# E-cigarettes alter lungs 'at cellular level'



## natr0n (May 19, 2015)

Since [URL='http://www.wired.co.uk/e-cigarettes']electronic cigarettes were introduced in 2004, the devices have become incredibly popular among smokers. As of 2013, there were 2.1 million users in the UK alone, despite there being no universally accepted studies on the safety of the tobacco replacement devices, or their efficacy in helping smokers to quit regular cigarettes.

In fact, new research shows that e-cigs -- or more specifically, the flavourings that can be used in them -- could have a dramatic impact on the human body. A report published by the _American Thoracic Society_, which focuses on pulmonary diseases and breathing disorders, has found they can actually alter lung function at the cellular level.

The findings were presented at the 2015 American Thoracic Society International Conference and include changes in cell viability, cell proliferation, and calcium signalling, though these effects were dependent on which flavour liquid was used in the trials. 

The study uses cultures of human airway epithelial cells, which were exposed to various doses of 13 e-cigarette flavours for either 30 minutes or 24 hours. In the former, three flavours -- Hot Cinnamon Candies, Banana Pudding (Southern Style), and Menthol Tobacco -- saw a dose-dependent calcium response. At higher doses, they were actually toxic to the cells. In the 24-hour exposure test, the same flavours decreased cells' ability to grow and replicate, depending on the dosage administered

"The effects of the various chemical components of e-cigarette vapor on lung tissue are largely unknown," said the study's lead author, Temperance Rowell of the University of North Carolina. "In our study using human lung epithelial cells, a number of cell viability and toxicity parameters pointed to five of 13 flavours tested showing overall adverse effects to cells in a dose-dependent manner."

However, the toxic effects were not seen with either nicotine or the e-liquid vehicle, which consisted of the usual propylene glycol or vegetable glycerin. Longer term studies, including the "aerosolised product of e-liquid flavours on cultured primary human bronchial epithelial cells" are ongoing.

While it might seem a no-brainer to some that intentionally inhaling largely unregulated chemicals may have some negative health side-effects, there is comparatively little research into the long-term impact of either the "regular" nicotine delivery systems of e-cigs or the flavoured alternatives. Similarly, there is minimal oversight of the vapourisers or liquids -- Rowell's study used flavoured liquids from an American specialist retailer, though the ones UK consumers may purchase could come from a variety of different sources, all with different production standards, ingredients, and chemical compositions. However, a World Health Organisation report from 2013 concluded that "consumers should be strongly advised not to use any of these products, including electronic cigarettes", and countries including Brazil, Uruguay, and Singapore have banned them.
[/URL]
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-05/18/electronic-cigarette-liquids-bad-for-you
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-05/18/electronic-cigarette-liquids-bad-for-you


----------



## brandonwh64 (May 19, 2015)

Great another thread about this...


----------



## RejZoR (May 19, 2015)

This seems to be the same issue as with car engines that use direct injection. Only cars using DI produce super tiny particles that are even more health damaging than normal engines that are simply less efficient. Got to be the same here, the difference between burned chemicals and chemicals evaporated in a different way (which to me sounds like ultra sound splitting, I have't checked E-cigs tech since I don't smoke anything).


----------



## repman244 (May 19, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Only cars using DI produce super tiny particles that are even more health damaging than normal engines that are simply less efficient.



That depends - common rail diesels produce way less soot than old engines (looking at it without the DPF) it's due to higher efficiency of combustion. But for the new petrol DI engines you are completely right.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (May 19, 2015)

I think this study refers to the flavouring (correct spelling) additives as opposed to the toxicity of nicotine. 

Like the piece mentions they say it is early days in the long term research studies.  

It begs the question though why isnt the research done _before _the public is "guinea pigged" again?  Mislead by marketeers into believing it is the next cool thing, odd how its acsendency coincided with the ban of tobacco advertising. Vaporisers are nothing new, the agressive advertising of them is though.  I was  using them to consume illicits many moons ago.

