Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #61
    Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

    As a bird owner, I've studied a lot about toxicity. Non-stick cookware, air fresheners, fabric softeners, etc., can all cause harm to the avian respiratory system. While it's more sensitive than a human one, it is literally the "canary in the coal mine" that will succumb before levels get high enough to endanger humans. If it's bad for Buddy, it's bad for me, and it's not allowed in here.
    sigpic
    Can you hear me, Major Tom? I think I love you.

    Comment


      #62
      Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

      I mean if smoking isn't allowed in an establishment you shouldn't be vaping inside either. The health debate aside its pretty discorteous to subject other peoples air to your bad habits. Come outside to the smoke area like a normal exile and socialize with the cool kids.

      Comment


        #63
        Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

        Originally posted by ThePaganMafia View Post
        The health debate aside its pretty discourteous to subject other peoples air to your bad habits.
        Yes, good point. And if people have a nicotine addiction there are other options like patches, gum and lozenges which don't impact on other people.
        I think some people prefer vaping because they still get the sensation of inhaling something, as well as the nicotine hit.
        Once a man, like the sea I raged;
        Once a woman, like the earth I gave;
        And there is in fact more earth than sea.
        Genesis lyric

        Comment


          #64
          Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

          Originally posted by pillar View Post
          And that doesn't count all the other carcinogens in cigarettes, of which there are 68, including lead, formaldehyde, benzine and arsenic, that e-cigs don't have.
          This isn't entirely true...I'll try to remember to look up tje specific study, but the have found formaldehyde, metals, and other chemicals in the vapor (unfortunately, I was watching a movie when I originally read the article, so I don't remember the specific byproducts beyond formaldehyde and I'm on my phone getting ready for first day @ new job amd don't have time to hunt it down). The problem is that the products in don't precisely equal the products out once you've heated them to vaporize them. Also, they've done nicotine blood level studies on 2nd hand vaping that were quite interesting (there's a study on workplace nicotine exposure for hotel maids simply from cleanin in hotels with smoking rooms that is quite interesting too...the problem is the extremely small size of the nicotine molecule)
          Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of HistoryPagan Devotionals, because the wind and the rain is our Bible
          sigpic

          Comment


            #65
            Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

            I've seen a study that said exhaled vapor contained 700% less nicotine than exhaled smoke. Also there are studies that find carcinogens like formaldehyde and heavy metals in vapor but in those studies those are outliers of the tests they performed, probably because they used the wrong atomizer with the wrong e-cig or because they ran the vaporizer out of fluid resulting in a "dry puff" either of which burns the wick and overheats the coil. Doing this tastes awful and makes you cough and sometimes wretch, you would never continue doing it while vapeing. You either get the right vaporizer or add liquid to your drip tip. The "dry puff" is one of the many reasons most vapers have moved away from drip tips to refillable tank vaporizers that you can see the liquid inside and add more before the dry puff happens, as it is well known to ruin atomizers and cost money if done repeatedly.

            Comment


              #66
              Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

              Not all E-"smoke" products contain nicotine. They are available but you can also use E-products that have no nicotine at all
              The Dragon sees infinity and those it touches are forced to feel the reality of it.
              I am his student and his partner. He is my guide and an ominous friend.

              Comment


                #67
                Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

                Originally posted by pillar View Post
                I've seen a study that said exhaled vapor contained 700% less nicotine than exhaled smoke. Also there are studies that find carcinogens like formaldehyde and heavy metals in vapor but in those studies those are outliers of the tests they performed, probably because they used the wrong atomizer with the wrong e-cig or because they ran the vaporizer out of fluid resulting in a "dry puff" either of which burns the wick and overheats the coil. Doing this tastes awful and makes you cough and sometimes wretch, you would never continue doing it while vapeing. You either get the right vaporizer or add liquid to your drip tip. The "dry puff" is one of the many reasons most vapers have moved away from drip tips to refillable tank vaporizers that you can see the liquid inside and add more before the dry puff happens, as it is well known to ruin atomizers and cost money if done repeatedly.
                sorry I said drip tips I meant drip atomizers. btw hope your first day of work goes well thalassa.

