Studies Reveal Health Risks Of E-Cigarettes - Junk Science Alert!!!

[5150sick]

I know about this junk science, scaremongering study and they took a CE4 and an ego twist.
They maxed out the voltage at 4.8volts and burned the juice in order to get the desired results.
Who the fuck purposely vapes burnt juice? Nobody!!! = Junk Science - 5150

"these higher temperatures also affect the glycerin and propylene glycol used as solvents within the e-liquid, converting them to carbonyls found in cigarettes such as formaldehyde and acetaldehyde


http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/studies-reveal-health-risks-e-cigarettes

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's odd...
This study found:
" five specific carcinogens in trace amounts: acetone, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, butanone, and isoprene."
IN HUMAN BREATH!!!

http://www.churnmag.com/news/scientists-find-ecig-toxins-regular-human-breath/

 

[5150sick]

It doesn't matter what ohms you vape at because at sub ohm levels you take shorter draws of lower nic juice.
At 'normal' ohm levels you would take longer draws of higher nic juice.
At 2.5 ohms it takes way longer to heat up the coils enough to vaporize the juice.
Unless you are cloud chasing when you vape at lower ohms the coils just heat up faster but the wire is usually a lot thicker.
Either way the juice gets to the point of vaporization.
If the juice got to the point of burning you would know it and adjust your settings accordingly.

I personally think this is a push by Big Tobacco to scare people since they sell high ohm, low voltage cigalikes.
You have to ask yourself: Who benefits from demonizing sub ohming? - 5150

 

[jae]

Rational vapers know that we don't yet know everything. I for one welcome all studies - especially ones which bring up negative aspects or criticisms of techniques or materials, etc., because i want to continue to vape, i want to vape as safely as possible, and i want to vape in an environment where everybody has a better overall understanding of what i am doing around them.

It is likely that there will be some valid points of interest to consider with respect to vaping and health, and we need to both prepare for and embrace any new knowledge which we can gain from these studies. We need to take all of this into consideration. If it turns out that there is a good reason to not vape outside of a particular temperature range, or with fluids made with certain chemicals or chemical compounds, or with coils, wicks, or devices made with particular materials, then we need to do our best to avoid those things, especially if we want vaping to replace smoking for more people in the long term.

 

[5150sick]

Rational vapers know that we don't yet know everything. I for one welcome all studies - especially ones which bring up negative aspects or criticisms of techniques or materials, etc., because i want to continue to vape, i want to vape as safely as possible, and i want to vape in an environment where everybody has a better overall understanding of what i am doing around them.

It is likely that there will be some valid points of interest to consider with respect to vaping and health, and we need to both prepare for and embrace any new knowledge which we can gain from these studies. We need to take all of this into consideration. If it turns out that there is a good reason to not vape outside of a particular temperature range, or with fluids made with certain chemicals or chemical compounds, or with coils, wicks, or devices made with particular materials, then we need to do our best to avoid those things, especially if we want vaping to replace smoking for more people in the long term.

I welcome studies too. The problem is the studies can not have a conflict of interest and everybody is interested.
The ANTZ, Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, Vaping Groups, FDA, etc... I don't know who we can find to do an honest study?
Even the honest scientists will be accused of taking 'Big Vapor' funding.
Dr F. is the most honest I know. He will tell us if bad stuff is in our vapor or if we are using unsafe equipment.
Unfortunately when he tells us something good you have people like Stanton Glantz jumping down his ass screaming "conflict of interest"!!
Either way cranking up an ego twist to 4.8 volts then purposely melting a CE4 into a puddle and taking readings isn't science. It's stupid!

 

[jae]

I welcome studies too. The problem is the studies can not have a conflict of interest and everybody is interested.
The ANTZ, Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, Vaping Groups, FDA, etc... I don't know who we can find to do an honest study?
Even the honest scientists will be accused of taking 'Big Vapor' funding.
Dr F. is the most honest I know. He will tell us if bad stuff is in our vapor or if we are using unsafe equipment.
Unfortunately when he tells us something good you have people like Stanton Glantz jumping down his ass screaming "conflict of interest"!!
Either way cranking up an ego twist to 4.8 volts then purposely melting a CE4 into a puddle and taking readings isn't science. It's stupid!

I did not read that part of the article where they specifically mentioned "burnt" juice or melting a CE4 in particular. I did see something about them cranking the battery (and here you're correct that it was some variant of Ego Twist called eGo-3 Twist; the clearo was also something similar to a CE4 called Crystal 2; both by Volish) to 4.8v, which is not only not unheard-of but relatively common practice.

Here's the full text of the study, if you're interested. Incidentally, it's noted therein that some funding was received both from Pfizer and from some Polish e-cig maker called Chic Group Ltd. Never heard of 'em.