Shops in the UK can no longer display tobacco products at all BUT they can advertise these devices at child eye height on the front door of our village shop legally


----------



## erocker (May 19, 2015)

I don't really think that the folks who use this product care what governments think about it. After all, the individual is ultimately responsible for their own health.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (May 19, 2015)

The study was on flavoring chemicals.  Above, the exact wording was:


natr0n said:


> ...
> However, the toxic effects were not seen with either nicotine or the e-liquid vehicle, which consisted of the usual propylene glycol or vegetable glycerin. Longer term studies, including the "aerosolised product of e-liquid flavours on cultured primary human bronchial epithelial cells" are ongoing...



Like so many other things, it isn't the base ingredient that is terrible.  The flavoring chemicals, not unlike dyes and artificial preservatives, are the things we can see causing the issue.




Side note; who didn't see this coming?  Completely unregulated by the FDA (http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm172906.htm), socially more acceptable than the alternative, and cheap.  As with bath salts before them, e-cigarettes are being adopted because they can't possibly be worse than the alternative (an intentional hyperbolic statement, read it with a smug accent).  The people who used to complain about second hand smoke can't give smokers a hard time for e-cigarettes, so the up side for smokers (no hassel and actual acceptance) is much better than a potentially unknown risk.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (May 19, 2015)

Well there is no questions Cigarettes will kill you. I successfully, 2 years so far, used E-Cigs to stop smoking and eventually stopped using E-Cigs as well. If E-Cigs can help smokers stop then they are great. I vaped for about 1 year and have been off all nicotine for 2 years now so it can work for some people. Thankfully I never liked the fruity or strong flavored vapor.

Also, just because the FDA regulates something in no way means it is safe...Just means the check cleared.


----------



## AsRock (May 19, 2015)

erocker said:


> I don't really think that the folks who use this product care what governments think about it. After all, the individual is ultimately responsible for their own health.



Not really, depending on were you live controls what you eat too.


----------



## Steevo (May 19, 2015)

erocker said:


> I don't really think that the folks who use this product care what governments think about it. After all, the individual is ultimately responsible for their own health.


They don't care until like Asbestos it starts to kill people. Then all of a sudden its..."Oh god, why didn't the government tell me it was dangerous" followed by a frenzy of lawsuits, sob stories, and much else. As if anyone who ever started smoking noticed the burning sensation, the coughing and never thought..... man, it MUST be good for me it it causes this, but I am tougher than a stupid plant!!!


I wold still say to keep it legal, but if you smoke all the cancer, emphysema, and other shit is all on you, and you have to pay out of pocket for any and all medical treatment as a result thereof.


----------



## Batou1986 (May 19, 2015)

As someone who just started vaping and quit smoking I realize there is no guarantee it's safe, I do however feel that its could not possibly be worse than smoking.
The problem with these studies on e-cigs and the e-juice is no one has yet made a proper testing analog to a human vaping.
I have a feeling that vaping say 2ml of juice a day would not produce the same effects as soaking cells in e-juice for 24 hours
Previously there was a study where researchers detected dangerous levels of formaldehyde from e-cigs, later on the researchers admitted that the testing was flawed because they were subjecting the e-cigs/e-juice to crazy voltages and temperatures that were not representative of the conditions found during normal vaporizer use.

The thing that really gets me here is none of these studies focus on the wick or coil, a lot of the cheaper vape coils use silica or other materials in the wick.
I think that the coils themselves possibly present more danger than the liquids being vaped.

Also feel free to remind any douchebag you see that thinks it's appropriate to vape anywhere they want in public because "IT'S NOT SMOKING" that they are douchebags.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (May 20, 2015)

Since everyone seems to have an opinion on the subject, but nobody seems to want to do the slightest bit of justification on their parts, let's work through this together.

First off, the FDA approves both food and drugs for usage on humans.  Despite what people think, getting products past the FDA is an absolute bitch.  Check out their own breakdown of the process http://www.fdareview.org/approval_process.shtml.  Now, exactly where do you believe bribery can happen here?  Assuming that you somehow think it can happen, then why in the heck don't huge pharmaceutical companies do it?  Perhaps you'd like to back your accusations with some facts....  I'm still waiting.  I'll help you out, check for lawsuits currently pending against the FDA.  Most of them center of non-approved (off-label) usages of drugs.  Even then, that's a miniscule fraction of the items that the FDA tests.

