# Hier gaat ons al weer...



## Kalahari stoommasjien (12/6/17)

http://today.uconn.edu/2017/06/e-cigarettes-potentially-harmful-tobacco-cigarettes/

Reactions: Like 2 | Thanks 1


----------



## BubiSparks (12/6/17)

From a publication that calls itself "UConn Today"....? No Sh1t Sherloc......

All I can say is LMAO

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## aktorsyl (12/6/17)

I love how they say "hundreds of chemicals" and then proceed to list none of them.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Kalahari stoommasjien (12/6/17)

Yup, well, here
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acssensors.7b00118
is more info on the 3D printed sensor and the the UConvict is unfortunately the University of Connecticut....

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## craigb (12/6/17)

" _something_ in the e-cigarettes was definitely causing damage to the DNA."

While I'm just an armchair scientist - that does not sound very sciency to me. I'm all for further research into vaping. It contributes to my ongoing informed decision. But for the love of all that is cloudy - if ya gonna do science - do it scientifically!!

I shall now head outside to vape, consequences be damned.

Reactions: Like 2 | Agree 3 | Funny 1


----------



## RichJB (12/6/17)

Some questions about the methodology applied:



> There are potentially hundreds of chemicals in e-cigarettes that could be contributing to DNA damage, Kadimisetty says. Rather than test for all of them, the UConn team targeted three known carcinogenic chemicals found in tobacco cigarettes.



Which three carcinogenic chemicals? There are also many hundreds of chemicals in tobacco smoke that cause cancer. What methodology was applied to select the three which were tested? Was it:

1) Random?
2) The easiest three to test for?
3) The three carcinogenic chemicals in tobacco smoke that are also most present in vapour? Or
4) Other?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## BubiSparks (12/6/17)

Kalahari stoommasjien said:


> Yup, well, here
> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acssensors.7b00118
> is more info on the 3D printed sensor and the the UConvict is unfortunately the University of Connecticut....



I read it as I see it: UConn = You Con

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## RichJB (12/6/17)

This graphic from the report is rather interesting:




It appears that the graphs represent (L to R): traditional cigarette (TC), non-filter traditional cigarette (nf-TC), electronic cigarette (EC), no-nicotine electronic cigarette (nn-EC). As we can see, the no-nicotine e-juice results in just over 100 "DNA damage units" (for want of a better term) while the nicotine e-juice results in around 400 DNA damage units. Would the research team be willing to go on record that, according to their study, 3/4 of the cancer risk from e-cigarettes stems from the nicotine in the juice? I don't see any other way that it can be interpreted. Presumably both the EC and nn-EC setups used the same coil, same cotton, same wattage, same juice but just sans nic in the one setup. So what, other than the nic, could be causing the damage units to quadruple from one test to the next? Are they saying that medical science has had it wrong all these years and that nic is the most carcinogenic substance in smoking and vaping?

Reactions: Agree 3


----------



## aktorsyl (12/6/17)

RichJB said:


> This graphic from the report is rather interesting:
> 
> View attachment 97868
> 
> ...


Makes me wonder if they tried running water through the instruments first to get a baseline. The graph makes no sense.
Like you, I'm open-minded and won't flat-out refuse to believe evidence that's right in front of me. But this? This isn't evidence, it's confirmation bias. (theirs, not ours)



> confirmation bias
> _noun_
> 
> the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.

Reactions: Agree 2 | Can relate 1


----------



## RichJB (13/6/17)

I tried to read the full paper but I couldn't access it, I could only get the abstract. However, this study makes no sense to me. I can see how, by cherry-picking which chemicals to test, the results could be manipulated. It is well known that even though vapour has far fewer nasties than smoke and even though most of the nasties are at much lower levels than in smoke, there are some which are high in vapour. The latest research into aldehydes indicates that, at high temperatures, vapour contains at least as many aldehydes as smoke, maybe more. There may be one or two others as well. So let's say we isolate eight carcinogens in smoke and we get the following figures for smoke (first figure) and vapour (second figure):

1. 4657, 918
2. 8745, 33
3. 1351, 7
4. 35, 37
5. 8512, 1715
6. 75, 83
7. 951, 175
8. 221, 212

But we only test for the three in red. So yeah, you find that smoke and vapour have about the same amount of carcinogens - IF you only test those three cherry-picked carcinogens. Of course, if you tested all 8 and total up all the carcinogens, you get a very different result. So I can understand how they can manipulate the result that way to reach a pre-determined conclusion.

