|
|
KKM memang nak kena sekolah? 
|
This post contains more resources
You have to Login for download or view attachment(s). No Account? Register
x
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#VapeSIHAT -- Analysis of the smoke from conventional cigarettes showed that the mainstream cigarette smoke delivered approximately 1500 times more harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs) tested when compared to e-cigarette aerosol or to puffing room air.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/sci ... i/S0273230014002505 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Facts About Vaping That Shut Down The Haters
by Mr. Cloud | Nov 4, 2014 | Vaping | 162 comments
Facts About Vaping That Shut Down The Haters
Vaping may not provide us with vitamins and nourishing minerals to sustain life, but it would suffice to say most of the noise surrounding this topic is just that – brouhaha. Well, we wanted to save you the trouble of looking it all up, trying to discern truth from fiction!
We have compiled a list of vaping facts supported by various studies conducted over the years. Here’s what you should know.
Second-hand Vapor has Nicotine, but it Lacks Combustible ToxinsPublished by the Oxford Journal in December 2013, it involved an examination of the toxins that might be present in second-hand vapor. Scientists established that there are no combustion-related toxins present in vapor which also contains small quantities of nicotine.
However, it was agreed that more work needs to be done to determine whether there is any risk associated with second-hand nicotine exposure, a topic that still attracts divided opinion.
http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/co ... .ntt203.short?rss=1
E-cigs do not stiffen the Arteries
This one was courtesy of Greek researchers from the Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center who compared the impact of e-cigs versus burners (traditional cigarettes) on heart function. Guess what they found out?
Two tobacco cigarettes will stiffen the aorta. E-cigarettes, on the other hand, made no difference to the aorta, and were not found to stiffen the arteries.
facts about vaping
http://www.ecigarette-research.com/EUROECHO2013-ecigs.pdf
E-cigs have no Effect on the Oxygenation of the Heart
This one was courtesy of Dr. Konstantino Farsalinos who wanted to establish if vaping does indeed impact on oxygenation of the heart. The results were in the negative: e-ciggies do not affect oxygen supply and coronary circulation in general.
The findings would later make their way to the European Society of Cardiology Annual Congress that was held in Amsterdam in 2013.
http://spo.escardio.org/eslides/view.aspx?eevtid=54&fp=1375
E-liquid has no Adverse Effects on Heart Health
Scientists from the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health studied the impact of e-liquids on heart cells.
They would go on to test 20 different e-liquids and the general consensus was that vapor had no negative effect on cardiac cells.
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/10/10/5146
E-cigarettes are Effective in stopping Smoking and Inhibiting Relapse
One of the commonly misconstrued facts about vaping is whether electronic cigarettes can really help one quit smoking.
A team from the University of Geneva joined forces with University of Auckland researchers to study the impact of e-cigs on ex-smokers. The conclusion was that e-cigarettes could prevent former smokers from relapsing into the habit again, and they could effectively provide succor to current smokers to kick the habit.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/sci ... i/S0306460313003304
Smoking is Deadly, and so is E-cig Regulation
Dr. Gilbert Ross is a medical and executive director of the American Council on Science and health.
He tabled a comprehensive report on e-cigs, and his conclusion was that you can use common sense to determine that e-cigarettes are much healthier than combustibles. He also noted that regulation of e-cigarettes could be a fatal decision for public health.
http://www.american.com/archive/ ... igarette-regulation
E-cigs are not a Gateway for Tobacco Abuse amongst Teens
Dr. Ted Wagener studied the impact of e-cig use on 1,300 college students.
The researcher from the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center found that only a single person who first used nicotine disguised as e-cigarettes later took to tobacco cigarettes, concluding that e-cigarettes should not be used as a scapegoat for tobacco use.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot. ... ne-e-cigarette.html
Flavored E-liquids can help Smokers Quit
Another study by Dr. Konstantino Farsalinos looked into the effect of flavored e-liquids on the success rate of smokers looking to quit.
Part of his findings was that e-liquid flavoring is an ‘important contributor’ in cutting down cigarette use, or eliminating it entirely.
http://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Smokers Improve Health after Switching to Vaping
A team of independent university researchers wanted to know if switching to e-cigs had any impact on one’s health.
They established that 91% of smokers that switched allegiance to e-cigarettes tended to have improved health. They also found that 97% of those reduced or entirely saw off chronic coughs.
http://tobaccoharmreduction.org/wpapers/011v1.pdf
E-liquids pose no Public Health Concerns
Prof. Igor Burstyn of the Drexel university School of Public Health wanted to determine if the chemicals present in e-liquids could be dangerous.
He ended up refuting all those prevalent health concerns regarding e-liquids that most mistake to be facts about vaping.
http://publichealth.drexel.edu/~ ... lichealth/ms08.ashx
Electronic Cigarettes Reduce the Risk of Tobacco-related Deaths
Scientists from the Boston University of Public Health examined the impact of electronic cigarettes on mortality risks compared to tobacco.
They concluded that the former are a far safer alternative.
http://www.palgrave-journals.com ... pdf/jphp201041a.pdf
Second-hand Exposure to Vapor has no Health Risks
A group of French scientists established that vapor dissipated within 11 seconds on average. Conversely, cigarette smoke lingered for about 20 minutes on average.
The consensus was that second-hand exposure to e-cig vapor poses no public risk.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/sci ... i/S0761842513000855
Taken at The ECC Expo 2014 in Ontario, CA. Chillum Vapor
E-cigarettes have no major Respiratory Impact
Juxtaposing first and second-hand impacts of exposure to e-cig vapor, some researchers wanted to learn how it would impact on respiratory function.
It was established that second-hand exposure to tobacco smoke had a damaging effect on lung function as compared to first-hand exposure to e-cig vapor. It was also agreed that electronic cigarettes do not cause any acute respiratory harm.
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08958378.2012.758197
The Last Word on Vaping Facts
These facts about vaping are just a handful of the dozens of studies that are being conducted. Vaping is a controversial subject, so you can definitely expect more to follow.
http://www.vapersoul.com/facts-about-vaping/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kaedah pasang kapas utk subtank 
|
This post contains more resources
You have to Login for download or view attachment(s). No Account? Register
x
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This post contains more resources
You have to Login for download or view attachment(s). No Account? Register
x
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nie antara jenis2 box mod vape generasi ke-3.. agaknya laa
|
This post contains more resources
You have to Login for download or view attachment(s). No Account? Register
x
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The vaporizers are disrupting too many industries. The drug industry would prefer to sell cessation meds, patches, gums, lozenges, inhalers that do not work well to foster repeat business. If they fail, well, you'll just end up paying them even more once you fall ill.