                Comment


                  #68
                  Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

                  Originally posted by DragonsFriend View Post
                  Not all E-"smoke" products contain nicotine. They are available but you can also use E-products that have no nicotine at all
                  I'm really not certain what possible purpose those could serve. Are they just even more impractical and use-impaired than regular E-smokes?

                  Comment


                    #69
                    Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

                    They allow a smoker(EX) to have the feeling they are smoking,because sometimes it is the look and feel,and not the nicotine that is part of the addiction. Was pointed out to me in one of my attempts at quiting. People can become addicted to the look and feel,knew a few recovering "Junkies" that had this problem with the ritual of shooting up.

                    People,go figure..we are complicated..
                    MAGIC is MAGIC,black OR white or even blood RED

                    all i ever wanted was a normal life and love.
                    NO TERF EVER WE belong Too.
                    don't stop the tears.let them flood your soul.




                    sigpic

                    my new page here,let me know what you think.


                    nothing but the shadow of what was

                    witchvox
                    http://www.witchvox.com/vu/vxposts.html

                    Comment


                      #70
                      Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

                      Ahh. I suppose that's sensible.

                      Comment


                        #71
                        Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

                        Since this is such a hot topic I've been doing some research over the past day or so and I found a study that looked at all the research out there dated 2014 Apr; 5 from the Journal Therapeutic Advances in Drug safety. Below are some exerts.


                        Chemical studies
                        Laugesen performed the first studies evaluating the chemical composition of EC aerosols [Laugesen, 2008,2009]. The temperature of the resistance of the tested EC was 54oC during activation, which is approximately 5–10% of the temperature of a burning tobacco cigarette. Toxic chemicals such as heavy metals, carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and phenols were not detected, with the exception of trivial amounts of mercury (0.17 ng per EC) and traces of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. Laugesen evaluated emissions based on a toxicant emissions score and reported a score of 0 in ECs compared with a score of 100–134 for tobacco cigarettes

                        Besides the evaluation for the presence of TSNAs, analyses have been performed for the detection of carbonyl compounds. It is known that the thermal degradation of propylene glycol and glycerol can lead to the emission of toxic compounds such as aldehydes [Antal et al. 1985; Stein et al. 1983]. Goniewicz and colleagues evaluated the emission of 15 carbonyls from 12 brands of ECs (mostly first-generation) [Goniewicz et al. 2013]. In order to produce vapor, researchers used a smoking machine and followed a regime of 1.8-second puffs with a very short 10-second interpuff interval, which does not represent realistic use [Farsalinos et al. 2013cUS Pharmacopeia, 2013]

                        In conclusion, chemical studies have found that exposure to toxic chemicals from ECs is far lower compared with tobacco cigarettes. Besides comparing the levels of specific chemicals released from tobacco and ECs, it should be taken into consideration that the vast majority of the >4000 chemicals present in tobacco smoke are completely absent from ECs. Obviously, surveillance of use is warranted in order to objectively evaluate thein vivo effects and because the effects of inhaling flavoring substances approved for food use are largely unknown.

                        Toxicological studies
                        Few animal studies have been performed to evaluate the potential harm of humectants in EC liquids (i.e. propylene glycol and glycerol) when given by inhalation. Robertson and colleagues tested the effects on primates of inhaling propylene glycol vapor for several months and found no evidence of toxicity on any organ (including the lungs) after post-mortem examination of the animals [Robertson et al. 1947]. Similar observations were made in a recent study in rats and dogs [Werley et al. 2011]. Concerns have been raised in human use, based on studies of people exposed to theatrical fog [Varughese et al. 2005; American Chemistry Council, 2003] or propylene glycol used in the aviation industry [Wieslander et al. 2001]. Irritation of the respiratory tract was found, but no permanent lung injury or other long-term health implications were detected. It should be reminded that, in these circumstances, nonpharmaceutical purity propylene glycol is used and in some cases oils are added, making it difficult to interpret the results in the context of EC use. Evidence for the potential harm of inhaled glycerol is sparse. A study using Sprague–Dawley rats found minimal to mild squamous metaplasia of the epiglottis epithelium in the high-dose group only, without any changes observed in lungs or other organs [Renne et al. 1992]. No comparative set of experiments with cigarette smoke was included, but it is well known that exposure to tobacco smoke in similar animal models leads to dramatic changes in the lungs, liver and kidneys [Czekaj et al. 2002].

