# 10 times more cancerous than tobacco



## toke

http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Regional/2014/11/27/Ecigarettes-have-10-times-carcinogens/

if you read closley "some" of the juices contain these elements causing cancer.. i bet its all the fake liqua juices on the market.

think im still safe with my DIY mixes tho

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/health/e-cigarettes-have-10/1496560.html?cid=cna_flip_070214

Reactions: Thanks 1


----------



## Silver

Thanks for sharing @toke

So confusing

I recall some research a while back showing the exact opposite. That there were way more of the dangerous chemicals in smoke than vapour. 

Any research like this is definitely worrying. But I suppose until we see their research paper and understand how their tests were done and with what equipment and liquid we will never know the truth. 

Lets all try keep a watchful eye on this Japanese study and see what comes of it, if anything.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## BigGuy

It is more than likely some CHINA MALL crap. Which has been made to make a quick buck.


----------



## ConradS

No doubt an issue with some unscrupulous manufacturers. I have seen eliquids for sale for as low as R18 for 10ml. Who knows what is in there. Like it or not - this market will eventually be regulated by public health bodies as more sharks try to make a quick buck.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Gazzacpt

I'll start worrying when its independent research pointing this out. Right now its a government paid for research paper and unless we know how the test was conducted they could have made the test to get a result they wanted. I'm ignoring this till I see a reseach doc.


----------



## Nooby

Wish we could just get the real facts once and for all... 'If' it is very bad for us, then I'm definitely stopping.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Silver

Nooby said:


> Wish we could just get the real facts once and for all... 'If' it is very bad for us, then I'm definitely stopping.



This is precisely why one needs to follow people like Dr Farsalinos
He is trying hard to do lots of proper tests. 

His closing message to us was "Good luck and be patient. We are fighting for the truth to prevail, and it will."

You can read more about his message to us with a link to a website containing his research here:
http://www.ecigssa.co.za/threads/a-message-from-dr-farsalinos-to-us-ecigs-sa-vapers.6273/

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Alex

I think this may be the paper in question.
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/analsci/29/12/29_1219/_pdf

and here
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/11/11192/pdf


----------



## Silver

Alex said:


> I think this may be the paper in question.
> https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/analsci/29/12/29_1219/_pdf
> 
> and here
> http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/11/11192/pdf



Wow @Alex, well found!
Its unclear what ecigs they used but on the 3rd page it says that 4 out of the 13 they tried did not produce any "carbonyl" compounds. Strange that nine did but four didnt. Pity they didnt disclose the brands. The photo of the atomiser looks like they were using cig-alikes.

Reactions: Thanks 1


----------



## Achmat89

They will do anything to scare us, i don't believe it so much because its so convenient that they say "Neither the scientist nor anyone from the health ministry were immediately available to confirm the report"

Which obviously means this could just be speculation. I think they want us to quit so we could relapse back to cigs. Remember the Government would do anything to keep us making them dollars.
Same like cannabis was made illegal because of the oil companies, same goes for this. 

http://loveforlife.com.au/content/0...illegal-doug-yurchey-2005-posted-wes-penre-il

Oh well that's just my opinion

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## Silver

Achmat88 said:


> They will do anything to scare us, i don't believe it so much because its so convenient that they say "Neither the scientist nor anyone from the health ministry were immediately available to confirm the report"
> 
> Which obviously means this could just be speculation. I think they want us to quit so we could relapse back to cigs. Remember the Government would do anything to keep us making them dollars.
> Same like cannabis was made illegal because of the oil companies, same goes for this.
> 
> http://loveforlife.com.au/content/0...illegal-doug-yurchey-2005-posted-wes-penre-il
> 
> Oh well that's just my opinion



I hear you @Achmat88 
And I do tend to agree with you. But then again, I am biased. i want to believe that vaping is safer. 

It does sound strange though to come out with research that says there is higher concentration of carcinogens in vapour than smoke. Especially given that most other research so far that I have seen says the opposite. 

