Where should Vaping be allowed on ship

[lyannea]

[url]http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/e-cigarette-dangers-fire-chiefs-warning-2949094[/url]

Though rare, charging the lithium battery can have consequences. One man's ecig exploded in Florida.
Though rate, I wouldn't want this to happen anywhere, including a cruise ship

[lyannea]

[quote name='lyannea'][url]http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/e-cigarette-dangers-fire-chiefs-warning-2949094[/url]

Though rare, charging the lithium battery can have consequences. One man's ecig exploded in Florida.
Though rate, I wouldn't want this to happen anywhere, including a cruise ship[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/e-cigarettes-the-battery-may-be-the-real-problem-030714.html[/url]

This is a more current article

[nunuc2000]

[quote name='w&k']Vulgar? Disgusting? no flames???

I'm very glad you expressed your opinion. You obviously have antagonism towards adults that choose to smoke/vape.

However, my opinion is that the language you chose demonstrates a supercilious attitude, and I personally find that distracting from the frank (and mostly polite) discussion of the topic at hand.

Wendy[/quote]

The OP specifically asked for the reasoning behind my original response. I provided an honest response that did not resort to targeting anyone, on here specifically, or "towards adults that choose to smoke/vape" as you put it. If you're going to accuse me of something or make an assessment based on my opinion, you might want to re-read what I wrote, and not pick and choose out-of-context words designed to fuel your hidden agenda of trying to stir things up here.

Do I deeply detest the act of smoking and the tobacco industry in general? No question about that! Do I feel antagonistic towards adults who smoke? Not a chance, and how you would come to that conclusion is quite a stretch. I have lost 4 family members and twice that many friends to smoking related cancers over the years. I recognize the incredible addictive properties of smoking, and do everything in my power as the manager of several smokers to assist them with smoking cessation efforts.

If you don't like my personal opinion, you can move on rather than try to instigate a pissy fight. At the very least, do NOT presume to know what I feel. You have absolutely no right to that.

[beachbum53]

[quote name='pbsteve']Option 3 was closest to that, but I didn't want to get too specific, since I wanted to leave a lot open for people to comment why. For example, one person might think staterooms, and indoor community decks but not cabin hallways, etc.

There are actually considerable amounts of studies about the chemicals used, over 70 years worth, it is one of the big myths that they are unstudied. The unstudied part is nicotine in the juice and the personal devices themselves. The FDA and EPA have already approved the juice without food grade flavoring and nicotine in applications where it will be breathed in. [COLOR=red]Big tobacco has spent millions a year trying to get in the way trying to block it since it cuts into their money.[/COLOR] If there's an effective (60% higher success rate than any other method) way to quit tobacco, I can see why.[/quote]

Since tobacco products are (heavily) taxed, by both the state and Federal governments, I suspect there's more than just the big tobacco companies try to block or hinder the manufacturing and sale of e-cigs.

[RuthlessBoss]

There are some gray areas in the poll, but I opted #3 (I think). Anyhow, I was just at a small event, inside and no smoking. One lady pulled out her e cig and started to use it (and the rest of us were smokers waiting for our outdoor break). She was told to put it away, and of course argued it was not a cigarette. (Duh, we knew that!). She was P.O.'d to say the least.

So, although e cigs are smokeless, there should be respect as to when to pull it out and use it.

[EnTnSA]

I see nothing wrong with vaping, except for the stupid name…lol

I could care less if everyone on the ship was vaping all at once.

[pbsteve]

[quote name='lyannea'][URL]http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/e-cigarette-dangers-fire-chiefs-warning-2949094[/URL]

Though rare, charging the lithium battery can have consequences. One man's ecig exploded in Florida.
Though rate, I wouldn't want this to happen anywhere, including a cruise ship[/quote]

[quote name='lyannea'][URL]http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/e-cigarettes-the-battery-may-be-the-real-problem-030714.html[/URL]

This is a more current article[/quote]


Heres a few more:
[URL]http://www.cnet.com/news/cell-phone-battery-catches-fire-burns-hackers-tail-at-defcon/[/URL]
[URL]http://www.google.com/url?url=http://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-cell-phone-battery-explodes-in-mans-pocket/&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=Isy-U4Zwhf6hBJ6qguAF&ved=0CCcQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNFKFyuMsYfUUNPCtHvruRWUILYVuA[/URL]