If I were a gambling man, I'd go the herbal supplement route.  It isn't a food item, and it isn't a regulated drug, so you're free to do whatever you want.  Don't believe me, ever wonder what the heck was up with bath salts?  Ever wonder why a substance that was basically meth could be sold on store shelves?  What about the idiots who think water has a memory, and likes cure likes (it sounds like a developmentally challenged statement, just hang on for a second)?  You know, the people who say water with a concentration of Arsenic equal to 0.01^30 (they can't answer by mass or by volume) can cure cancer.  

Now how about the bat s*** crazy items in food, that the FDA actually allows.  Ever want grasshopper with you chocolate?  What about mouse parts?  Perhaps you're more into actual sand, sticks, and stones.  Safe for consumption and entirely pleasant to think about are two very separate things.  http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/11-revolting-things-government-lets-in-your-food/12/



Again, let's review the article.  Are e-cigarettes bad?  Can't find a single part of it that says that.  Even after a second read through, there's nothing.  What I see is the same crap you always read on the side of artificially colored items.  These colorants and flavorants have been proven to cause cancer in laboratory animals.  The testing conditions are insane amounts of the item pumped into animals over a short period.  It's a great bell weather for the results of massive dosages, but does nothing to address the half life of the chemicals in your system, the solubility in other tissues, or even the influence on tissues other than the lungs.  What has been presented is a bid for the FDA to fund testing on the artificial colors and flavors.  Worst case scenario, the e-cig companies switch their blends to something already approved for human consumption.  The only reason they don't do that now is the it would cost more, and diminish the uniqueness of each brand.  Realistically, the vaporizer doesn't matter, the nicotine levels are easy to regulate, the only unique part of each brand is their flavor.  It will take some doing to get companies to give that brand identity up.


Moving on, what other chemicals are involved?  Nicotine, vegetable oils, and flavors are what you'd expect to have in the vapor.  The heating element is generally silicon carbide, with a melting (not vaporizing) temperature of 2730 C (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_carbide).  This leaves only two sources of additional chemicals.  The body of the vaporizer, and the metal contact points on the silicon carbide element.  Autoignition for nicotine is 244 C (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine), so that means the metal is out of the picture.  The remaining source of dangerous chemicals is the body of the vaporizer.  Burning plastic has only been reported when the heating elements have been massively over powered, so that seems to not be a viable avenue.  This means you've got 3 chemical cocktails.  The oil used to store the flavor and nicotine, the nicotine, and the flavor.  Of which, only one has not already been ruled as not a significant risk.  Flavor chemicals are all that identifies a specific brand of e-cigarette, and they're what this article cites as a problem.  Sounds pretty logical to me.



As far as cigarettes versus vaporizers, who gives a damn?  On any given day you expose yourself to city water that could be flowing through centuries old piping (I've actually seem wooden pipes used in a city water system as recently as last year).  After your shower, you eat food that has been sprayed with pesticides so that it could be shipped half way around the world.  You hop into a car, which is more likely to kill you than any fire arm you own.  You use the bathroom, which is more likely to cause your death than a car.  When you finally get home after a stressful day of working, you go to sleep.  After a long day of risking your life, stressing out, and putting unspeakable things into your body you are going to yell at somebody else for smoking.  Seriously, somebody who can do that is a dick.  While I may not like smoking, calling people douche bags for doing it is, paraphrasing here, a b**** move.  Everybody dies, and you deserve to choose how you go out.  Whether it be an e-cigarette, a Twinky, or old age you will be gone.  Denying somebody the pleasure of an e-cigarette, because you think it's a gross habit, is not reasonable.  Imagine if you were denied what you liked, just because somebody else didn't like it.  Personally, I also despise bacon.  Does that give me the right to tell you bacon is forbidden (with the obvious exception of religious beliefs, though that's another discussion)?  What about pornography?  Once the tables are turned it's hard to say your loathing is righteous, and not just petty.