5% Success rate of nicotine-laced chicklets that cost about $2.00 to produce, sold for $40. FDA-approved method of quitting. In fact, in many cities, the city will buy it for you through a quitline. That must be a nice contract.
The pharmacies are the direct purveyors of these products, and everyone from the grocery stores, gas stations, convenience stores to liquor stores are in the tobacco business.
Despite the theatrics presented 'against' tobacco, it remains legal and widely available for a reason. Before vaporizers came along, people wooed by the allure of smoking did not have much of an option but to buy into the scheme. Old money is not to keen on this vaping craze.
It's a question of defending the deep-pocketed and immoral status quo, or supporting small business and actually doing something about the tobacco plague.
It's fortunate that, despite the best efforts of the established titans of government & industry, the ingenuity of human nature is prevailing again, and there's little argument against the wisdom in vaping as an answer to (or advancement from) smoking.
The academic research and evidence suggesting e-cigarettes are at least 95 percent and as much as 99 percent healthier than combustible cigarettes continues to mount. https://www.atr.org/new-cdc-data-more-9-million-adults-vape-regularly-united-states
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New CDC Data: More Than 9 Million Adults Vape Regularly in the United States
Posted by Paul Blair on Monday, November 9th, 2015, 7:53 AM
A recently released report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showed that in 2014, 3.7 percent of American adults used electronic cigarettes or vapor products on a regular basis. That figure represents more than 9 million adult consumers, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db217.pdf
E-cigarettes are tobacco-free technology products, which are increasingly being used as smoking cessation tools for traditional cigarette users. The National Health Interview Survey also revealed that 12.6 percent of adults in the U.S. have tried an e-cigarette at least once.
Key CDC Survey Findings:
- About 3.7 percent of adults used e-cigarettes every day or some days;
- Almost one-half of current cigarette smokers (47.6%) and more than one-half of recent former cigarette smokers (55.4%) had ever tried an e-cigarette;
- About one in six current cigarette smokers (15.9%) and nearly one in four recent former cigarette smokers (22.0%) currently used e-cigarettes;
- Fewer than 4 percent of adults who had never smoked conventional cigarettes have ever tried an e-cigarette.
The academic research and evidence suggesting e-cigarettes are at least 95 percent and as much as 99 percent healthier than combustible cigarettes continues to mount. Despite the potential boon to public health, tax-hungry lawmakers and fraudulent “public health” groups have waged a war on vaping, pushing for excise taxes on the products throughout the U.S. https://www.gov.uk/government/ne ... tes-landmark-review
The same groups that for years argued we had to raise taxes on cigarettes to decrease use are now pushing for tax hikes on the products actually achieving that exact goal among adult smokers.
Threats of imposing excise, or “sin taxes” on e-cigarettes have varied state by state. States like Washington, Vermont, and Oregon have considered wholesale tobacco taxes as high as 95 percent. The reaction of the small business vape shops, working in their communities to help smokers quit has been consistent. The threat of taxation stands to kill their businesses, and the public health benefits they are providing. http://www.atr.org/governor-jay- ... x-hikes-2015-budget
A recent tax hike imposed in the District of Columbia immediately resulted in the closure of at least one business, which couldn’t afford to compete and comply. http://dcist.com/2015/11/into_thin_air_owner_of_now-closed_f.php
Politicians waging a war on vaping are doing so to balance bloated budgets on the backs of smokers trying to live healthier lives. If these big government bureaucrats wanted to help people actually quit smoking, they would embrace the growing evidence suggesting these products could save governments billions in health care costs and millions of lives. http://www.statebudgetsolutions. ... e-medicaid-billions
9 million adult consumers aren’t going to sit idly by as the products they accurately attribute to saving their lives are under the threat of prohibition. With the growing number of adult e-cigarette consumers in the United States, vapers represent a significant single-issue voting bloc. Candidates for federal, state, and local office would be wise to recognize this constituency as the latest addition to the “Leave Us Alone” coalition, especially in swing states and close elections. http://www.atr.org/atr-supports- ... rification-act-2015
https://www.atr.org/new-cdc-data-more-9-million-adults-vape-regularly-united-states |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by Acong at 30-11-2015 11:22 AM
Press release
E-cigarettes around 95% less harmful than tobacco estimates landmark review
From: Public Health England
First published: 19 August 2015
Part of: Smoking
Expert independent review concludes that e-cigarettes have potential to help smokers quit.
An expert independent evidence review published today by Public Health England (PHE) concludes that e-cigarettes are significantly less harmful to health than tobacco and have the potential to help smokers quit smoking. https://www.gov.uk/government/pu ... -an-evidence-update
Key findings of the review include:
- the current best estimate is that e-cigarettes are around 95% less harmful than smoking
- nearly half the population (44.8%) don’t realise e-cigarettes are much less harmful than smoking
- there is no evidence so far that e-cigarettes are acting as a route into smoking for children or non-smokers
The review, commissioned by PHE and led by Professor Ann McNeill (King’s College London) and Professor Peter Hajek (Queen Mary University of London), suggests that e-cigarettes may be contributing to falling smoking rates among adults and young people. Following the review PHE has published a paper on the implications of the evidence for policy and practice. https://www.gov.uk/government/pu ... -an-evidence-update
The comprehensive review of the evidence finds that almost all of the 2.6 million adults using e-cigarettes in Great Britain are current or ex-smokers, most of whom are using the devices to help them quit smoking or to prevent them going back to cigarettes. It also provides reassurance that very few adults and young people who have never smoked are becoming regular e-cigarette users (less than 1% in each group).
However, the review raises concerns that increasing numbers of people think e-cigarettes are equally or more harmful than smoking (22.1% in 2015, up from 8.1% in 2013: ASH Smokefree GB survey) or don’t know (22.7% in 2015, ASH Smokefree GB survey).
Despite this trend all current evidence finds that e-cigarettes carry a fraction of the risk of smoking.
Emerging evidence suggests some of the highest successful quit rates are now seen among smokers who use an e-cigarette and also receive additional support from their local stop smoking services.