                        Passive vaping(secondhand smoking)
                        Passive smoking is an established risk factor for a variety of diseases [Barnoya and Navas-Acien, 2013]. Therefore, it is important from a public health perspective to examine the impact of EC use on bystanders. Indirect data can be derived from chemical studies in vapor mentioned above, which show that the potential of any significant adverse effects on bystanders is minimal. In fact, since sidestream exposure is nonexistent in EC (aerosol is produced only during activation of the device, while tobacco cigarettes emit smoke even when no puffs are taken), such studies are undoubtedly overestimating the risk of environmental exposure.

                        Romagna and colleagues [Romagna et al. 2012Williams et al. 2013] could also be used to examine any potential risk of bystanders’ exposure to toxic metals. The levels of heavy metals found in vapor were minimal, and considering the dispersion of these molecules in the whole room air, it is unlikely that any of these metals could be present in measurable quantities in the environment. Therefore, the risk for bystanders would be literally nonexistent.

                        Bertholon and colleagues [Bertholon et al. 2013Czogala et al. 2013Burstyn, 2014]

                        Flouris and colleagues [Flouris et al. 2013] performed the only clinical study evaluating the respiratory effects of passive vaping compared with passive smoking. Researchers found significant adverse effects in spirometry parameters after being exposed to passive smoking for 1 hour, while no adverse effects were observed after exposure to passive vaping.

                        Although evaluating the effects of passive vaping requires further work, based on the existing evidence from environmental exposure and chemical analyses of vapor, it is safe to conclude that the effects of EC use on bystanders are minimal compared with conventional cigarettes

                        Conclusions
                        Existing evidence indicates that EC use is by far a less harmful alternative to smoking. There is no tobacco and no combustion involved in EC use; therefore, regular vapers may avoid several harmful toxic chemicals that are typically present in the smoke of tobacco cigarettes. Indeed, some toxic chemicals are released in the EC vapor as well, but their levels are substantially lower compared with tobacco smoke, and in some cases (such as nitrosamines) are comparable with the amounts found in pharmaceutical nicotine products. Surveys, clinical, chemistry and toxicology data have often been mispresented or misinterpreted by health authorities and tobacco regulators, in such a way that the potential for harmful consequences of EC use has been largely exaggerated [Polosa and Caponnetto, 2013]

                        In particular, current data on safety evaluation and risk assessment of ECs is sufficient enough to avert restrictive regulatory measures as a consequence of an irrational application of the precautionary principle [Saitta et al. 2014]

                        ECs are a revolutionary product in tobacco harm reduction. Although they emit vapor, which resembles smoke, there is literally no fire (combustion) and no ‘fire’ (suspicion or evidence that they may be the cause for disease in a similar way to tobacco cigarettes). Due to their unique characteristics, ECs represent a historical opportunity to save millions of lives and significantly reduce the burden of smoking-related diseases worldwide.
                        Last edited by MaskedOne; 14 Dec 2015, 21:23.

                        Comment


                          #72
                          Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

                          how come I only see blank space in the post?
                          Satan is my spirit animal

                          Comment


                            #73
                            Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

                            I don't know do you have a white background? It's white lettering maybe thats why .my bad maybe one of the mods can fix it.

                            Comment


                              #74
                              Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

                              I have a white background and see vague little illegible shadows in there.
                              sigpic
                              Can you hear me, Major Tom? I think I love you.

                              Comment


                                #75
                                Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

                                At the bottom of this page there is a bar that has contact us in it on the left side of the bar there is a drop down box click it and select mint then you can read the secret code. Or you could click at the beginning of the post and while holding down the mouse button drag downward to select the text, that will also reveal the "code"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X