Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Friday August 29 2014, @02:09PM   Printer-friendly
from the vape-culture dept.

Research into second hand emissions from cigarettes and e-cigarettes (Abstract) has found that while there is a tenfold decrease in overall exposure to carcinogenic particulate matter from e-cigarettes compared to cigarettes, there were increased levels of certain toxic metals. The researchers noted that more of this came from the device itself as opposed to the liquid used in the device.

In recent years, electronic cigarettes have gained increasing popularity as alternatives to normal (tobacco-containing) cigarettes. In the present study, particles generated by e-cigarettes and normal cigarettes have been analyzed and the degree of exposure to different chemical agents and their emission rates were quantified. Despite the 10-fold decrease in the total exposure to particulate elements in e-cigarettes compared to normal cigarettes, specific metals (e.g. Ni and Ag) still displayed a higher emission rate from e-cigarettes. Further analysis indicated that the contribution of e-liquid to the emission of these metals is rather minimal, implying that they likely originate from other components of the e-cigarette device or other indoor sources. Organic species had lower emission rates during e-cigarette consumption compared to normal cigarettes. Of particular note was the non-detectable emission of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from e-cigarettes, while substantial emission of these species was observed from normal cigarettes. Overall, with the exception of Ni, Zn, and Ag, the consumption of e-cigarettes resulted in a remarkable decrease in secondhand exposure to all metals and organic compounds. Implementing quality control protocols on the manufacture of e-cigarettes would further minimize the emission of metals from these devices and improve their safety and associated health effects.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by tathra on Friday August 29 2014, @04:34PM

    by tathra (3367) on Friday August 29 2014, @04:34PM (#87277)

    I think rightly its not about smoking at all. Its about something people 'dont like' so they want to smash it out.

    as a non-smoker whose had to be around smokers my entire life, i can assure you that its about not wanting to be forced to breathe in toxins all the time. some people probably are using it as an excuse to force their morals on others, but that doesnt change the fact that there is a legitimate reason for wanting them banned where cigarettes are also banned.

    saying that e-cigs are fine where normal cigs arent is like saying its ok to smoke heroin in places where you cant smoke opium.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 1) by crAckZ on Friday August 29 2014, @06:29PM

    by crAckZ (3501) on Friday August 29 2014, @06:29PM (#87324) Journal

    opium and heroin are pretty much the same. e-liquid is not even close to regular tobacco. plus heroin is illegal. compare two different products.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by tathra on Friday August 29 2014, @06:48PM

      by tathra (3367) on Friday August 29 2014, @06:48PM (#87330)

      opium and heroin are pretty much the same.

      not even close. heroin is just diacetylmorphine, but opium is a plant extract that contains morphine, codeine, thebaine, papaverine, narcotoline, noscapine, plus plant matter.

      in both examples (opium:heroin and tobacco:e-liquid), you're taking a plant or plant extract, isolating its active ingredient, making it more potent, and inhaling it.

      • (Score: 1) by crAckZ on Friday August 29 2014, @09:03PM

        by crAckZ (3501) on Friday August 29 2014, @09:03PM (#87373) Journal

        then we can say that you have to ban copiers because of the chemicals? i am sure i wouldn't be allowed to inhale the fumes if they were in a swimming pool but they are ok in that environment. yes the levels of the chemicals involved do come into play. in your example you are dealing with 2 banned substances...derived from the same plant i might add. (diacetylmorphine is more than just...it isn't hard to go from a poppy to heroin) nicotine is not illegal (at this moment). since TFA stated it was metals (Ni, Zn, and Ag) being in the vapor we should ban them right? Zinc, Nickel, and Silver are not regulated either.

        this is why everything has a warning. going by your logic they should ban "near-bear" to minors (which they do not) because there is still at least or under .5% by volume

        the amount of the substance in this case as in the e-cig is what matters not the substance itself as in your heroin analogy. they are different arguments

        • (Score: 1) by crAckZ on Friday August 29 2014, @09:38PM

          by crAckZ (3501) on Friday August 29 2014, @09:38PM (#87383) Journal

          some states do regulate the near-beer

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tathra on Saturday August 30 2014, @01:30AM

          by tathra (3367) on Saturday August 30 2014, @01:30AM (#87423)

          what are you talking about? your post is just a long string of strawmen.

          since you can't seem to figure it out, i'll spell it out for you: regardless of whether you're smoking tobacco or vaporizing nicotine, you're still polluting the air with nicotine, an extremely addictive drug with a rather low LD50 (less than 1mg/kg in humans, far more toxic than other recreational drugs), and forcing everyone around you to take that drug against their will. i dont get why smokers are the only ones allowed to drug literally everyone around them against their will; everybody else who does that is rightfully considered a disgusting creep.