12 ms·

In some e-cigarette flavors. Look at the actual study [1] and you'll see the dangers are mainly limited to some buttery/fruity/nutty flavors. The fact that Diac

In some e-cigarette flavors. Look at the actual study [1] and you'll see the dangers are mainly limited to some buttery/fruity/nutty flavors. The fact that Diacetyl occurs at much higher concentrations in regular cigarettes goes unmentioned. 'Popcorn lung' disease occurred with workers who were exposed to enough Diacetyl vapor in a day as an e-cig 'smoker' would be in a month. Finally, I'll leave the conclusion of the UK Department of Health [2] : "E-cigarettes around 95% less harmful than tobacco estimates landmark review" As indicated in the second link, the scaremongering of studies such as this one mislead smokers into thinking that e-cigarettes are about as dangerous as regular ones. The dangers are not equivalent, by a long shot. Every smoker that switches to e-cigs, as I did 3 years ago after a 20 year habit and three failed attempts to quit, is much better off. Haven't smoked a 'real' one since. I know at least 50 people with the same experience (anecdotal, I know, but still...). [1] http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/advpub/2015/12/ehp.1510185.acco.pdf http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/advpub/2015/12/e... [2] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-less-harmful-than-tobacco-estimates-landmark-review https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-le...

joosters 11y ago
The study does show that some tobacco flavors (which are often described as unflavored) contained diacetyl too, albeit in smaller concentrations.
- notlisted 11y ago
  Noted. Added the word "mainly". I'm not claiming that Diacetyl should be in e-cigarettes to begin with, but that the headline and recommendations of the need to be viewed with additional scrutiny and in context. As with all unhealthy components dosage matters and risks should be presented accordingly. PS There have been other studies into Diacetyl in e-cigarettes in the past. This sourced article contains a few more pointers http://blog.mtbakervapor.com/the-truth-about-diacetyl/ http://blog.mtbakervapor.com/the-truth-about-diacetyl/
  - joosters 11y ago
    I'm not an expert here, I just speed-read the paper, so I'm happy to be corrected! One probably dumb question: Does diacetyl (and the other chemicals) always have to be present in the original liquid, or is it that it can be formed through some reaction as the contents are heated up?
    - notlisted 11y ago
      It's added (flavor) not formed afaik. After initial research and warnings several years ago, it's also been removed by many manufacturers (and yes, sometimes replaced with other bad stuff) and they advertise this fact.
      - fzzzy 11y ago
        It can also be produced by the heating process, even if it is not an ingredient. The levels are very small, however.
Derpdiherp 11y ago
Entirely correct and well backed up with sources. Myself I mix my own e-liquid, whilst not knowing exactly what goes into them due to using flavourings made by flavour companies, I have a better idea than some. To avoid diacetyl just do not use any eliquid that has a butter like flavour (custards and creams are the usual candidates). When you pick up on what diacetyl smells like you can smell it from a mile off. Unfortunately though - flavour companies started advertising "diacetyl free" on flavours while replacing it with chemicals which are just as bad - Acetyl Propynol and in some cases Butyric Acid. Anyone who is interested in this I recommend reading Dr Farsalinos studies on the subject.
ptaipale 11y ago
Indeed. It seems that two very different sects combine forces in the battle against e-cigs: traditional tobacco industry, who sees e-cig transition as a threat, and health authorities and activists, who see second-best (e-cigs) as the greatest threat to what they think is best (total abstinence). This unholy alliance seems unfortunately quite strong. I'm not a smoker, but I'm all for every smoker around me converting to e-cigs, and even at the "risk" of having some non-smokers start e-cigs it's really a no contest: if some e-cig flavourings are unhealthy, investigate and regulate those, but please please do not stop the transition which is great for absolutely everybody (except traditional tobacco providers).
- Shivetya 11y ago
  the tobacco industry only persist because government wants it too, it serves two benefits. Increased revenue from taxation and cynically because many users will pass away before their medical expenses get too high. Inhaling any burning substance cannot be good for you and there was really no standard on e-cigs to at least let people use them with some assurance
- matthewcford 11y ago
  I started using e-cigs without much thought on quitting entirely, however after about 7 months, I had even stopped vaping, haven't felt the need to smoke in over a year. Granted I did slowly reduce the nicotine content over time.
  - splawn 11y ago
    I did the same. I understand being anti-smoking because cancer, but this whole anti-vaping movement seems way misguided. I mean sure, if over time we figure out that certain flavorings should be avoided, fine, ban their use. However, don't deny people an easy way out of smoking. baby with the bathwater cliche.
    - ptaipale 11y ago
      Exactly. There can be very many different flavourings and some are probably harmful, just like some food is harmful, particularly if used in excessive amounts. Or listening to music at loud levels is bad for your hearing, and still, earphones are not banned (and we don't even have mandatory fuses in earphones to limit the power emitted to ears).
