Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Medicine Education Power Science Technology

E-Cigarettes Emit Toxic Vapors, Says Study (upi.com) 312

An anonymous reader quotes a report from UPI: All electronic cigarettes emit harmful chemicals, and levels of those toxic compounds are affected by factors such as temperature, type and age of the device, a new study finds. In laboratory tests, scientists found that the heat-related breakdown of propylene glycol and glycerin -- two solvents found in most e-cigarette liquids -- causes emissions of toxic chemicals such as acrolein, acetaldehyde and formaldehyde. All three are either respiratory irritants or carcinogens, the investigators said. The researchers also found that levels of harmful chemicals in e-cigarette vapor increase between the first few puffs and later puffs as the device gets hotter, and with each use of the device.The new study was published July 27 in the journal Environmental Science and Technology. "Advocates of e-cigarettes say emissions are much lower than from conventional cigarettes, so you're better off using e-cigarettes," study corresponding author Hugo Destaillats said in a Berkeley news release. "I would say, that may be true for certain users -- for example, long-time smokers that cannot quit -- but the problem is, it doesn't mean that they're healthier. Regular cigarettes are super unhealthy. E-cigarettes are just unhealthy," he explained. The FDA will start regulating e-cigarettes like tobacco on August 8, 2016.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

E-Cigarettes Emit Toxic Vapors, Says Study

Comments Filter:
  • by Izuzan ( 2620111 ) on Thursday July 28, 2016 @08:07AM (#52598297)

    That does not give the temp they are burning the e juice at.

    Burning PG will give off harmfull chemicals. But ecigs dont get hot enough unless you are sitting there with the button pressed.
    With the advent of temperature controll in ecigs the temperature does not get anywhere close to burning the PG.

    • With the advent of temperature controll in ecigs the temperature does not get anywhere close to burning the PG.

      That's nice, but most of them out there don't have temperature control. That costs substantially more. And we've all seen people exhale big clouds of vapor, right?

      • And we've all seen people exhale big clouds of vapor, right?

        People do that all the time when it's cold, warm breath + cold air = water vapor. Does that on it's own mean something's bad? Are you instantly aware the composition and conditions of a vapor on sight?

      • by bluefoxlucid ( 723572 ) on Thursday July 28, 2016 @09:15AM (#52598805) Homepage Journal

        There are good points all around this discussion, and a lack of organization. Let's try to clear this up a bit.

        Different e-cigarette juices contain different carriers. Some specifically exclude chemicals which produce formaldehyde or, particularly, acetaldehyde, largely because acetaldehyde is known to cause popcorn lung in chronic, high exposure. Most high-quality formulations list their contents in full; and the content of lower-quality formulations is often known, but not readily-listed. High-quality formulations often don't contain chemicals producing acetaldehyde, and use propylene glycol as a carrier; lower-quality formulations also often omit those compounds, but frequently do not.

        Different e-cigarettes have different temperatures and control mechanisms as well. They may prevent overheating, or they may reach high temperatures, or they may be designed for brief activation intervals with no temperature controls. Fast-reaction circuits necessarily draw high current, and will overheat without temperature management; thus cheap, fast-reaction circuits intended for brief activation will most often overheat and cause reactions, converting benign substances such as propylene glycol into dangerous substances such as formaldehyde.

        Finally, gaseous vapors produce visual distortion when diluted. If you suck in 2cc of suspended smoke or vaporized PPG and then blow it out into the air, it will expand to a liter or more and demonstrate itself as a gray cloud. The real measures are temperature and mass of substance; the substance changes its standard volume at pressure and becomes diluted when diffusing through atmosphere, and so these are poor measurements.

        Thus it is wholly-possible to engineer a substantially-safe e-cigarette, if examining specific concerns of e-cigarettes (conversion of chemicals to dangerous chemicals; high-temperature vapor irritating the throat and lungs; basic chemical content). This requires engineering of the compound itself and the delivery device.

        • by kqs ( 1038910 )

          Thus it is wholly-possible to engineer a substantially-safe e-cigarette, if examining specific concerns of e-cigarettes (conversion of chemicals to dangerous chemicals; high-temperature vapor irritating the throat and lungs; basic chemical content). This requires engineering of the compound itself and the delivery device.

          Are all (or even most) compounds and delivery devices made this way? If not, then it sounds like the solution is to regulate the industry to only permit safe(r) products, along with studies so that safe(r) is based on the best known facts at any given time.

          Will the free market solve this without regulation? Without labels and education, consumers don't even have the option of making an informed choice. Without something compelling accuracy in the labels, producers will put inaccurate labels on their prod

          • If not, then it sounds like the solution is to regulate the industry to only permit safe(r) products, along with studies so that safe(r) is based on the best known facts at any given time.

