Dangers of Smoking for Women

Each year more research comes out to indicate how smoking combustible cigarettes is more dangerous than we had previously understood.

While most people are aware there are health risks with associated with smoking, many of us probably don’t understand the full gravity of these implications.

CDC statistics show that 15.3% of women are cigarette smokers compared to 20.5% of adult men, but all smokers may not be affected equally.

According to research published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, higher levels of estrogen in lung tissue DOUBLES women’s risk of lung cancer, compared to men.

According to Pulmonology Professor Diane Stover, head of the lung unit at Sloan-Ketering Cancer Center in New York, “Men and women deal with these carcinogens differently. […] They are transformed into other carcinogenic substances.

These could lead to mutations in tumor-suppressing genes or ‘cell suicide’.” A study of Japanese cancer patients showed that female smokers also developed lung cancer on average two years earlier than their male counterparts.

According to research compiled by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, “Women smokers have a higher relative risk of developing cardiovascular disease than men. The reasons for the difference are not yet known, but could be due to tobacco smoke having an adverse effect on estrogen”.

This same report shows that in 1987, lung cancer surpassed breast cancer as the leading cause of cancer deaths among women in the U.S. The American Lung Association indicates that more women are infected with COPD than men, 7 million in total, but that many are misdiagnosed as asthmatics.

These examples only encompass a fraction of what we know cigarettes can contribute to. While the jury may still be out as to which gender is more greatly affected by smoking, no one can reasonably indicate either is safe, or even relatively safer, than the other.

Interestingly, in a study published by Dr. Kelly Cosgrove and other colleagues at the Yale University School of Medicine for the Archive of General Psychiatry, researchers found that male smokers have a higher number of nicotine receptors than male nonsmokers.

Female smokers on other hand, had the same number of nicotine receptors as nonsmokers. In short, women aren’t really addicted to the nicotine. The conclusion indicates that in treating female smokers, nicotine replacement therapy is generally ineffective.

Dr. Len Horovitz, pulmonary specialist at Lenox Hill Hospital in N.Y., indicated that deep breathing is part of the smoking habit, and that breathing exercises may help smokers because they “mimic puffing a cigarette”.

Recommendations for smoking cessation for women include exercise, relaxation techniques, or non-nicotine containing medications. That there is such a distinction between genders is probably more surprising for many than the finding itself.

Perhaps for many women simply having access to this knowledge could be what is needed to take that final step toward quitting. Maybe vaping is what would most be needed to bridge the gap between those women who have quit, and “can’t”.

Before cloud chasing, before the hobby, before anything else vaping encompasses now, quitting smoking has always been the single most important component. Vaping is the means to an end.

 

What Exactly is in E-Liquid?, and What You Need to Know

“What exactly is in E-Liquid?”  “Is it safe?”  “It has anti-freeze in it!”  “I’ve heard it’s worse than cigarettes!” These are a few questions and statements I’ve been on the receiving end of lately so I thought it would be great to write up an article solely devoted to what exactly is in the E-Liquid we are vaping.

Let me start off by stating that E-Juice as well as E-Cigarettes have not been around long enough for conclusive scientific studies of what the long term effects are on humans.

There have been short term studies on vapor that is inhaled into the lungs as well as studies in second hand vapor, which have all come back as having minimal to 0 adverse health effects on the user of E-Cigarettes as well as second hand vapor.

Electronic Cigarette Liquid goes by many names including but not limited to, E-Liquid, E-Juice, and Juice.  Whatever you may call it; it is made up of 4 basic ingredients which are vegetable glycerin (VG), propylene glycol (PG), Natural and Artificial Flavorings, and Nicotine (optional).

This liquid, when heated up by a small heated coil called an atomizer (the part of the e-cigarette that turns the liquid into a vapor) becomes the vapor we inhale.

Vegetable Glycerin (VG)

Vegetable Glycol or Glycerin, VG for short, is an organic compound of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.  VG is a Non-Toxic, viscous, odorless, colorless, and sweet liquid usually added to cosmetics, food flavorings, and ice cream.

VG can be made directly from vegetable oil, often coconut or palm oil, by heating it to a high temperature under pressure with water.  The solution is then distilled to purify it.  Manufacturers of E-Liquids use USP Food Grade Vegetable Glycerin which is 99.7% pure with the remaining 0.3% being water.