Professor Kevin Fenton, Director of Health and Wellbeing at Public Health England said:
Smoking remains England’s number one killer and the best thing a smoker can do is to quit completely, now and forever.
E-cigarettes are not completely risk free but when compared to smoking, evidence shows they carry just a fraction of the harm. The problem is people increasingly think they are at least as harmful and this may be keeping millions of smokers from quitting. Local stop smoking services should look to support e-cigarette users in their journey to quitting completely.
Professor Ann McNeill, King’s College London and independent author of the review, said:
There is no evidence that e-cigarettes are undermining England’s falling smoking rates. Instead the evidence consistently finds that e-cigarettes are another tool for stopping smoking and in my view smokers should try vaping and vapers should stop smoking entirely.
E-cigarettes could be a game changer in public health in particular by reducing the enormous health inequalities caused by smoking.
Professor Peter Hajek, Queen Mary University London and independent author of the review said:
My reading of the evidence is that smokers who switch to vaping remove almost all the risks smoking poses to their health. Smokers differ in their needs and I would advise them not to give up on e-cigarettes if they do not like the first one they try. It may take some experimentation with different products and e-liquids to find the right one.
Professor Linda Bauld, Cancer Research UK’s expert in cancer prevention, said:
Fears that e-cigarettes have made smoking seem normal again or even led to people taking up tobacco smoking are not so far being realised based on the evidence assessed by this important independent review. In fact, the overall evidence points to e-cigarettes actually helping people to give up smoking tobacco.
Free Stop Smoking Services remain the most effective way for people to quit but we recognise the potential benefits for e-cigarettes in helping large numbers of people move away from tobacco.
Cancer Research UK is funding more research to deal with the unanswered questions around these products including the longer-term impact.
Lisa Surtees, acting director at Fresh Smoke Free North East, the first region where all local stop smoking services are actively promoted as e-cigarette friendly, said:
Despite making great strides to reduce smoking, tobacco is still our biggest killer. Our region has always kept an open mind towards using electronic cigarettes as we can see the massive potential health benefits from switching.
All of our local NHS Stop Smoking Services now proactively welcome anyone who wants to use these devices as part of their quit attempt and increase their chance of success.
Ends
https://www.gov.uk/government/ne ... tes-landmark-review
|
This post contains more resources
You have to Login for download or view attachment(s). No Account? Register
x
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
terima kasih @dodolgemok
tajuk dah bagitau jangan vape sampai hangit.....
Wed Jan 21, 2015 | 5:00 PM EST
Ramping up e-cigarette voltage produces more formaldehyde -study
By Toni Clarke
WASHINGTON Jan 21 (Reuters) - People who smoke high-voltage e-cigarettes have greater exposure to formaldehyde, a suspected carcinogen, than those who keep the voltage low, according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine on Wednesday.
The study, which critics say is misleading and lacks context, is the latest contribution to a debate on the safety of e-cigarettes that has so far has yielded little long-term data, though most experts believe they are less toxic than combustible cigarettes.
Researchers from Portland State University took flavored nicotine liquid made by Halo Cigs, a private company, and tested it in a personal vaporizer from Innokin. The vaporizer allows consumers to adjust the voltage from 3.3V to 5.0V. The higher the voltage the greater the nicotine kick, but also the greater the amount of formaldehyde.
E-cigarette liquids typically contain propylene glycol, which when heated is known to release formaldehyde gas. "Vaping" at high voltage also produced formaldehyde-containing compounds known as hemiacetals, the researchers found.
Formaldehyde inhaled as a gas been associated with an increased risk of leukemia and nasopharyngeal cancer, which affects the upper part of the throat behind the nose.
It is not known exactly where formaldehyde contained in hemiacetals gets deposited in the body or whether it is similarly toxic, said James Pankow, one of the study's authors.
"There has never been a cancer study with hemiacetals," Pankow said in an interview.
Absent such a study, the authors estimated the formaldehyde-related cancer risk associated with e-cigarettes by extrapolating from data on formaldehyde in cigarettes.
They concluded that the life-time risk of developing formaldehyde-related cancer at roughly 1 in 200 for high-voltage e-cigarettes versus 1 in 1,000 for cigarettes - at least five times higher. They found no increased risk for people vaping at a low voltage.
Dr. Neal Benowitz, a nicotine expert at the University of California, San Francisco, said the study could prove useful to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as it prepares to regulate e-cigarettes, potentially including limits on formaldehyde.
But he questioned the legitimacy of comparing the effect of formaldehyde delivered in a cigarette to that delivered via hemiacetal, in droplet form, in an e-cigarette. The effect on organs could be entirely different, he said.
Other critics said that in the real world most "vapers" do not push the voltage to the levels seen in the study as the taste would become unpalatable. They also noted that the overall health risk of conventional cigarettes, which contain 70,000 toxins in addition to formaldehyde, is far greater than any formaldehyde risk associated with e-cigarettes.
"Lifelong smokers face a greater than 1 in 2 chance of dying from smoking-related diseases, including a roughly 1 in 10 chance of dying from lung cancer," said Jed Rose, director of the Center for Smoking Cessation at Duke University Medical Center.
Pankow conceded that the study could have contained more context about overall relative risk, but said the authors "just wanted to get it out."
They submitted it to the NEJM in the form of a letter, which a spokeswoman for the journal said was peer-reviewed. Pankow said letters tend to be less detailed than other studies.
David Abrams, executive director of the Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies at the anti-tobacco group Legacy, said he was concerned the study would be taken out of context "in the worst possible way."
For most vapers who use e-cigarettes as intended, he said, the findings show "there are non-detectable levels of formaldehyde ... which means people can use them to help them quit smoking lethal cigarettes."
(Reporting by Toni Clarke in Washington; Editing by Michele Gershberg and Richard Chang)
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N0UZ24620150121
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acong replied at 6-12-2015 04:53 AM
terima kasih @dodolgemok
So yg dua lgi link aku bgi tu tanak tepek dan bole jugak ka? Anyway, byk majlis fatwa negeri dah haramkan vape. Kalau nak vape jugak, apa kata dihidangkan sekali BABI golek bagi memeriahkan lgi pesta haram ummah suchi meleis. Kahkahkah...!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nah TOLOL... cuba baca part yg aku BOLD & highlight....
nie artikel ko bagi...
ko nie mmg BODOH? 