            There are good and bad forms of regulation; it's not a matter of more or less. Regulation goes out of date, either becoming inadequate or hindering beneficial actions.

      • by sjames ( 1099 )

        Actually, TC is spreading like wildfire, including the low cost devices. Ironically, the FDA regs will put a stop to new safer designs.

      • With the advent of temperature controll in ecigs the temperature does not get anywhere close to burning the PG.

        That's nice, but most of them out there don't have temperature control. That costs substantially more. And we've all seen people exhale big clouds of vapor, right?

        Yeah I have to believe that those big clouds coming out of them can effectively create a 'second hand vape' effect. Not something I'd want around my kid.

  • by queazocotal ( 915608 ) on Thursday July 28, 2016 @08:18AM (#52598361)

    Clicking through to the article finds - for example - they are refering to Glycidol.
    NIOSH in the USA recommends a limit of 25ppm over a 8 hour shift for workers.

    The first link I find says 350l/hr are breathed, meaning 3000l/ work day.
    This is about 4.5kg of air. 1ppm is 4.5mg, so 25ppm is 110mg.
    It showed about 2 micrograms per puff in the graph at http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2016... [lbl.gov]

    In order to exceed the NIOSH recommendations for worker safety for glycidol, you need to take _HALF_A_MILLION_ puffs.
    PER DAY.

    So, yes, they have found novel compounds in the vape, but at least some of these are considered 'safe' in other context at levels way above what is found in the smoke.

    • by drakaan ( 688386 )

      Also

      ...I would say, that may be true for certain users -- for example, long-time smokers that cannot quit -- but the problem is, it doesn't mean that they're healthier. Regular cigarettes are super unhealthy. E-cigarettes are just unhealthy...

      Not that I'm an advocate for smoking (full disclosure: I quit cigarettes 4+ years ago and I don't vape), but would that not by definition mean that they're healthier, or does "super unhealthy" not mean less healthy than just "unhealthy"?

      • Yes. That was the logical inconsistency that drew my attention initially.
      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        When something is not as bad as another thing, you shouldn't call it healthier. It is just less bad for you. For instance, "butter is less bad for you than margarine", vs "butter is healthier for you than margarine"... there is nothing healthy about butter
        • Weelll. The evidence for butter being actually bad for you is surprisingly thin.
          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... [nih.gov] - for example.
          Is a systematic review of the literature that concludes:
          "This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests relatively small or neutral overall associations of butter with mortality, CVD, and diabetes. These findings do not support a need for major emphasis in dietary guidelines on either increasing or decreasing butter consumption, in comparison to other better established dietary

        • by chiefcrash ( 1315009 ) on Thursday July 28, 2016 @10:02AM (#52599281)

          there is nothing healthy about butter

          FALSE

          Butter is rich in fat-soluble vitamins
          Butter contains short and medium chain fats, which are the healthy fats
          Butter is an excellent source of the 4-carbon fatty acid butyrate
          Dutch researchers found that raw butter fat protects against calcification of the joints — degenerative arthritis — as well as hardening of the arteries, cataracts and calcification of the pineal gland

          The list goes on. There's plenty healthy about butter, so long as it's in moderation...

    • Jesus, thank you, someone did some maths. I feel like there's a slew of upstart researchers out there who are trying to make a name for themselves by publishing papers to the effect of "omg! looks at the bad things we found in ecigs" with no regard to whether the concentrations are actually dangerous.
       
      Guess what, kiddos, there's LEAD in every glass of water that comes out of the tap! LEAD!

  • by drunken_boxer777 ( 985820 ) on Thursday July 28, 2016 @08:19AM (#52598367)

    I am always amazed by the people "smoking" e-cigarettes in places where smoking is not allowed. I've seen people use them in restaurants where smoking is prohibited, inside a school, and I even saw someone use one on an airplane.

    Just because it doesn't create smoke like a conventional cigarette doesn't mean that the vapors and your exhalations aren't harmful. Stop using them in places where smoking is banned. Thank you.

    • With a nick like this I have to ask: Pissed that they banned public drinking but public smoking is still ok?

      • by drunken_boxer777 ( 985820 ) on Thursday July 28, 2016 @09:09AM (#52598735)

        With a nick like this I have to ask: Pissed that they banned public drinking but public smoking is still ok?

        Nick was inspired by one of my favorite Jackie Chan flicks, not two of my pastimes rolled into one.

        Strawman: I'm not advocating for a ban on e-cigs in public. I only ask e-cig users not to vape in places where smoking is banned.