E-Liquid manufacturers commonly use it as a base for the rest of the E-Juice.  For vapers, VG is what produces most of the visible vapor or “cloud” on exhale.

Propylene Glycol (PG)

Propylene Glycol or PG, is used to dilute the thickness of the VG liquid. PG makes the e-liquid easier for clearomizers with wicks or cotton to vape. It also produces a “throat hit” which mimics the feeling of the cigarette smoke that smokers are used to, helping people who are coming off cigarettes to still feel like they are getting that sensation.

Propylene Glycol has been researched and classified as “very low toxicity” and has been approved for use in food and other applications such as hospital air disinfectant and as a non-active ingredient in the aerosol used with inhalers for asthma patients.

For E-Juice purposes, Propylene Glycol also serves as a great “carrier” or solvent for flavorings as it bonds with the flavor molecules a lot more effectively than VG.

Some potential applications for Propylene Glycol include cough syrups, toothpaste, mouthwashes, food preservatives, and non-toxic anti/deicing fluids.

Please note, a common misconception that I’ve been hearing lately is that “E-Liquid has anti-freeze in it!” This is completely false. E-Liquid contains no anti-freeze whatsoever.  Propylene Glycol is often commonly confused with ethylene glycol.

Ethylene glycol is considered moderately toxic and is used in the Anti-Freeze you use in your car. The Propylene Glycol in E-Liquid is added to “Non-Toxic Anti-Freeze” used in food-processing systems or in water pipes in homes where incidental ingestion may be possible.

As confirmation of its relative non-toxicity, the FDA allows propylene glycol to be added to a large number of processed foods, including ice cream, frozen custard, salad dressings and baked goods.

A study conducted by the FDA in 1973 states: There is no evidence in the available information on propylene glycol and propylene glycol monostearate that demonstrates, or suggests reason to suspect, a hazard to the public. Propylene glycol does not cause sensitization (getting a worse reaction over time) and it shows no evidence of being a carcinogen or toxic.

Natural and Artificial Flavoring

E-Liquid flavoring starts with using flavoring concentrates.  Just like with food, there are 3 types of flavoring concentrates for E-Juice manufacturers to choose from while making E-Juice.

We have Natural flavoring, Artificial flavoring, and also a mix of both Natural and Artificial flavorings.  The natural flavors found in E-Liquid contain absolutely no artificial ingredients, additives, colors, or sweeteners.

The flavors are extracted from their natural source using various methods to make a concentrate, and are then bottled and sold to E-Juice manufacturers or to consumers for DIY E-Juice making.

Artificial flavors are simply chemical mixtures that mimic a natural flavor.  The Natural and Artificial Flavoring mixed concentrates are just that.  A mix of Natural and Artificial flavor concentrates.

Remember, most of these flavorings have not been tested for inhalation and only for being ingested. We need more scientific evidence to support if this is safe.

Nicotine

Merriam-Webster defines Nicotine as “a poisonous alkaloid C10H14N2 that is the chief active principle of tobacco and is used as an insecticide.”  Nicotine is an addictive substance.There is no question about that, as I’m sure most ex-smokers can relate to.  It has been scientifically proven.

With that being said, Nicotine is found in most E-Liquids in various medium to low milligram levels mixed with the other ingredients of E-Juice: VG, PG, and Concentrated Flavorings.

Mostly you will find E-Juice manufactures making their E-Juice at 24, 18, 12, 6, 3, and 0 mg per milliliter levels.  These levels are found to be “relatively safe” for human inhalation. Some vapers prefer E-Liquids with zero nicotine content because they enjoy the act of vaping and the flavor that goes along with it.

By varying in milligram strength, vapers have the option to wean themselves down or even completely off of nicotine at a gradual rate.  Personally, I started with cigarettes, moved to vaping at 24mg, moved down on the above mentioned scale about every two months, and now I vape 3mg E-Juice.

A lot of people automatically lump Cigarettes, Tobacco, and Nicotine together as one.  Nicotine isn’t the ingredient in traditional cigarettes that kills you or causes cancer.  Tobacco, tar, carcinogens and other chemicals found in cigarettes are what have an adverse effect on your health.

When diluted to low levels like those found in e-liquid, some users like myself and my friends, find nicotine to produce a calming effect and can also improve concentration.

