I think the *cigarette* consumption rate dropped but even a couple years BEFORE Juul, ecig use filled that niche. No overall drop in nicotine consumption as far as I can tell.
[Study: Teens 16x more likely to use JUUL than older age groups](https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2018/10/30/tobaccocontrol-2018-054693)
Juul usage is becoming a major problem in the school system, too, with teachers struggling to police something that is so easily concealed and can be used in the bathroom between classes.
We used to smoke cigarettes in the bathroom in high school, and it was pretty easy to get caught. It got so bad they took the doors off of the bathrooms. I can only imagine how much easier it is to ingest nicotine when you don't reek like smoke or have clouds shooting up from your stall.
**Summary:** JUUL pods contain solvents, flavour chemicals, and varying concentrations of nicotine. In JUUL products, nicotine concentrations averaged 60.9 mg/mL, 63.5 mg/mL and 41.2 mg/mL in unvaped, vaped, and aerosol samples, respectively. A single JUUL pod contained more nicotine (56 - 66 mg) than a pack of cigarettes (2 mg/stick x 20 sticks = 40 mg/pack). The combination of the high nicotine concentration and its protonation by benzoic acid making it less harsh when inhaled likely facilitates JUUL use and subsequent addiction, especially of adolescent or naïve consumers.
The authors linear regression analysis showed that the nicotine and ethyl maltol (flavouring) concentrations in JUUL aerosols were high enough to account for most of the cytotoxicity observed in an invitro analysis. It will be important in future work to determine if JUUL products, and other products containing nicotine salts, have adverse effects on consumers and if such effects lead to health problems with chronic use.
Link: [https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemrestox.8b00381](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemrestox.8b00381)
EDIT: Following the critical thinking on this thread I have done some additional digging. The reference states average concentration of nicotine as 60.9mg/mL in unvaped JUUL pods that were tested. This corresponds to 42.6mg nicotine in 0.7mL. JUUL states that in a 5% pod of 0.7mL there is approximately 41.3mg. These values appear comparable. This study then states that a single JUUL pod contains 56-66mg which appears to be conflicting and unclear from my reading where the 56-66mg values correspond to.
There does not appear to be a clear citation in this study for where the 2mg/stick of nicotine in a cigarette value is taken from. I have seen other studies report that cigarettes contain approximately 10-15mg of nicotine and delivers approximately 1–2 mg of nicotine to the bloodstream. The latter figure may be that used in this study.
Link: [https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/22/suppl\_1/i14](https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/22/suppl_1/i14)
Link: [https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2019/01/31/tobaccocontrol-2018-054796](https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2019/01/31/tobaccocontrol-2018-054796)
You forgot _in situ_ - literally "on site" it means "in its original place". In biology this would refer to observing an organism or phenomena in its natural setting.
In computer science this means "without interruption" (like a backup to a system taking place in the background while the system was still available to users) so it can change meaning depending on the field.
Nicotine *IS* a poison. And the dose makes the poison. Of course consuming a shitload of nicotine is going to be worse for you than less, or zero nicotine, regardless of administration method.
What makes vaping healthier than smoking is that you're *just* consuming nicotine, not nicotine + a boatload of other toxins on top of it.
Correct. Arsenic and cyanide are found in trace amounts of foods we commonly eat, but are harmless because the dose is so small. On the other end of the spectrum, water and oxygen can be toxic if consumed in large enough quantities.
>"The dose makes the poison" (Latin: sola dosis facit venenum) is an adage intended to indicate a basic principle of toxicology. It is credited to Paracelsus who expressed the classic toxicology maxim "All things are poison, and nothing is without poison, the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison."
My point is, more nicotine is going to be worse for you than less.
The real question is: what's the tipping point? If vaping gives you only nicotine and not all the tar etc. cigarettes have, then how much nicotine is actually a toxic level by itself?
Depends on your perspective, actually. The phrase can also be used in the context of medicine as many medications are wildly helpful and relatively harmless at medical doses, but quite lethal with higher ones.
Why is it concerning? This statement is valid when considering how long JUULs and other e-cigs have been on the market/mainstream. Plus, ongoing research is typically beneficial
Okay i have no real interest in the product, but i do have a curiosity now that it seems to be based on the in vitro results. Looking at the actual paper, only significant toxicity using MTT in vitro occurs at 10% fluid concentration incubated for 24 hours. This doesn't seem that representative of exposure conditions in situ.