Lets see - but definitely we need to watch out for the research that comes out

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Achmat89

Silver said:


> I hear you @Achmat88
> And I do tend to agree with you. But then again, I am biased. i want to believe that vaping is safer.
> 
> It does sound strange though to come out with research that says there is higher concentration of carcinogens in vapour than smoke. Especially given that most other research so far that I have seen says the opposite.
> 
> Lets see - but definitely we need to watch out for the research that comes out




I suppose we just have to wait and see bro, took scientists about 20 years to discover that cigarettes could lead to cancer.
I am too confused but i think it's impossible for vg and pg to really mess you up. The big question is, what is the flavour made of?? @Silver


----------



## Alex

Silver said:


> Wow @Alex, well found!
> Its unclear what ecigs they used but on the 3rd page it says that 4 out of the 13 they tried did not produce any "carbonyl" compounds. Strange that nine did but four didnt. Pity they didnt disclose the brands. The photo of the atomiser looks like they were using cig-alikes.



Don't know if you noticed on the second one our Dr Farsalinos is mentioned http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/11/11192/pdf


----------



## Andre

If I remember correctly, the study used machines to puff/blow on the vapes, not humans. And the coils and wicks were burnt black! As many commentators pointed out, if you burn it you are going to get carbonyl compounds. No vaper in his/her right mind would vape on a burnt coil/wick.

Reactions: Agree 5


----------



## Alex

Andre said:


> If I remember correctly, the study used machines to puff/blow on the vapes, not humans. And the coils and wicks were burnt black! As many commentators pointed out, if you burn it you are going to get carbonyl compounds. No vaper in his/her right mind would vape on a burnt coil/wick.


Indeed


----------



## Achmat89

Once you get that shitty taste you know its time for a fresh build/coil.
Nothing more mouth/lung-gasmic like a fresh coil


----------



## Danny

I dont see the justification behind the comparison. Those devices arent a fair comparison. The data is presented against nothing comparitive either, where are the comparitive stats measured on the same equipment that they measured. Stats like comparison between normal smoke, e cig vapour and normal breath, negative and positive control groups etc.
Great they found dangerous chemicals in some e cigs but have given no real statistical standpoint relative to the other evils. Those data may very well be significantly different to normal smoke, without proving it accurately they are nothing but numbers to me. I must read it all again but imo well funded but somewhat sloppy science, the one paper doesnt even give the methodology!

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Alex

Danny said:


> I dont see the justification behind the comparison. Those devices arent a fair comparison. The data is presented against nothing comparitive either, where are the comparitive stats measured on the same equipment that they measured. Stats like comparison between normal smoke, e cig vapour and normal breath, negative and positive control groups etc.
> Great they found dangerous chemicals in some e cigs but have given no real statistical standpoint relative to the other evils. Those data may very well be significantly different to normal smoke, without proving it accurately they are nothing but numbers to me. I must read it all again but imo well funded but somewhat sloppy science, the one paper doesnt even give the methodology!



I was hoping that someone could decipher some of the gr33k.

Thank you

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Silver

Alex said:


> Don't know if you noticed on the second one our Dr Farsalinos is mentioned http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/11/11192/pdf



Wow @Alex - I didn't see that. Well spotted!
Dr Farsalinos is mentioned as the external editor of the research. 
That changes it for me radically.

I wonder what the various brands were that were tested....

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Andre

Silver said:


> Wow @Alex - I didn't see that. Well spotted!
> Dr Farsalinos is mentioned as the external editor of the research.
> That changes it for me radically.
> 
> I wonder what the various brands were that were tested....


Not for me, still bad research. Send him a note and ask about this study?


----------



## Silver

On a totally separate note, I saw this video on Dr Farsalinos' FB page where he was interviewed on Greek TV
Unfortunately it is in Greek. Would have loved to know what he said in essence
Its only about 4 minutes - maybe our @Yiannaki or @paulph201 would care to listen and give us a basic overview of what was said.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Silver

Andre said:


> Not for me, still bad research. Send him a note and ask about this study?