----------



## brandonwh64 (May 20, 2015)

There are more toxins in everyday life you are exposed to and BIG tobacco wants to make sure you are in fear of vaping as well. Most of these articles have been proven false or was paid by BIG tobacco to make sure they found atleast something or more to shun vaping. Tobacco companies all over the world (especially the US) have too much invested to let a simple 3 ingredient (minus flavoring) alternative ruin their cash cow.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 20, 2015)

erocker said:


> I don't really think that the folks who use this product care what governments think about it. After all, the individual is ultimately responsible for their own health.


While I completely agree, unfortunately that is less and less true. With national healthcare what you put in your body has an impact on my wallet. It is fascism through and through. Expect future governments to tax to death all products deemed unhealthy because nobody will be personally responsible for their own well being.


----------



## m1dg3t (May 20, 2015)

Nevermind ecigs, smoke crack. /sarcasm

What do people expect when ingesting unregulated/untested chemicals? Stupis IS as stupid does. TruStory.

*News flash* You wanna quit smoking? Just fucking quit! I smoked a pack +/day for 15+ years and quit cold turkey. After MANY MANY attempts. My trick to 'success'? Smoke 1 pack per anum, and chew shit loads of gum.


----------



## Solaris17 (May 20, 2015)

Isnt this the exact title of an article on facebook>? For a second I thought this was spam again.....As for vaping I dont know why people give a fuck. You vape or you dont you smoke or you dont and if you dont do either its none of your fucking business or problem if other people do, at least to the extent of the law. I smoked a pack a day for 8 years I havent touched nicotine in 2 years I have successfully quit. I saved a ton of money and im way healthier. Regardless of whether or not people do it to quit or use it as an alternative doesnt and shouldnt matter. and those that have a problem with people that use these devices can suck dick. Its not going to be your problem is it?


----------



## xorbe (May 20, 2015)

natr0n said:


> found they can actually alter lung function at the cellular level.



You should see what plain cigarettes do to the lungs ... dead cells and COPD.


----------



## brandonwh64 (May 21, 2015)

__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152015501232217
		



The number of people using electronic cigarettes in the UK has tripled over the past two years but the British Medical Association says there is not enough evidence to show they are safe.

The BBC's Graham Satchell observed a university lab test comparing traditional smoking with e-cigarettes.


----------



## twilyth (May 29, 2015)

Just fyi, things like PG and veggie glycerin are only approved for consumption, that means oral consumption.  They are not necessarily safe when inhaled. In particular there is some concern that very small particles can have a negative affect on lung tissue.  

There are all sorts of chemicals it's safe to eat but you wouldn't want to convert them to vapor and inhale them.


----------



## silkstone (May 29, 2015)

twilyth said:


> Just fyi, things like PG and veggie glycerin are only approved for consumption, that means oral consumption.  They are not necessarily safe when inhaled. In particular there is some concern that very small particles can have a negative affect on lung tissue.
> 
> There are all sorts of chemicals it's safe to eat but you wouldn't want to convert them to vapor and inhale them.



From what I remember PG is used and regulated for use in fog machines and has been deemed safe for inhalation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1740047/

It's the flavourings that can be bad. Custard type flavours are a particular worry.


----------



## twilyth (May 29, 2015)

silkstone said:


> From what I remember PG is used and regulated for use in fog machines and has been deemed safe for inhalation.
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1740047/
> 
> It's the flavourings that can be bad. Custard type flavours are a particular worry.


Did you read the abstract?