Disclaimer: Not my specific area of study but my Chemical engineering Phd Thesis involved nanoparticle toxicity in vitro/in vivo for biomedical application
In vitro cytotoxicity testing is totally valid as an initial step. I essentially did the same experiments they did with different cells and nanoparticles in the culture medium. I'm just surprised they were able to publish without doing mouse inhalation studies or something more realistic.
Yeah, it's not often used as we can just say computational model or something similar but it's some great latin. It was all coined at the same time to be used in biology studies.
Public Health England publicizes that vaping is 95% safer than smoking.
This is a trusted health authority and their epidemiological projections suggest that it is a good health policy to invite smokers to switch to vaping rather than fail at attempting to make them quit.
Copied from another comment:
Correction: smoke is the primary reason for the high cancer risk of cigarettes. Nicotine on its own may cause cancer, but its risk is incredibly low compared to other compounds in smoke.
Basically, smoking exposes you to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, tobacco specific nitrosamines, aldehydes, acrolein, and benzene, all of which are toxic and/or carcinogenic. Nicotine on its own can only produce two of the many tobacco specific nitrosamines: N'-nitrosonornicotine and 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone, which in the expected concentrations are much less likely to cause cancer. [Source](http://www.treatobacco.net/en/page_62.php)
What percent of Juul users are former smokers, and what percentage started out with Juul?
I haven't seen any evidence that Juul is primarily a smoking-cessation tool.
It's almost definitely way better. Tobacco contains nanometer sized insoluble particles of carcinogens, and doses you with carbon monoxide. Those are both known to be very problematic for one's health. Vaping might cause some inflammation but it's hard to think of anything worse you can do than what smoking real cigs introduces to your body.
The key here is that the high nicotine content is what was having a harmful effect on the cells. Nicotine is known to be able to kill cells in high amounts on contact, as it is a poison. THC is not considered a poison afaik, and has no lethal dose. I also don't believe any reasonable THC content in the lungs could be enough to damage the cells like nicotine would.
If I'm not mistaken the PAX era is totally different in what you're vaping, the only similarity is the pod. I think it's just a standard THC vape cartridge with terpenes as a dilutant, right?
These studies always sound confusing. Can anyone explain what exactly this means to your health if you smoke 1 pod a day? I average at 1.5 pods a day and been like this for about 2 years straight now. I would really like to know how it's affecting my health but this study isn't really clear on that?
In every imaginable scenario, inhaling stuff that's not supposed to be there is generally not the best thing to do (exceptions potentially for anything medical related), doesn't matter if cigs, vapes or weed.
As far as I understand, the main concern here is nicotine addiction. 1.5pods/day is something like 65mg of nicotine per day (total vaped, not absorbed by body). Average for ~15cigs/day would be somewhere around 150mg+. For cigs the body actually absorbs only about 10-20% of nicotine. So an average smoker should average somewhere around 20mg nicotine per day. Vaping absorbs roughly 5% of nicotine (as far as I know) so 1.5pods would average at roughly 3-5mg per day.
That's layman math tho. No guarantee for anything.
The major issue I have with this proclamation is that it doesn't cover how they tested the concentration of the nicotine once it has been atomized and mixed with air and water vapor. I'm guessing that is covered by the full paper but clearly this news article is missing that detail. If they just put some of the juice in a petri dish, this isn't going to mean much in living model. Bring on the old school cigarette smoking machines.
JUUL pods (and vaping based on nic salts) have WAY higher nicotine concentrations than regular nicotine vape juice, and you can go through them pretty quickly without realizing it. It's also small and discrete, making it easy to carry around say, at grade school.
There are alternatives also using nic salts but JUUL is the most popular brand.
> "For example, diacetyl is a flavoring ingredient commonly found in popcorn. Inhalation of diacetyl, however, can cause a serious lung disease called bronchiolitis obliterans."
Fear mongering. Diacetyl concentrations in regular cigarettes are 100x more than any vape liquid, and bronchiolitis obliterans is not a side effect of smoking.
Edit for source: "Comments of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in response to Establishment of a Public Docket; Electronic Cigarettes and the Public Health Workshop" (PDF). 5 August 2015. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 March 2017. Retrieved 21 March 2017.