HandMeAn8th 11y ago
Keep telling yourself that... Just because you were able to quit smoking after 20 years, doesn't mean "The dangers are not equivalent, by a long shot". It's amazing to me the kind of mental hoops a person will jump through to validate their behavior.
- DanBC 11y ago
  DO you have any credible cites to show that vaping e-cigs is anywhere near as harmful as smoking tobacco?
  - michaelbuddy 11y ago
    of course he doesn't. That's why he wrote it that way. Trying to gain some moral high ground by being completely full of sh*t.
- arbitrage 11y ago
  No, that's a false equivocation. It's not the fact that they were able to quit that makes the dangers not equivalent, it's the growing amount of unbiased research that shows that. Sane health care providers and policy experts tend to agree, as well, that harm-reduction is a much more attainable goal. Full on abstinence is routinely shown to be an untenable goal.
- notlisted 11y ago
  Don't trust me. Trust link #2 (UK government research, Aug 2015, Public Health England, similar to US department of health). Repeated here for your convenience https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-less-harmful-than-tobacco-estimates-landmark-review https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-le... You can also rely a little bit on common sense: 'analog' cigarettes have tar and everything that results from combustion of tobacco and whatever it's "laced" with. Not the case with e-cigs. Not saying it's safe, but safer. PS If you knew me without nicotine, you'd tell me to get back on it, like my wife did. :-)
  - tremon 11y ago
DanBC 11y ago
There's a difference between previous smokers switching to e-cigs and non-smoking children starting e-cigs, and these "scare mongering" articles are an attempt to provide information so we know how e-cigs should be regulated.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  > these "scare mongering" articles are an attempt to provide information There are a very poor attempt, and that is a very charitable interpretation. Instead of providing information, they scare people by stating that e-cigs increase chance of cancer by nonzero amount while failing to mention that the amount is both not very significant[0] and extremely smaller than what you get from normal cigarettes. [0] - that's the usual problem with "X causes cancer" articles in popular media.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  You also have to account for non-smoking children who would've switched to cigarettes but switched to e-cigs instead. An interesting question is if e-cigs cause N children to use them who wouldn't have otherwise, but also means that M children who would used cigarettes instead use e-cigs, what is the function to determine if it is considered a net positive?
metalliqaz 11y ago
Scaremongering by who? The tobacco industry? I've not (yet) seen any evidence that they are meddling with the reporting. Who else would benefit from discouraging e-cigs?
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  The media. They may not have anything against e-cig industry itself, but they benefit hugely from writing scary stories about it - just like about everything else. Just look what happens whenever there's a study that sorta, kinda, maybe links X to cancer under specific circumstances. You have "X causes cancer!" headlines all week long, until your own grandma tells you to stop using X (where X is coffee, artificial sweeteners, red meat, wine, or generally just about anything).
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
MCRed 11y ago
It's worth noting that Diactyl is seen in the e-cig community as bad for glass atomizers and so there is significant market pressure not to use flavorings that use it. (And warnings about flavorings that do.) I've already seen several flavorings be introduced in Diactyl free versions from The Flavor Apprentice, for instance. The industry is clearly concerned about these materials and working on replacements: http://shop.perfumersapprentice.com/flavorsworkshop/custard.html http://shop.perfumersapprentice.com/flavorsworkshop/custard....
Laaw 11y ago
Cigarettes are not your other option from e-cigs, not smoking is your other option. Seatbelt use doesn't get compared to driving your car into a guardrail. "But not wearing your seatbelt is 95% less harmful than driving your car into a brick wall, why doesn't anyone mention that?"
- splawn 11y ago
  I can't speak for anyone else, but I know that if I don't drive into a brick wall as soon as I wake up in the morning I can get reeeeally cranky. After a few hours of not driving into a wall I have problems thinking straight and I get all anxious and shakey. I was considering trying out the guardrail thing since it doesn't seem as bad (Some people can even still drive their car away afterwards), but I just heard that some guardrails use a paint that contains a pigment that can also be found in bricks so whats the point.
  - tripzilch 11y ago
    I know, right? I usually tell people, why switch to e-cigs if you want to quit smoking, if you can just drive head-first into a brick wall and quit breathing al together. In non-ventilated spaces, the dangers of second-hand breath have been known for ages.
marincounty 11y ago
Anecdotal is fine. E-cigs are relatively new. I had a friend die of cigarette smoking. He just couldn't stop. I think he would still be around if e-cigs were around a few years ago.