> _RESULTS_—After exposure to PG mist for 1 minute tear film stability decreased, ocular and throat symptoms increased, forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity (FEV1/FVC) was slightly reduced, and self rated severity of dyspnoea was slightly increased. No effect was found for nasal patency, vital capacity (VC), FVC, nasal symptoms, dermal symptoms, smell of solvent, or any systemic symptoms. Those exposed to the higher concentrations in the afternoon had a more pronounced increase of throat symptoms, and a more pronounced decrease of tear film stability. In four subjects who reported development of irritative cough during exposure to PG, FEV1 was decreased by 5%, but FEV1 was unchanged among those who did not develop a cough. Those who developed a cough also had an increased perception of mild dyspnoea.
> _CONCLUSION_—Short exposure to PG mist from artificial smoke generators may cause acute ocular and upper airway irritation in non-asthmatic subjects. A few may also react with cough and slight airway obstruction.


----------



## MilkyWay (May 29, 2015)

In Scotland most medical professionals tend to say that e-cigs are better for you overall than smoking tobacco but you shouldn't really use e-cigs either. They say the sort of unresearched scaremongering is pushing people back to tobacco products which is ultimately worse for their health. Im pretty sure the importation of e-cigs is regulated in the UK. I actually have no idea whats actually in a refillable e-cig other than nicotine.


----------



## Champ (May 29, 2015)

I enjoy mine thoroughly. I'm not a smoker, just a hardcore vaper. I probably let in more chemicals step outside and taking a deep breathe than I do vaping. I've been doing it for about a year. Guess what, I get a check up, the doctor doesn't say you must be a vaper. No one can't tell.


----------



## silkstone (May 29, 2015)

twilyth said:


> Did you read the abstract?



I did. The effects are less bad than tobacco smoke. So the lesser of 2 evils?


----------



## twilyth (May 29, 2015)

silkstone said:


> I did. The effects are less bad than tobacco smoke. So the lesser of 2 evils?


Probably, but not necessarily "safe."  That was the point I was trying to make.  And bear in mind that very little is known about the effects of long term exposure.  That study was only a cursory examination to determine if there were any immediate health effects for transient exposure. And as they say in the introduction



> Propylene glycol may cause contact allergy, but *there is sparse information on health effects from occupational exposure to PG.*


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (May 29, 2015)

twilyth said:


> Did you read the abstract?



Perhaps you are reading the article with a bit of bias.  The phrases of importance from the article are:
"Non-asthmatic volunteers (_n=27_)..."
"Propylene glycol_ may cause contact allergy_, but there is sparse information on health effects from occupational exposure to PG."
"After exposure to PG mist for 1 minute tear film stability decreased, ocular and throat symptoms increased, forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity (FEV1/FVC) was slightly reduced, and self rated severity of dyspnoea was slightly increased. _No effect was found for nasal patency, vital capacity (VC), FVC, nasal symptoms, dermal symptoms, smell of solvent, or any systemic symptoms_."
"In four subjects who reported development of irritative cough during exposure to PG, FEV1 was decreased by 5%, _but FEV1 was unchanged among those who did not develop a cough_"
"Short exposure to PG mist _from artificial smoke generators_ may cause acute ocular and upper airway irritation in non-asthmatic subjects. A few may also react with cough and slight airway obstruction."


Reviewing the article (it was not a study, or genuine research of any kind), we note the following.
1) Sample size was crap.  27 people means nothing when your only qualifier is "non-asthmatic."
2) No double blind testing.  No testing of other aerosols.  No controls.  This is why it's an article, and not a study.
3) Not related to intentional consumption of vaporized PG, but simply cited as a fog of PG.
4) Poor subject analysis.  People suffering from allergies could "develop a cough," yet the article cites it as a link between irritation to PG and irritation of the throat.  Specifically, they made the deduction, from a functionally non-existant sample size, that because other studies say women are more likely to be more sensitive to irritants their data shows more women were sensitive.  
5) Bias.  Read the discussion at the end of the article.  They admit that the concentration is very high, and the exposure time is very low.  Technically, I can get the same effect of throat irritation if I walk from a cold pool into a hot humid sauna.  


This article is crap.  The people quoting it are extrapolating data based on insufficient input information.  There are plenty of "news" articles that cite it as a source that incontrovertibly proves PG should not be imbibed as an aerosol.  Another cottage industry of fear mongerers has been built around nothing.