[URL]http://www.google.com/url?url=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/florida-woman-catches-fire-cellphone-explodes-article-1.1760791&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=Isy-U4Zwhf6hBJ6qguAF&ved=0CC4QFjAC&usg=AFQjCNFrBic9j2vYHBz7gdkl6QEQD1_hXg[/URL]

[URL]http://www.google.com/url?url=http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/02/21/students-cell-phone-battery-explodes-starts-a-fire/&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=Isy-U4Zwhf6hBJ6qguAF&ved=0CDIQtwIwAw&usg=AFQjCNF05uNDnwWZ7oAWm-_3QbSI4N0V7A[/URL]

[URL]http://www.google.com/url?url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/galaxy-s4-fire-explosion_n_3672346.html&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=Isy-U4Zwhf6hBJ6qguAF&ved=0CDYQFjAE&usg=AFQjCNHSQESwNX1hIyxX-d6kO107hvO7uw[/URL]

[URL]http://www.google.com/url?url=http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/safety_concerns_with_li_ion&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=Isy-U4Zwhf6hBJ6qguAF&ved=0CEQQFjAG&usg=AFQjCNEEn_wkIe3MSF_bRPqGQw1X-mQQmw[/URL]



Wait... sorry, those are cell phones, not ecigs. The lithium batteries used in cell phones, and vaporizers (as well as thousands of other products) are produced in only a few factories world wide. The risk exists with all of them, Most vaporizer fires, or ecig fires are due to using the wrong charger, just as if you jammed a dell charger into an HP laptop, it can cause fires.

[pbsteve]

[quote name='EnTnSA']I see nothing wrong with vaping, except for the stupid name…lol

I could care less if everyone on the ship was vaping all at once.[/quote]


Vaping or vaporizers are there to distinguish Ecigarettes from Vaporizers. the stigma with anything that says cigarettes is a horrible straight to hell sin.

For reference for people

Ecig: Made to look like cigarettes, convienent to quit smoking while not "looking silly", cartridges are replaced, not refilled, contains nicotine. CARNIVAL POLICY ADDRESSES THESE[img]https://www.eastcoastvapor.com/v/vspfiles/assets/images/electronic-cigarette-diagram.jpg[/img]



Vaporizer: Made to be functional, and long lasting. refillable, considerably larger, can be nicotine free. CARNIVAL POLICY DOES NOT ADDRESS THESE
[img]http://www.ecigarettedirect.co.uk/ashtray-blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/smokertanks_work-final-large.jpg[/img] Edited July 10, 2014 by pbsteve

[sc4125]

[quote name='GROUCHPUSS']I feel like walking through someones vapor cloud (even if you can't see the vapor cloud it is still there) would be like walking through a cough. If someone is sick that you are behind or just passing by, whatever germs they have coming out in vapor form you maybe walking right through them and not even know it. I don't want to be coughed on or sneezed on. So why would I want to be vap on?. Now I have NO medical back ground. So I could be way off base here, but I would think that the vapor coming out of another persons lungs has to have the possibility of spreading a lot of germs.[/quote]


Okay, I didn't read this yesterday, and haven't gotten to the end of the thread, so forgive me if I my reply to this is basically repeating someone else but....OMG!!! are you kidding me???

Wouldn't being "vap on" be the same as being breathed on??? And yes "the vapor coming out of another persons lungs has to have the possibility of spreading alot of germs." You do realize that whether vaping or not, when we exhale it comes from our lungs, right?

I've heard alot of anti-electronic cigarette people come up with some really odd arguments, but I have to give it to you - YOU WIN!!!!

[lyannea]

[quote name='pbsteve']Heres a few more:
[URL]http://www.cnet.com/news/cell-phone-battery-catches-fire-burns-hackers-tail-at-defcon/[/URL]
[URL]http://www.google.com/url?url=http://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-cell-phone-battery-explodes-in-mans-pocket/&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=Isy-U4Zwhf6hBJ6qguAF&ved=0CCcQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNFKFyuMsYfUUNPCtHvruRWUILYVuA[/URL]

[URL]http://www.google.com/url?url=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/florida-woman-catches-fire-cellphone-explodes-article-1.1760791&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=Isy-U4Zwhf6hBJ6qguAF&ved=0CC4QFjAC&usg=AFQjCNFrBic9j2vYHBz7gdkl6QEQD1_hXg[/URL]