What I don't get is how they obtain such a staggering result on carcinogens from nic. The ONLY difference between the two vaping setups is that one has nic juice, the other 0mg juice. The juice with nic produces 4x as many carcinogens. So the carcinogens MUST be coming from the nic. That contradicts everything that science has concluded so far about nic not being carcinogenic.

That said, I wouldn't dismiss this study out of hand. This is a new technology, a new methodology, a new way of looking at things. There could be several explanations. Perhaps the technology is not mature enough to be reliable yet. Perhaps there were methodology flaws, like the vaping gear being run at temps of 400C as has happened before. Perhaps DNA damage _potentially_ causing cancer doesn't translate into (this type of) DNA damage _actually_ causing cancer. Perhaps the results need further analysis. Perhaps they are picking up something that science hasn't been able to pick up before. It would need other labs to repeat the experiment, and other scientists to peer review the methodology and findings.

There are some things that trouble me, though. For starters, there is no test data. They say that one e-juice had nic in. But at what ratio? 3mg? 18mg? 50mg? What flavourings were used? What temps were run? They make a big deal of equating 20 vaping puffs to one cigarette. But I can't see how that matters. From the graph I posted above, all four appear to have been tested at 20, 60 and 100 puffs. So what is the relevance of 20 puffs = 1 cig if all four were tested on a puff-for-puff basis? What is the significance of carcinogens increasing the more puffs you take? That is self-evident, no? 

That doesn't mean that the test results are invalid or that there is something fishy afoot. But in science, as in all things, we need the whole truth and not a summary that omits key information. I get that they can't provide all the data in a media article that is a dumbed-down summary intended for the lay person. But that data needs to be made available to Dr Farsalinos and others that they can analyse it and understand how these results were reached.

Reactions: Like 6 | Winner 1 | Informative 1


----------



## aktorsyl (13/6/17)

RichJB said:


> I tried to read the full paper but I couldn't access it, I could only get the abstract. However, this study makes no sense to me. I can see how, by cherry-picking which chemicals to test, the results could be manipulated. It is well known that even though vapour has far fewer nasties than smoke and even though most of the nasties are at much lower levels than in smoke, there are some which are high in vapour. The latest research into aldehydes indicates that, at high temperatures, vapour contains at least as many aldehydes as smoke, maybe more. There may be one or two others as well. So let's say we isolate eight carcinogens in smoke and we get the following figures for smoke (first figure) and vapour (second figure):
> 
> 1. 4657, 918
> 2. 8745, 33
> ...


Agreed 100%. I don't for a second believe that vaping is absolutely harmless (and I don't think anyone's ever claimed that it is). But to equate the harm to that of combustible cigarette smoke is a stretch without figures backing it up, in my opinion. The problem immediately manifests itself when you say "vaping has the same carcinogenic effect as smoking with these 3 chemicals". But what about all the other chemicals in cigarette smoke? Are they just there for moral support to the nasty 3?

Now, if there's a study I would *really* like to see one day, it's rather one that goes like this: we already know what the benefits are of quitting smoking and replacing it with vaping (MANY benefits). I'd like to take it one step further and see what the benefits are of then quitting vaping after that. From studies so far, those benefits would seem to be minuscule, but surely there have to be some. And once _that_ has been determined, can one say not vaping is better than vaping, and vaping is better than smoking. That second part "vaping is better than smoking" being the part that really needs to get through to people's minds, because they seem to _want_ to prove the opposite for whatever ridiculous reason.