Have sent him a note @Andre
Will report back if he replies

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## Paulie

Silver said:


> On a totally separate note, I saw this video on Dr Farsalinos' FB page where he was interviewed on Greek TV
> Unfortunately it is in Greek. Would have loved to know what he said in essence
> Its only about 4 minutes - maybe our @Yiannaki or @paulph201 would care to listen and give us a basic overview of what was said.



alll greek to me 

@Yiannaki will have to help my greek as bad as my english

Reactions: Funny 4


----------



## Yiannaki

paulph201 said:


> alll greek to me
> 
> @Yiannaki will have to help my greek as bad as my english



Will check it out after lunch  and translate!

Reactions: Thanks 2


----------



## Danny

After reading again and looking at the numbers the studies seem valid. The review certainly was edited by dr farsalino but I have to say I find the interaction there to be concerning. In a sense he does risk becoming just as badly biased as the anti ecig advocates, but that's irrelevant to this really.

Looking at the study it is actually a push for better regulation of manufacture than a condeming, significant health concern. For all of the brands tested more individual units produced low levels (safer) of carbonyls, quite a few of them had a high number of tested units that produced unacceptably high amounts of carbonyls and the reason why actually becomes very clear in the pictures. Juice contents will play a role, and research will make juice safer eventually but the big problem here seems to be burning juice and we all know burning anything and inhaling it is bad. 

Units that produced high levels of bad stuff ended up with blackened coils etc much like when you burn your own juice, that to me at least is probably the result of poor quality standards in terms of battery regulation, wire quality and atomiser build quality. The juice in all the units from one manufacturer would most likely be from one source and be identical across all the devices (except maybe in flavour). The devices themselves not so much as they are subject to errors and variance in assembly. The original research paper almost touches on it in the discussion. To me it stands to reason that clearly the difference between the low and high devices is not only the output of carbonyls but also something about how the atomisers function, or with the power supply. Clearly not every ecig tested produced the carbonyls at all, so it is an important piece of research in terms of developing safer manufacturing standards, and if it could do away with environmentally irresponsible cig a like devices good, big tobacco loves its cig a likes. 

For us open device users with tanks and RDAs change and check your coils often enough to avoid gunking, avoid dry hits, if you use commercial coils buy from reputable sources and check the quality yourself by checking your dead coils for blackening and burning. So basically do everything you already do to enjoy vaping and I wouldnt panic at all. Vaping really needs the temp regulated devices they should be able to help improve safety a whole lot.

Reactions: Like 4 | Agree 1 | Thanks 1


----------



## free3dom

Danny said:


> After reading again and looking at the numbers the studies seem valid. The review certainly was edited by dr farsalino but I have to say I find the interaction there to be concerning. In a sense he does risk becoming just as badly biased as the anti ecig advocates, but that's irrelevant to this really.
> 
> Looking at the study it is actually a push for better regulation of manufacture than a condeming, significant health concern. For all of the brands tested more individual units produced low levels (safer) of carbonyls, quite a few of them had a high number of tested units that produced unacceptably high amounts of carbonyls and the reason why actually becomes very clear in the pictures. Juice contents will play a role, and research will make juice safer eventually but the big problem here seems to be burning juice and we all know burning anything and inhaling it is bad.
> 
> Units that produced high levels of bad stuff ended up with blackened coils etc much like when you burn your own juice, that to me at least is probably the result of poor quality standards in terms of battery regulation, wire quality and atomiser build quality. The juice in all the units from one manufacturer would most likely be from one source and be identical across all the devices (except maybe in flavour). The devices themselves not so much as they are subject to errors and variance in assembly. The original research paper almost touches on it in the discussion. To me it stands to reason that clearly the difference between the low and high devices is not only the output of carbonyls but also something about how the atomisers function, or with the power supply. Clearly not every ecig tested produced the carbonyls at all, so it is an important piece of research in terms of developing safer manufacturing standards, and if it could do away with environmentally irresponsible cig a like devices good, big tobacco loves its cig a likes.
> 
> For us open device users with tanks and RDAs change and check your coils often enough to avoid gunking, avoid dry hits, if you use commercial coils buy from reputable sources and check the quality yourself by checking your dead coils for blackening and burning. So basically do everything you already do to enjoy vaping and I wouldnt panic at all. Vaping really needs the temp regulated devices they should be able to help improve safety a whole lot.