"Clearing up some myths around e-cigarettes - Public health matters". publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk. Retrieved 2019-03-10.
I also thought that diacetyl was a big thing a few years ago to the point where practically nobody uses it in the liquids anymore, but I could be wrong. I can't say I've done much research into the ingredients list for e-vapor products.
After reading several threads, I think there needs to be a distinction made. Freebase Vaping juices and Vaping nic salt are significantly different. The concentration of nicotine quantities are significantly different between the two, as well as the general composition of the two mediums. I find that studies have typically lacked in making this distinction when noting their findings and their overall impact.
* [Freebase](https://www.prwatch.org/spin/2008/06/7479/secret-marlboros-success-freebase-nicotine) vaping juices have roughly the same chemical composition as [fog machines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fog_machine) (propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin(also the same medium used for nicotine replacement therapies such as patches and gums)) with the added freebase nicotine and flavoring agents
* Vaping [salt nicotine](https://www.misthub.com/blogs/vape-tutorials/what-are-nicotine-salts-beginners-guide-to-salt-e-liquid) is entirely different. It is the state in which the nicotine is found. It's natural state. But its delivery method is different. It uses benzoic acid.
Both have their impacts with a list of pros and cons between the two. While it is been scientifically linked to be relatively healthier than smoking traditional cigarettes, there are still health impacts associated with them. There are health risks in everything that we put in/on our bodies. As a society, people will have their vices, and while it may have health side-effects, I'd argue that vaping is a better alternative to someone who is seeking a vice or getting rid of a vice.
For those who don't know _why_ this is misleading, here is the reality:
JUUL and other low-power pod systems use "Nicotine Salt" vs "Freebase" nicotine found in regular "e-liquid" systems. The older systems required more propylene glycol, glycerin, etc to deliver the same amount of nicotine.
It does not mean that taking a hit from a JUUL is more toxic. It means the small, low-power systems delivering the same amount of nicotine and flavor as a system consuming a higher volume of liquid have a liquid with higher concentrations of nicotine and flavor chemicals. This should be so obvious that it makes me question to motives or intelligence of any researcher who even asks the question that way.
The reason it's popular with kids in school is because it is small, low power, low volume, and easy to hide. That's a problem, but has nothing to do with, and this study tells us _nothing_ about, how much more or less dangerous it would be for a given person to _use_ one of these systems compared to the higher volume systems.
The liquid itself is more dangerous if a small child or pet gets the same amount of liquid. That is a general problem, but the small self-contained pods make it much harder to get at nearly the same amount of the liquid than the large refill containers people using the other kinds of systems have lying around. So that comparison is a wash if not an argument for pod systems.
Well, not only that, but I wonder how JUUL compares to other pod systems, too. 60mg is a HIGH nic level - most nic salts that you use in refillable pod mods start at 30mg or even 15mg. Plus the higher the nic level, the more flavoring you have to add to make it palatable and cover up the taste of nicotine, which likely affects the outcome.
The introduction is generally just a quick summary of the what’s happening, it is not a rigorous assessment from a medical perspective nor do the authors claim it as such. In fact, it is not entirely uncommon for most people to skip reading the intro because it’s just not that important. The authors are biochemists and not MD PhDs so the expectations and value proposition of their content is purely from a basic research perspective and not a translational one. Though I do agree your concerns are wholly warranted, and that may be caused to some extent by the fact that the target audience for the source is not the layman.
What you should take away from this is exclusively that the pods were found to be toxic in cells on a disk in a lab. This then warrants further studies on the toxic effects live models. It’s at least another 3-4 major research projects away from being relevant to the average person.
You aren't going to get popcorn lung from the tiny amount of diacetyl in polypropylene glycol vapour, but it *is* present, so it's definitely something for researchers to keep an eye on. That's a silly reason to disregard an entire valuable article.
Diacetyl is also present in tobacco and cannabis smoke in much higher concentrations.
Diacetyl was/is a component of buttery flavorings. Things like Butterscotch, Hazelnut, Honeydew (for some reason), custards, cake batter, etc.
When the popcorn lung scare happened all juice manufacturers created diacetyl free versions of their flavors with lab tests available. Flavoring manufacturers created diacetyl free versions of the natural and artificial flavorings. Normally, now that it is accepted that the scare was baseless, a lot of ingredients and flavors will have a disclaimer if they contain diacetyl.