[URL]http://www.google.com/url?url=http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/02/21/students-cell-phone-battery-explodes-starts-a-fire/&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=Isy-U4Zwhf6hBJ6qguAF&ved=0CDIQtwIwAw&usg=AFQjCNF05uNDnwWZ7oAWm-_3QbSI4N0V7A[/URL]

[URL]http://www.google.com/url?url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/galaxy-s4-fire-explosion_n_3672346.html&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=Isy-U4Zwhf6hBJ6qguAF&ved=0CDYQFjAE&usg=AFQjCNHSQESwNX1hIyxX-d6kO107hvO7uw[/URL]

[URL]http://www.google.com/url?url=http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/safety_concerns_with_li_ion&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=Isy-U4Zwhf6hBJ6qguAF&ved=0CEQQFjAG&usg=AFQjCNEEn_wkIe3MSF_bRPqGQw1X-mQQmw[/URL]



Wait... sorry, those are cell phones, not ecigs. The lithium batteries used in cell phones, and vaporizers (as well as thousands of other products) are produced in only a few factories world wide. The risk exists with all of them, Most vaporizer fires, or ecig fires are due to using the wrong charger, just as if you jammed a dell charger into an HP laptop, it can cause fires.[/QUOTE]
Agreed, utilizing the wrong charger has caused fires.I have to go back to the article about the San Diego man where the fire started as he was vaping and he lost part of his tongue.

How long have vapors been on the market vs computers /cell phones ?

[pbsteve]

[quote name='sc4125']Okay, I didn't read this yesterday, and haven't gotten to the end of the thread, so forgive me if I my reply to this is basically repeating someone else but....OMG!!! are you kidding me???

Wouldn't being "vap on" be the same as being breathed on??? And yes "the vapor coming out of another persons lungs has to have the possibility of spreading alot of germs." You do realize that whether vaping or not, when we exhale it comes from our lungs, right?

I've heard alot of anti-electronic cigarette people come up with some really odd arguments, but I have to give it to you - YOU WIN!!!![/QUOTE]
Continue reading till you get to my reply from this quote. A vapor cloud is better than your breath.

As far as how long, I do not know. I saw them about 6 years ago though. But if cell phones have been a long as long as they have and there's still fires... well its a mute point, it's the battery technology. Just look at the airbus plane that used the same battery as a phone and vaporizer.

[Natref]

I've been using an APV for 4 years and have no plans to stop no matter what the rules or laws are. I started with an E-Cig and upgraded when the mod builders first came out with a way to build your own atomizer.

I still use a cig-a-like battery when I travel or want to stealth vape in public. It is possible to take a drag in a public place and not let out a hint of vapor. If there is no exhaled vapor there is nothing to notice or set off any type of alarm.

There are lots of Youtube vids on the subject of stealth vaping.

I did enjoy my last cruise on HAL as vaping is allowed in all staterooms but when I'm on a Carnival ship I'm just a touch more careful with how I use it.

[Windy56]

[quote name='pbsteve']So with smoking gone on balconies... and please dont bother bringing it up here, theres 3 other threads on it... Where would you like to see Carnival allow Vaping.

If you don't know what Vaping is, please do a simple google search, or you will probably be made fun of relentlessly.

Please be respectful here, well thought out arguments are encouraged, because I said so or because broad statements without explanation is just counter productive.

My personal feeling.
Vaping should be allowed in state rooms, balconies, in the open air area's of the ship, as well as any indoor smoking areas such as the casino, Vaping leaves no residual smell or soot, so theres no damage to be done, and no smell for the next guests. I do NOT think it should be allowed in the non smoking venues such as the main theater. The reason is not for health, but because it is distracting to others. Dining room I think should also be off limits, as well as ship hallways, and non smoking indoor area's.

So, where do you think? Please comment as to why you voted the way you did. I am actually curious, no matter what the reason is, as I am sure many others are."[/QUOTE]

I have no opinion on vaping, but I do have on your signature quotation. It is very funny and oh so true. I just love it!

[pbsteve]

[quote name='Natref']I've been using an APV for 4 years and have no plans to stop no matter what the rules or laws are. I started with an E-Cig and upgraded when the mod builders first came out with a way to build your own atomizer.

I still use a cig-a-like battery when I travel or want to stealth vape in public. It is possible to take a drag in a public place and not let out a hint of vapor. If there is no exhaled vapor there is nothing to notice or set off any type of alarm.

There are lots of Youtube vids on the subject of stealth vaping.

