1. Welcome to Thailand Vapers, an English language forum for members in Thailand and the rest of Asia to talk about vaping.
    Commonly referred to as e-cigarettes, vaping is really about the use of personal vaporizers (mods) and atomizers (tanks, clearos, RBAs, RDAs, RTAs) filled with e-liquid.
    Are you looking to get started or an old hand at vaping? Everyone is welcome here so sign up today and talk vaping with us!

How The Media Totally Exaggerated Study On Risk Of ‘Popcorn Lung’ From E-Cigarettes

Discussion in 'E-News' started by Siam Diesel, Dec 12, 2015.

  1. Siam Diesel
    Lurking

    Siam Diesel Thread Starter Nauti Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2014
    Messages:
    14,583
    Likes Received:
    17,232
    Location:
    Vape Wastelands
    From: Media Exaggerate Study On Popcorn Lung Risk From E-Cigarette | The Daily Caller

    How The Media Totally Exaggerated Study On Risk Of ‘Popcorn Lung’ From E-Cigarettes
    Guy Bentley
    11:14 AM 12/09/2015

    A Harvard study claiming most e-cigarette brands expose users to harmful chemicals omits critical information and exaggerates the risks of flavored e-cigarettes, according to tobacco control experts.
    The study, published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, analyzes a host of e-liquid flavors to discover levels of potentially dangerous chemicals diacetyl, acetyl propionyl, and acetoin.
    The researchers found one or more of the three chemicals in 92 percent of the 51 unique flavors of e-liquid. Diacetyl is identified in 39 of 51 flavors – 75 percent of the total.

    Following the study, an array of media outlets focused on the presence of diacetyl, a chemical used for food flavoring that if inhaled in large amounts can lead to a severe respiratory disease – bronchiolitis obliterans.

    Bronchiolitis obliterans is commonly known as “popcorn lung,” because it was identified in workers who inhaled the artificial butter flavor used to make microwavable popcorn. A number of cases of popcorn lung have been found to be so severe in some patients that they have required a full-blown lung transplant.

    The Harvard study whipped up a storm of hyperbolic headlines including “Harvard study finds that E-cigarette flavors cause lung disease” and “Chemicals in Flavored E-Cigarettes Tied To ‘Popcorn Lung’ Disease.”

    But the headlines may be shielding the truth about the potential risk of popcorn lung from using e-cigarettes. Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos, an expert on e-cigarette research and an opponent of putting diacetyl in e-liquids, writes, “tobacco cigarette smoke contains high levels of diacetyl and acetyl propionyl, on average 100 and 10 times higher,” compared to average e-cigarette exposure.
    Farsalinos draws the disparity between tobacco and e-cigarettes from research conducted by himself and colleagues published in the journal Nicotine and Tobacco Research in 2014.
    Not only are levels of diacetyl far higher in tobacco smoke than e-cig vapor, but the levels of dangerous compounds found in many of the products studied“are absolutely minimal, and it is not expected to raise any concerns about human health effects,” according to Farsalinos.

    Farsalinos adds that the researchers fail to mention the presence of these compounds in tobacco cigarette smoke. “This omission creates the impression that e-cigarettes are exposing users to a new chemical hazard while in reality their exposure will be much lower compared to smoking.”

    He concludes that the study is guilty of “creating false impressions and exaggerates the potential risk from diacetyl and acetyl propionyl exposure through e-cigarettes.”

    But even more concerning for those who may want to exaggerate the risks of using e-cigarettes, is that even tobacco smoke has no identifiable link with any cases of popcorn lung.

    According to Critical Reviews in Toxicology, “smoking has not been shown to be a risk factor for bronchiolitis (popcorn lung).“
    Since tobacco smoke contains far higher levels of diacetyl than flavored e-cigarettes and there has not been a single confirmed case of a smoker contracting popcorn lung, the likelihood that vapers will contract this particular lung disease is minimal, to say the least.

    Bill Godshall, executive director of Smokefree Pennsylvania and a long-time anti-smoking activist, is even more damning in his criticism of the Harvard study.

    “This is yet another Department of Health and Human Services-funded study that is intended to deceive and scare the public about vaping to lobby for Food and Drug Administration’s deeming ban.

    “While finding zero evidence of ‘Popcorn Lung,’ the authors are trying to create a public panic,” Godshall tells The Daily Caller News Foundation. Pro-vaping groups are also quick to point out that few people have claimed e-cigarettes are completely free of any health risk.

    Greg Conley, president of the American Vaping Association tells TheDCNF, “in the debate over vaping, the concept of relative risk should not be ignored. Vapor products are a far safer alternative to smoking, but it has long been recognized that they are not 100 percent safe.

