5 ms·

It looks like two things are being tested here: 1) Toxicity of e-cigs 2) the validity of this new testing device created from a 3D printer That doesn't make a

It looks like two things are being tested here: 1) Toxicity of e-cigs 2) the validity of this new testing device created from a 3D printer That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. A demonstration of the toxicity of e-cigs should be based on well-established testing methods. And a new testing device should be tested to see if it reliably replicate findings that used well-established testing methods.

1_800_UNICORN 9y ago
I'm surprised this isn't higher up, that's what confused me. How can they report a new discovery while simultaneously testing a new measuring device? There's a lot about the article that smells bad.
- mistermann 9y ago
  It's not even close to conclusive, I think you'd be hard pressed to call it science. Whenever you read these "studies" there is so much defensive language and obvious outright lies, you can tell it is a propaganda piece. > "potentially as harmful" > "may contain" > "have as much potential to cause DNA damage" > "found that vapor from non-nicotine e-cigarettes caused as much DNA damage as filtered cigarettes" (at best they have a theory) > "whether they serve as a gateway for future tobacco smokers remains the subject of much debate" (if you call lobbyist propoganda "debate") > "new metabolites that have the potential to cause DNA damage are formed" > "The device is unique in that it converts chemicals into their metabolites during testing, which replicates what happens in the human body, Kadimisetty says." (Does it? Is this scientifically confirmed with high certainty?) > "Bioassays currently used to determine the genotoxicity of environmental samples may be more comprehensive" ("May" be? If you are speculating on that, then how do you know that the results from these tests are trustworthy, as you are claiming?) > "There are potentially hundreds of chemicals in e-cigarettes that could be contributing to DNA damage, Kadimisetty says." (Well, depends on your definition of chemicals) > "Rather than test for all of them, the UConn team targeted three known carcinogenic chemicals found in tobacco cigarettes." (Oh? Which ones? And what was the source of the ejuice used for testing?) EDIT: The three chemicals (thanks xaedes): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14539062 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14539062 B[a]P: Benzo[a]pyrene NNK: 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone NNN: N-Nitrosonicotine I haven't a clue what these are, and in which component of the juice (PG, VG, nicotine, flavor) would contain them....anyone?
  - Aaron1011 9y ago
    I can't read the full study, as it's behind a paywall - so take this with a grain of salt: > "potentially as harmful" That's not 'defensive language', that's rightly acknowledging that a single study isn't enough to determine one way or the other. > "have as much potential to cause DNA damage" What's 'unscientific' or 'defensive' about acknowledging that a substance has a certain probability of causing cell damage? Claiming that something 'always' or 'never' causes cell damage, on the other hand, would be unscientific.
    - mistermann 9y ago
      > that's rightly acknowledging that a single study isn't enough to determine one way or the other When read by a scientist, when read by mainstream consumers it is historically referred to as FUD. > "have as much potential to cause DNA damage" "potential" vs "as much potential"....so how are they measuring the level of potential? Since this is new technology, is it even proven accurate (cast is doubt elsewhere in the document). This article implies certainty, but of course never states it outright, but it achieves its goal: instill fear. And in this case, that fear can affect sales in the hundreds if not billions of dollars, and might(!) literally be the the difference between life and death for hundreds of thousands if not millions of people.
  - tmearnest 9y ago
    > B[a]P: Benzo[a]pyrene Benzo[a]pyrene is a product of incomplete combustion and is basically found wherever organic stuff (in the carbon containing sense) is burned with low available oxygen. It's super carcinogenic by way of intercalating between DNA basepairs leading to misread transcripts. Since nothing is being burned in a vaporizer unless something has horribly gone wrong, this is highly unlikely to be present in vapor. > NNK: 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone > NNN: N-Nitrosonicotine These are nitrated derivatives of nicotine. If they were in the eliquid, it's likely due to impurities in the nicotine. However, it's been previously shown [1] that they're not present in vapor in any significant quantity. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4555263/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4555263/
maxander 9y ago
It's worth noting that the paper was published in ACS Sensors, a journal on the topic of "new and original knowledge on all aspects of sensor science that selectively sense chemical or biological species or processes." So, the sensor-validation angle was the primary focus of the study. They also tested treated versus un-treated wastewater. I can't get past the paywall, so I couldn't say if they give any justification for whether their sensor would be a good indication of in vivo behavior or not. In order for dangerous DNA damage to occur, the offending compound (or relevant metabolite) would have to get into cell nuclei in meaningful quantities, which is far from a given.

