The most significant wording is near the bottom, of course. "Boston University's Michael Siegal said in his email that the study is "suspect" because the researchers didn't report the electrical resistance of the heating coils. This is needed to know how much power was actually delivered to the coils." To make the proper analogy, this is akin to not reporting how much gasoline and TNT you put in the back of vehicle prior to safety testing. It's a very good anology. Most scary headlines are generated by cranking up the power on the liquid to get it to burn rather than atomize. Always look at the resistance or temperature being used in the study. If they just say voltage (and not ohms), it's definitely a sign of intentional deception for headlines. Hell one of them turned the liquid up to 600C, which should have caused combustion. Virtually none of them could be physically vaped by a person, let alone comfortably or preferred.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/457102/Ecigarettes_an_evidence_update_A_report_commissioned_by_Public_Health_England_FINAL.pdfPage 75.
Gee, an actually openly published report instead of one stuck behind a paywall. I'm not forking over $40 for a report that is likely intentionally or unintentionally hiding critical experimental data. If I know my academics, and I do, they are always under pressure to publish and get more grants. Which leads to crap experiments with bad controls. I am furious my tax dollars paid for this prohibitionist propaganda, and then I'm expected to PAY to get the results.
Let's pick one of their carcinogens , glycidol. According to these wankers, steady state puff is 2 microgram per puff. Times 235 puffs per day. No word on how much is retained rather than expelled, because that's too useful information for folks.
NIOSH recommends a limit of 25ppm over a 8 hour shift for workers. OSHA, 50 ppm. 1993-1994 ACGIH TLV, 25 ppm.
Humans breath 10800 liters per day. 500 ml X 15 breaths/minute x 60 minutes/hour x 24 hours/day. Let's ballpark it at 3000L for an 8 hour work day. This is about 4.5kg of air.
1ppm is 4.5mg.
25ppm is 110mg.
2 microgram is 0.002mg.
110 divided by 0.002 is 55,000.
So you'd need 55,000 puffs to equal one day's NIOSH limits. 110,000 puffs to equal OSHA limits.
The average puffs per day in the study is 235. So you'd need 230 days of puffing away to reach NIOSH's 8 hour limit for one work day. Admittedly these are ballpark figures, but they're accurate within an order of magnitude.
Here's the evidence:
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2016/07/27/e-cigarettes-emit-harmful-chemicals-emit-others/ - Look at the graph.
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/556525.html - Look at NIOSH REL.
Simple 6th grade math should prove the test. It's directly factual and directly lying through omission. They're intentionally NOT comparing it to NIOSH, OSHA, EPA recommended max limits. They're using micrograms (2) instead of milligrams ( 0.002 ) to make it sounds bigger than it actually is. Because why use consistent units that people can use. They're hiding behind paywalls of publicly funded research.
And HankB is correct. They don't publicly disclose the chemicals used, because why would you ever run your chemical samples through gas chromatography–mass spectrometry to see what's in it. Why, that'd be actual scientific rigor. Cheap China liquids are known for containing flavoring that can produce acetol, diacetyl, acrolein and acateldehyde. Most US made makers have a lab certify their material as being free of those four and a couple others. Diacetyl is the popcorn lung thing. Even the cheap Chinese crap has significantly lower concentration than regular cigarettes, which virtually never actually cause popcorn lung. It's a very valid concern in manufacturing that involves diacetyl. Notice, they always talk about "detected" and never about the actual amount/concentration detected. Don't get me wrong, lower levels over a longer period of time can still be dangerous. They don't try to actually provide USEFUL and HELPFUL science.
Formaldehyde is generated by burning the liquid. And your cheapest Chinese liquids. It happens, and it's VERY noticeable. Usually because your vaping unit was in your pocket, and accidentally got cranked to max then triggered. Fries the coil. Akin to accidentally lighting your cigarette backwards and ignoring the filter. You WILL notice, and you WILL not continue. It's produced in small amounts in regular operations, roughly a small fraction of what you'd get from eating a tomato.
It is entirely plausible to build a substantially safe vaping unit and liquids. I admit, some regulation on the el cheapo China units would probably be a good thing. Temperature controlled vaping units on the hardware side, and decent quality control on the liquid side. I buy US pharmacopeia standard materials. It's significantly safer than the bottled water you drink regularly or a salad bought in a restaurant. Completely safe and healthy? Nope, not by a long shot. Nicotine is toxic, but generally not a carcinogen but it can impact things if you already do have cancer. Burning rather than atomizing liquid does occur. It would be nice to have a common task force with the aim of creating the safest smoking alternative as possible.
Hey, look, actual chemical engineering without an ideological axe to grind. Go figure.