To quote a recently published article in Discover Magazine titled “Nicotine – The Wonder Drug?”:

“IF DOZENS OF HUMAN AND ANIMAL STUDIES PUBLISHED OVER THE PAST SIX YEARS ARE BORNE OUT BY LARGE CLINICAL TRIALS, NICOTINE — FREED AT LAST OF ITS NOXIOUS HOST, TOBACCO, AND DELIVERED INSTEAD BY CHEWING GUM OR TRANSDERMAL PATCH — MAY PROVE TO BE A WEIRDLY, IMPROBABLY EFFECTIVE DRUG FOR RELIEVING OR PREVENTING A VARIETY OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS, INCLUDING PARKINSON’S DISEASE, MILD COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT (MCI), TOURETTE’S AND SCHIZOPHRENIA. IT MIGHT EVEN IMPROVE ATTENTION AND FOCUS ENOUGH TO QUALIFY AS A COGNITIVE ENHANCER. AND, OH YEAH, IT’S LONG BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH WEIGHT LOSS, WITH FEW KNOWN SAFETY RISKS.”

So maybe Nicotine, when used properly isn’t the incredibly awful drug we’ve all been taught to think.

Other Compounds

There has been controversy surrounding what “other” ingredients are being put into E-Liquid.  The number one controversial ingredient that was added to a few E-Juices was Diacetyl. The FDA has listed Diacetyl on their Generally Regarded as Safe (GRAS) list of food additive products, yet they have not made a statement regarding the safety of the inhalation of Diacetyl in vapor form.

Diacetyl is suspected to cause a condition called “Popcorn Lung”. Back in the 1950’s a group of workers working in a popcorn factory came down with bronchiolitis or “Popcorn Lung”. It is said that it was caused by the Diacetyl chemical used in the flavoring of butter.

Studies at 6 different Popcorn Manufacturing Plants confirmed that they weren’t sure whether it was the Diacetyl or if it was another chemical in the air that caused the bronchiolitis.  Erring on the side of safety, most E-Juice manufacturers do not add Diacetyl to their E-Liquid mixtures.

Conclusion

So the next time someone tries to tell you that E-liquid gives you cancer, is worse for you than cigarettes, or is worried about second hand vapor, you’ll be prepared with the facts. E-liquid has 4 ingredients, all approved by the FDA for human consumption. There may not be an long term evidence that it is safe to inhale, but i feel a hell of a lot better vaping than i do smoking, and i think that is all something we can agree on.

Feel free to ask any questions you’d like in the comments below, and share this with your friends and family.

First Confirmed Death from E-Liquid Nicotine

The Fort Plain New York police department have released their official findings in the tragic death of 18 month old Eli James “EJ” Hotaling. EJ died shortly after consuming 100mg liquid nicotine concentrate that his mom used for mixing.

The investigation revealed that on Dec 9th 2014, Eli was found convulsing on the floor, and shortly after lost consciousness. After calling 911, Eli was pronounced dead shortly after arriving at the nearby Little Falls Hospital. The official cause of death was cardiac arrhythmia caused by the ingestion of nicotine.

The nicotine was purchased from Oklahoma City based Heartland Vapes. Belinda Hotaling, Ej’s mother, would purchase the nicotine concentrate in 100mg bottles to mix with e-liquid.

This marks the first documented death of a child related to the liquid nicotine used for vaping.

According to the police investigation, the Hotaling family said that the nicotine bottle was not child proof. The Hotaling family currently plans to sue Heartland Vapes.

This unfortunate tragedy spotlights one of the biggest risks in our industry.

Nicotine in its pure form is very potent and consuming it can be fatal, especially for small children. This is a very sad and tragic accident. I can only imagine the pain that the family must be going through.

However, The blame shouldn’t fall on the vapor industry. The majority of vape companies are responsible, use child proof caps, and display proper warnings.

Lawmakers are constantly using the argument that e-liquids are dangerous for children, and claim the industry tries marketing to them. What lawmakers don’t realize is tragedies like the death of EJ Hotaling will become more frequent if they pass the debilitating regulations they are proposing.

As I outlined in my post about the potential fall out of prohibition, we would not only see a rise in black market sales, but more people like Belinda Hotaling making their own e-liquid. The materials are widely available.

If flavoring and vaping become illegal, more people will purchase pure nicotine to mix it themselves, increasing the chance of accidents.