        False equivalence: If the mere act of drinking was harmful to others, then it would be equivalent and I'd certainly have no basis to oppose bans in restaurants and airplanes. (I'm indifferent that public drinking is not allowed in most places.)

    • by Luthair ( 847766 )
      In Ontario they recently passed a law that placed the same location restrictions as smoking
    • The problems with smoking in public are that the smoke is irritating (dangerous to athsmatics and other compromised respiratory systems; unpleasant-smelling), that it does property damage (it leaves a tar on things it contacts, and puts a lingering smell in the air eventually), and that it's a fire hazard.

      Second-hand cigarette smoke has not reliably been shown to increase cancer risk or cause respiratory damage to healthy individuals even when those individuals are children raised in smoker households.

      • by kqs ( 1038910 ) on Thursday July 28, 2016 @11:47AM (#52600195)

        Second-hand cigarette smoke has not reliably been shown to increase cancer risk or cause respiratory damage to healthy individuals even when those individuals are children raised in smoker households.

        I'm no scientist, but whenlots of scientists say something sciencey, and statisticians back them up [politifact.com], I tend to believe it, even if it's something I wish were untrue. You may make different choices. (I picked that link because I've been using Politifact a lot the last few months and while I sometimes disagree with their results I like that they explain their process and carefully list their sources.)

        The secondhand smoke numbers are not as solid as, say, measurements of gravity; it's a very hard thing to measure directly, so the studies are mostly doing indirect statistical analyses. So it's always possible that there is another factor there that we are overlooking. But the vast preponderance of evidence points one way, and it's not the way you say it does.

        • by bluefoxlucid ( 723572 ) on Thursday July 28, 2016 @01:13PM (#52600987) Homepage Journal

          Counterpoint [oxfordjournals.org]. This is only the largest study; there are a lot of less-interesting studies that try to reproduce a lot of studies which, as you pointed out, do exist and do show a lot of good data that second-hand smoke causes health issues. My problem is with this:

          the vast preponderance of evidence points one way, and it's not the way you say it does.

          There *is* a vast preponderance of evidence pointing one way, in the same way that there's a vast preponderance of evidence that video games make kids into murderers or that homosexuality can be cured by therapy akin to torture. There's also a significant failure rate in reproducing those same studies; a full examination of the evidence shows only weak statistical linkage, if any.

          I actually rewrote that claim multiple times before posting. It would be incorrect to say that second-hand cigarette smoke has been shown *not* to cause any health effects, in spite of the rather large and statistically-sound study released recently; it has *not* *reliably* been shown to cause any health effects. There is no overwhelming body of evidence; there is a lot of difficult analysis that's hard to control for, and a lot of outcomes that don't reproduce well. The level of certainty is about even with chance.

          There is also a lot of evidence that high-carbohydrate diets (above 40% of calories) cause arterial build-up, and high-fat diets do not. The original consensus is based on flawed statistics, and current studies don't yet reconcile a concrete position.

          There is also emerging literature suggesting AHA-recommended levels of sodium cause heart attacks. Below 1350mg/day will likely cause your heart to stop (too much potassium will do this, too); while high levels of sodium (up to 6,000mg/day) have no detrimental effect after about 3 days. Your kidneys release hormones to restore homeostatic balance and pump all that sodium out of your blood, but it takes a few days and you have high blood pressure until then. Keeping people on diets long-term is hard, and flaky; modern research looks at high-sodium-intake societies and compares heart attack rates with low-sodium-intake societies, which has its own problems.

          The thing is we have cancer groups, the USDA, CDC, and AHA ignoring new literature and doubling-down on old literature. We also have economists contradicting the BLS on things like minimum wage. Every large organization takes a position and uses evidence to back it up; the whole of evidence necessarily outpaces them, because shifting your position as a large entity requires a much stronger degree of certainty than doing it as a small entity.

    • Just because it doesn't create smoke like a conventional cigarette doesn't mean that the vapors and your exhalations aren't harmful.

      Fun fact, human exhalations contain carbon dioxide which contributes to global warming and is poisonous in high concentrations.

      Maybe you could be a little more considerate of the rest of us and stop breathing?

    • Well aren't you just a delicate little snowflake...

  • Sigh, this again (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RevDisk ( 740008 ) on Thursday July 28, 2016 @08:21AM (#52598385) Journal
    It's already covered in the UK govt report: https://www.gov.uk/government/... [www.gov.uk]

    Flip to page 75. The report is fairly well written, and surprisingly not someone trying to prove pre-defined results via poorly conducted experiments.