Thanks, this write-up makes the research much easier to digest, and actually very interesting and useful 
I absolutely hate how media sites tend to favour the clickbait type headlines - the sky is falling, again

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## ET

yeah ok, i seem to have missed some sections or misread. if you look at the second article link, they are basically just reposting the same article someone wrote. 
channelnewsasia, timeslive, thestar, all the same article. maybe a slight variation in a line or two, but that's just some editor or journalist who couldnt bear to just copy and paste. now i read the article, and the report.
the article that has been reposted everywhere : after reading the article again, well and again, it comes down to these TBS guys, which i'm assuming is some other news station? so this article is reporting on what a news station said about a study some okes did. am i wrong here? did i miss something?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Johnny2Puffs

I would like to see a similar study with High voltage vs Low voltage and High ohm coils vs Sub ohm.

In the mean time, I will carry on vaping at 3v and 2,8ohm.


----------



## Danny

ET said:


> yeah ok, i seem to have missed some sections or misread. if you look at the second article link, they are basically just reposting the same article someone wrote.
> channelnewsasia, timeslive, thestar, all the same article. maybe a slight variation in a line or two, but that's just some editor or journalist who couldnt bear to just copy and paste. now i read the article, and the report.
> the article that has been reposted everywhere : after reading the article again, well and again, it comes down to these TBS guys, which i'm assuming is some other news station? so this article is reporting on what a news station said about a study some okes did. am i wrong here? did i miss something?



That very confusing explanation does pretty much sum it up. The links to articles: one links to an original research paper, the other to review/report which contains most of the findings without most of the methodology. Its interesting the dates on the research etc when compared to Dr Farsalinos own publications on his site. He mentions nothing about these findings in his most recent writing (dated after the release dates of the articles in question I think) which is quite supportive of e cigs and their possible merits, whilst being very critical of research to date. I think this is another example of the media abusing context. Sorry I shouldnt be so harsh when I could be wrong, maybe just a liberation of context to ensure the message got out there a few months after it was published.

One of my favorite lines in the articles is the discussion around higher voltages producing more carbonyls, up to 400 times more than a lower voltage. That with the burnt out atomiser pictures makes me want to scream. Yes if you *burn* something faster, hotter and with greater energy release typically you should get more combustion products out of it .

I seriously doubt anyone pulling on one of those faulty carbonyl releasing cigalikes wouldve enjoyed the experience, dry hits, burnt juice as we all know really hurts, tastes bad etc. They didnt test device functioning, so were all of them functioning as they should? They didnt test if a person could inhale the bad stuff without realising they were actually no longer inhaling the vapour that they are used to, that for me is the biggest flaw. Not all of them produced bad stuff, some did, there is only a real risk to public health if the user of the product doesnt realise that some are not doing what theyre meant to.


----------



## Danny

And this is where it gets really fun:
http://meetingdocs.alachuacounty.us...2-10/b07d056e-af31-4b99-8bf1-69558c17cc2d.pdf

It says the same thing but slightly differently especially this part:


I'm sure I could sit here, search and find countless other contradictory papers . Which to believe? Thats a tough call to make, one of them is definitely dressed up better, comparitive data, classy journal, names all the manufacturers. I believe neither fully there are flaws in both, but the truth is probably somehwere between the two. For now I will take solace in the fact not a single coil of mine is burnt or black looking, and my wick is pristine.

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## Silver

@Danny I really admire your ability to comprehend these journal articles, decipher them - and then explain what's going on.
Thank you sir!

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## Derick

Dr Farsalinos responded.
Here: http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/2014/188-frm-jp

Reactions: Winner 1 | Thanks 3


----------



## Silver

Dr Farsalinos replied to my question

I am not entirely happy with his answer (for the sake of vaping), but I do see his point.

Here is a copy of my question and his answer:


Hi Doctor

I read recently a piece of research done in Japan (revised October 2014). It is titled "Carbonyl Compounds Generated from Electronic Cigarettes" http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/11/11192/pdf

You are cited as the external editor

The research says if I understand it correctly that some e-cigs produce a lot more carcinogens that smoking. But the brands and liquids are not disclosed.

Our vaping community in South Africa is worried about this research - especially since your name is on it.

Do you have anything to add or any words of encouragement?