 

Calls to poison centers due to e-cigarettes are on the rise. Making them illegal will just make things worse. We need education on responsible handling and storage. We need responsible laws outlining packaging, labeling, and distribution.

We do not need the scare tactics and the terribly unrealistic laws that are being proposed all over the world.

Individuals lack the proper education and training to produce e-liquid. Bare in mind, EJ did not die from consuming e-liquid in its final form, he was poisoned from the raw nicotine his mom left laying around for mixing her own flavors.

Imposing regulations such as a ban of e-liquid flavors, and denying access of the liquids vapers want, will only drive more people to DIY and increase the rate of accidents.

Scientific Study Proves Second-Hand Vapor is Not Harmful

A study titled “A rapid method for the chromatographic analysis of volatile organic compounds in exhaled breath of tobacco cigarette and electronic cigarette smokers” was performed by The Spanish Council of Scientific Research and published on Monday September 7th, 2015 in the Journal of Chromatography A.

Levels of several volatile organic compounds (VOC) were measured in indoor air, normal exhaled breath, smoke of tobacco cigarettes, exhaled breath of smokers after taking cigarette puffs, e-cigarette aerosol and exhaled breath of vapers after taking e-cigarette puffs.

IS SECOND HAND VAPOR DANGEROUS? 

ACCORDING TO THE RESEARCH, THE ANSWER IS NO!

The results of the study shown in the chart below (nd = not detected) indicate that e-cigarette aerosol alone contains less volatile organic compounds (VOC) than normal exhaled breath as well as normal indoor air.

Click to enlarge:

 

Second hand vapor, or “Exhaled Breath” as referred to in the study, show that the volatile organic compounds are equal to or less than normal exhaled breath.

The amount of VOC’s in second hand vapor is so low that Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos ,cardiologist and avid e-cigarette and vaping researcher, was quoted as saying “I calculated 17 and 25 VOCs in the 2 e-cigarettes tested, 36 VOCs in indoor air and 42 in normal (non-smoking, non-vaping) exhaled breath. Tobacco cigarette smoke contained 86 VOCs, and exhaled breath after smoking similarly contained a large number of VOCs. As I said, not all VOCs are toxic but, interestingly, there were cases of toxic compounds present in the exhaled breath but not in the e-cigarette aerosol. For example, isoprene, which is listed as a carcinogenic compound in California Proposition 65 (I hope the CEH is reading this comment), is present ONLY in exhaled breath (even in normal exhaled breath), but not in e-cigarette aerosol.”

Will this be the study that finally makes lawmakers and politicians’ realize that second hand vapor is not harmful?  Let us know in the comments section below!

Teen Vapor Study Shows No Link With Nicotine Addiction

A group of researchers in the U.K. have released their results from a research study that disproves the claims of legislators and health officials that vaping addicts children to nicotine and leads to tobacco use.

The study, published in the April edition of BMJ Open measured e-cig usage among under age teenagers and tweens. The research team surveyed over 10,000 school aged children across 150 different schools in Wales. The oldest children that participated were 16, the study included 1600 children aged 10-11.

The purpose of the study was to “examine the prevalence of e-cigarette and tobacco use by age, and associations of e-cigarette use with sociodemographic characteristics”.

The research team made a number of interesting discoveries.

According to their results:

12.3% of the children surveyed had tried an electronic cigarette or vapor device.

8% of the participants reported having never tried any tobacco product.

39.2% of the children who reported being current smokers, said they’ve never tried any vapor product.

Most importantly, the team of researchers found that out of that 12.3% of underage children who have tried vaping, only 1.5% reported that they regularly used any vapor products. The team concluded “Many young people (including never-smokers) have tried e-cigarettes. However, regular use is less common”.

The study strongly suggests there is no link between e-cig use, and addiction to nicotine.

The team also found that regular cigarette smokers were 100 times more likely to use e-cig products regularly, than non smokers.

A larger study still needs to be conducted over a longer period of time, this research shows that vaping does not make a major impact on nicotine addiction in minors.

The study shows that vaping and e-cigs are more appealing to teenagers under 18, but it disproves the CDC and other vape industry opponents that vaping is a gateway to tobacco leads to vaping habitually.

CDC Vaping Data, Exposes They Are Liars

Last week when the CDC released its recent findings from their annual national youth tobacco survey, all the headlines read the same “e-cig use triples among high school students”. Every media outlet around the country was singing the same tune. They are spreading alarmist propaganda about vaping and the upward trend of teen usage.