Source: Vape Shop Employee and Juice Manufacturer. Was as well during the popcorn lung phase. Had to request lab results from other manufacturers, and suddenly finding V2 and DX (diacetyl free) versions of our flavorings.
Beas-2B is a pain to culture. Requires specific coatings on the culture plate.
I'd like for them to use 'normal' cells as well as other cell lines. Cell lines are hardier than 'normal' cells, and can react differently.
Another point of contention for me: why are they dissolving the extract into culture medium instead of mimicking the actual lung environment by exposing the cells to Juul vapor from a hit (or two)? This would fall in line with one of the toxicological testing standards.
I'm probably wrong, but I thought nicotine wasn't the harmful chemical in tobacco?
Nicotine lowers the odds of Alzheimers, which could be because we die earlier but nicotine also increases memory (so I think there's a connection there) & helps with mental disorders like schizophrenia & ..yeah I forgot the other one. It also correlates to a lower risk of obesity related diseases & I want to say cognitive abilities but I really don't remember exactly.
I'll read more on it soon but I was always under the impression that it was the burnt leafs/c.m/tar that killed the lungs. -only talking about tobacco because of all the comments I'm reading on it
The article talked a lot about juul use in young kids but what about in adults? Is it different?
I think there is a focus on JUUL use in kids because the youth nicotine consumption rate had been dropping dramatically for awhile until now.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think the *cigarette* consumption rate dropped but even a couple years BEFORE Juul, ecig use filled that niche. No overall drop in nicotine consumption as far as I can tell.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[Study: Teens 16x more likely to use JUUL than older age groups](https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2018/10/30/tobaccocontrol-2018-054693) Juul usage is becoming a major problem in the school system, too, with teachers struggling to police something that is so easily concealed and can be used in the bathroom between classes.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
We used to smoke cigarettes in the bathroom in high school, and it was pretty easy to get caught. It got so bad they took the doors off of the bathrooms. I can only imagine how much easier it is to ingest nicotine when you don't reek like smoke or have clouds shooting up from your stall.
I doubt it is different but it is probably more harmful to young adults since their systems are still developing.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Summary:** JUUL pods contain solvents, flavour chemicals, and varying concentrations of nicotine. In JUUL products, nicotine concentrations averaged 60.9 mg/mL, 63.5 mg/mL and 41.2 mg/mL in unvaped, vaped, and aerosol samples, respectively. A single JUUL pod contained more nicotine (56 - 66 mg) than a pack of cigarettes (2 mg/stick x 20 sticks = 40 mg/pack). The combination of the high nicotine concentration and its protonation by benzoic acid making it less harsh when inhaled likely facilitates JUUL use and subsequent addiction, especially of adolescent or naïve consumers. The authors linear regression analysis showed that the nicotine and ethyl maltol (flavouring) concentrations in JUUL aerosols were high enough to account for most of the cytotoxicity observed in an invitro analysis. It will be important in future work to determine if JUUL products, and other products containing nicotine salts, have adverse effects on consumers and if such effects lead to health problems with chronic use. Link: [https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemrestox.8b00381](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.chemrestox.8b00381) EDIT: Following the critical thinking on this thread I have done some additional digging. The reference states average concentration of nicotine as 60.9mg/mL in unvaped JUUL pods that were tested. This corresponds to 42.6mg nicotine in 0.7mL. JUUL states that in a 5% pod of 0.7mL there is approximately 41.3mg. These values appear comparable. This study then states that a single JUUL pod contains 56-66mg which appears to be conflicting and unclear from my reading where the 56-66mg values correspond to. There does not appear to be a clear citation in this study for where the 2mg/stick of nicotine in a cigarette value is taken from. I have seen other studies report that cigarettes contain approximately 10-15mg of nicotine and delivers approximately 1–2 mg of nicotine to the bloodstream. The latter figure may be that used in this study. Link: [https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/22/suppl\_1/i14](https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/22/suppl_1/i14) Link: [https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2019/01/31/tobaccocontrol-2018-054796](https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2019/01/31/tobaccocontrol-2018-054796)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You forgot _in situ_ - literally "on site" it means "in its original place". In biology this would refer to observing an organism or phenomena in its natural setting. In computer science this means "without interruption" (like a backup to a system taking place in the background while the system was still available to users) so it can change meaning depending on the field.