    This is only applicable to mechanized vaping tests. Essentially, you need to burn the vaping chemicals rather than atomize them. As someone that quit vaping, I can testify that you know when your vaping unit get cranked to the max while being in your pocket and fried the coils, along with some of the nicotine liquid. It is extremely unpleasant. Theoretically a person could continue to try to inhale the results, but it would be a spectacularly unpleasant experience. It's extremely noticeable

    . It's called a 'dry hit' and it's pretty rare under normal circumstances. I've had... three, maybe? It's certainly not good for you, but probably not as bad for me as my old pack a day of cigarettes would be if I continued smoking.
    • Yea, the taste is sort of like lighting the wrong end of a cig (anyone who has ever smoked for a while has done that at least once or twice). Its horrible and nasty, and you're definitely not going to just keep puffing on it like the lab machine is.

      Nice on quitting, I myself am down to 0 for the last few months and about to quit. I never thought I would quit smoking (15 years), vaping really did help me kick the habit (quit smoking 2 years ago for vaping). I think vaping helps re-wire your brain from wantin

      • Re:Sigh, this again (Score:4, Interesting)

        by lawaetf1 ( 613291 ) on Thursday July 28, 2016 @09:30AM (#52598951)

        It's really interesting how vaping is different from cigs in terms of addiction. I switched from cigs to 12mg vaping and that was fine for a while.. but then, oddly, I found I could no longer handle 12mg! I couldn't understand it, I would walk to work, puffing along the way like I always do, and then find I was having trouble swallowing, terribly anxious amongst other symptoms. Looked up "nicotine overdose" and bingo. Switched to 6mg and now down to 3. Every attempt I made to "cut down" with cigs failed miserably. Somehow vaping gives you a glide path away from the addiction.

    • by RevDisk ( 740008 )
      Tried to read the study, which is paywalled. I love it when folks make substantial claims and then refuse to hand over the proof unless you pay for it. The abstract is fairly light but the claimed glycidol is below NIOSH limits unless you take enough that nicotine poisoning is virtually certain. Some of the other toxins I recognize as being a characteristic of lower quality or badly made liquids. I would advise making sure one obtains liquids that have been checked by a lab. They're expensive. And worth it.
  • by Pseudonymous Powers ( 4097097 ) on Thursday July 28, 2016 @08:28AM (#52598425)

    Advocates of e-cigarettes say emissions are much lower than from conventional cigarettes, so you're better off using e-cigarettes. I would say, that may be true for certain users -- for example, long-time smokers that cannot quit -- but the problem is, it doesn't mean that they're healthier. Regular cigarettes are super unhealthy. E-cigarettes are just unhealthy.

    Dude, if they're less unhealthy, that means that they're healthier. You just contradicted yourself.

    Well, I guess he's from Berkeley, so they wouldn't have released it if it didn't involve at least some doublethink.

    I too think e-cigarettes are an annoying and asinine way for people to keep doing something they know they shouldn't. And who knows what further problems we may eventually figure out they may cause. But that doesn't mean we get to lie about them. It makes it really hard to get behind a movement when its participants are spewing propaganda along with their actual science.

    • by swb ( 14022 )

      I too think e-cigarettes are an annoying and asinine way for people to keep doing something they know they shouldn't.

      This is where the magic is.

      You probably "shouldn't" do something if it is extremely harmful to you, although even then there are some cases where it doesn't matter (ie, a patient with late-stage terminal brain cancer can do most everything, including smoking, since smoking isn't what's going to end their life).

      If smoking tobacco cigarettes has a harm score of 95 on a scale of 1-100 and vaping has a harm score of 10 on the same scale, does vaping still count as "something I know I shouldn't do"? What's the

  • Concert Venues? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Fluffymuffin Cocobut ( 1536039 ) on Thursday July 28, 2016 @08:41AM (#52598501) Homepage
    So dance clubs, concert venues, most Broadway shows - those are all death traps? Because most of those places go through *gallons* of propylene glycol a night - as where most eCig users are puffing 50ml every 3-6 months. THINK OF THE BROADWAY ACTORS
  • by Theovon ( 109752 ) on Thursday July 28, 2016 @08:45AM (#52598527)

    I think one of the things smokers find unsatisfying about things like using a nicotine patch is that they also develop a physical habit. It’s like taking a caffeine pill vs. having a cup of coffee. Sitting down with breakfast with a nice cup of coffee with cream and sugar, as with any kind of eating or drinking, causes a release of dopamine, which enhances the positive effects of the drug. Something similar happens with smoking, I assume.