The cornerstone argument of the CDC and other vaping opponents is that vapor is a gateway to tobacco. We at vapeaboutit have debunked that belief with research. Unlike the CDC which just says whatever they feel like without presenting evidence.

According to the CDC’s own findings, although e-cig use has tripled among high school students in the past year, cigarette smoking has also dropped. The data shows a direct correlation between the two. As more high school students try vaping, less try cigarettes:

smoking vaping teenagers

 

We do not condone the use of vapor products by minors in anyway, but I will say it is without a doubt the safer alternative. As we pointed out last week, the CDC and the media conveniently seem to brush this data under the rug.

Ironically, The CDC’s own tobacco survey, exposes their own lies and disproves their own argument.

The CDC’s director Dr. Tom Frieden is quoted saying “there is a significant likelihood that a proportion of those who are using e-cigarettes will go on to use combustible cigarettes.”

Yet offers no actual evidence or research to support his ridiculous claims. Their own survey shows smoking among high school students has dropped to below 10 percent, marking the first time ever that statistic is in single digits.

So, the CDC claims e-cig use will lead to cigarette smoking, yet their own data shows as vaping is on the rise, smoking is on the decline. Yet they sound the alarms and are all over the media saying otherwise??

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but something sure smells fishy.

Study Finds Vaping Could Save Health Care $48 Billion a Year

Its no secret one of the driving forces behind state law makers all out war on vaping is the loss of tax revenue. Tobacco taxes are a massive money maker for federal and state government, generating billions a year.

The federal government alone collects over $15 billion a year from tobacco taxes. In fiscal 2015 it is estimated state governments will collect a combined $25 billion annually from tobacco excise taxes. Some states in particlar have sky high taxes attached to cigarette purchases, in New York state the tax alone for a pack of cigarettes is $4.35. Ironically with the $25 billion collected by states, they will only spend a combined $490 million on smoking prevention and cessation programs. Which as we noted $70 million of which will be allocated towards the ridiculous anti vaping propaganda that has arisen this year.

Although tobacco is a major money maker for the government, the resulting health care cost of smoking is exponentially greater. Smoking related illnesses account for $170 billion a year in health care costs. Over $80 Billion of which is paid for by our medicare and medicaid system, along with an additional $23 Billion a year spent by the VA fund.

To put that in context, the average median price for a pack of cigarettes is $6.35 but the total health care cost per pack sold is $35.

According to a new study by Scott J. Moody a leading contributor for State Budget Solutions, Vaping could potentially save our medicaid system billions a year. Using data from 2012, Moody`s research concluded “ The potential savings of e-cig adoption, and the resulting tobacco smoking cessation and harm reduction, could have been up to $48 billion in 2012. This savings is 87% higher than all state cigarette tax collections and tobacco settlement collections ($24.4 billion) collection in that same year.”

Law makers continue to cite the rise of vaping among underage children the real reason they have set the vape industry in their cross hairs. Yet as we have pointed out, the data also shows underage smoking rates to be in single digits for the first time in a generation and continuing to decline.

The healthcare savings greatly exceeds the tax revenue lost, not to mention the number of lives which would be saved. Along with siphoning off the $70 billion a year in cigarette profits from big tobacco into the hands of vape industry entrepreneurs who are creating jobs.

Then again, it seems like given the state of our government, expecting rational and logic is too much to ask for in this day and age. Perhaps when the vape industry fills the pockets of politicians the same way big tobacco does, they`ll finally see reason.

Study Finds Vaping is 95% Safer Than Smoking

A new study published by Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos on Thursday May 21st 2015 titled “E-Cigarettes Generate High Levels of Aldehydes Only In “Dry Puff” Conditions” debunks the “Hidden Formaldehyde in E-Cigarette Aerosols” research paper that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine back in January 2015.

Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos, a world renowned cardiologist and leading e-cigarette and vaping researcher has been conducting scientific studies on e-cigarettes since they first became popular back in 2007.

In his latest study published today, he found that “Vapers are not exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes.” My reading of the evidence is that e-cigarettes are at least 95% safer than smoking. Smokers should be encouraged to switch to vaping.

The study goes on to show that minimal levels of aldehydes were detected and that those levels were 30-250 times LOWER than tobacco cigarette smoke.

