5 ms·

I believe it's the fact that it causes inflammation when your body tries to remove foreign masses. It's a good function that your body does to keep things anew.

by skwb 8y ago

I believe it's the fact that it causes inflammation when your body tries to remove foreign masses. It's a good function that your body does to keep things anew. However, doing it constantly is a problem because it causes long term inflammation and oxidative stress. [0] [0]. https://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(18)30029-0/pdf https://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(18)30029-0/pdf

Udik 8y ago
Yes, I sort of understand, but you're talking about "masses". I am wondering if the particulate in the studies cited above is not simply made of droplets of propylene glycol and glycerol- which might be well tolerated and simply absorbed and metabolised. The pdf you linked starts with the statement: "Decades of research has converged on an understanding that all combustion-derived particulate matter (PM) is inflammatory to some extent in the lungs". (Italics mine) Particulate emitted by an ecig should not be combustion-derived.
- skwb 8y ago
  Well two things. You don't need combustion to make chemical changes to organic material. E-cigs still chemically change the organic compounds. We know this experimentally [0]. Second, just because it's not a combustion product, doesn't mean it's safe. The reason why we get lung cancer form asbestos is that the mineral fibers are unable to be fully broken down, and cause long term irritation. Think sand or dust [1]. [0]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5954153/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5954153/ [1]. http://www.npi.gov.au/resource/particulate-matter-pm10-and-pm25 http://www.npi.gov.au/resource/particulate-matter-pm10-and-p...
  - Udik 8y ago
    I remain with my original question: the original study you cited compares aerosols generated by e-cig smokers with the similar sized dust, pollution and soot particles commonly found outside. There is a correct assumption that particles of that size, when found outside in polluted environments, are especially harmful, because of their geometrical properties combined with the fact that they carry harmful substances. Is it correct to compare pm10 generated by combustion engines with pm10 generated by an atomizer that vaporizes a pharmacy-grade pure- and in theory harmless- substance? Would the same instruments have classified as pm10 water droplets of the appropriate size?

by skwb 8y ago

Udik 8y ago

Yes, I sort of understand, but you're talking about "masses". I am wondering if the particulate in the studies cited above is not simply made of droplets of propylene glycol and glycerol- which might be well tolerated and simply absorbed and metabolised. The pdf you linked starts with the statement: "Decades of research has converged on an understanding that all combustion-derived particulate matter (PM) is inflammatory to some extent in the lungs". (Italics mine) Particulate emitted by an ecig should not be combustion-derived.

skwb 8y ago
Well two things. You don't need combustion to make chemical changes to organic material. E-cigs still chemically change the organic compounds. We know this experimentally [0]. Second, just because it's not a combustion product, doesn't mean it's safe. The reason why we get lung cancer form asbestos is that the mineral fibers are unable to be fully broken down, and cause long term irritation. Think sand or dust [1]. [0]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5954153/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5954153/ [1]. http://www.npi.gov.au/resource/particulate-matter-pm10-and-pm25 http://www.npi.gov.au/resource/particulate-matter-pm10-and-p...
- Udik 8y ago
  I remain with my original question: the original study you cited compares aerosols generated by e-cig smokers with the similar sized dust, pollution and soot particles commonly found outside. There is a correct assumption that particles of that size, when found outside in polluted environments, are especially harmful, because of their geometrical properties combined with the fact that they carry harmful substances. Is it correct to compare pm10 generated by combustion engines with pm10 generated by an atomizer that vaporizes a pharmacy-grade pure- and in theory harmless- substance? Would the same instruments have classified as pm10 water droplets of the appropriate size?