If someone is a hardcore smoker, they can still be persuaded to take up vaping instead. What you're not going to manage easily is to make them quit 100% cold turkey altogether. If you're telling these people that vaping is just as harmful as smoking, they're just going to keep on smoking. I'm not sure if these study-leaders & the media just don't realise they're doing more harm, or whether they do and they just don't care because sensation and fear-mongering = news = exposure = sales, or whatever drives them.

Vaping is still "relatively" in its infancy. If science comes to a realisation that we all missed something and vaping is truly dangerous, then of course we'll go "oh, sh*t." and act accordingly. I don't think any of us will stubbornly refuse to believe scientific fact. But while there are studies with numbers and backing figures to prove that vaping is safer, there are just vague studies (like the one above) trying to prove the opposite.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## KZOR (13/6/17)

Lost interest because .......

1) too many unknowns regarding this study
2) i saw the BS graph indicating that non-nicotine ecigs have the same potential DNA damage as tobacco cigs.

And even if this fairy tale turns out to be true then the tar and remaining 41 carcinogens produced by the combustion process of cigarettes is more than enough reason for me to stay on the vape.

Reactions: Agree 4


----------



## Silver (13/6/17)

Thanks for posting this @Kalahari stoommasjien

Always good to try keep up to date with the latest research on vaping harm.

Interestingly, most of the research to date suggests that vaping is considerably safer than smoking - yet this research says vaping is potentially as damaging to DNA as smoking.

Thanks for the detailed checking and your comments @RichJB - you make very valid points and your comments are very helpful.

Will be interesting to see what the other scientists and researchers such as Dr Farsalinos say about this study. If you see anything of that nature, please share it here.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## SmokeyJoe (13/6/17)

Sounds like a Tobacco sponsored test case to me

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 3


----------



## Feliks Karp (13/6/17)

RichJB said:


> I tried to read the full paper but I couldn't access it, I could only get the abstract. However, this study makes no sense to me. I can see how, by cherry-picking which chemicals to test, the results could be manipulated. It is well known that even though vapour has far fewer nasties than smoke and even though most of the nasties are at much lower levels than in smoke, there are some which are high in vapour. The latest research into aldehydes indicates that, at high temperatures, vapour contains at least as many aldehydes as smoke, maybe more. There may be one or two others as well. So let's say we isolate eight carcinogens in smoke and we get the following figures for smoke (first figure) and vapour (second figure):
> 
> 1. 4657, 918
> 2. 8745, 33
> ...




It would interesting to see what carrier the NIC was in, as well as the complete percentages of carriers in all the versions tested as previously it was noted that VG might produce the most known/potential carcinogens at higher heats. I agree with you that this study is interesting but doesn't seem to be very comprehensive in it's results [as you stated may just be summarized for general publication (but that in itself is a bit irresponsible)].

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Chukin'Vape (13/6/17)

Whoever did this study did not write this article - so much valuable information was not included. It literally just feels like they are baiting clicks to punt this new 3D Printed Tech. ("low cost" - why would you even mention the cost in of the testing apparatus in a study?) Is this testing method the approved method / standard to test toxicity levels?

Ive seen this behavior on the Big Pharma side - in more than one case they are calling vaping as bad as smoking, what this will then do is motivate people not to vape. This very article could be the cause of someone dying with cancer. When dealing with something as serious as cancer and human life your information needs to be clear, informative and correct - without any doubts. Sooo my message to Uconn Today is....

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## craigb (13/6/17)

Something I've noticed from a small set of studies I've seen... 

The 'vaping is safer' side generally presents complete results, documenting processes used, testing methodology, full rationale and explanatiin for why specific tests are being done. Basically they provide enough that any capable tester can attempt to reproduce the results. 

'anti vaping brigade' just shkvd numbers I your face saying "see, that stuffs bad for you. Trust me, it's bad." 

Horrible generalization and over simplification, I know, but you get my point.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