joosters 11y ago

The study does show that some tobacco flavors (which are often described as unflavored) contained diacetyl too, albeit in smaller concentrations.

notlisted 11y ago
Noted. Added the word "mainly". I'm not claiming that Diacetyl should be in e-cigarettes to begin with, but that the headline and recommendations of the need to be viewed with additional scrutiny and in context. As with all unhealthy components dosage matters and risks should be presented accordingly. PS There have been other studies into Diacetyl in e-cigarettes in the past. This sourced article contains a few more pointers http://blog.mtbakervapor.com/the-truth-about-diacetyl/ http://blog.mtbakervapor.com/the-truth-about-diacetyl/
- joosters 11y ago
  I'm not an expert here, I just speed-read the paper, so I'm happy to be corrected! One probably dumb question: Does diacetyl (and the other chemicals) always have to be present in the original liquid, or is it that it can be formed through some reaction as the contents are heated up?
  - notlisted 11y ago
    It's added (flavor) not formed afaik. After initial research and warnings several years ago, it's also been removed by many manufacturers (and yes, sometimes replaced with other bad stuff) and they advertise this fact.
    - fzzzy 11y ago
      It can also be produced by the heating process, even if it is not an ingredient. The levels are very small, however.

Derpdiherp 11y ago

Entirely correct and well backed up with sources. Myself I mix my own e-liquid, whilst not knowing exactly what goes into them due to using flavourings made by flavour companies, I have a better idea than some. To avoid diacetyl just do not use any eliquid that has a butter like flavour (custards and creams are the usual candidates). When you pick up on what diacetyl smells like you can smell it from a mile off. Unfortunately though - flavour companies started advertising "diacetyl free" on flavours while replacing it with chemicals which are just as bad - Acetyl Propynol and in some cases Butyric Acid. Anyone who is interested in this I recommend reading Dr Farsalinos studies on the subject.

ptaipale 11y ago

Indeed. It seems that two very different sects combine forces in the battle against e-cigs: traditional tobacco industry, who sees e-cig transition as a threat, and health authorities and activists, who see second-best (e-cigs) as the greatest threat to what they think is best (total abstinence). This unholy alliance seems unfortunately quite strong. I'm not a smoker, but I'm all for every smoker around me converting to e-cigs, and even at the "risk" of having some non-smokers start e-cigs it's really a no contest: if some e-cig flavourings are unhealthy, investigate and regulate those, but please please do not stop the transition which is great for absolutely everybody (except traditional tobacco providers).

Shivetya 11y ago
the tobacco industry only persist because government wants it too, it serves two benefits. Increased revenue from taxation and cynically because many users will pass away before their medical expenses get too high. Inhaling any burning substance cannot be good for you and there was really no standard on e-cigs to at least let people use them with some assurance
matthewcford 11y ago
I started using e-cigs without much thought on quitting entirely, however after about 7 months, I had even stopped vaping, haven't felt the need to smoke in over a year. Granted I did slowly reduce the nicotine content over time.
- splawn 11y ago
  I did the same. I understand being anti-smoking because cancer, but this whole anti-vaping movement seems way misguided. I mean sure, if over time we figure out that certain flavorings should be avoided, fine, ban their use. However, don't deny people an easy way out of smoking. baby with the bathwater cliche.
  - ptaipale 11y ago
    Exactly. There can be very many different flavourings and some are probably harmful, just like some food is harmful, particularly if used in excessive amounts. Or listening to music at loud levels is bad for your hearing, and still, earphones are not banned (and we don't even have mandatory fuses in earphones to limit the power emitted to ears).

