• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

A real danger from e-cigarettes - turn down the heat

StoneHappyMonday

Bluelighter
Joined
May 10, 2001
Messages
18,084
Researchers at Portland State University have published research (Jan 22nd 2015 New England Journal of Medicine) showing that the level of Formaldehyde (a known carcinogen) is 5 to 15 times higher in the vapour of e cigarettes as it is in normal tobacco cigarettes. Originally, e cigarettes were not supposed to generate high temperatures and were thus thought to restrict inhalation of any toxic chemicals, but newer models allow people to ‘turn up the heat’.

David H. Peyton, PSU chemistry professor and lead researcher stated, "Our research shows that when heated at higher temperatures, e-cigarette juices can vaporize and form large amounts of ‘hidden formaldehyde,’ five to 15 times higher than the amount of formaldehyde in traditional cigarettes.”

Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. It is a colorless, strong-smelling gas, commonly used as an adhesive in building materials such as particle board and in mortuaries as an embalming fluid. Formaldehyde is also used as an industrial fungicide, germicide and disinfectant.

E-cigarette devices and their liquids are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A lack of regulation means that companies are not required to disclose their manufacturing process, their ingredient list or any scientific data to the FDA.

Ref: https://www.pdx.edu/news/psu-researchers-uncover-high-levels-hidden-formaldehyde-e-cigarette-vapor

PSU researchers uncover high levels of hidden formaldehyde in e-cigarette vapor
Author: Chelsea Bailey, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
Posted: January 22, 2015

(Portland, Ore.) January 22, 2015 – In a study published today in the New England Journal of Medicine, Portland State University researchers reveal that e-cigarette vapor can contain hidden formaldehyde at levels five to 15 times higher than regular cigarettes.

Researchers have long known that formaldehyde and other toxic chemicals are present in cigarette smoke, and initially, e-cigarettes were hoped to be without such dangers because they lack fire to cause combustion and release the chemicals. But now, many e-cigarettes can substantially increase the heat they produce.

“The popular ‘tank system’ e-cigarettes allow users to really turn up the heat and deliver high amounts of vapor, or e-cigarette smoke,” said David H. Peyton, PSU chemistry professor and lead researcher. "Our research shows that when heated at higher temperatures, e-cigarette juices can vaporize and form large amounts of ‘hidden formaldehyde,’ five to 15 times higher than the amount of formaldehyde in traditional cigarettes.”

E-cigarette devices and their liquids are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A lack of regulation means that companies are not required to disclose their manufacturing process, their ingredient list or any scientific data to the FDA.

“E-cigarettes are becoming more complicated and more like real cigarettes by the day,” said PSU Professor James F. Pankow, who participated in the study. “They use extremely high temperatures to vaporize their fluids and contain high levels of chemical additives. Some include materials derived from tobacco, and that's in addition to the nicotine. No one should assume e-cigarettes are safe. For conventional cigarettes, once people become addicted, it takes numerous years of smoking to result in a high risk of lung cancer and other severe disease; it will probably take five to 10 years to start to see whether e-cigarettes are truly as safe as some people believe them to be.”

In April 2014, the FDA proposed federal restrictions that would bring e-cigarettes under the same regulation as tobacco, outlined in the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. The proposed federal restrictions are still under review and no schedule has been set for adoption.

“Our overarching concern about e-cigarette use is the lack of research on health risks,” said Jackilen Shannon, a cancer prevention expert with the Knight Cancer Institute at Oregon Health & Science University. “This study represents progress toward providing some much-needed data on the make-up of the smoke from some e-cigarettes.”

Peyton and his colleagues agree that more research must be done to evaluate the health risks of e-cigarettes.

“E-cigarettes present their own unique chemical properties, and now that we have methods that can detect this hidden formaldehyde, we can look for other toxins that might be posing a risk to e-cigarette users,” said Robert Strongin, a PSU chemistry professor, who also contributed to the study.

Peyton is a professor in the PSU Department of Chemistry and chief scientific officer/co-founder of DesignMedix, Inc., a drug discovery and drug development company in Portland, focusing on therapies for infectious diseases. He is author of more than 60 peer-reviewed publications, which range from medicinal chemistry, to biochemistry, to the chemistry of tobacco smoke particles.

