Researchers discover industrial chemicals, a pesticide and caffeine during analysis of popular vaping products

Researchers at Johns Hopkins University analyzed popular vaping products and found nearly 2,000 chemicals not disclosed by manufacturers, as well as six potentially harmful compounds, including a pesticide. Will Kirk of Johns Hopkins University

When vaping first became popular, proponents were quick to claim it was safer than smoking cigarettes. New research suggests that might be a fallacy, reports Tiffany Kary of Bloomberg.

Scientists at Johns Hopkins University (JHU) discovered that vaping aerosols contain thousands of unknown chemicals and substances not disclosed by manufacturers, including industrial chemicals and caffeine. Their study appears in Chemical Research in Toxicology, a peer-reviewed journal produced by American Chemical Society.

“Existing research that compared e-cigarettes with normal cigarettes found that cigarette contaminants are much lower in e-cigarettes,” senior author Carsten Prasse, an assistant professor of environmental health and engineering at the Whiting School of Engineering and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, says in a statement.

“The problem is that e-cigarette aerosols contain other completely uncharacterized chemicals that might have health risks that we don’t yet know about,” Prasse adds. “More and more young people are using these e-cigarettes and they need to know what they’re being exposed to.”

The study found traces of nearly 2,000 unknown chemicals in electronic cigarette vaping liquid and aerosols. Scientists also detected several known and potentially harmful compounds, reports Richard Haridy of New Atlas.

Researchers in Australia came up with similar results in a recent examination of 65 vape liquids. Every sample contained at least one potentially harmful chemical, including benzaldehyde, an airway irritant, and trans-cinnamaldehyde, an immunosuppressive agent.

Suckers can read more here:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nearly-2000-chemicals-some-potentially-harmfulfound-in-vaping-aerosols-180978872/

PermeateFree said:

Researchers discover industrial chemicals, a pesticide and caffeine during analysis of popular vaping products

Researchers at Johns Hopkins University analyzed popular vaping products and found nearly 2,000 chemicals not disclosed by manufacturers, as well as six potentially harmful compounds, including a pesticide. Will Kirk of Johns Hopkins University

When vaping first became popular, proponents were quick to claim it was safer than smoking cigarettes. New research suggests that might be a fallacy, reports Tiffany Kary of Bloomberg.

Scientists at Johns Hopkins University (JHU) discovered that vaping aerosols contain thousands of unknown chemicals and substances not disclosed by manufacturers, including industrial chemicals and caffeine. Their study appears in Chemical Research in Toxicology, a peer-reviewed journal produced by American Chemical Society.

“Existing research that compared e-cigarettes with normal cigarettes found that cigarette contaminants are much lower in e-cigarettes,” senior author Carsten Prasse, an assistant professor of environmental health and engineering at the Whiting School of Engineering and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, says in a statement.

“The problem is that e-cigarette aerosols contain other completely uncharacterized chemicals that might have health risks that we don’t yet know about,” Prasse adds. “More and more young people are using these e-cigarettes and they need to know what they’re being exposed to.”

The study found traces of nearly 2,000 unknown chemicals in electronic cigarette vaping liquid and aerosols. Scientists also detected several known and potentially harmful compounds, reports Richard Haridy of New Atlas.

Researchers in Australia came up with similar results in a recent examination of 65 vape liquids. Every sample contained at least one potentially harmful chemical, including benzaldehyde, an airway irritant, and trans-cinnamaldehyde, an immunosuppressive agent.

Suckers can read more here:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nearly-2000-chemicals-some-potentially-harmfulfound-in-vaping-aerosols-180978872/

Pretty much the same story as real cigarettes then?

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Researchers discover industrial chemicals, a pesticide and caffeine during analysis of popular vaping products

Researchers at Johns Hopkins University analyzed popular vaping products and found nearly 2,000 chemicals not disclosed by manufacturers, as well as six potentially harmful compounds, including a pesticide. Will Kirk of Johns Hopkins University

When vaping first became popular, proponents were quick to claim it was safer than smoking cigarettes. New research suggests that might be a fallacy, reports Tiffany Kary of Bloomberg.

Scientists at Johns Hopkins University (JHU) discovered that vaping aerosols contain thousands of unknown chemicals and substances not disclosed by manufacturers, including industrial chemicals and caffeine. Their study appears in Chemical Research in Toxicology, a peer-reviewed journal produced by American Chemical Society.

“Existing research that compared e-cigarettes with normal cigarettes found that cigarette contaminants are much lower in e-cigarettes,” senior author Carsten Prasse, an assistant professor of environmental health and engineering at the Whiting School of Engineering and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, says in a statement.

“The problem is that e-cigarette aerosols contain other completely uncharacterized chemicals that might have health risks that we don’t yet know about,” Prasse adds. “More and more young people are using these e-cigarettes and they need to know what they’re being exposed to.”

The study found traces of nearly 2,000 unknown chemicals in electronic cigarette vaping liquid and aerosols. Scientists also detected several known and potentially harmful compounds, reports Richard Haridy of New Atlas.

Researchers in Australia came up with similar results in a recent examination of 65 vape liquids. Every sample contained at least one potentially harmful chemical, including benzaldehyde, an airway irritant, and trans-cinnamaldehyde, an immunosuppressive agent.

Suckers can read more here:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nearly-2000-chemicals-some-potentially-harmfulfound-in-vaping-aerosols-180978872/

Pretty much the same story as real cigarettes then?

Yeah, strange coincidence that.

Water is portentially harmful.

mollwollfumble said:

Water is portentially harmful.

Particularly when you breathe it in.

mollwollfumble said:

Water is portentially harmful.