They concluded that the life-time risk of developing formaldehyde-related cancer at roughly 1 in 200 for high-voltage e-cigarettes versus 1 in 1,000 for cigarettes - at least five times higher. They found no increased risk for people vaping at a low voltage. --- sohai mana vape sampai hangit???
Other critics said that in the real world most "vapers" do not push the voltage to the levels seen in the study as the taste would become unpalatable. They also noted that the overall health risk of conventional cigarettes, which contain 70,000 toxins in addition to formaldehyde, is far greater than any formaldehyde risk associated with e-cigarettes.
For most vapers who use e-cigarettes as intended, he said, the findings show "there are non-detectable levels of formaldehyde ... which means people can use them to help them quit smoking lethal cigarettes."
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N0UZ24620150121
nie pun dah tak valid.........
With the public health community sharply divided over the potential benefit and harm of the popular device—and with conclusive scientific evidence in short supply—the World Health Organization (WHO) released a report in August 2014 that raised serious questions about the health impact of e-cigarettes and called for a ban on indoor use and sales to minors. The report expressed “grave concern” over the growing role of multinational tobacco companies, warning that they could turn e-cigarettes into a gateway for a new generation of smokers at a time when a decades-long public health campaign has successfully reduced smoking rates in the US and other developed countries.
Also in August 2014, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported that more than a quarter million youth who had never smoked a cigarette used e-cigarettes in 2013, three times the number of users since 2011. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed bringing e-cigarettes under its control alongside tobacco in the spring of 2014, but that proposal is enmeshed in debate and lawsuits. Dozens of states and cities across the country, including Boston, have already banned the use of e-cigarettes indoors.
http://www.bu.edu/research/articles/behind-the-vapor/
ini jurnal yg lebih terkini........
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
Volume 70, Issue 3, December 2014, Pages 704–710
Comparison of select analytes in aerosol from e-cigarettes with smoke from conventional cigarettes and with ambient air
Rana Tayyarah, , Gerald A. Long
Lorillard Tobacco Company, PO Box 21688, Greensboro, NC, USA
Received 31 July 2014, Available online 24 October 2014
• The e-cigarettes contained and delivered mostly glycerin and/or PG and water. • Aerosol nicotine content was 85% lower than the cigarette smoke nicotine. • The levels of HPHCs in aerosol were consistent with the air blanks (<2 μg/puff). • Mainstream cigarette smoke HPHCs (～3000 μg/puff) were 1500 times higher than e-cigarette HPHCs. • No significant contribution of tested HPHC classes was found for the e-cigarettes. http://www.sciencedirect.com/sci ... i/S0273230014002505
macam mana pun aku ucap terima kasih kat usaha ko pasal bantu aku dapatkan artikel tambahan benefits vape vs rokok
p/s - jangan majuk k... pls advise kawan ko yg merokok supaya beralih ke vaping
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@dodolgemok nak tunjuk BODOH lagi?
http://www.clivebates.com/?p=2706
January 21st, 2015
Spreading fear and confusion with misleading formaldehyde studies
Another alarmist and deeply misleading story about formaldehyde and e-cigarettes has now emerged in the New England Journal of Medicine: Jensen et al Hidden Formaldehyde in E-cigarette Aerosols. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1413069
Short summary. This experiment, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, operated the vaping device at a such a high temperature that it produced thermal breakdown products (so-called dry puff conditions), but no user would ever be able to use it this way – the vapour would be too acrid. They went on to calculate human cancer risk from these unrealistic machine measurements and presented the data in way that was bound to mislead, which it duly did and created a world-wide media storm. This was irresponsible science, careless publishing, and credulous journalism adversely changing the perceptions of the relative risks of smoking and vaping in a way that will cause harm. The paper should be retracted in its entirety.
Just before it was published, I wrote to the corresponding authors and the editor of the journal, and I would like to share my open letters.
Open letter to authors
I sent this letter to the authors 12 hours before the 5pm EST 21 January 2015 publication embargo, hoping they would have the integrity to pull it.
From: Clive Bates
Date: 21 January 2015 at 11:54 (GMT+2)
Subject: Hidden Formaldehyde in E-cigarette Aerosols – some questions and concerns
To: Peyton, Pankow
Hidden Formaldehyde in E-cigarette Aerosols – some questions and concerns
21 January 2015
Dear Dr Peyton, Dr Pankow
I write with reference to the forthcoming letter “Hidden Formaldehyde in E-cigarette Aerosols” to be published in the New England Journal of Medicine, under a 5pm EST 21 January 2015 embargo.
Given the great potential for these findings and the related cancer-risk calculations to cause damaging confusion and fear among smokers and vapers, I would be grateful if you could clarify the following:
1. What care was taken to ensure that the puff regime used was a reasonable proxy for human use and exposure? The letter does not detail any attempt to calibrate the puffing regime used in the experiment to match real-world vaping behaviour. The levels of formaldehyde detected suggest it was a highly unrealistic regime.
2. What, if any, precautions were taken to avoid measuring and reporting on ‘dry puff’ conditions – i.e. through use of such high voltage and high intensity puffing that the coil becomes so hot that it creates vapour of such acrid taste and harshness that human users would not use it in that way? It is under these conditions that high levels of formaldehyde and related compounds would be expected to form – but no human would ever be exposed to them. Humans have control over the sensory experience that puffing machines do not.
3. In making your newsworthy claims about cancer risk, what confidence do have that the puffing regime used appropriately represents human vaping behaviour, and therefore human cancer risk? There is a danger that naive reporting of your findings will characterise these risks as integral to vaping products, whereas they are a feature of the operating regime, which appears to be extreme in this case. These findings are only appropriate as cancer risk communication if the operating regime is realistic. However, the letter does not detail how you have assured this is the case – and no caveat has been provided to highlight that serious and probably fatal weakness in this work.
4. In the calculations of cancer risk, it is assumed that “inhaling formaldehyde-releasing agents carries the same risk per unit of formaldehyde as the risk associated with inhaling gaseous formaldehyde“. Can you provide a citation to support this assumption, given that the attention-grabbing findings in the letter rest entirely on it? As you will be aware, formaldehyde-releasing preservatives are used as an alternative to formaldehyde in many preparations for safety reasons.