Pankow is the author of more than 150 peer-reviewed publications and four books. He received the 2005 Haagen-Smit Prize for his groundbreaking research on the formation of particles in the atmosphere; particles play a fundamental role in controlling the delivery of nicotine and carcinogens from cigarette smoke. He has a dual appointment in the PSU Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and in the PSU Department of Chemistry.

Strongin is a professor in the PSU Department of Chemistry. His peer-reviewed publications have been cited over 5,000 times. He is an expert in the molecular basis of oxidative stress, disease diagnostics and drug design.

Additional contributors to the study included R. Paul Jensen, B.S. and Wentai Luo, Ph.D.

For the FAQ page regarding this research, please click here.

More information is available at the New England Journal of Medicine.

Just putting it out there...

...but while I'm at it. People give up fags by e-vaping right? And how many of them give up e-vaping?
 
Several of the vapers I've spoken to have quitting e-cigs too as their end goal and are tapering the nicotine content of their e-liquids, only know of a few who have apparently since quit entirely though I must say. Personally I'm still on the fence. Have switched to e-cigs pretty much exclusively for my nicotine intake and, subjectively, feel very much better for it. I can barely tolerate tobacco now on the occasions I've had the odd cigarette - just makes me feel like I've been poisoned which, quite frankly, was a big shock.

I'm not currently thinking much about quitting use of my e-cig cos I struggled a lot with quitting cigs and the only thing that worked was switching to the e-cig and I feel significantly better physically as a result. I'm under no illusions that this could ultimately be an illusion but the simple day-to-day difference in the way I feel is itself enough reason to stick with the e-cigs until or unless I come around to complete cessation.

TBH, I wouldn't be surprised if "high temperature" vaping could be problematic cos it just intuitively feels bad to be inhaling "burnt stuff". Do they mention any specific temperatures at which the problem becomes... well... a (significant) problem? Mind you, would still need to know how that translates into voltages and stuff. Also, are they saying where the formaldehyde originates? Is it a breakdown product of nicotine itself, the PG or some of the colourings and flavourings involved?

As I said, I'll be sticking with the e-cig for the foreseeable because it is the best option for me currently. That's not to say this would always be the case but, for now, I still see it as very much the lesser of two evils. It's not just formaldehyde that's a problem in tobacco smoke after all.
 
Carbon monoxide is probably the worst toxin in cigarette smoke, and I don't think anybody is vaping their e-cig at a temperature high enough to produce that .....

Whoosh?

I think you might have slightly missed the point. Even if what you say is true, which it might well be, how is that relevant to an e-cig potentially producing known carcinogens?

The advice is to turn down the heat to reduce the risk of producing hidden formaldehyde. It has sweet FA to do with carbon monoxide.

I hear crossing the road is dangerous too. Doesn't make it relevant to this thread though does it?
 
Carbon monoxide is probably the worst toxin in cigarette smoke, and I don't think anybody is vaping their e-cig at a temperature high enough to produce that .....


Then they're not using enough amps. I'm not sure they even vape %)

I plan to return to e-cigarettes soon and actually invest in a lot of replacement parts from the outset. I only seem to get a few weeks from each atomiser but this is to be expected, I've been told.

My pains disappeared with e-cigarettes and returned within a week of resuming smoking :\
 
My pains disappeared with e-cigarettes and returned within a week of resuming smoking :\

Same same.

"Clearomisers" are supposed to last 2-3 months I think. Mine seem to last me the upper end of that and a bit beyond. Just bought a load at a knockdown price in the clearance section of one of the vape sites actually. Still works out a damn sight cheaper than ciggies.
 
I'm pretty sure that I saw this article, possibly from a rag like the Daily Mail. I believe it's more to do with the contents of the liquids, as I'm sure certain flavourings aren't as safe as they could be. Propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin are the two ingredients that produce the vapour, then there's the nicotine, and it doesn't sound like these three are the issue here. Once more research is done, I'm sure they'll be able to figure out what should and shouldn't be included in the liquid. I personally don't vape much above the normal voltage, so I'm not concerned. I did read another article that pointed out the flaws with this article, I believe. I'll try and find it.