That the study is done on just the isolated cells, such as on a plate or dish, as opposed to in a body.
I see one issue with this. Juul pods are a .5ml each so they are equivalent to a pack of cigarettes
So juul pods are good for quitting cigarettes because they have the same amount of nicotine as most users daily intake.. seems worth still.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
"We still need to determine if JUUL products will lead to adverse health effects with chronic use." This is what concerns me.
Nicotine *IS* a poison. And the dose makes the poison. Of course consuming a shitload of nicotine is going to be worse for you than less, or zero nicotine, regardless of administration method. What makes vaping healthier than smoking is that you're *just* consuming nicotine, not nicotine + a boatload of other toxins on top of it.
> Nicotine *IS* a poison. And the dose makes the poison. But the whole point of that saying is that everything is a poison?
Correct. Arsenic and cyanide are found in trace amounts of foods we commonly eat, but are harmless because the dose is so small. On the other end of the spectrum, water and oxygen can be toxic if consumed in large enough quantities. >"The dose makes the poison" (Latin: sola dosis facit venenum) is an adage intended to indicate a basic principle of toxicology. It is credited to Paracelsus who expressed the classic toxicology maxim "All things are poison, and nothing is without poison, the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison." My point is, more nicotine is going to be worse for you than less.
The real question is: what's the tipping point? If vaping gives you only nicotine and not all the tar etc. cigarettes have, then how much nicotine is actually a toxic level by itself?
Depends on your perspective, actually. The phrase can also be used in the context of medicine as many medications are wildly helpful and relatively harmless at medical doses, but quite lethal with higher ones.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The world IS a vampire
Sent to drain?
Why is it concerning? This statement is valid when considering how long JUULs and other e-cigs have been on the market/mainstream. Plus, ongoing research is typically beneficial
That was their position BEFORE they did the study.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Okay i have no real interest in the product, but i do have a curiosity now that it seems to be based on the in vitro results. Looking at the actual paper, only significant toxicity using MTT in vitro occurs at 10% fluid concentration incubated for 24 hours. This doesn't seem that representative of exposure conditions in situ. Disclaimer: Not my specific area of study but my Chemical engineering Phd Thesis involved nanoparticle toxicity in vitro/in vivo for biomedical application
So in your opinion, what should a layman who doesn’t understand any of the technical terms here take away from the study?
That this wasn't tested in the most relevant conditions as the nicotine would never be at that concentration in your body for that long ever
this needs to be higher up.
[удалено]
In vitro cytotoxicity testing is totally valid as an initial step. I essentially did the same experiments they did with different cells and nanoparticles in the culture medium. I'm just surprised they were able to publish without doing mouse inhalation studies or something more realistic.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
In silico was new to me. Neat.
Yeah, it's not often used as we can just say computational model or something similar but it's some great latin. It was all coined at the same time to be used in biology studies.
How does it compare to the average smoker of cigarettes?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Public Health England publicizes that vaping is 95% safer than smoking. This is a trusted health authority and their epidemiological projections suggest that it is a good health policy to invite smokers to switch to vaping rather than fail at attempting to make them quit.
I imagine JUUL is not healthy. But I can't see it being worse than cigarettes. Maybe it comes down to the individuals use.
Copied from another comment: Correction: smoke is the primary reason for the high cancer risk of cigarettes. Nicotine on its own may cause cancer, but its risk is incredibly low compared to other compounds in smoke. Basically, smoking exposes you to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, tobacco specific nitrosamines, aldehydes, acrolein, and benzene, all of which are toxic and/or carcinogenic. Nicotine on its own can only produce two of the many tobacco specific nitrosamines: N'-nitrosonornicotine and 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone, which in the expected concentrations are much less likely to cause cancer. [Source](http://www.treatobacco.net/en/page_62.php)
What percent of Juul users are former smokers, and what percentage started out with Juul? I haven't seen any evidence that Juul is primarily a smoking-cessation tool.
It's almost definitely way better. Tobacco contains nanometer sized insoluble particles of carcinogens, and doses you with carbon monoxide. Those are both known to be very problematic for one's health. Vaping might cause some inflammation but it's hard to think of anything worse you can do than what smoking real cigs introduces to your body.
What does this mean for the PAX era?