5. The letter claims that the incremental lifetime cancer risk associated with long term vaping “is 5 times as high … or even 15 times as high … as the risk associated with long-term smoking“. Can you clarify that this comparison refers to only that part of the smoking cancer risk that arises from formaldehyde exposure? In order not to confuse readers with the idea that long term vaping may carry 5-15 times the risk of smoking, would it be possible to provide an appropriate context: for example, what proportion of the smoking cancer risk is attributable to formaldehyde? I think it is a small fraction of the total, and it would have been prudent to state this. Formaldehyde is not the most important carcinogen in cigarette smoke by some distance and just one of many. The Surgeon General’s 2010 report Chapter 5 provides a useful guide, but does not go as far as your letter does in attributing cancer risk to individual carcinogens. The Surgeon General also reminds us that:
Aldehydes such as formaldehyde and acetaldehyde occur widely in the human environment and are endogenous metabolites found in human blood
It is possible therefore that the estimation of cancer risk from formaldehyde is more complicated than your simple model allows for.
To be more direct, I am concerned that:
- This study uses a completely unrealistic puffing regime to create the conditions in which formaldehyde forms with no attempt to calibrate the machine to reflect realistic human use.
- That it presents results from extreme and unrealistic operating conditions which are then built into a ‘back of the envelope’ calculation of cancer risk.
- That this contrived and artificial cancer risk is misleadingly compared to real human cancer risks associated with smoking.
- That the statements about vaping having 5-15 times the incremental cancer risk associated with smoking are provided without context and could easily be misread as implying that vaping is more dangerous than smoking. It would not be the first time that misreporting of formaldehyde findings have created this impression.
- This study may repeat the harm done through mischaracterisation of ‘light’ cigarettes by use of unrealistic puffing regimes that did not reflect real human behaviour. The same is likely to apply here, but instead of understating risk of a harmful product, the effect will be to grossly overstate the risk of a relatively benign product – with equally damaging results.
Many smokers have a great opportunity to switch from smoking to vaping, and to reduce their incremental risk of disease by 95-99%. However, studies like this and the reporting that has followed, are gradually persuading smokers that e-cigarettes are much more risky than they are, and that they might as well continue to smoke. A study published in 2014 found the following:
In 2010, 84.7% of smokers surveyed believed e-cigarettes were less harmful than traditional cigarettes, but according to this new study in 2013, that number dropped to just 65% [link].
This is a trend that should shame the public health community and the academics that are fuelling consumers’ misunderstanding with misleading studies that misrepresent risk. I am sure it is not your aim to protect the cigarette trade and prolong the epidemic of smoking related disease, but it may well be the effect.
I hope you will take great care to ensure your findings are described in context and with appropriate caveats about whether these results are realistic for human exposure and that the calculations of cancer risk are remotely meaningful..
Yours sincerely
Clive Bates
Counterfactual
London / Harare
www.clivebates.com
[No competing interests]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New England Journal of Medicine had prior notice of the failures in this paper
After emailing the authors of the study with the question above, I also emailed the NEJM – more than eight before the embargo of 5pm EST on 21 January. At this point we only had the information in the letter (i.e. not including the equipment used), so I was pressing the NEJM to ask these question of the authors and in effect to pull the release and retract the letter if the answers were unsatisfactory.
From: Clive Bates
Date: 21 January 2015 at 15:50 (GMT+2)
Subject: Hidden Formaldehyde in E-cigarette Aerosols – some questions and concerns
To: [email protected]
Dear Editor NEJM
I am surprised that a prestigious publication like the NEJM has decided to publish the letter by Jensen et al describing their experiment with e-cigarettes and related calculation of cancer risks. The most basic disciplines appear not have been followed, and it is likely that the test results were obtained by operating the device under conditions that no human vaper would be willing or able to tolerate. The danger is that misleading studies like like will scare people about e-cigarettes for no reason and encourage more smokers to stick with smoking – in this field especially there is a great responsibility to conduct realistic experiments, report results and caveats fairly, and not to indulge in simplistic assertions of cancer risk.
I have written a letter to the authors to put these issues to them. This is below. May I suggest that NEJM editors review this letter and its peer reviews with a view to deciding if this paper provides a useful contribution or a harmfully misleading contribution to the literature.
Regards
Clive Bates
[letter to authors as above attached]
Naivety of these authors
These two authors wrote about e-cigarettes in November 2014 (Chemists break down e-cigarette research) and in doing so demonstrated that they are basically clueless: http://psuvanguard.com/news/chem ... cigarette-research/
Peyton agreed with Pankow. He also pointed out that the high temperatures to which the element heated e-cigarette additives—over 600 degrees celsius—resulted in the creation of molecules not previously seen.
Vaping is typically done at 200-260 degrees celsius, with dry puff conditions developing at around 280 degrees. http://www.clivebates.com/?p=2706#technical
Commentary and analysis on this study
Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos: The deception of measuring formaldehyde in e-cigarette aerosol: the difference between laboratory measurements and true exposure
http://www.ecigarette-research.org/research/index.php/whats-new/whatsnew-2015/191-form-nejm
The scientific community must realize that variable wattage devices cannot be used at any wattage levels with any available atomizer. Even for naïve users, the harsh taste of the dry puff phenomenon is unbearable. … In fact, it is very easy to produce as much aldehydes as you want in the lab with an e-cigarette device. However, this has nothing to do with exposure from e-cigarette use.
Dr Michael Siegel: New Study Reports High Levels of Formaldehyde in Electronic Cigarette Aerosols http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot. ... high-levels-of.html
Essentially, what this study demonstrates is that if you overheat a vaping system, it will produce high levels of formaldehyde. However, such conditions are not realistic, as they could not be tolerated by an actual vaper. Therefore, extrapolating from this study to a lifetime of vaping is meaningless.
Norbert Zillatron: Freaking Formaldehyde https://nzillatron.wordpress.com ... aking-formaldehyde/
…you can’t just simply select an arbitrary puffing regime and expect it to represent an applicable model of real vaping
Tom Pruen (ECITA) First burn the barrel, then scrape it – commentary on a letter published in the NEJM http://www.ecita.org.uk/ecita-bl ... tter-published-nejm
Consumers are extremely unlikely to voluntarily inhale high concentrations of formaldehyde; formaldehyde is characterized by its unpleasant smell, and at concentrations of as little as 5 parts per million causes burning sensations in the respiratory tract, and breathing difficulty
Professor Peter Hajek: Formaldehyde in e-cigarettes: expert responds http://www.sciencemediacentre.co ... es-expert-responds/
When a chicken is burned, the resulting black crisp will contain carcinogens but that does not mean that chicken are carcinogenic. Without overheating the e-liquid, no formaldehyde was detected. Vaping may not be as safe as breathing clear mountain air, but it is much safer than smoking. It would be a shame if this study persuaded smokers who cannot or do not want to stop smoking and contemplate vaping that they might as well stick to their deadly cigarettes.