    If you’re actually trying to break the habit, e-cigs seem like a reasonable temporary solution, as you ease off your dosage. However, there may be other ways of doing this. For instance, you can get L-dopa (a precursor to dopamine) from Mucuna Pruriens, directly boosting your dopamine levels. Or you can take low-dose naltrexone (LDN). Naltrexone is a dopamine receptor antagonist. Large doses can be used to block the effects of addictive drugs, while low doses trigger the brain to compensate by increasing dopamine levels. You can also take tyrosine, which is a precursor to several neurotransmitters, including serotonin, norepinepherine, and dopamine.

    None of them probably has quite the same emotional satisfaction that people get from the act of smoking, however.

  • by RogueWarrior65 ( 678876 ) on Thursday July 28, 2016 @08:57AM (#52598627)

    All kidding aside, people have been throwing hissy fits over second-hand smoke for years. Why isn't anyone complaining about (and legislating control of) second-hand pot smoke? Or are people too stoned to do anything about it?

    • Wait, doesn't the old smoking ban apply to pot? Surly, the culture has changed enough that people are not being allowed to smoke that stuff indoors?

  • It's good that research is being done, but it would be nice if they were a bit more complete and helpful with their findings. Simply listing the toxic constituents is meaningless without content. Is 7 micrograms of acetol per puff actually harmful? Tomatoes contain nicotine, Apples contain cyanide. These are toxic chemicals, too. Burning a steak creates all kinds of nasty toxic chemicals too.. the question is are they actually harmful? Secondly, "Shown here are emission rates of seven of the most toxic
  • I really hate the fact that these devices are called e-cigarette; you don't have to use an e-juice that contains nicotine.

    Are dry herb vaporizers going to be regulated as well?

    • by kqs ( 1038910 )

      The study isn't about nicotine, but about the carrier chemicals. So assuming that the e-juice base is the same, then I'd say yes.

  • by dadelbunts ( 1727498 ) on Thursday July 28, 2016 @09:34AM (#52598989)
    I went from smoking 2 packs a day for 10 years to, nothing. Started vaping a couple of years ago, gradually moved the niccottene content lower and lower, and now i dont even vape anymore. The concept that somene just CANNOT quit is plain wrong.
    • I stopped cold turkey, 10 years ago. I went from 2+ packs a day to 0 overnight. I had been smoking for 20+ years when I finally stopped. Best thing I ever did
  • They saying vaping is safe indoors, but this leads me to believe that they are exhaling dangerous chemicals as well.
  • Regular cigarettes are super unhealthy. E-cigarettes are just unhealthy. So healthier than regular cigarettes in author's own words. We should encourage as many people as possible to switch.

    • by JustNiz ( 692889 )

      > Regular cigarettes are super unhealthy. E-cigarettes are just unhealthy

      Since vaping is still a relatively new phenomenon, and as far as I can tell there is no regulation over quality or healthiness of liquids on sale, so It wouldn't surpise me if after a few studies get done, they show that vaping is as at least as bad if not worse than tobacco (for the user).

      As a non-smoker I do prefer vapers over cig smokers though, since there isn't any disgusting ash/ashtrays/butt-litter everywhere or apparently a

  • by maharvey ( 785540 ) on Thursday July 28, 2016 @02:46PM (#52601853)
    Your lungs emit toxic vapors. And contribute to global warming too!
  • by gringer ( 252588 ) on Thursday July 28, 2016 @02:58PM (#52601957)

    Research reports like this on e-cigarettes annoy me. Ordinarily I might suggest that the press releases are making things appear more shocking than the paper, but it seems like the paper writers have also overemphasised the results of this study. This research appears to be a presence/absence experiment, rather than an actual harm experiment. The thought process seems to follow something like the following:

    1. E-cigarettes contain some nasty toxic chemicals in detectable quantities
    2. These toxic chemicals are nasty and toxic, and cause damage in high concentrations
    3. Therefore, E-cigarettes are bad and shouldn't be used

    The problem is that studies of this sort aren't actually demonstrating harm. It's like saying that air contains carbon monoxide, so we shouldn't breathe it. In the paper, there are a few weasel words used that encourage thoughts like this:

    Chemical analysis of e-liquids and vapors emitted by e-cigarettes led to the identification of several compounds of concern due to their potentially harmful effects on users and passively exposed nonusers... compounds are considered possible or probable carcinogens

    The researchers say that they'll do the actual harm testing as an additional step:

    The researchers are working on a follow-up study focusing on the health and environmental impacts of e-cigarettes.

    Or, in the paper:

    These chemical emissions are associated with both cancer and noncancer health impacts that will be quantitatively evaluated in an ensuing paper.

    But until that's done (and has meaningful results) it's difficult to make a good case that E-cigarettes are doing the wrong thing and should be avoided.

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Working...