I did enjoy my last cruise on HAL as vaping is allowed in all staterooms but when I'm on a Carnival ship I'm just a touch more careful with how I use it.[/QUOTE]

Hopefully carnival will change to hals vaping policy soon. Even princess allows it in staterooms. Edited July 10, 2014 by pbsteve

[SadieN]

The problem, as I see it, is Big Bad Wolf Syndrome. See something enough times and you tend to ignore it. Do not want to ignore smoke of an unknown origin on a ship. The vapor has the potential of looking like cigarette smoke.

Had an incident in the Big Red Barn at the LA County Fair.
Saw smoke inside the Big Red Barn (Old wood animal exhibit hall + pine shavings + a cigarette is not a good combination.) Thought the smoke was a cigarette but it was an e-cig. Next time I saw the smoke it was like "Oh, that's and e-cig." Potentially it could have been a real cigarette.


FWIW except for a battery or two exploding I haven't read any other mechinical (non-health) problems with these things.

[RDC1]

[quote name='pbsteve']Option 3 was closest to that, but I didn't want to get too specific, since I wanted to leave a lot open for people to comment why. For example, one person might think staterooms, and indoor community decks but not cabin hallways, etc.

There are actually considerable amounts of studies about the chemicals used, over 70 years worth, it is one of the big myths that they are unstudied. The unstudied part is nicotine in the juice and the personal devices themselves. The FDA and EPA have already approved the juice without food grade flavoring and nicotine in applications where it will be breathed in. Big tobacco has spent millions a year trying to get in the way trying to block it since it cuts into their money. If there's an effective (60% higher success rate than any other method) way to quit tobacco, I can see why.[/QUOTE]

While e-cigs are considerably better then cigarette they are still anything but healthy. I used to work for the FDA at the national center for toxicological research. There are still a range of potential problems.

1. small particles in the nm range. This is one of the worst issues. Still emited by e-cigs. In a well ventilated space only a few users are enough to put the air into the unhealthy range. Better then regular cigarettes, but still not good. Lots of data exists on small particulates and cancer and other diseases including lung and heart disease.

2. Lack of controls on what can be put into the liquids. You make comments about the components being tested, however that cannot be said with any certainty because there are no limits on what can be put in to the liquids. Tests have found some pretty toxic compounds in some the the liquids sold. A friend of mine tested one that was marketed as a butter popcorn flavor. Used the same compound that is used in popcorn flavorins, one approved to be eaten but not inhaled. The same compound used in plants where lung disease in through the roof and there is substantial information that the flavoring chemical is the cause. Still ok to be eaten though.

3. Tox test are conducted with a given use in mind. Something that might pass as an air freshener, might not pass as an inhaled, heated compound. Since you are saying that all of the components have been tested and ruled as safe by the FDA would like to see some references, because I cannot find them in the NIH database.

4. Nicotine very clearly is not a good substance to be exhaling into the air. Very clear impacts there. Not all is absorbed.

5. The devices themselves can be problematic. Some have shown to emit heavy metals. This is largely from cheap construction and are from the heating elements themselves. Again the lack of control and approval of the devices means who knows how a device is built.

Go to NIH and do a search on e-cig toxicity and you will find a number of interesting papers.

Bottom line is e-cigs are better then regular cigarettes for the smoker and those around the smoker. They are probably pretty safe as far as second hand exposure outside. They are not free from health issues for the smoker or those around them when used in an indoor space.

Even in a cabin where only the smoker is present you can run a swab and detect nicotine on the surfaces after a few sessions, if a liquid with nicotine is used.

It will probably be 20-30 years before one has a good idea on the long term impacts on the user themselves. Problems can be reduced by requiring both testing of the devices and the liquids to clearly identify components and particulates prior to market. (easily done, and pretty inexpensive) Too many fly by nights jumping into the market with minimal controls on the manufacturing process. Edited July 10, 2014 by RDC1

[pbsteve]

[quote name='RDC1']While e-cigs are considerably better then cigarette they are still anything but healthy. I used to work for the FDA at the national center for toxicological research. There are still a range of potential problems.

1. small particles in the nm range. This is one of the worst issues. Still emited by e-cigs. In a well ventilated space only a few users are enough to put the air into the unhealthy range. Better then regular cigarettes, but still not good. Lots of data exists on small particulates and cancer and other diseases including lung and heart disease.