You been trying to hold your breath underwater again?

PermeateFree said:

benzaldehyde, an airway irritant, and trans-cinnamaldehyde, an immunosuppressive agent.

Substances seem more dangerous when given by their chemical name. Perhaps the above would seem less dangerous if was given as:

benzaldehyde, the flavour of almonds, and trans-cinnamaldehyde, the flavour of cinnamon.

KJW said:

PermeateFree said:

benzaldehyde, an airway irritant, and trans-cinnamaldehyde, an immunosuppressive agent.

Substances seem more dangerous when given by their chemical name. Perhaps the above would seem less dangerous if was given as:

benzaldehyde, the flavour of almonds, and trans-cinnamaldehyde, the flavour of cinnamon.

Well only another 1998 chemicals to go and disregard as you have, the poisons and harmful chemicals already identified. If you want to challenge the article, then do so fairly and not cherry-pick parts that only identify with your opinion.

PermeateFree said:

KJW said:

PermeateFree said:

benzaldehyde, an airway irritant, and trans-cinnamaldehyde, an immunosuppressive agent.

Substances seem more dangerous when given by their chemical name. Perhaps the above would seem less dangerous if was given as:

benzaldehyde, the flavour of almonds, and trans-cinnamaldehyde, the flavour of cinnamon.

Well only another 1998 chemicals to go and disregard as you have, the poisons and harmful chemicals already identified. If you want to challenge the article, then do so fairly and not cherry-pick parts that only identify with your opinion.

What do you think my opinion is that I challenge the article unfairly?

KJW said:

PermeateFree said:

KJW said:

Substances seem more dangerous when given by their chemical name. Perhaps the above would seem less dangerous if was given as:

benzaldehyde, the flavour of almonds, and trans-cinnamaldehyde, the flavour of cinnamon.

Well only another 1998 chemicals to go and disregard as you have, the poisons and harmful chemicals already identified. If you want to challenge the article, then do so fairly and not cherry-pick parts that only identify with your opinion.

What do you think my opinion is that I challenge the article unfairly?

Comments such as yours degrade and belittle the integrity of the study.

PermeateFree said:

KJW said:

PermeateFree said:

Well only another 1998 chemicals to go and disregard as you have, the poisons and harmful chemicals already identified. If you want to challenge the article, then do so fairly and not cherry-pick parts that only identify with your opinion.

What do you think my opinion is that I challenge the article unfairly?

Comments such as yours degrade and belittle the integrity of the study.

No, comments such as mine put a little more balance into an article that treats common flavours as dangerous chemicals.

KJW said:

PermeateFree said:

KJW said:

What do you think my opinion is that I challenge the article unfairly?

Comments such as yours degrade and belittle the integrity of the study.

No, comments such as mine put a little more balance into an article that treats common flavours as dangerous chemicals.

You’re a monster!

KJW said:

PermeateFree said:

KJW said:

What do you think my opinion is that I challenge the article unfairly?

Comments such as yours degrade and belittle the integrity of the study.

No, comments such as mine put a little more balance into an article that treats common flavours as dangerous chemicals.

Does not sound like you have read the article, please do so for a more balanced view. I might add the chemicals you quote were from a different study (an Australian one).

sibeen said:

KJW said:

PermeateFree said:

Comments such as yours degrade and belittle the integrity of the study.

No, comments such as mine put a little more balance into an article that treats common flavours as dangerous chemicals.

You’re a monster!

No just arrogant.

PermeateFree said:

Does not sound like you have read the article, please do so for a more balanced view. I might add the chemicals you quote were from a different study (an Australian one).

Then what is the point of the opening post if I’m not to quote from it?

KJW said:

PermeateFree said:

Does not sound like you have read the article, please do so for a more balanced view. I might add the chemicals you quote were from a different study (an Australian one).

Then what is the point of the opening post if I’m not to quote from it?

Well if you bothered to read the article before making your comment, you might have understood the subject more and the relevance of its contents.

PermeateFree said:

KJW said:

PermeateFree said:

Does not sound like you have read the article, please do so for a more balanced view. I might add the chemicals you quote were from a different study (an Australian one).

Then what is the point of the opening post if I’m not to quote from it?

Well if you bothered to read the article before making your comment, you might have understood the subject more and the relevance of its contents.

ROFL

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

KJW said:

Then what is the point of the opening post if I’m not to quote from it?

Well if you bothered to read the article before making your comment, you might have understood the subject more and the relevance of its contents.

ROFL

Yes it was silly of him to comment as he did when being unaware of the full article contents. Still a common feature of this forum to post the first thought that comes to mind regardless of how pertinent or not it might be.

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

Well if you bothered to read the article before making your comment, you might have understood the subject more and the relevance of its contents.

ROFL

Yes it was silly of him to comment as he did when being unaware of the full article contents. Still a common feature of this forum to post the first thought that comes to mind regardless of how pertinent or not it might be.

Hahaha. Golden. Please, keep it up.

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

ROFL

Yes it was silly of him to comment as he did when being unaware of the full article contents. Still a common feature of this forum to post the first thought that comes to mind regardless of how pertinent or not it might be.

Hahaha. Golden. Please, keep it up.

Silly boy, you don’t know the half of it.

:)))

KJW said:

PermeateFree said:

benzaldehyde, an airway irritant, and trans-cinnamaldehyde, an immunosuppressive agent.

Substances seem more dangerous when given by their chemical name. Perhaps the above would seem less dangerous if was given as:

benzaldehyde, the flavour of almonds, and trans-cinnamaldehyde, the flavour of cinnamon.

That’s why a pouch of tobacco smells nice but when you burn it it smells foul?