Professor Brad Rodu: Bogus research of formaldehyde in e-cig vapor http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot ... ehyde-in-e-cig.html
R. Paul Jensen and colleagues at Portland State University produced the new results by overheating an e-cigarette, a condition (called dry puffing) that is familiar to vapers; the resulting product tastes so bad it cannot be inhaled. In other words, the formaldehyde produced under abusive conditions is not “hidden” at all, because it is in vapor that users find intolerable. Enough data is extracted from the authors to confirm the the measurements were made in extreme and unrealistic ‘dry puff’ conditions. Konstantinos Farsalinos has the science: Verified: formaldehyde levels found in the NEJM study were associated with dry puff conditions. An update. http://www.ecigarette-research.c ... w-2015/193-form-ver
Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos figures out what they actually did: Verified: formaldehyde levels found in the NEJM study were associated with dry puff conditions. An update. http://www.ecigarette-research.o ... w-2015/193-form-ver
It is more than obvious that the findings of very high levels of formaldehyde are a result of overheating. Lack of experience on e-cigarettes and no contact with vapers can result in such erroneous and unrealistic results, which can create confusion and misinformation both in the scientific community and among users and potential users of e-cigarettes.
Dr Michael Siegal follows up: Confirmed: Formaldehyde Study Conducted Under Implausible Conditions; Conclusions Invalid http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot. ... tudy-conducted.html
Unfortunately, the alarmist (and incorrect) conclusions of this study have already been widely disseminated in the media. Even if the information is corrected, it appears that the damage is done. I believe that the damage is substantial because many smokers will now become convinced that there is no advantage to switching from tobacco cigarettes to electronic cigarettes.
Dr Gilbert Ross of the American Council on Science and Health, Poorly-done e-cig vapor study gets big headlines but means nothing. Dr Ross highlights the additional point that it wasn’t formaldehyde that was measured and formaldehyde is not an especially powerful carcinogen. http://acsh.org/2015/01/poorly-d ... ines-means-nothing/
This flawed study will be used to attack e-cigs as not only not safer than smoking cigarettes, but perhaps even more toxic. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those who promulgate this falsehood should be aware that even if the study were done correctly — which it was not — such a conclusion is the worst kind of destructive fiction. Formaldehyde was not even studied, in fact, but something called formaldehyde releasing compounds. And formaldehyde is a very weak carcinogen, with only a slightly increased chance of cancer among highly-exposed workers over a lifetime. The presence of one such carcinogen in vapor cannot be compared to the toxic stew of carcinogens and other toxins in cigarette smoke.
A small number of journalists show they are sufficiently independently minded to challenge this alarmist drivel.
And it got the satirical treatment it deserved on Gutfeld: New e-cig study goes up in smoke “The point: If you create an unrealistic climate for harm you create the harm you seek, which allows researchers to elevate the risk and that lands them in a prestigious journal.” http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/th ... ig-study-goes-smoke
SUMBER: http://www.clivebates.com/?p=2706 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sample press coverage
Without exception the press coverage refers to elevated cancer risk.
Conclusion
This study is so poorly designed and inherently misleading that it should not have been conducted, should not have been written up, should not have been published in the NEJM or anywhere, should not have been pitched to the media, and its findings should be completely ignored as worthless. The authors should retract the letter. If they are unwilling to do that, the NEJM should retract it.
Post script: Infantile response from tobacco control
Oh but wait… it was well received and acclaimed by some in the high command of tobacco control.
https://twitter.com/simonchapman6/status/558049393455415296
Technical note: dry puff phenomenon
Professional researchers, peer reviewers and editors designing and publishing experiments on vaping devices should, as in any field, acquaint themselves with the peer-reviewed literature already published. This would help them avoid designing hopelessly flawed experiments and rushing into print with misleading results and bogus estimates of cancer risk. If Jensen et al had applied this most elementary discipline, they would have found this description of the dry puff phenomenon and its implications for experimental protocols (Farsalinos et al 2013): http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/10/6/2500/htm#sthash.D1oJjlin.dpuf
3.4.1. Vaping vs. Smoking Topography
Vaping topography may have significant implications in production and delivery of potentially harmful substances. The EC evaporation rate and thermal load are directly dependent on the puff duration and interpuff interval. If the device is activated before the temperature is significantly decreased and/or before the wick is sufficiently supplied with liquid, the device will get overheated. This causes a phenomenon called “dry puff”. It is an unpleasant, burning taste that forces the user to lower puff duration and increase interpuff interval. It is also reproduced when the atomizer has very low amounts of liquid, signalling that it should be refilled. This phenomenon occurred in some experienced users when they were asked to use the “eGo-C” atomizer in this study. They had to lower puff duration and interpuff interval in order to avoid “dry puff”, while no such problems occurred with the “Epsilon” atomizer. Although not tested yet, there is a theoretical concern that overheating the EC may lead to production of significant amounts of toxic substances like acrolein or formaldehyde, which can be formed from thermal degradation of glycerol in a closed chamber [21,22]. The “dry-puff” phenomenon, although easily detected and avoided by the user, cannot be detected in the laboratory setting. Therefore, if this occurs during a laboratory experiment, it will significantly undermine the value of the study results and their applicability to real use. It should be emphasized that each type of atomizer has different cooling and liquid-supply abilities, depending on the design and material used. This should be taken into consideration when preparing laboratory research protocols.
Farsalinos KE, Romagna G, Tsiapras D, Kyrzopoulos S, Voudris V. Evaluation of electronic cigarette use (vaping) topography and estimation of liquid consumption: implications for research protocol standards definition and for public health authorities’ regulation. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2013; 10: 2500–14. http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/10/6/2500/htm#sthash.D1oJjlin.dpuf
Notice the title: implications for research protocol standards definition. The issue was made even more explicit in the following, again with Farsalinos leading, with the obvious suggestion that a human vaper is asked to validate the machine puffing protocol:
An important issue that needs to be clarified before proceeding with laboratory experiments is the determination of the “dry puff” phenomenon [11]. It occurs when insufficient liquid is supplied to the wick of the atomiser, leading to temperature elevation. This is detected by the user as an unpleasant burning taste which is avoided by reducing puff duration and increasing interpuff interval. Therefore, if this phenomenon is reproduced in the laboratory setting it does not represent EC use in realistic conditions. Since no laboratory method has been developed to detect it, one of the researchers (who is an experienced EC user) was assigned to test both devices in order to detect the dry puff phenomenon.”
