s industry, processed food etc, we cannot get away from harmful or potentially harmful things. Many of these flavors are in hard candy which is crazy hot when poured. Too many variables. Either we can vape and enjoy or quit from health issues or just flat out being scared


#23

It’s a good gig if you can get it. Find something new that consumers are putting in their bodies, throw out a random warning to the press, then write grant for an easy million to fund a couple of graduate assistants to write this up. Sit back in your ivory tower and tell the administrators how much money you are bringing in. Even faculty need a hustle. :smiley:


#24

Quitter!

Actually if they found something in me that I knew that would kill me, I wouldn’t quit. I would more than likely take up a few more habits. There are several recreational drugs to take that is on my bucket list.


#25

Like what?


#26

Can’t tell ya. It would take this off topic.


#27

oh yeah…and then we would get banned. excuse me. now, back to cell toxicity


#28

50YearsOfCigars. Thank you SO much for those posts.Great info.


#29

I live in central London. I dread to think what I breathe in every time I leave home.


#30

Thank you @50YearsOfCigars for making a point and for those links!

We all know that some (if not all) of the headlines are clickbaiters, unfortunately some scientists are following a path and assumptions that were wrong and/or wrongly designed in the first place (not having a strong base to start with) or are by now old, PV’s have changed, we all know about diacetyl and so forth, so information are changed and we are more aware of dangers and way to avoid them.

So, misinformation, headlines, (and ourselves with our opinions…) unfortunately leads to what you said in the first place, confusion:

the average man on the street, the average vaper does not understand how, and is very confused what to make of these “papers” that are presented as “scientific research”

I will certainly have a look at those videos! thank you!


#31

I take your points and could discuss the fine details of academic publishing and grant hunting at length. AS well as the points of research being inproperly used by people who do not or pretend not to understand the scope of a paper.

On the other hand, this is data. The trends exposed therein are interesting.
It may or may not be applicable (my guess is probably not) to our use case. I don’t think there is a need to be defensive outside of it being used as part of broader policy. Would be a shame to go on the over-sure side of things and miss out on early warnings.

Ps: I can’t believe I find myself defending this paper, which I don’t find all that amazing.


#32

Thank you again!
I watched those videos (and more) and liked them!
I definitely will sponsor those videos in a forum of which I’m a mod in Italy!, Especially Polosa’s interview on vaping and lungs damages.


#33

Hi there @SuperFrog ! Sounds like you have been around the world of Grant hunting. same here… those of us close that world see it for what it is.

As to “data”, I argue that the paper that the OP cited first develops no ‘relevant’ data at all. I read it and just saw a bunch of jaw flapping hot air. My position, speaking as a chemist, is that you have proven nothing by throwing a few cells into a beaker with some dissolved compounds that have a previously known level of toxicity. That is not investigative science, that just a demonstration of known phenomena.

As to early warnings that might come out of junk science, well, of course i am not too keen on the idea that such a thing is even possible, but let’s say by some incredible turn of happenstance one of these grant hunters accidentally turns up something of use, well we have a few watch dogs on our side that will pick it up and run with it. You know I like to link to stuff outside the forum, so here is a link to a competent watchdog that knows his science and is also (thank God!!!) on our side…

I see in your post above ref: Carbonyl Emissions in E-cigarette Aerosol: A Systematic Review and… there is a good deal of Dr Farsalinos work, so that is a good thing !


#34

my thoughts exactly! Mold spores alone cause dramatic pulmonary disease!


#35

@50YearsOfCigars You just keep posting QUALITY links here brother. I’ve not had time to read all the articles that you linked to, but color me impressed. PLEASE continue to share this type of information here with ELR.

Just a small snippet…

E-cigarettes were found to expose to about 100-times higher particulate matter-10 μg (PM10) compared to smoking. The fanatic supporters of the particulate matter theory (which is a total misinterpretation of science and should be considered gossip rather than serious scientific debate) would support that e-cigarettes will increase the cancer risk by 100-fold compared to smoking. However, the careful assessment of the aerosol composition of e-cigarettes showed that the cancer risk for vapers is about 5 orders of magnitude lower compared to smoking. To be exact, they identified a 57,000-fold (thousand) lower Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk (ELCR) from vaping compared to smoking. The authors expand by saying that: “… the ELCR evaluated for the mainstream aerosol of ECs results lower to the target limit reported by EPA and WHO. WHO, in fact, reports an ELCR of 1×10-5 as target value (Commission on Environmental Health, 1996), while EPA considers a target risk range of 10-6 to 10-4 to be ‘‘safe and protective of public health” but ‘‘even risks slightly greater than 1×10-4 may be considered adequately protective” under specific conditions (EPA, 1991b).”

I am certain this study will generate ZERO publicity. This is very common for studies showing anything positive on e-cigarettes. After so many studies published in the past few years, smokers still believe that e-cigarettes as similarly or more harmful than smoking. Sad for public health…


#36

It is hard to convince the laymen that Public Health produces mostly scientific junk, when other scientists (who look and behave so similarly) produce good science. The way to do it is to examine their products and their methodology unfortunately, this is an uphill and difficult task. most laymen will not try to understand and will simply take for granted the authority of Public Health science just because it looks like science in general.

For a good Blog post about this please see this link:
10 STEPS TO SPOTTING JUNK HEALTH SCIENCE

If you have the time then: Other entries on this BLOG are also a good read: With due credit to them here is their lab-rat mascot that pretty much says it all:


#37

I see some concern with Hygroscopy:

As you know VG / PG / Nicotine is Hygroscopic.