The liquids they tested are listed here. Note that they are of primarily Polish and, to a lesser extent, Chinese origin. Personally, i'm unfamiliar with the lot of them. However, they also prepared some basic juices of their own as a control:

The control e-liquids were prepared by dissolving pure nicotine (>99%, Acros) in analytical-grade solvents and vortexing for 10min. The following control solutions were prepared: C1 with VG (88.2%), redistilled water (10.0%), and nicotine (1.8%); C2 with VG (44.1%), PG (44.1%), redistilled water (10.0%), and nicotine (1.8%); and C3 with PG (88.2%), redistilled water (10.0%), and nicotine (1.8%). None of the control e-liquid contained any flavorings or additives.

(The labels "C1" through "C3" are just labels for reference.)

Also note that the control liquids contained no flavoring (and let's be honest, flavoring can contain just about anything a vendor wants to put in there), yet still managed to detect a quantifiable level of butanal. With flavoring, there was a wider variety. So flavoring certainly can matter, although i think it's really too soon to say whether any of this particular study stacks up in the long run... but i'm inclined not to worry too much in this case.

At any rate, my point is that this is all based on very reasonable science (if somewhat flawed in its incompleteness, certainly), and that we must accept what empirical data tells us, so long as the results come from good methodology and aren't "sponsored." We should take care not to dismiss science because it could serve us well, and sometimes we're actually best served by being informed that delicious things like diacetyl can be inhalation risks.

 

[5150sick]

I did not read that part of the article where they specifically mentioned "burnt" juice or melting a CE4 in particular. I did see something about them cranking the battery (and here you're correct that it was some variant of Ego Twist called eGo-3 Twist; the clearo was also something similar to a CE4 called Crystal 2; both by Volish) to 4.8v, which is not only not unheard-of but relatively common practice.

Here's the full text of the study, if you're interested. Incidentally, it's noted therein that some funding was received both from Pfizer and from some Polish e-cig maker called Chic Group Ltd. Never heard of 'em.

The liquids they tested are listed here. Note that they are of primarily Polish and, to a lesser extent, Chinese origin. Personally, i'm unfamiliar with the lot of them. However, they also prepared some basic juices of their own as a control:



(The labels "C1" through "C3" are just labels for reference.)

Also note that the control liquids contained no flavoring (and let's be honest, flavoring can contain just about anything a vendor wants to put in there), yet still managed to detect a quantifiable level of butanal. With flavoring, there was a wider variety. So flavoring certainly can matter, although i think it's really too soon to say whether any of this particular study stacks up in the long run... but i'm inclined not to worry too much in this case.

At any rate, my point is that this is all based on very reasonable science (if somewhat flawed in its incompleteness, certainly), and that we must accept what empirical data tells us, so long as the results come from good methodology and aren't "sponsored." We should take care not to dismiss science because it could serve us well, and sometimes we're actually best served by being informed that delicious things like diacetyl can be inhalation risks.

If it was a BCC I could believe that some people could get it all the way up to 4.8 volts but a top coil clearo?
It would burn even an inexperienced users lips within a few seconds and they would have no choice but to turn it down.
I remember the CE4 type clearos and I could never get one to vape above 4.2 volts without getting either a burnt taste or a burnt mouth.
I couldn't even get the kanger t2's (the 'good' top coil clearos) above 4.2 volts.
Of course the smoking machine they use wouldn't notice the heat or the burnt taste.
That is where the flaw is in my opinion.
It would have been a much more productive study to get an actual group of say 50 experienced and inexperienced vapers to try the same setup they were going to use for as many "puffs" as the machine was going to be using.
Take the settings from the vapers, try the experiment on the average setting between the 50 vapers as well as the highest setting of all the vapers.
Use those settings to get the results.
That wouldn't have been very hard to pull off.

You can get all 50 watts out of an OKR-T10 box mod if you set it up right (5 volts .5 ohms 50 watts) but you couldn't stick a 2.5ohm protank on it and turn it all the way up.
It would be unbearable until the coil popped.
It goes to 6 volts so 2.5 ohms would be roughly 14.5 watts.

I vape a protank at 7 to 8 watts but I have known people to go up to 9 or 10. They have a 'sweet spot' that's different between juice pg/vg ratios, etc...

What do you think the results would be if they stuck a carto on a 120watt raptor mod? Very undesirable for our cause.
But it would make for a great propaganda driven headline.

 

[5150sick]

I tried 14.5 watts with a 2.4ohm protank (damn you!) and i took very fast draws i could do it for about 4 puffs before it got bad.
I still use protanks when I'm out and about. I like to take long draws with low wattage.
I like to be able to take the longest draw possible without getting a foul taste.
7 watts is where i end up.