HandMeAn8th 11y ago

Keep telling yourself that... Just because you were able to quit smoking after 20 years, doesn't mean "The dangers are not equivalent, by a long shot". It's amazing to me the kind of mental hoops a person will jump through to validate their behavior.

DanBC 11y ago
DO you have any credible cites to show that vaping e-cigs is anywhere near as harmful as smoking tobacco?
- michaelbuddy 11y ago
  of course he doesn't. That's why he wrote it that way. Trying to gain some moral high ground by being completely full of sh*t.
arbitrage 11y ago
No, that's a false equivocation. It's not the fact that they were able to quit that makes the dangers not equivalent, it's the growing amount of unbiased research that shows that. Sane health care providers and policy experts tend to agree, as well, that harm-reduction is a much more attainable goal. Full on abstinence is routinely shown to be an untenable goal.
notlisted 11y ago
Don't trust me. Trust link #2 (UK government research, Aug 2015, Public Health England, similar to US department of health). Repeated here for your convenience https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-less-harmful-than-tobacco-estimates-landmark-review https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-le... You can also rely a little bit on common sense: 'analog' cigarettes have tar and everything that results from combustion of tobacco and whatever it's "laced" with. Not the case with e-cigs. Not saying it's safe, but safer. PS If you knew me without nicotine, you'd tell me to get back on it, like my wife did. :-)
- tremon 11y ago

DanBC 11y ago

There's a difference between previous smokers switching to e-cigs and non-smoking children starting e-cigs, and these "scare mongering" articles are an attempt to provide information so we know how e-cigs should be regulated.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
> these "scare mongering" articles are an attempt to provide information There are a very poor attempt, and that is a very charitable interpretation. Instead of providing information, they scare people by stating that e-cigs increase chance of cancer by nonzero amount while failing to mention that the amount is both not very significant[0] and extremely smaller than what you get from normal cigarettes. [0] - that's the usual problem with "X causes cancer" articles in popular media.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
You also have to account for non-smoking children who would've switched to cigarettes but switched to e-cigs instead. An interesting question is if e-cigs cause N children to use them who wouldn't have otherwise, but also means that M children who would used cigarettes instead use e-cigs, what is the function to determine if it is considered a net positive?

metalliqaz 11y ago

Scaremongering by who? The tobacco industry? I've not (yet) seen any evidence that they are meddling with the reporting. Who else would benefit from discouraging e-cigs?

TeMPOraL 11y ago
The media. They may not have anything against e-cig industry itself, but they benefit hugely from writing scary stories about it - just like about everything else. Just look what happens whenever there's a study that sorta, kinda, maybe links X to cancer under specific circumstances. You have "X causes cancer!" headlines all week long, until your own grandma tells you to stop using X (where X is coffee, artificial sweeteners, red meat, wine, or generally just about anything).

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

MCRed 11y ago

It's worth noting that Diactyl is seen in the e-cig community as bad for glass atomizers and so there is significant market pressure not to use flavorings that use it. (And warnings about flavorings that do.) I've already seen several flavorings be introduced in Diactyl free versions from The Flavor Apprentice, for instance. The industry is clearly concerned about these materials and working on replacements: http://shop.perfumersapprentice.com/flavorsworkshop/custard.html http://shop.perfumersapprentice.com/flavorsworkshop/custard....

Laaw 11y ago

Cigarettes are not your other option from e-cigs, not smoking is your other option. Seatbelt use doesn't get compared to driving your car into a guardrail. "But not wearing your seatbelt is 95% less harmful than driving your car into a brick wall, why doesn't anyone mention that?"

splawn 11y ago
I can't speak for anyone else, but I know that if I don't drive into a brick wall as soon as I wake up in the morning I can get reeeeally cranky. After a few hours of not driving into a wall I have problems thinking straight and I get all anxious and shakey. I was considering trying out the guardrail thing since it doesn't seem as bad (Some people can even still drive their car away afterwards), but I just heard that some guardrails use a paint that contains a pigment that can also be found in bricks so whats the point.
- tripzilch 11y ago
  I know, right? I usually tell people, why switch to e-cigs if you want to quit smoking, if you can just drive head-first into a brick wall and quit breathing al together. In non-ventilated spaces, the dangers of second-hand breath have been known for ages.

marincounty 11y ago

Anecdotal is fine. E-cigs are relatively new. I had a friend die of cigarette smoking. He just couldn't stop. I think he would still be around if e-cigs were around a few years ago.