2. Lack of controls on what can be put into the liquids. You make comments about the components being tested, however that cannot be said with any certainty because there are no limits on what can be put in to the liquids. Tests have found some pretty toxic compounds in some the the liquids sold. A friend of mine tested one that was marketed as a butter popcorn flavor. Used the same compound that is used in popcorn flavorins, one approved to be eaten but not inhaled. The same compound used in plants where lung disease in through the roof and there is substantial information that the flavoring chemical is the cause. Still ok to be eaten though.

3. Tox test are conducted with a given use in mind. Something that might pass as an air freshener, might not pass as an inhaled, heated compound. Since you are saying that all of the components have been tested and ruled as safe by the FDA would like to see some references, because I cannot find them in the NIH database.

4. Nicotine very clearly is not a good substance to be exhaling into the air. Very clear impacts there. Not all is absorbed.

5. The devices themselves can be problematic. Some have shown to emit heavy metals. This is largely from cheap construction and are from the heating elements themselves. Again the lack of control and approval of the devices means who knows how a device is built.

Go to NIH and do a search on e-cig toxicity and you will find a number of interesting papers.

Bottom line is e-cigs are better then regular cigarettes for the smoker and those around the smoker. They are probably pretty safe as far as second hand exposure outside. They are not free from health issues for the smoker or those around them when used in an indoor space.

Even in a cabin where only the smoker is present you can run a swab and detect nicotine on the surfaces after a few sessions, if a liquid with nicotine is used.

It will probably be 20-30 years before one has a good idea on the long term impacts on the user themselves. Problems can be reduced by requiring both testing of the devices and the liquids to clearly identify components and particulates prior to market. (easily done, and pretty inexpensive) Too many fly by nights jumping into the market with minimal controls on the manufacturing process.[/QUOTE]


Since you work at the FDA, you should have access to look up propylene glycol

[Quote]Propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol were first registered in 1950 and 1959, respectively, by the FDA for use in hospitals as air disinfectants. (page 4, paragraph 1).[/quote]
-Reregistration Eligibility Decision For Propylene Glycol and Dipropylene Glycol [url]http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/REDs/propylene_glycol_red.pdf[/url]

Once again. ... since people who work at the FDA clearly don't read the entire thread... here's a link to some of the studies on pg that's breathed in.


[url]https://vapersclub.com/pg.php[/url]

If you can't read 4 pages for the referenced materual, no wonder you cannot find it at work.

[RDC1]

[quote name='pbsteve']Since you work at the FDA, you should have access to look up propylene glycol


-Reregistration Eligibility Decision For Propylene Glycol and Dipropylene Glycol [url]http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/REDs/propylene_glycol_red.pdf[/url]

Once again. ... since people who work at the FDA clearly don't read the entire thread... here's a link to some of the studies on pg that's breathed in.


[url]https://vapersclub.com/pg.php[/url]

If you can't read 4 pages for the referenced materual, no wonder you cannot find it at work.[/QUOTE]

But you ignored my specific question. Where are the studies for inhaling heated Propylene Glycol. The studies you referenced are a range of studies in cleaning compounds, etc that deal with normal exposure, where exposure includes the potential for inhaling. Give me the list for those tested using heated Propylene Glycol, directly inhaled deeply into the lungs.

Again toxicity studies are based about intended use.

Also you implied all of the components are safe. Where are the studies dealing with heated and deeply inhaled flavorings (all of the ones in use).

WEDNESDAY, May 7, 2014 (HealthDay News) -- E-cigarettes may not be as harmless as they initially seemed. New research suggests that e-cigarette vapor produces tiny particles that users suck deep into their lungs, potentially causing or worsening respiratory diseases.

The particles are of comparable size to those contained in cigarette smoke, and as many as 40 percent of them reach the deepest part of the lungs when inhaled, said Jonathan Thornburg, lead investigator and a senior research engineer at RTI International, a North Carolina research institute.

That means if the particles turn out to be harmful, they'll be causing damage throughout the lungs.

"These small particles have a high surface area-to-volume ratio," Thornburg said. "When they deposit in your lungs, it makes it easy for whatever chemicals are in them to dissolve into your lung tissue." Those chemicals potentially could cause or worsen respiratory problems such as asthma or bronchitis.

In its review of emissions from two types of e-cigarettes, Thornburg's team did not find any toxic substances in the vapor produced by the devices.