1_800_UNICORN 9y ago

I'm surprised this isn't higher up, that's what confused me. How can they report a new discovery while simultaneously testing a new measuring device? There's a lot about the article that smells bad.

mistermann 9y ago
It's not even close to conclusive, I think you'd be hard pressed to call it science. Whenever you read these "studies" there is so much defensive language and obvious outright lies, you can tell it is a propaganda piece. > "potentially as harmful" > "may contain" > "have as much potential to cause DNA damage" > "found that vapor from non-nicotine e-cigarettes caused as much DNA damage as filtered cigarettes" (at best they have a theory) > "whether they serve as a gateway for future tobacco smokers remains the subject of much debate" (if you call lobbyist propoganda "debate") > "new metabolites that have the potential to cause DNA damage are formed" > "The device is unique in that it converts chemicals into their metabolites during testing, which replicates what happens in the human body, Kadimisetty says." (Does it? Is this scientifically confirmed with high certainty?) > "Bioassays currently used to determine the genotoxicity of environmental samples may be more comprehensive" ("May" be? If you are speculating on that, then how do you know that the results from these tests are trustworthy, as you are claiming?) > "There are potentially hundreds of chemicals in e-cigarettes that could be contributing to DNA damage, Kadimisetty says." (Well, depends on your definition of chemicals) > "Rather than test for all of them, the UConn team targeted three known carcinogenic chemicals found in tobacco cigarettes." (Oh? Which ones? And what was the source of the ejuice used for testing?) EDIT: The three chemicals (thanks xaedes): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14539062 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14539062 B[a]P: Benzo[a]pyrene NNK: 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone NNN: N-Nitrosonicotine I haven't a clue what these are, and in which component of the juice (PG, VG, nicotine, flavor) would contain them....anyone?
- Aaron1011 9y ago
  I can't read the full study, as it's behind a paywall - so take this with a grain of salt: > "potentially as harmful" That's not 'defensive language', that's rightly acknowledging that a single study isn't enough to determine one way or the other. > "have as much potential to cause DNA damage" What's 'unscientific' or 'defensive' about acknowledging that a substance has a certain probability of causing cell damage? Claiming that something 'always' or 'never' causes cell damage, on the other hand, would be unscientific.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    > that's rightly acknowledging that a single study isn't enough to determine one way or the other When read by a scientist, when read by mainstream consumers it is historically referred to as FUD. > "have as much potential to cause DNA damage" "potential" vs "as much potential"....so how are they measuring the level of potential? Since this is new technology, is it even proven accurate (cast is doubt elsewhere in the document). This article implies certainty, but of course never states it outright, but it achieves its goal: instill fear. And in this case, that fear can affect sales in the hundreds if not billions of dollars, and might(!) literally be the the difference between life and death for hundreds of thousands if not millions of people.
- tmearnest 9y ago
  > B[a]P: Benzo[a]pyrene Benzo[a]pyrene is a product of incomplete combustion and is basically found wherever organic stuff (in the carbon containing sense) is burned with low available oxygen. It's super carcinogenic by way of intercalating between DNA basepairs leading to misread transcripts. Since nothing is being burned in a vaporizer unless something has horribly gone wrong, this is highly unlikely to be present in vapor. > NNK: 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone > NNN: N-Nitrosonicotine These are nitrated derivatives of nicotine. If they were in the eliquid, it's likely due to impurities in the nicotine. However, it's been previously shown [1] that they're not present in vapor in any significant quantity. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4555263/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4555263/

maxander 9y ago

It's worth noting that the paper was published in ACS Sensors, a journal on the topic of "new and original knowledge on all aspects of sensor science that selectively sense chemical or biological species or processes." So, the sensor-validation angle was the primary focus of the study. They also tested treated versus un-treated wastewater. I can't get past the paywall, so I couldn't say if they give any justification for whether their sensor would be a good indication of in vivo behavior or not. In order for dangerous DNA damage to occur, the offending compound (or relevant metabolite) would have to get into cell nuclei in meaningful quantities, which is far from a given.