Metals inhaled from vaping are not a health risk

[5150sick]

https://athra.org.au/metals-inhaled-from-vaping-are-not-a-health-risk/


Metal emissions from e-cigarettes: a risk assessment analysis of a recently-published study

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08958378.2018.1523262

 

[Carambrda]

The ATHRA article makes the exact same mistake that Dr. Farsalinos has pinpointed:

However, vapers can reduce their risk by avoiding high volumes of inhaled vapour. This is a consideration for users who sub-ohm, i.e. using large volumes of e-liquid with low nicotine concentration and low power devices to make large clouds. Using an e-liquid with a higher concentration of nicotine can help to reduce vapour production and reduce the inhaled chemicals.

The part I marked in red is an exaggeration because it has not been backed up by the data in any way that can be representative of how vapers who sub-ohm or who vape low nic strength juice vape, i.e. sub-ohming is not characterizable by taking the average level of risk associated with all the different devices in the study combined and simply multiplying it by the amount of vapor, as devices specifically designed for sub-ohming are profoundly different from ones that aren't, and, there exists no linear relationship between nic strength of the juice and the amount of vapor we inhale (and in fact the study in question even also admitted the fact the quantity cannot accurately be determined if using sticky high VG juices, that we already know are juices favored by the big cloud afficionados among us). It also contains an obvious error because low power devices don't make large clouds even though I wish they did...

 

[Rossum]

Using an e-liquid with a higher concentration of nicotine can help to reduce vapour production and reduce the inhaled chemicals.

That is rather poorly phrased. I'd be surprised if it's stated quite like that in the original study, since I'm confident the authors understand that increasing the nicotine level alone will have a negligible effect on vapor production.

What might reduce the risk is using a lower powered device, with less coil surface area, that intrinsically produces less vapor. Of course such a device would require a higher nicotine level in order to be effective.

It's been my sense for many years that using 20ml a day of liquid at 3mg can't possibly be better than 5 ml a day at 12mg, and both deliver the same amount of nicotine.

 

[jwill]

They are going by the laws of exposure which is basically just common sense. The less you are exposed to something potentially harmful, the less likely it is to harm you.

I agree with the poor wording and the way it is just kind of jammed in there without any real explanation. Seems like an incomplete thought really, but the idea behind it is sound. Less exposure= Less risk.

 

[Carambrda]

That is rather poorly phrased. I'd be surprised if it's stated quite like that in the original study, since I'm confident the authors understand that increasing the nicotine level alone will have a negligible effect on vapor production.

What might reduce the risk is using a lower powered device, with less coil surface area, that intrinsically produces less vapor. Of course such a device would require a higher nicotine level in order to be effective.

It's been my sense for many years that using 20ml a day of liquid at 3mg can't possibly be better than 5 ml a day at 12mg, and both deliver the same amount of nicotine.

My point was that the simple fact it's been someone's sense for many years, doesn't mean it has been backed up by the data in any way that can be representative of how we vape. It's been my sense for many years the real culprit has been the bullshit emission rate.

 

[Carambrda]

They are going by the laws of exposure which is basically just common sense. The less you are exposed to something potentially harmful, the less likely it is to harm you.

I agree with the poor wording and the way it is just kind of jammed in there without any real explanation. Seems like an incomplete thought really, but the idea behind it is sound. Less exposure= Less risk.

Again, the data does not in any way back up the claim. That is, like usual of course...

 

[MrMeowgi]

The ATHRA article makes the exact same mistake that Dr. Farsalinos has pinpointed:

However, vapers can reduce their risk by avoiding high volumes of inhaled vapour. This is a consideration for users who sub-ohm, i.e. using large volumes of e-liquid with low nicotine concentration and low power devices to make large clouds. Using an e-liquid with a higher concentration of nicotine can help to reduce vapour production and reduce the inhaled chemicals.

The part I marked in red is an exaggeration because it has not been backed up by the data in any way that can be representative of how vapers who sub-ohm or who vape low nic strength juice vape, i.e. sub-ohming is not characterizable by taking the average level of risk associated with all the different devices in the study combined and simply multiplying it by the amount of vapor, as devices specifically designed for sub-ohming are profoundly different from ones that aren't, and, there exists no linear relationship between nic strength of the juice and the amount of vapor we inhale (and in fact the study in question even also admitted the fact the quantity cannot accurately be determined if using sticky high VG juices, that we already know are juices favored by the big cloud afficionados among us). It also contains an obvious error because low power devices don't make large clouds even though I wish they did...

Is it easy for everyone to read blue letters. Feels like I'm reading a blacklight. Lol

Sent from my LM-Q610(FGN) using Tapatalk

 

[Carambrda]

Is it easy for everyone to read blue letters. Feels like I'm reading a blacklight. Lol

Sent from my LM-Q610(FGN) using Tapatalk

Of the letters I copy-pasted, the ones I marked in blue are the ones that make logical sense re exposure rates. The ones I marked in red are caravan:

 

[NGAHaze]

 

[jwill]

Again, the data does not in any way back up the claim. That is, like usual of course...

We are not in disagreement at all here. You are saying 6 and I am saying 1/2 dozen.

 

[bobnat]

That is rather poorly phrased. I'd be surprised if it's stated quite like that in the original study, since I'm confident the authors understand that increasing the nicotine level alone will have a negligible effect on vapor production.