"Everything we found was what the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] and others generally regard as safe," he said, noting that the cancer-causing agents produced by burning tobacco are not present in e-cigarettes.

But another new study raises the possibility that the liquids used to produce e-cigarette vapors could contain carcinogens or harmful ingredients, The New York Times reports.

The study found formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, in overheated vapor produced by high-power e-cigarette devices known as tank systems, the newspaper reported. These systems are larger devices than typical e-cigarettes, and are designed to vaporize liquid nicotine quickly to give users a bigger nicotine kick.

These studies provide even more impetus for the FDA's recent proposal to begin regulating e-cigarettes as tobacco products, said Dr. Norman Edelman, senior medical advisor for the American Lung Association. Edited July 11, 2014 by RDC1

[pbsteve]

Rook to knight 4
[url]http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/jam.2007.0626[/url]
[url]http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/36/4/390.pdfhttp://jpet.aspetjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/1/52[/url]

This is now the 3rd time I've posted these. All three of these specifically are about breathing in pg. The third one is quite intersting.

I have also not addressed unscrupulous places that sell bad ejuice. I have listed how the EPA study showed one sample with issues, and the store I go to that lists the ingredients.

Oh and in your quoted article, it specifically states if the particles turn out to be harmful, they'll be causing damage throughout the lungs.

Who would do a study about the dangers... and not test for them. By this study I can confirm if there's dangerous chemicals, they will do harm to all of the lungs... but the same is true of airplane air. Ooh I forgot the other study linked about theater fog... created with pg Edited July 11, 2014 by pbsteve

[RDC1]

Electronic Cigarettes
Rachel A. Grana, PhD, MPH; Pamela M. Ling, MD, MPH; Neal Benowitz, MD; Stanton Glantz, PhD

extraction

The claim that e-cigarettes emit only harmless water vapor is not true.1 Although e-cigarette aerosol delivers lower levels of many toxins than cigarette smoke, the aerosol still contains nicotine, ultrafine particles, other toxic chemicals, and carcinogens. Users inhale a heated propylene glycol or glycerin-based solution for which there are no long-term studies. A short-term exposure study showed that 5 minutes of e-cigarette use resulted in a significant increase in airway flow resistance, which, although of unknown clinical significance, does not support the claim the product is harmless.2

There is poor correlation between labeled and actual nicotine content, as well as varying levels of other chemicals and toxicants in the e-liquid and aerosol.1 Nonsmokers (persons who do not use tobacco cigarettes or e-cigarettes) who are exposed to the exhaled, or secondhand, e-cigarette aerosol have measurable levels of the nicotine metabolite cotinine in their blood.1

[RDC1]

By the way check out the CDC ToxFaqs for Propylene Glycol

Has the federal government made recommendations to protect human health?
The Food and Drug Administration has classified propylene glycol as "generally recognized as safe," which means that it is acceptable for use in flavorings, drugs, and cosmetics, and as a direct food additive.

Note that it does not say for heated inhaled applications.

that might be because

What is propylene glycol?
Propylene glycol is a clear, colorless, slightly syrupy liquids at room temperature. It may exist in air in the vapor form, although propylene glycol must be heated or briskly shaken to produce a vapor. Propylene glycol is practically odorless and tasteless.

Propylene glycol is used to make antifreeze and deicing solutions for cars, airplanes, and boats; to make polyester compounds; and as solvent in the paint and plastics industries.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has classified propylene glycol as an additive that is "generally recognized as safe" for use in food. It is used to absorb extra water and maintain moisture in certain medicines, cosmetics, or food products. It is a solvent for food colors and flavors.


Note the must be heated or shaken briskly to produce vapor so most approvals assume minimal vapor exposure

What happens to propylene glycol when it enters the environment?
Propylene glycol is not likely to exist in large amounts in air.
About half of the propylene glycol that enters the air will break down in 24�50 hours.
It will break down within several days to a week in water and soil.


Note again the assumption that Propylene glycol is not likely to exist in the air

How can propylene glycol affect my health?
Propylene glycol increases the amount of acid in the body. However, large amounts of propylene glycol are needed to cause this effect.

Propylene glycol breaks down at the same rate as ethylene glycol, although it does not form harmful crystals when it breaks down.

Frequent skin exposure to propylene glycol can sometimes irritate the skin.