Farsalinos KE, Romagna G, Allifranchini E, Ripamonti E, Bocchietto E, Todeschi S, Tsiapras D, Kyrzopoulos S, Voudris V. Comparison of the cytotoxic potential of cigarette smoke and electronic cigarette vapour extract on cultured myocardial cells. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013 Oct 16;10(10):5146-62. http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/10/10/5146/htm
The Japanese Formaldehyde Fiasco revisited
Also, it is worth mentioning that this is not the first time an overhyped formaldehyde story has made its way into print rather than the bin. Excellent blogs by Konstantinos Farsalinos [Electronic cigarette aerosol contains 6 times LESS formaldehyde than tobacco cigarette smoke http://www.ecigarette-research.c ... new-2014/188-frm-jp ] and Brad Rodu [Formaldehype vs. Fact: Levels Are Far Lower in E-Cigarettes Than In Cigarettes http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot ... levels-are-far.html ] give the full story of the Japanese rogue result that made headlines worldwide. At the time, I also wrote to the author of this study, Dr. Naoki Kunugita, to point out the irresponsibility of his statements. Here is the letter from November 2014. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news ... earch/#.VL-b6y6Ue0c
Date: 29 November 2014 at 14:31
To: “Dr. Naoki Kunugita M.D. Dr.Med.Sci.” <[email protected]>
Dear Dr Kunugita
I hope you are aware of the impact that your comments on e-cigarette formaldehyde exposure has caused in the press, and therefore in public perception of risk of e-cigarettes relative to smoking. You can read some of it here: http://goo.gl/1rOyDu
The impression that has been left is exactly the opposite of a realistic appraisal of exposure to carcinogens in general and formaldehyde in particular that a responsible authority would wish to communicate to the public. Your remarks appear to be based on a single unpublished measurement: “In one brand of e-cigarette the team found more than 10 times the level of carcinogens contained in one regular cigarette” as quoted by AFP. Can you provide the data that supports this argument? I have been unable to locate it in the published literature. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires ... an-researchers.html
A more realistic appraisal across the range of measurements would suggest formaldehyde exposures far lower than for smoking – at least six times lower based on your own data and perhaps fifty times lower would be an appropriate characterisation. I hope you have seen the critique of your work and communication by Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos (here) http://www.ecigarette-research.c ... -07/2014/188-frm-jp
However, you have chosen to communicate an extreme result that is not open to scrutiny. Because it is not published or replicable, we cannot know for sure: but is likely that this device was running very hot and/or dry to generate emissions like this. No human user would continue with this mode of operation as the taste would provide immediate feedback to behaviour (something that does not happen with machines). It follows that the result (even if accurate) you have communicated to the public is:
1. an artefact of the machine testing regime and device settings;
2. not a realistic risk for human exposure.
Whether or not it was the aim of your communication, the effect has been to cast doubt in the minds of many smokers about the benefits of switching to e-cigarettes, which would be immensely positive to their health. The perception of risk arising from e-cigarette use is already hugely exaggerated by the public and this will make the misalignment of perception and reality even it worse.
It is not sufficient to argue that your statement was technically correct (yes, you may have a result like this). It is essential that when respected institutions and experts make comments they take care to ensure the effect it has on perception is balanced and proportional, does not spread false alarm and helps people understand the risks rather than mislead them. You have a responsibility to be both truthful and to ensure you work is placed properly in context.
Given this has not happened with this statement, I am writing to ask you to make a proper balancing statement that would put this in context and restore some reality to the discussion of e-cigarette risks.
I hope to hear from you soon and that you will take this request seriously – I am sure you do not want to be responsible for supporting continued cigarette use by confusing people about e-cigarette risk.
Yours sincerely
Clive Bates
Disclosure: I am a long standing supporter of harm reduction techniques for reducing tobacco related disease. I have no competing interests. For further reading please see my publication: WHO Position on ENDS (e-cigarettes): a critique of the use of science and risk communication http://www.clivebates.com/documents/WHOpapercritique.pdf
Of course, as with many academics and bureaucrats, he felt no compulsion to reply or to be in any way accountable for the sorry mess he created.
http://www.clivebates.com/?p=2706
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Updated on:11 December 2015, 08:49
FERGUS MASON
NEW E-CIG STUDY REVEALS CRISIS IN JOURNALISM
Instead of researching their stories to find out the truth, too many journalists rely on press releases. We need a return to proper reporting.
E-cigs - safer than tobacco, or just as bad?
Today, film director Aaron Biebert presented a speech to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget. In it he issued an eloquent plea for President Obama to ensure that upcoming FDA regulations on electronic cigarettes don’t wipe out the industry and leave what survives in the hands of the tobacco companies.
For anyone following the news this may seem like a strange request. After all, a new study from Harvard University links e-cigarette vapor to a serious lung disease, bronchiolitis obliterans. This disease has been found in workers exposed to high levels of the food flavoring diacetyl - and Harvard found diacetyl in most of the 51 e-cigarette cartridges and liquids they tested.
The media has given this study a lot of attention, because electronic cigarettes are a controversial issue right now. The UK’s main health organization, Public Health England, recently issued a detailed report that concluded they’re around 95% safer than smoking tobacco and can help smokers quit. Many public health activists and academics disagree, at least partly because of stories like this, but smoking is falling in the USA.
What’s interesting is how shallow reporting on the story has been. Every major news source that’s covered it, from Harvard’s own in-house paper to Vox.com and the UK’s Daily Telegraph, have mentioned diacetyl was found in most of the liquids; none of them have explained how much there was, whether it’s a dangerous amount, or how it compares to cigarette smoke. The last one is very relevant. British research suggests that 99% of people who use e-cigs regularly are current or former smokers. They’re using them to replace actual tobacco cigarettes. So, for these people, diacetyl is only a problem if there’s more of it in the e-cig vapor than there is in tobacco smoke.