Kind Regards 








Konstantinos Farsalinos
The author talks about carbonyls. Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. 2 of the 5000 chemicals present in tobacco. So, even if e-cigarettes have similar formaldehyde and acetaldehyde with tobacco, they have 4950 less chemicals!!

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Silver

Nevertheless, it is positive that he responded...


----------



## ET

Silver said:


> Dr Farsalinos replied to my question
> 
> I am not entirely happy with his answer (for the sake of vaping), but I do see his point.
> 
> Here is a copy of my question and his answer:
> 
> 
> Hi Doctor
> 
> I read recently a piece of research done in Japan (revised October 2014). It is titled "Carbonyl Compounds Generated from Electronic Cigarettes" http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/11/11/11192/pdf
> 
> You are cited as the external editor
> 
> The research says if I understand it correctly that some e-cigs produce a lot more carcinogens that smoking. But the brands and liquids are not disclosed.
> 
> Our vaping community in South Africa is worried about this research - especially since your name is on it.
> 
> Do you have anything to add or any words of encouragement?
> 
> Kind Regards
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Konstantinos Farsalinos
> The author talks about carbonyls. Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. 2 of the 5000 chemicals present in tobacco. So, even if e-cigarettes have similar formaldehyde and acetaldehyde with tobacco, they have 4950 less chemicals!!



for him this question is probably the same as someone asking @Derick about diacetyl


----------



## Derick

ET said:


> for him this question is probably the same as someone asking @Derick about diacetyl


Ha!

Yes, yes I know I can get a bit... hot under the collar when these posts about Diacetyl pop up and I apologize if I came across a bit... aggressive in my opinions.

I've have since dropped my caffeine intake and started vaping chamomile tea (not really, please don't vape tea)

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 5


----------



## free3dom

Derick said:


> Dr Farsalinos responded.
> Here: http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/2014/188-frm-jp



And now we can all breathe (and vape) easy again 
The sky, it seems, is not falling after all

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Alex

I posted the screenshot above because his site is currently down.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Silver

Derick said:


> Dr Farsalinos responded.
> Here: http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/2014/188-frm-jp



Only saw this now @Derick 
I was in a rush and posted my post at the same time you posted yours so i didnt see it
Thanks for that. He responded very well there. Much appreciated
We can all relax now... and vape on

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## Yiannaki

Silver said:


> On a totally separate note, I saw this video on Dr Farsalinos' FB page where he was interviewed on Greek TV
> Unfortunately it is in Greek. Would have loved to know what he said in essence
> Its only about 4 minutes - maybe our @Yiannaki or @paulph201 would care to listen and give us a basic overview of what was said.



So I just sat down to watch this 

Nothing particularly new being discussed here.

The host opens up by asking him if e cigs are a way to quit smoking or just a new form of it

He replies by saying that e cigs are primarily picked up by smokers who want to continue enjoying the sensation of smoking but with less harm.

The host then brings up the topic of the potential harm of e cigs. 

Dr Farsalinos informs her that e cigs do not contain many the harmful toxins found in traditional cigarettes and hence the are a viable alternative. He also points out that almost everything we consume on a daily basis can harm us. E cigs according to him are a better alternative to smoking and therefore a positive thing for someone moving from traditional cigarettes to e cigs.

The host questions this by stating that e cigs are a new phenomenon and not enough testing has been done. She is concerned about the possible long term effects they could have.

Dr Farsalinos responds by saying that enough testing has been done to prove that e cigs are most certainly a safer alternative to smoking and that studies will continue over time to see what will occur over the long term. But he can say with certainty that e cigs are far less harmful than traditional ones.

The random bit at the end of the video is a skit describing how eggplant was found to contain nicotine. Lol

Reactions: Like 1 | Thanks 3


----------



## Waheed

I was totally enraged when I found the scientific article and saw how the media had mangled the information. I have other publications from reputable journals indicating that the carbonyl compounds are way less than analogues. Also the medical cases used to support negative effects of e cigs are on people have numerous underlying issues.
I enjoyed this thread and we'll done to all those searching for the truth. Let me know if anyone wants to read the publications and ill gladly send them to you


----------