What might reduce the risk is using a lower powered device, with less coil surface area, that intrinsically produces less vapor. Of course such a device would require a higher nicotine level in order to be effective.

It's been my sense for many years that using 20ml a day of liquid at 3mg can't possibly be better than 5 ml a day at 12mg, and both deliver the same amount of nicotine.

Yes, it's poorly phrased. Farasalinos has said before that it's better to vape higher nic levels in order to reduce the amount of juice vaped. Perhaps that is what was meant.

 

[Carambrda]

We are not in disagreement at all here. You are saying 6 and I am saying 1/2 dozen.

 

[jwill]

What do you not follow? We are in agreement on what we have said.

You-
However, vapers can reduce their risk by avoiding high volumes of inhaled vapour.
Me-
The less you are exposed to something potentially harmful, the less likely it is to harm you.

6=1/2 dozen=6=1/2 dozen.

 

[Carambrda]

What do you not follow? We are in agreement on what we have said.

You-
However, vapers can reduce their risk by avoiding high volumes of inhaled vapour.
Me-
The less you are exposed to something potentially harmful, the less likely it is to harm you.

6=1/2 dozen=6=1/2 dozen.

What I don't follow is whatever might have happened to the caravan.

 

[jwill]

What I don't follow is whatever might have happened to the caravan.

Well, like all other gypsies they probably ended up on welfare and knocked up a close relative. Lived in a camper trailer or shanty town and boozed like a sailor. Then died at a ripe old age of 39 years.

 

[Carambrda]

Well, like all other gypsies they probably ended up on welfare and knocked up a close relative. Lived in a camper trailer or shanty town and boozed like a sailor. Then died at a ripe old age of 39 years.

What I'm saying is whoever deems it necessary to tack on a few claims, based on a whole lot of purely nothingness, deserves to get ridiculed in the middle of the street instead of get taken seriously by science. The amazing bullshit and the anti-science really needs to be finally brought to an end, and there simply is no proof here nor anywhere else to conclude sub-ohming and low nic strength juices are to be avoided if reducing the exposure to metals is what we're all aiming for, wheels or no wheels........

 

[jwill]

What I'm saying is whoever deems it necessary to tack on a few claims, based on a whole lot of purely nothingness, deserves to get ridiculed in the middle of the street instead of get taken seriously by science. The amazing bullshit and the anti-science really needs to be finally brought to an end, and there simply is no proof here nor anywhere else to conclude sub-ohming and low nic strength juices are to be avoided if reducing the exposure to metals is what we're all aiming for, wheels or no wheels........

And yet children's toys can be covered in cheap leaded paint and other toxic chemicals which causes developmental defects and retardation, which is a fact and no one bats a lash. We inhale/ingest larger quantities of heavy metals from air pollution and drinking water, than with vaping which is also a fact.

Fear is a powerful weapon. Tobacco, pharma and the global governing bodies know this. Why would they beat the gift horse by allowing sound science in order to derail their fear mongering campaigns? They have financial interests to protect. This is why the hyperbolic caravan has no wheels.

 

[Rossum]

What I'm saying is whoever deems it necessary to tack on a few claims, based on a whole lot of purely nothingness, deserves to get ridiculed in the middle of the street instead of get taken seriously by science. The amazing bullshit and the anti-science really needs to be finally brought to an end, and there simply is no proof here nor anywhere else to conclude sub-ohming and low nic strength juices are to be avoided if reducing the exposure to metals is what we're all aiming for, wheels or no wheels........

Right, it's anti-science to think that coils with more surface area run at high power will expose the user to more metals when they vape 20 ml from such a setup per day, than smaller coils with less surface area run at lower power when the user only vapes 5 ml per day.

Note: I'm not claiming that the exposure to metals from vaping is in any way problematic. Nor am I claiming that the exposure to PG, VG, and flavorings is problematic. It may be, it may not be, I really don't know. But in the end, it's obvious that a person will be exposed to more of all of this stuff if they're vaping a high volume of low-nic liquid in a high-powered device than if they've vaping a low volume of high-nic liquid in a low-powered device.

 

[Carambrda]

Right, it's anti-science to think that coils with more surface area run at high power will expose the user to more metals when they vape 20 ml from such a setup per day, than smaller coils with less surface area run at lower power when the user only vapes 5 ml per day.

Note: I'm not claiming that the exposure to metals from vaping is in any way problematic. Nor am I claiming that the exposure to PG, VG, and flavorings is problematic. It may be, it may not be, I really don't know. But in the end, it's obvious that a person will be exposed to more of all of this stuff if they're vaping a high volume of low-nic liquid in a high-powered device than if they've vaping a low volume of high-nic liquid in a low-powered device.

No, thoughts aren't anti-science. Only when thoughts aren't backed up by the data in any way, yet, despite the fact that they aren't, are presented in such a way that people are being fooled into BELIEVING that the thoughts in question ARE backed up by the data, that's when anti-science becomes the correct choice of word, and does so by pure definition alone.

 

[Carambrda]

Because what we DO know is that the amount of each metal type found in the vapor varied greatly with varying other factors that had nothing to do with the size of the coils, their surface area, the power, or even the amount of juice. So because THAT particular part of the data isn't in line with some certain individual's hidden agenda, guess what... just throw out that particular part of the data LIKE USUAL and THEN call it science, also LIKE USUAL.