When you cite me a viable study that comes to the same conclusion I'll listen.  Until then I assume that e-cigs are just about as bad as regular cigarettes.  Any other assertion is either based in idiocy, or bending to propaganda.  Neither option is reasonable.


----------



## NC37 (May 29, 2015)

And of course California would read this and go bonkers...they already are. Every time they do I always want to question these idiots and say..."Why are you going so nuts about something that has unknown health effects but theoretically is safer because it doesn't have tar or any number of the same nasty things regular cigs have, yet don't give a rats ass about regular cigarettes other than taxing them out of existence?"

To sum it all up...Californians are idiots....yes I know I am one too but I don't consider myself part of their existence.


----------



## twilyth (May 29, 2015)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Perhaps you are reading the article with a bit of bias.  The phrases of importance from the article are:
> "Non-asthmatic volunteers (_n=27_)..."
> "Propylene glycol_ may cause contact allergy_, but there is sparse information on health effects from occupational exposure to PG."
> "After exposure to PG mist for 1 minute tear film stability decreased, ocular and throat symptoms increased, forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity (FEV1/FVC) was slightly reduced, and self rated severity of dyspnoea was slightly increased. _No effect was found for nasal patency, vital capacity (VC), FVC, nasal symptoms, dermal symptoms, smell of solvent, or any systemic symptoms_."
> ...


I wouldn't go so far as to say crap but it definitely doesn't prove that PG is safe.  And that was the point I was trying to make.


----------



## Champ (May 29, 2015)

Even if you are having reactions to PG, and most don't it know until they get concentrated doses vaping, there is full VG juice, which I am about to start using. That's for the hobbyist and extremist thou. Can only be used dripping or probably with a solid rta. General vaping crowd could probably give two craps.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (May 29, 2015)

twilyth said:


> I wouldn't go so far as to say crap but it definitely doesn't prove that PG is safe.  And that was the point I was trying to make.



I do not argue that the product is safe for this use.  Honestly, I believe that any aerosol delivery system of a drug is insanely risk laden when you start pumping particulate matter into your lungs.  

My argument is that the article is being used to say something is dangerous, and that's crap.  They can't meet the minimum bar for a basic study, they posit relationships based upon personal biases, and after all of this can't even conclusively demonstrate that their assertions were based upon a non psycho-somatic response.  Despite lacking a sufficient sample size, adequate controls, blinds to remove psychological responses from physiological ones, and generally a poorly thought out experiment these people are beating the drum of danger.  That sort of stupidity is unacceptable to determine whether anything is truly safe or dangerous.

We expose ourselves to some crazy dangerous things in the name of curing some perceived failing.  Honestly, responses to vaccinations can cripple a very small amount of people (not via autism, via having too strong of a reaction to the virus bits and basically boiling themselves in their skin).  Despite this, we get them to prevent far worse things that can easily spread.  Methodone is insanely addictive, yet treats heroine abusers.  A fundamentally unsafe product is used to treat a much more dangerous state of affairs.  Maybe PG via vaporizer is methodone, maybe it's using crack to cure your alcoholism.  This article can't really say which situation vaporizers lean toward, yet that does not stop them from conjecturing.  Those conjectures contribute to people "factually" stating vaporizer are dangerous, based on no demonstrable facts.  That sort of equivocation is dangerous and foolhardy, in short "crap."


----------



## silkstone (May 29, 2015)

twilyth said:


> Probably, but not necessarily "safe."  That was the point I was trying to make.  And bear in mind that very little is known about the effects of long term exposure.  That study was only a cursory examination to determine if there were any immediate health effects for transient exposure. And as they say in the introduction



I agree, it doesn't prove they are safe at all, they might not be. Even drinking water is not always safe and dihydrogen Monoxide causes a large number of deaths each year.

Lots of doctors have said that they believe vaping to be safer than smoking. In absence of clinical studies, I'll take the doctors' word when choosing between them.

There are some studies into vaping (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22672560), but not enough time or money has been invested to find the long-term effects.


----------