To show where the controversy first began lets go back to January 2015 when the New England Journal of Medicine published a research paper titled “Hidden Formaldehyde in E-Cigarette Aerosols”. The research paper concluded that e-cigarettes contain twice the amount of formaldehyde than that of a traditional tobacco cigarette. The media and politicians ran with it and it caused the public to think e-cigarettes were full of formaldehyde.

The original study was flawed from the beginning. Researchers overheated the atomizers in the e-cigarette to a point no vaper would realistically vape at. This created what is known in the vaping community as a “Dry hit” or “Dry puff”. A dry hit occurs when e-liquid on the wick or cotton is all used up and the wick or cotton becomes dry, hence the name “Dry hit”.

The New England Journal of Medicine severely overheated the atomizers and measured the amounts of formaldehyde in these dry hits, then released the findings as evidence that there is twice as much formaldehyde in e-cigarettes than in a traditional tobacco cigarette. It was a complete smear campaign!

When the original study by the New England Journal of Medicine was released, Dr. Gilbert Ross of the American Council on Science and Health said, “This flawed study will be used to attack e-cigs as not only not safer than smoking cigarettes, but perhaps even more toxic. Nothing could be further from the truth.”

Dr. Farsalinos study was peer reviewed and published in Addiction which is a monthly international scientific journal publishing peer-reviewed research reports on alcohol, illicit drugs, tobacco, and gambling as well as editorials and other debate pieces. Owned by the Society for the Study of Addiction, it has been in continuous publication since 1884.

This is another conclusive study that shows that vaping is safe and a way healthier alternative to smoking combustible cigarettes.

STUDY FINDS CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE VAPING IS SAFE

A new study published in the Dec. 2014 issue of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology found conclusive data that the vapor emitted from e-cigs and personal vapor devices is non-toxic. In other words, vaping is safe.

In fact, the research found that inhaling vapor emitted from electronic vaping devices was about as harmful as breathing in normal air. The study measured the amount of harmful and potentially harmful constituents (hphc) released by both e-cigarettes, and traditional cigarettes, while using normal room air as a control.

The data found that “the deliveries of HPHCs tested for these e-cigarette products were similar to the study air blanks rather than to deliveries from conventional cigarettes”.

More importantly, the study also found that traditional cigarettes contain 1500 times more hphc’s than popular e-cig products. The electronic cigarette devices that were used in the study were the popular Blu e-cig and the U.K. based Sky brand.

Eight kinds of harmful toxins were measured including carbon monoxide and heavy metals. Even though there have been many claims vapor devices give off heavy metal toxins, the data found vapor to be relatively equal with normal air quality.

The study only focused on measuring data on the vapor emitted by devices themselves. They did not conduct any research on the biological impact of vaping such as its effect on the respiratory system.

While these findings do not prove that the practice of vaping is safe overall, the study does disprove many of the claims made in the California Public health department report on e-cigs and vaping released in January 2015.

The report was approved by department Director Dr. Ron Chapman and labeled vaping as a “community health threat” and claimed “e-cigarettes do not emit a harmless water vapor, but a concoction of chemicals toxic to human cells in the form of aersol”. This statement is just plain false.

The conclusive data of the study proves vapor to be equivalent in toxicity to normal air. The study data can be found here.

The Effects of Vaping on Lung Cells Study is Filled with Misleading Information

On May 26th, 2015 The American Physiological Society released a 40 page study titled “Endothelial disruptive pro-inflammatory effects of nicotine and e-cigarette vapor exposures”.

The study claims that nicotine causes a loss of integrity in the lung endothelial cells – the cells that make up the lining of the lung – and can contribute to lung injury and acute (short term) inflammation.

Lets start by showing quotes from the actual study and my own interpretations of the findings:

Line 402: “The signaling effects on nicotine-free e-Cig vapors on the lung endothelial barrier remain to be investigated.”

This quote is stating the exact opposite of what many articles like this one from Science Daily titled “E-cigarette vapor, even when nicotine-free, found to damage lung cells” are reporting. It is clear when you read the actual study that it “remains to be investigated” Reference line 402 of the study.

Line 217 -219: “To investigate the contribution of nicotine in CS (Cigarette Smoke) extract to the loss of lung endothelial barrier function, we compared the effect of soluble extract from nicotine-containing and nicotine-free cigarettes.”