    “Earlier this year, a dozen public health groups endorsed Public Health England’s briefing estimating vaping to be approximately 95 percent less hazardous than smoking. Their assessment left room for some unknown risk from ingredients like flavorings.”

    Follow Guy on Twitter
     
    Siam Diesel, Dec 12, 2015
    #1 Top
    v 4 vendetta, Konvict, Emmess and 1 other person like this.
  2. Dieter.
    Fine

    Dieter. Secret Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,660
    Likes Received:
    2,330
    Location:
    Udonthani
    Yes I have been quite buzy on German and Danish e.cigarette and news media forums to give some information or protest over the stupid way the news is interpreted. The comparison to tobacco cigarrettes is completely missing and I find the news media are actually killing smokers who might use e-cigarrettes but now get scared off. So I have tried to do my best to explain the true story. Today I found this I like to share with you, from "blastingnews.com" wich just sums it up very nicely.

    New e-cig study reveals crisis in journalism

    New e-cig study reveals crisis in journalism
    Instead of researching their stories to find out the truth, too many journalists rely on press releases. We need a return to proper reporting.
    [​IMG]
    E-cigs - safer than tobacco, or just as bad?
    Advertisements
    Today, film director Aaron Biebert presented a speech to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget. In it he issued an eloquent plea for President Obama to ensure that upcoming FDA regulations on electronic cigarettes don’t wipe out the industry and leave what survives in the hands of the tobacco companies.

    For anyone following the news this may seem like a strange request. After all, a new study from Harvard University links e-cigarette vapor to a serious lung disease, bronchiolitis obliterans. This disease has been found in workers exposed to high levels of the food flavoring diacetyl - and Harvard found diacetyl in most of the 51 e-cigarette cartridges and liquids they tested.

    The media has given this study a lot of attention, because electronic cigarettes are a controversial issue right now. The UK’s main health organization, Public Health England, recently issued a detailed report that concluded they’re around 95% safer than smoking tobacco and can help smokers quit. Many public health activists and academics disagree, at least partly because of stories like this, but smoking is falling in the USA.

    What’s interesting is how shallow reporting on the story has been. Every major news source that’s covered it, from Harvard’s own in-house paper to Vox.com and the UK’s Daily Telegraph, have mentioned diacetyl was found in most of the liquids; none of them have explained how much there was, whether it’s a dangerous amount, or how it compares to cigarette smoke. The last one is very relevant. British research suggests that 99% of people who use e-cigs regularly are current or former smokers. They’re using them to replace actual tobacco cigarettes. So, for these people, diacetyl is only a problem if there’s more of it in the e-cig vapor than there is in tobacco smoke.

    And there isn’t. Harvard’s study shows that on average there’s 750 times more diacetyl in smoke than in vapor. The liquid with the highest amount still only had 5% of what’s in a single cigarette. Of the 39 that tested positive for the chemical thirteen had less of it than a sample of fresh air tested with the same equipment! And considering that bronchiolitis obliterans isn’t on the long list of diseases caused by smoking, it looks like the level of diacetyl found in e-cigarette vapor just isn’t enough to worry about. Science journalists should have spotted that. None did.

    This story exposes a big problem with the way the media is increasingly working. Journalists are supposed to research the stories they write, and put the information they collect together to reveal the truth. Too often that’s not happening - many journos just repeat what's in the press release. A closer look at the Harvard study would have raised other questions, too. For example the researchers didn’t list concentrations of diacetyl, just the total weight they collected – but their test samples weren’t all the same size. Instead of measuring out identical quantities of each liquid they just ran the e-cigs until no more vapor came out. That’s bad science, and someone should have noticed.

    So far this year one study on electronic cigarettes turned out to be paid for by a class action law firm. Another was indirectly funded by the world’s largest manufacturer of nicotine patches and gum. No mainstream science journalist picked up on this.

    Aaron Biebert doesn’t use electronic cigarettes himself – and he doesn’t smoke either – but right now he’s making a film that alleges serious conflicts of interest among the loudest opponents of electronic cigarettes. Tobacco and quit smoking products are very big business – and so are health pressure groups that campaign against smoking. All these people have an interest in seeing the new products fail, either by having them banned or convincing the public that they’re even more dangerous than smoking. There’s evidence that they’re willing to pay for research that supports their side of the story. But you won’t hear about that from the average science journalist.
     
    Dieter., Dec 12, 2015
    #2 Top
    etlava, Konvict, Emmess and 1 other person like this.

Share This Page