I stopped smoking about four years ago, after buying an e-cig. I now have the occasional fag, when I'm high, and smoke joints with mates. I use a pipe for weed, if I'm on my own. When my e-cig broke, the other week, I went back to roll ups, then straight back to my e-cig, after I'd bought a new tank. I find it very easy to switch between the two, now. I definitely feel far healthier, and I can't believe that e-cigs are anywhere near as dangerous as fags. There may be some concerns over carcinogens, but there's no artery blocking, heart disease, COPD, emphysema, the possibilities of limb amputations, strokes, erection issues, the yellow fingers and stink, and a host of other things that inhaling fag smoke causes. I'm happy to take my chances.

Also, the Kangertech coils that I use can be taken apart, using pliers, and they can be cleaned and used more. I'll normally get about a month out of one, sometimes more. There's plenty of YouTube videos detailing such processes.
 
I'm going to have to take a break from the weed sometime soon; and I'm thinking an e-cig might be a good way to take care of the nicotine cravings. I don't normally smoke tobacco on its own unless very drunk, but the number of joints I smoke qualifies me as a nicotine addict. So I'll probably start out on a low-nicotine blend, with the intention to get onto a nicotine-free one sooner rather than later.

I should hopefully be ready to resume normal THC consumption before I become a vaping addict .....

Also, I think much of the anti-vaping sentiment is based on simple, old-fashioned opposition to people -- especially poor people, who should not be allowed to have nice things -- enjoying themselves. There's a mindset that simply wants anything enjoyable to be harmful; and these people will make a big noise about anything, no matter how tenuous the link, that suggests e-cigs may be harmful.
 
disclosure form for the study indicates some conflict of interest http://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMc1413069/suppl_file/nejmc1413069_disclosures.pdf

;)

However, here's something far more interesting.

In a teeny, tiny link at the bottom of the letter, note the disclosures. It isn't apparent at first glance, but the disclosures contain several listings, not just one. (Link to PDF: http://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMc1413069/suppl_file/nejmc1413069_disclosures.pdf) (Image capture: http://imgur.com/vYLQHnY)

Scroll down to James Pankow. He is not the author, but is listed with the contributing scientists. Note that he discloses clearly and publicly several conflicts of interest (not theoretically; they are labeled exactly as such in the disclosure):

Penrose Foundation (guessing it is http://www.penrosestfrancis.org/psf/psf-home/, although I can't find any results exactly for Penrose Foundation) - a health organization. Pretty sure they stand to lose from not being able to prescribe NRT's instead of vapes. Also note how proudly they state they are a tobacco-free facility in numerous places. There is no way to tell if this is the same organization, but they funded several similar studies referenced below.

Cooley Fund for Critical Research: Funded several studies, including this one, regarding candy flavors in tobacco (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1403015). Note James Pankow corresponded also on this study.

Regina M. & Michael J Dowd: A search comes up with this for Michael (http://www.rgrdlaw.com/attorneys-Michael-J-Dowd.html) but not much for Regina M. There are more than one Michael J. Dowd out there, of course, so this doesn't seem significant... but...

Patrick J Coughlin: A search turns up this (http://www.rgrdlaw.com/attorneys-Patrick-J-Coughlin.html)

Surprise, surprise! He appears to work for the same law firm as someone named Michael J. Dowd. Not proof that they are linked, or proof that this is indeed the very same Patrick J. Coughlin, but very compelling and an AWFULLY DAMN BIG COINCIDENCE nonetheless. And check out this quote from his website profile:

"Mr. Coughlin has tried more than 50 jury and non-jury trials, including a large private RICO trial against the major tobacco companies on behalf of hundreds of thousands of Ohio Taft-Hartley health and welfare fund participants. Mr. Coughlin also helped end the Joe Camel ad campaign, a cartoon ad campaign that targeted children and secured a $12.5 billion recovery for the cities and counties of California in the landmark 1998 state settlement with the tobacco companies."

I believe this is important information to keep in context with the study, as there is clear bias present.

from https://www.reddit.com/r/electronic...earchers_find_high_levels_of_cloaked_form_of/

where there is a lot of discussion about this paper and highlights a lot of flaws in the way it was conducted.