Note that it is a skin irritant, interesting how that might translate to the lung with frequent deeply inhaled exposure

[pbsteve]

Bishop to knight 3


The following is the abstract from a study done by the following doctors: O. H. ROBERTSON, CLAYTON G. LOOSLI, THEODORE T. PUCK, HENRY WISE, HENRY M. LEMON and WILLIAM LESTER, JR. It is entitled: TESTS FOR THE CHRONIC TOXICITY OF PROPYLEXE GLYCOL AND TRIETHYLENE GLYCOL ON MONKEYS AND RATS BY VAPOR INHALATION AND ORAL ADMINISTRATION. Citation

“With a view to determining the safety of employing the vapors of propylene glycol and triethylene glycol in atmospheres inhabited by human beings, monkeys and rats were exposed continuously to high concentrations of these vapors for periods of 12 to 18 months. Equal numbers of control animals were maintained under physically similar conditions. Long term tests of the effects on ingesting triethylene glycol were also carried out. The doses administered represented 50 to 700 times the amount of glycol the animal could absorb by breathing air saturated with the glycol.

Comparative observations on the growth rates, blood counts, urine examinations, kidney function tests, fertility and general condition of the test and control groups, exhibited no essential differences between them with the exception that the rats in the glycol atmospheres exhibited consistently higher weight gains. Some drying of the skin of the monkeys’ faces occurred after several months continuous exposure to a heavy fog of triethylene glycol. However, when the vapor concentration was maintained just below saturation by means of the glycostat this effect did not occur.

Examination at autopsy likewise failed to reveal any differences between the animals kept in glycolized air and those living in the ordinary room atmosphere. Extensive histological study of the lungs was made to ascertain whether the glycol had produced any generalized or local irritation. None was found. The kidneys, liver, spleen and bone marrow also were normal.

The results of these experiments in conjunction with the absence of any observed ill effects in patients exposed to both triethylene glycol and propylene glycol vapors for months at a time, provide assurance that air containing these vapors in amounts up to the saturation point is completely harmless

[RDC1]

[quote name='pbsteve']Rook to knight 4
[url]http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/jam.2007.0626[/url]
[url]http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/36/4/390.pdfhttp://jpet.aspetjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/1/52[/url]

This is now the 3rd time I've posted these. All three of these specifically are about breathing in pg. The third one is quite intersting.

I have also not addressed unscrupulous places that sell bad ejuice. I have listed how the EPA study showed one sample with issues, and the store I go to that lists the ingredients.

Oh and in your quoted article, it specifically states if the particles turn out to be harmful, they'll be causing damage throughout the lungs.

Who would do a study about the dangers... and not test for them. By this study I can confirm if there's dangerous chemicals, they will do harm to all of the lungs... but the same is true of airplane air. Ooh I forgot the other study linked about theater fog... created with pg[/QUOTE]

The following is an abstract from the first study

J Aerosol Med. 2007 Winter;20(4):417-28.
Preclinical safety evaluation of inhaled cyclosporine in propylene glycol.
Wang T1, Noonberg S, Steigerwalt R, Lynch M, Kovelesky RA, Rodríguez CA, Sprugel K, Turner N.
Author information
Abstract
Cyclosporine inhalation solution has the potential to improve outcomes following lung transplantation by delivering high concentrations of an immunosuppressant directly to the allograft while minimizing systemic drug exposure and associated toxicity. The objective of these studies was to evaluate the potential toxicity of aerosolized cyclosporine formulated in propylene glycol when given by inhalation route to rats and dogs for 28 days. Sprague-Dawley rats received total inhaled doses of 0 (air), 0 (vehicle, propylene glycol), 7.4, 24.3, and 53.9 mg cyclosporine/kg/day. In a separate study, beagle dogs were exposed to 0, 4.4, 7.7, and 9.7 mg cyclosporine/kg/day. Endpoints used to evaluate potential toxicity of inhaled cyclosporine were clinical observations, body weight, food consumption, respiratory functions, toxicokinetics, and clinical/anatomic pathology. Daily administration of aerosolized cyclosporine did not result in observable accumulation of cyclosporine in blood or lung tissue. Toxicokinetic analysis from the rat study showed that the exposure of cyclosporine was approximately 18 times higher in the lung tissue compared to the blood. Systemic effects were consistent with those known for cyclosporine. There was no unexpected systemic toxicity or clinically limiting local respiratory toxicity associated with inhalation exposure to cyclosporine inhalation solution at exposures up to 2.7 times the maximum human exposure in either rats or dogs. There were no respiratory or systemic effects of high doses of propylene glycol relative to air controls. These preclinical studies demonstrate the safety of aerosolized cyclosporine in propylene glycol and support its continued clinical investigation in patients undergoing allogeneic lung transplantation.