Researchers are stating that to find out if nicotine creates a loss of lung cell barrier function, they used a soluble cigarette smoke extract (not e-Cig vapor) to reach their conclusions.

Line 201: “In a separate quantitation experiment, nicotine and quinoline were diluted with dichloromethane to produce four standard solutions: a 100 mg/mL nicotine, 1 mg/mL quinoline solution; a 10 mg/mL nicotine, 1 mg/mL quinoline solution; a 1 mg/mL nicotine, 1 mg/mL quinoline solution; and a 0.1 mg/mL nicotine, 1 mg/mL quinoline solution. Primary rat lung endothelial cells (RLECs) exposed to nicotine-containing CS (cigarette smoke) extract, exhibited increased monolayer permeability as measured by ECIS, in a time dependent-manner, with ~ 40% decrease in trans-endothelial resistance (TER) at 5 hr and ~50 % at 20 hr.”

This quote is telling us that researchers used 100 mg/mL pure liquid nicotine along with other solutions of nicotine and continuously exposed that solution to cultured Petri dish rat lung cells at a rate of 5 hours and 20 hours in order to show lung barrier cell damage. They eventually do use vapor, in which I will show you next, that shows e-Cig vapor does not cause lung cell necrosis, or death.

Question: Is this the same as popcorn lung that people associate with vaping?

Line 37-38: “Although nicotine at sufficient concentrations to cause endothelial barrier loss did not trigger cell necrosis, it markedly inhibited cell proliferation.”

Researchers are saying nicotine at sufficient concentrations did not trigger cell necrosis (death). In other words, nicotine does not kill your lung cells.

Line 267 – 269: “Given the relatively high concentrations of nicotine applied to cells in cultures, we ensured that the nicotine effect on the endothelium was not due to cell toxicity/necrosis, as determined by LDH release (data not shown).”

Once again, researchers are admitting to using a high concentration of nicotine (exact amount not shown) and applying the “relatively high concentration” to cells in cultures. They go on to say that they ensured the nicotine effect on the lung barrier cells was not due to cell toxicity/necrosis, or cell death. However, they don’t show the data.

Line 426 – 428: “The clinical implications of this work are related to the potential detrimental lung effects of exposure to inhaled e-Cig which may be dose-dependent, although further studies are needed to determine what are the usual levels of absorbed e-Cig vapor that are harmful to human lung health.

What the researchers are telling us here is that further studies are needed to determine what levels of absorbed e-Cig vapor are needed to show human lung cell damage and harm. When researchers state, “further studies are needed to determine what are the usual levels of absorbed e-Cig vapor that are harmful to human lung health”. I read this as  researchers haven’t “proved” that e-Cig vapor is harmful to human lung health. They are stating that further studies are needed to determine this.

After multiple readings of this study, I came to my own conclusion that unrealistic conditions were used in order to show lung cell barrier harm. In one part of this study, researchers used 100 mg/mL nicotine extract and exposed it to lung cells in order to find that nicotine is harmful to lung barrier cells.

For those who don’t know, 100 mg/mL nicotine solution is not what is vaped by people who use e-cigarettes. 100 mg/mL nicotine solution is the highest commercially available to the public nicotine solution and is used by e-liquid manufacturers as a base nicotine solution which is diluted heavily with the other ingredients found in e-liquid which are Propylene Glycol, Vegetable Glycerin, and food flavorings to make the finished e-liquid product that vapers inhale. Vapers never inhale 100 mg/mL nicotine solution.

If you were to inhale 100 mg/mL nicotine solution, it would be unbearable and would cause nicotine overdose in the human body. To put it into perspective, e-liquid manufacturers commonly manufacturer their product at levels found between 0 mg/mL nicotine and 24 mg/mL nicotine, which the most common e-liquid being 12 mg/mL or lower.

If you were to even get a raindrop sized droplet of 100 mg/mL nicotine on your skin, it can cause symptoms of acute nicotine overdose which include nausea, vomiting, and rapid heartbeat. This is why people who mix e-liquid and handle nicotine in the 100 mg/mL use gloves, goggles, and other safety measures.

The study can be found here.

Did this study show that nicotine can cause damage to lung barrier cells? Read the study, and you be the judge.

Disclaimer: I am not a doctor, nor a scientist. The above expressed views are those of mine only. Please read the study to make your own conclusion.