Statement from UK govt on safety of ecigs :

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...mmissioned_by_Public_Health_England_FINAL.pdf

which addresses the study in NEJM

The EC was puffed by the puffing machine at a higher power and longer puff duration
than vapers normally use. It is therefore possible that the e
-
liquid was overheate
d to the
extent that it was releasing novel thermal degradation chemicals. Such overheating can
happen during vaping when the e
-
liquid level is low or the power too high for a given EC
coil or puff duration. Vapers call this phenomenon ‘dry puff’ and it is
instantly detected
due to a distinctive harsh and acrid taste (it is detected by vapers, but not by puffing
machines)
[
139
]
. This poses no danger to either experienced or novice vapers, because
dry puffs are aversive and are avoided rather than inhaled.
A study has just been
publish
ed testing the hypothesis that the NEJM report used dry
puffs
[
140
]
. An equivalent EC product was set to the same or normal settings and used
by seven vapers. The vapers
found it usable at normal settings, but all received dry
puffs and could not use the device at the settings used in the NEJM report
[
133
]
. The
product was then machine tested. At the dry puff setting, formaldehyde was released at
levels reported in the NEJM letter and the Japanese press release. At normal settings,
there was no or negligible f
ormaldehyde release.
We are aware of two studies that examined aldehyde levels in vapers. In a cross
-
sectional study, vapers had much lower levels of acrolein and crotonaldehyde in urine
than
smokers
[
111
]
. The other study, funded by the Medicines and Healthcare
p
roducts
Regulatory Agency (MHRA), examined changes in acrolein levels in smokers who
switched to exclusive EC use
and in those who continued to smoke while also using
EC. As both EC and cigarettes release acrolein, there was a concern that ‘dual users’
may increase their acrolein intake compared to smoking only. The results showed a
substantial decrease in acrolein i
ntake in smokers who switched to EC, but it also found
a significant decrease in acrolein intake in dual users (ie people that were both smoking
and vaping). This was because they reduced their smoke intake as indexed by exhaled
CO levels. Normal vaping ge
nerated negligible aldehyde levels
[
141
]
.

the reach the conclusion that :

Although e-liquid can be heated to a temperature which leads to a release of aldehydes, the resulting aerosol is aversive to vapers and so poses no health risk.
Summary
There is no indication that EC users are exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes
 
Last edited:
Also, I think much of the anti-vaping sentiment is based on simple, old-fashioned opposition to people -- especially poor people, who should not be allowed to have nice things -- enjoying themselves. There's a mindset that simply wants anything enjoyable to be harmful; and these people will make a big noise about anything, no matter how tenuous the link, that suggests e-cigs may be harmful.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/put-cancer-in-e-cigarettes-say-non-smokers-2014021983765
 
tumblr_npgeyj81rY1r07rtgo1_400.gif


I have stopped smoking nearly 3 years now, due to ecigs. I feel a hell of a lot better and its a habit I can control.
 
I'm going to have to take a break from the weed sometime soon; and I'm thinking an e-cig might be a good way to take care of the nicotine cravings. I don't normally smoke tobacco on its own unless very drunk, but the number of joints I smoke qualifies me as a nicotine addict. So I'll probably start out on a low-nicotine blend, with the intention to get onto a nicotine-free one sooner rather than later.

I should hopefully be ready to resume normal THC consumption before I become a vaping addict .....

Also, I think much of the anti-vaping sentiment is based on simple, old-fashioned opposition to people -- especially poor people, who should not be allowed to have nice things -- enjoying themselves. There's a mindset that simply wants anything enjoyable to be harmful; and these people will make a big noise about anything, no matter how tenuous the link, that suggests e-cigs may be harmful.

health and safety gone mad

I forgot to say,

BHM and Julie sitting in a tree,

K-I-S-S-I-N-G

<3
I have stopped smoking nearly 3 years now, due to ecigs. I feel a hell of a lot better and its a habit I can control.

I gave up two years ago cold turkey. Feel great too. No habit needing control.
 
Cheers for digging that stuff up, Ceres. I don't think any smokers should fear e-cigs, as a quitting tool. They taste a lot nicer than fags, as well, with decent liquid.
 
All I posted was something advising turning down the heat. Ceres has posted something to counter this which is based on a sample of 7, plus some VERY defensive postings from the vaping (you lot) lobby.

Examine your psyches. You weren't even being challenged, just advised. This brought about comments such as "they are out to get poor people" and "health and safety gone mad" (from one of Bluelights more advanced experts on madness).

Seriously. Examine yourselves.
 
indeed. I feel like the ecig is a transitioniary phase for me, it got me off smoking cigs and now I vape really low nicotine level liquid, it becomes less and less important to me.
 
Top