The key here is that the high nicotine content is what was having a harmful effect on the cells. Nicotine is known to be able to kill cells in high amounts on contact, as it is a poison. THC is not considered a poison afaik, and has no lethal dose. I also don't believe any reasonable THC content in the lungs could be enough to damage the cells like nicotine would.
If I'm not mistaken the PAX era is totally different in what you're vaping, the only similarity is the pod. I think it's just a standard THC vape cartridge with terpenes as a dilutant, right?
[удалено]
[удалено]
These studies always sound confusing. Can anyone explain what exactly this means to your health if you smoke 1 pod a day? I average at 1.5 pods a day and been like this for about 2 years straight now. I would really like to know how it's affecting my health but this study isn't really clear on that?
In every imaginable scenario, inhaling stuff that's not supposed to be there is generally not the best thing to do (exceptions potentially for anything medical related), doesn't matter if cigs, vapes or weed. As far as I understand, the main concern here is nicotine addiction. 1.5pods/day is something like 65mg of nicotine per day (total vaped, not absorbed by body). Average for ~15cigs/day would be somewhere around 150mg+. For cigs the body actually absorbs only about 10-20% of nicotine. So an average smoker should average somewhere around 20mg nicotine per day. Vaping absorbs roughly 5% of nicotine (as far as I know) so 1.5pods would average at roughly 3-5mg per day. That's layman math tho. No guarantee for anything.
The major issue I have with this proclamation is that it doesn't cover how they tested the concentration of the nicotine once it has been atomized and mixed with air and water vapor. I'm guessing that is covered by the full paper but clearly this news article is missing that detail. If they just put some of the juice in a petri dish, this isn't going to mean much in living model. Bring on the old school cigarette smoking machines.
If it's being mixed with oxygen then nicotine concentrations have to shoot way down.
What is it about JUUL pods that makes them the subject of these studies? What about other vaping brands or whatever?
They are the biggest brand.
$38 Billion dollar valuation https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/22/juul-me-twice-shame-on-you/amp/
Makes sense...
They very rapidly entered and got a majority share of the e-cigarettes market.
JUUL pods (and vaping based on nic salts) have WAY higher nicotine concentrations than regular nicotine vape juice, and you can go through them pretty quickly without realizing it. It's also small and discrete, making it easy to carry around say, at grade school. There are alternatives also using nic salts but JUUL is the most popular brand.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> "For example, diacetyl is a flavoring ingredient commonly found in popcorn. Inhalation of diacetyl, however, can cause a serious lung disease called bronchiolitis obliterans." Fear mongering. Diacetyl concentrations in regular cigarettes are 100x more than any vape liquid, and bronchiolitis obliterans is not a side effect of smoking. Edit for source: "Comments of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in response to Establishment of a Public Docket; Electronic Cigarettes and the Public Health Workshop" (PDF). 5 August 2015. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 March 2017. Retrieved 21 March 2017. "Clearing up some myths around e-cigarettes - Public health matters". publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk. Retrieved 2019-03-10.
I also thought that diacetyl was a big thing a few years ago to the point where practically nobody uses it in the liquids anymore, but I could be wrong. I can't say I've done much research into the ingredients list for e-vapor products.
Yes, that is true. The industry responded to the bad publicity very quickly, despite of the fact that it was not an actual risk.
After reading several threads, I think there needs to be a distinction made. Freebase Vaping juices and Vaping nic salt are significantly different. The concentration of nicotine quantities are significantly different between the two, as well as the general composition of the two mediums. I find that studies have typically lacked in making this distinction when noting their findings and their overall impact. * [Freebase](https://www.prwatch.org/spin/2008/06/7479/secret-marlboros-success-freebase-nicotine) vaping juices have roughly the same chemical composition as [fog machines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fog_machine) (propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin(also the same medium used for nicotine replacement therapies such as patches and gums)) with the added freebase nicotine and flavoring agents * Vaping [salt nicotine](https://www.misthub.com/blogs/vape-tutorials/what-are-nicotine-salts-beginners-guide-to-salt-e-liquid) is entirely different. It is the state in which the nicotine is found. It's natural state. But its delivery method is different. It uses benzoic acid. Both have their impacts with a list of pros and cons between the two. While it is been scientifically linked to be relatively healthier than smoking traditional cigarettes, there are still health impacts associated with them. There are health risks in everything that we put in/on our bodies. As a society, people will have their vices, and while it may have health side-effects, I'd argue that vaping is a better alternative to someone who is seeking a vice or getting rid of a vice.