The first time I read about the study was here in May:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/b...ff-of-carcinogens.html?hpw&rref=business&_r=2

It was odd that at the time they made no mention of the ohm rating of the clearo.
Then after Dr. F brought it up they publish the study and tack on the ohm rating.
Probably an honest mistake since the study was unpublished when Dr. F read it and had this to say:

http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/2014/162-nyt-formald

 

[VapingJunkie]

Subscribed for the awesome info!

Sent from the Otter Box around my Galaxy S4.

 

[Hermit]

"We chose a model composed of a Crystal 2 clearomizer (Supplementary Figure 1), with a heating element with resistance of 2.4 ohms, a 900 mAh battery with voltage of 3.4V, and a battery voltage stabilization system."

From the PDF on the supplemental data page:



So, yeah. We've said it all on the sub-ohm warning thread already, but now we know we were correct in our assumptions of the kind of device used to get those results.

The real take-home points, in opposition to what they choose to highlight in the conclusion, are:

• When used correctly, formaldehyde levels are many times lower than cigarettes, and negligible.
• It is clear to a user when operation is incorrect, due to the rapid rise in production of foul tasting compounds.

 

[caissa]

Rational vapers know that we don't yet know everything. I for one welcome all studies - especially ones which bring up negative aspects or criticisms of techniques or materials, etc., because i want to continue to vape, i want to vape as safely as possible, and i want to vape in an environment where everybody has a better overall understanding of what i am doing around them.

It is likely that there will be some valid points of interest to consider with respect to vaping and health, and we need to both prepare for and embrace any new knowledge which we can gain from these studies. We need to take all of this into consideration. If it turns out that there is a good reason to not vape outside of a particular temperature range, or with fluids made with certain chemicals or chemical compounds, or with coils, wicks, or devices made with particular materials, then we need to do our best to avoid those things, especially if we want vaping to replace smoking for more people in the long term.

I agree. Personally, I think there is a confusion between sub-ohm vaping and direct lung vaping. Most people who do one, do the other, as they go together, but you can just as easily do a mouth-lung inhale on a sub kit. Just take your airflow down to minimum, turn the watts down a bit, and use a narrow-bore drip tip, and there you go. Just because you have a Ferrari, you don't have to drive at 100 mph with the windows down, blaring out rap music at 100 db!

However, most people who sub use direct lung of course, as I do, but I am interested in the risks not of subbing per se, but of direct lung inhaling. I have found a certain shortness of breath since I have been direct lunging, and I can't imagine that I am the only one. Any thoughts on this? Pro-tem, I have gone back to a mouth-lung tank, and I will be interested to see if my shortness of breath improves...

 

[caissa]

If it was a BCC I could believe that some people could get it all the way up to 4.8 volts but a top coil clearo?
It would burn even an inexperienced users lips within a few seconds and they would have no choice but to turn it down.
I remember the CE4 type clearos and I could never get one to vape above 4.2 volts without getting either a burnt taste or a burnt mouth.
I couldn't even get the kanger t2's (the 'good' top coil clearos) above 4.2 volts.
Of course the smoking machine they use wouldn't notice the heat or the burnt taste.
That is where the flaw is in my opinion.
It would have been a much more productive study to get an actual group of say 50 experienced and inexperienced vapers to try the same setup they were going to use for as many "puffs" as the machine was going to be using.
Take the settings from the vapers, try the experiment on the average setting between the 50 vapers as well as the highest setting of all the vapers.
Use those settings to get the results.
That wouldn't have been very hard to pull off.

You can get all 50 watts out of an OKR-T10 box mod if you set it up right (5 volts .5 ohms 50 watts) but you couldn't stick a 2.5ohm protank on it and turn it all the way up.
It would be unbearable until the coil popped.
It goes to 6 volts so 2.5 ohms would be roughly 14.5 watts.

I vape a protank at 7 to 8 watts but I have known people to go up to 9 or 10. They have a 'sweet spot' that's different between juice pg/vg ratios, etc...

What do you think the results would be if they stuck a carto on a 120watt raptor mod? Very undesirable for our cause.
But it would make for a great propaganda driven headline.

I agree with this. Certainly though a high resistance coil of 2.5 ohms aint gonna be happy at 15 watts - I would be vaping that at 10 watts ish, as you say, maybe lower. But then, I wouldn't be vaping at that high a resistance in the first place

 

[Huckleberried]

I will be interested to see if my shortness of breath improves...

For me, VG causes that. Granted this was an older article, and I can't say how much more has been discovered since it was published, because I don't DL, or vape high VG, but it was also around that time that I discovered I can't tolerate VG higher than 30 in my juice.