First it was a short term pre-clinical study in dogs and rats when Propylene glycol was used with cyclosporine. The test was designed to look at dosing and toxicity for cyclosporine. While it included propylene glycol the tox look there was only a comparison with baseline. Not a true indepth look at the transport material. Also the dose was not anyway equivalent to someone vaping heated vapor several times a day. It appears from the abstract to be single doses per day based upon weight, cannot be sure of that without going to the library and getting the actual paper.

Note the paper was in 2007 if it was such a good example of proof of propylene glycol as a safe delivery vehicle why hasn't it moved into human trials.

[RDC1]

[quote name='pbsteve']Rook to knight 4
[url]http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/jam.2007.0626[/url]
[url]http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/36/4/390.pdfhttp://jpet.aspetjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/1/52[/url]

This is now the 3rd time I've posted these. All three of these specifically are about breathing in pg. The third one is quite intersting.

I have also not addressed unscrupulous places that sell bad ejuice. I have listed how the EPA study showed one sample with issues, and the store I go to that lists the ingredients.

Oh and in your quoted article, it specifically states if the particles turn out to be harmful, they'll be causing damage throughout the lungs.

Who would do a study about the dangers... and not test for them. By this study I can confirm if there's dangerous chemicals, they will do harm to all of the lungs... but the same is true of airplane air. Ooh I forgot the other study linked about theater fog... created with pg[/QUOTE]

when I click on the second reference I get a list of articles from 1946 not exactly cutting edge science, but which specific article are you referencing?

[RDC1]

[quote name='pbsteve']Bishop to knight 3


The following is the abstract from a study done by the following doctors: O. H. ROBERTSON, CLAYTON G. LOOSLI, THEODORE T. PUCK, HENRY WISE, HENRY M. LEMON and WILLIAM LESTER, JR. It is entitled: TESTS FOR THE CHRONIC TOXICITY OF PROPYLEXE GLYCOL AND TRIETHYLENE GLYCOL ON MONKEYS AND RATS BY VAPOR INHALATION AND ORAL ADMINISTRATION. Citation

“With a view to determining the safety of employing the vapors of propylene glycol and triethylene glycol in atmospheres inhabited by human beings, monkeys and rats were exposed continuously to high concentrations of these vapors for periods of 12 to 18 months. Equal numbers of control animals were maintained under physically similar conditions. Long term tests of the effects on ingesting triethylene glycol were also carried out. The doses administered represented 50 to 700 times the amount of glycol the animal could absorb by breathing air saturated with the glycol.

Comparative observations on the growth rates, blood counts, urine examinations, kidney function tests, fertility and general condition of the test and control groups, exhibited no essential differences between them with the exception that the rats in the glycol atmospheres exhibited consistently higher weight gains. Some drying of the skin of the monkeys’ faces occurred after several months continuous exposure to a heavy fog of triethylene glycol. However, when the vapor concentration was maintained just below saturation by means of the glycostat this effect did not occur.

Examination at autopsy likewise failed to reveal any differences between the animals kept in glycolized air and those living in the ordinary room atmosphere. Extensive histological study of the lungs was made to ascertain whether the glycol had produced any generalized or local irritation. None was found. The kidneys, liver, spleen and bone marrow also were normal.

The results of these experiments in conjunction with the absence of any observed ill effects in patients exposed to both triethylene glycol and propylene glycol vapors for months at a time, provide assurance that air containing these vapors in amounts up to the saturation point is completely harmless[/QUOTE]

uh this is the 1947 article

J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1947 Sep;91(1):52-76.
Tests for the chronic toxicity of propylene glycol and triethylene glycol on monkeys and rats by vapor inhalation and oral administration.
ROBERTSON OH, LOOSLI CG, et al.


Not exactly a modern study with modern blood chemistry and modern safety and tox studies.

I can probably find studies from that era saying that cigarettes were also totally safe especially since the end point was gross pathology of organs, and not blood chemistry markers.

Oh you really have to have more then this.

Would be interesting to see if they did a followup 10 years later. Oh they couldn't because their test animals had to be sacrificed to provide the pathology data because they did not have the chemical markers in those days. Edited July 11, 2014 by RDC1