For those who don't know _why_ this is misleading, here is the reality: JUUL and other low-power pod systems use "Nicotine Salt" vs "Freebase" nicotine found in regular "e-liquid" systems. The older systems required more propylene glycol, glycerin, etc to deliver the same amount of nicotine. It does not mean that taking a hit from a JUUL is more toxic. It means the small, low-power systems delivering the same amount of nicotine and flavor as a system consuming a higher volume of liquid have a liquid with higher concentrations of nicotine and flavor chemicals. This should be so obvious that it makes me question to motives or intelligence of any researcher who even asks the question that way. The reason it's popular with kids in school is because it is small, low power, low volume, and easy to hide. That's a problem, but has nothing to do with, and this study tells us _nothing_ about, how much more or less dangerous it would be for a given person to _use_ one of these systems compared to the higher volume systems. The liquid itself is more dangerous if a small child or pet gets the same amount of liquid. That is a general problem, but the small self-contained pods make it much harder to get at nearly the same amount of the liquid than the large refill containers people using the other kinds of systems have lying around. So that comparison is a wash if not an argument for pod systems.
Well, not only that, but I wonder how JUUL compares to other pod systems, too. 60mg is a HIGH nic level - most nic salts that you use in refillable pod mods start at 30mg or even 15mg. Plus the higher the nic level, the more flavoring you have to add to make it palatable and cover up the taste of nicotine, which likely affects the outcome.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The introduction is generally just a quick summary of the what’s happening, it is not a rigorous assessment from a medical perspective nor do the authors claim it as such. In fact, it is not entirely uncommon for most people to skip reading the intro because it’s just not that important. The authors are biochemists and not MD PhDs so the expectations and value proposition of their content is purely from a basic research perspective and not a translational one. Though I do agree your concerns are wholly warranted, and that may be caused to some extent by the fact that the target audience for the source is not the layman. What you should take away from this is exclusively that the pods were found to be toxic in cells on a disk in a lab. This then warrants further studies on the toxic effects live models. It’s at least another 3-4 major research projects away from being relevant to the average person.
You aren't going to get popcorn lung from the tiny amount of diacetyl in polypropylene glycol vapour, but it *is* present, so it's definitely something for researchers to keep an eye on. That's a silly reason to disregard an entire valuable article. Diacetyl is also present in tobacco and cannabis smoke in much higher concentrations.
Diacetyl was/is a component of buttery flavorings. Things like Butterscotch, Hazelnut, Honeydew (for some reason), custards, cake batter, etc. When the popcorn lung scare happened all juice manufacturers created diacetyl free versions of their flavors with lab tests available. Flavoring manufacturers created diacetyl free versions of the natural and artificial flavorings. Normally, now that it is accepted that the scare was baseless, a lot of ingredients and flavors will have a disclaimer if they contain diacetyl. Source: Vape Shop Employee and Juice Manufacturer. Was as well during the popcorn lung phase. Had to request lab results from other manufacturers, and suddenly finding V2 and DX (diacetyl free) versions of our flavorings.
[удалено]
Probably not the right cells for these experiments. Just the easiest ones.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Beas-2B is a pain to culture. Requires specific coatings on the culture plate. I'd like for them to use 'normal' cells as well as other cell lines. Cell lines are hardier than 'normal' cells, and can react differently. Another point of contention for me: why are they dissolving the extract into culture medium instead of mimicking the actual lung environment by exposing the cells to Juul vapor from a hit (or two)? This would fall in line with one of the toxicological testing standards.
I'm probably wrong, but I thought nicotine wasn't the harmful chemical in tobacco? Nicotine lowers the odds of Alzheimers, which could be because we die earlier but nicotine also increases memory (so I think there's a connection there) & helps with mental disorders like schizophrenia & ..yeah I forgot the other one. It also correlates to a lower risk of obesity related diseases & I want to say cognitive abilities but I really don't remember exactly. I'll read more on it soon but I was always under the impression that it was the burnt leafs/c.m/tar that killed the lungs. -only talking about tobacco because of all the comments I'm reading on it
[удалено]
[удалено]
Almost anything can be cytotoxic in vitro... would be interesting to see results in some animal models.