And there isn’t. Harvard’s study shows that on average there’s 750 times more diacetyl in smoke than in vapor. The liquid with the highest amount still only had 5% of what’s in a single cigarette. Of the 39 that tested positive for the chemical thirteen had less of it than a sample of fresh air tested with the same equipment! And considering that bronchiolitis obliterans isn’t on the long list of diseases caused by smoking, it looks like the level of diacetyl found in e-cigarette vapor just isn’t enough to worry about. Science journalists should have spotted that. None did.
This story exposes a big problem with the way the media is increasingly working. Journalists are supposed to research the stories they write, and put the information they collect together to reveal the truth. Too often that’s not happening - many journos just repeat what's in the press release. A closer look at the Harvard study would have raised other questions, too. For example the researchers didn’t list concentrations of diacetyl, just the total weight they collected – but their test samples weren’t all the same size. Instead of measuring out identical quantities of each liquid they just ran the e-cigs until no more vapor came out. That’s bad science, and someone should have noticed.
So far this year one study on electronic cigarettes turned out to be paid for by a class action law firm. Another was indirectly funded by the world’s largest manufacturer of nicotine patches and gum. No mainstream science journalist picked up on this.
Aaron Biebert doesn’t use electronic cigarettes himself – and he doesn’t smoke either – but right now he’s making a film that alleges serious conflicts of interest among the loudest opponents of electronic cigarettes. Tobacco and quit smoking products are very big business – and so are health pressure groups that campaign against smoking. All these people have an interest in seeing the new products fail, either by having them banned or convincing the public that they’re even more dangerous than smoking. There’s evidence that they’re willing to pay for research that supports their side of the story. But you won’t hear about that from the average science journalist.
http://us.blastingnews.com/opinion/2015/12/new-e-cig-study-reveals-crisis-in-journalism-00691827.html
VAPE tidak mengandungi 4000 bahan karsinogen spt rokok tembakau..... basically vaping is 99.75% safer for ex-smoker
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How The Media Totally Exaggerated Study On Risk Of ‘Popcorn Lung’ From E-Cigarettes
GUY BENTLEY
11:14 AM 12/09/2015
A Harvard study claiming most e-cigarette brands expose users to harmful chemicals omits critical information and exaggerates the risks of flavored e-cigarettes, according to tobacco control experts.
The study, published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, analyzes a host of e-liquid flavors to discover levels of potentially dangerous chemicals diacetyl, acetyl propionyl, and acetoin.
The researchers found one or more of the three chemicals in 92 percent of the 51 unique flavors of e-liquid. Diacetyl is identified in 39 of 51 flavors – 75 percent of the total.
Following the study, an array of media outlets focused on the presence of diacetyl, a chemical used for food flavoring that if inhaled in large amounts can lead to a severe respiratory disease – bronchiolitis obliterans.
FROM AROUND THE WEB
Bronchiolitis obliterans is commonly known as “popcorn lung,” because it was identified in workers who inhaled the artificial butter flavor used to make microwavable popcorn. A number of cases of popcorn lung have been found to be so severe in some patients that they have required a full-blown lung transplant.
The Harvard study whipped up a storm of hyperbolic headlines including “Harvard study finds that E-cigarette flavors cause lung disease” and “Chemicals in Flavored E-Cigarettes Tied To ‘Popcorn Lung’ Disease.”
But the headlines may be shielding the truth about the potential risk of popcorn lung from using e-cigarettes. Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos, an expert on e-cigarette research and an opponent of putting diacetyl in e-liquids, writes, “tobacco cigarette smoke contains high levels of diacetyl and acetyl propionyl, on average 100 and 10 times higher,” compared to average e-cigarette exposure.
Farsalinos draws the disparity between tobacco and e-cigarettes from research conducted by himself and colleagues published in the journal Nicotine and Tobacco Research in 2014.
Not only are levels of diacetyl far higher in tobacco smoke than e-cig vapor, but the levels of dangerous compounds found in many of the products studied “are absolutely minimal, and it is not expected to raise any concerns about human health effects,” according to Farsalinos.
Farsalinos adds that the researchers fail to mention the presence of these compounds in tobacco cigarette smoke. “This omission creates the impression that e-cigarettes are exposing users to a new chemical hazard while in reality their exposure will be much lower compared to smoking.”
He concludes that the study is guilty of “creating false impressions and exaggerates the potential risk from diacetyl and acetyl propionyl exposure through e-cigarettes.”
But even more concerning for those who may want to exaggerate the risks of using e-cigarettes, is that even tobacco smoke has no identifiable link with any cases of popcorn lung.
According to Critical Reviews in Toxicology, “smoking has not been shown to be a risk factor for bronchiolitis (popcorn lung).“
Since tobacco smoke contains far higher levels of diacetyl than flavored e-cigarettes and there has not been a single confirmed case of a smoker contracting popcorn lung, the likelihood that vapers will contract this particular lung disease is minimal, to say the least.
Bill Godshall, executive director of Smokefree Pennsylvania and a long-time anti-smoking activist, is even more damning in his criticism of the Harvard study.
“This is yet another Department of Health and Human Services-funded study that is intended to deceive and scare the public about vaping to lobby for Food and Drug Administration’s deeming ban.
“While finding zero evidence of ‘Popcorn Lung,’ the authors are trying to create a public panic,” Godshall tells The Daily Caller News Foundation. Pro-vaping groups are also quick to point out that few people have claimed e-cigarettes are completely free of any health risk.
Greg Conley, president of the American Vaping Association tells TheDCNF, “in the debate over vaping, the concept of relative risk should not be ignored. Vapor products are a far safer alternative to smoking, but it has long been recognized that they are not 100 percent safe.
“Earlier this year, a dozen public health groups endorsed Public Health England’s briefing estimating vaping to be approximately 95 percent less hazardous than smoking. Their assessment left room for some unknown risk from ingredients like flavorings.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/0 ... ttes/#ixzz3u9onLL5W
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#KKM #KIMK #BANGSAT #YAHUDI #ZIONIST #MUNAFIK
|
This post contains more resources
You have to Login for download or view attachment(s). No Account? Register
x
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Author
Post time 6-12-2015 06:01 AM
![[MBC/Netflix] My Dearest - Nam Goong Min, Ahn EunJin, Lee Hak Joo, Lee Da In, Lee Chung Ah](https://uf.cari.com.my/forumx/mforum/forum/202309/13/151506jb1z53job49636o6.jpeg)
