Indy Vapor Shop Indy Vapor Shop

quality products - fair prices - friendly service - candid information

Questions, Call Us:

317-291-1087

Have A Great 2012!

FDA's partial truths and exaggerations endanger health

After the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held a press conference in July, 2009 to announce the results of their testing of 18 samples from two brands of electronic cigarettes, several countries responded by banning sales of the devices. For example, Uruguay, Colombia, Panama, and Argentina are countries that ban sales altogether, while Canada and Australia do not ban sales of hardware, but do ban sales of liquid containing nicotine.

The FDA press release announced that cartridges "contain carcinogens, including nitrosamines, and toxic chemicals such as diethylene glycol." Apparently the goal was to make the audience believe that e-cigarettes are quite likely to cause cancer and might even poison users. The trick worked.

The "trick" involved saying nothing that was untrue, but leaving out just enough facts to make the audience draw an incorrect conclusion. Yes, there were "carcinogens", detected, but "including nitrosamines" is a red herring, because the ONLY potential carcinogens detected were Tobacco-specific Nitrosamines (TSNAs). The wording selected by the FDA made it appear as if several different types of carcinogens were detected. Even more important is the fact that the FDA neglected to mention the quantity of TSNAs measured.

We know from testing conducted by other researchers that there are 8 nanograms in 1 gram of liquid that contains 1.6% nicotine. A 4 mg. nicotine patch also contains 8 nanograms. There are no cancer warnings on nicotine patch containers because 8 nanograms is such a miniscule quantity that it has never been shown to cause cancer. In contrast, a pack of full-flavor cigarettes can contain 126,000 nanograms of TSNAs.

So, ironically, the governments that responded by banning e-cigarette sales "protected" their smoking citizens from exposure to 8 ng of TSNAs instead of allowing them to switch, which would have protected them from exposure to hundreds of thousands of ng of TSNAs, plus many more types of carcinogens, in cigarette smoke!

The press release mentioned "toxic chemicals" [plural] implying that several different types of such chemicals were found. Yet the report cites only one toxin. And this chemical was found in a non-toxic concentration of 1% in one cartridge. The cartridges being tested hold at most 0.5 g of liquid. If users drank the liquid from the cartridges, an average weight adult would need to drink the contents of several thousand cartridges that contained diethylene glycol in a single day to be exposed to a fatal dose. But users don't drink the liquid. They vaporize the liquid and inhale the vapor. What did the FDA find in the vapor? "Nicotine was detected in both products for all cartridges containing low, medium and high levels of nicotine but was not observed in cartridges identified as containing no nicotine. Screening for the possible tobacco specific impurities cotinine, nicotine-N-oxide, nornicotine, anabasine and myosmine was negative. β-Nicotyrine was detected in all Njoy cartridges but was not detected in the Smoking Everywhere cartridges." http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ScienceResearch/UCM173250.pdf

The report does not mention finding any TSNAs at all in the vapor. β-Nicotyrine is neither toxic nor carcinogenic. Here is the bottom line: Smokers who switch to e-cigarettes are exposed to nicotine if they use cartridges that contain nicotine. Health New Zealand found that cartridges with 1.6% nicotine deliver from 1/10 to 1/3 the amount of nicotine per puff that a puff of smoke delivers. Smokers who continue lighting up tobacco cigarettes are exposed to nicotine, plus tar, particulates, poisonous gasses, plus thousands of chemicals created by the process of combustion. Hundreds of these chemicals are toxic and dozens are carcinogenic.

If someone you loved was a smoker who is unable to quit, would you prefer that they switch to an e-cigarette or that they continue inhaling smoke?

True, there has not been enough testing to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that e-cigarettes don't present any new types of health risks, and the only quality control practices are the voluntary measures put in place by manufacturers. But given the high risks of continued smoking, a replacement doesn't need to be 100% safe--it only needs to be less hazardous.

How long will it take before there is a government stamp of approval on an e-cigarette?

After 45 years of smoking, I didn't have time to wait around. I was being kept awake at night by loud wheezing. I had a productive morning cough. I couldn't enjoy a good laugh because by the third "ha" I was going into an embarrassing coughing jag. Maybe the next cigarette I lit would be the one that started a tumor growing in my throat or in my lungs.

On March 27, 2009, I switched. The nightime wheezing has disappeared along with the productive morning cough, and I can enjoy a good hearty laugh, without being interrupted by a coughing jag.

I pity the citizens of the countries where e-cigarettes have been banned. How many smokers kept inhaling smoke who might have been able to switch to vapor? How many of those continuing smokers have developed cancer, COPD, or had a heart attack or stroke, thanks to their government being fooled by the FDA's partial truths and exaggerations?

by: Indy Vapor Shop 0 Comments

<< Blog Home

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Vape Meet!

Hoosier Vapers Meet

April 28th
6pm - 10pm

KG's Pub on E. Thompson Rd.

by: Indy Vapor Shop 0 Comments

<< Blog Home

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Council Members

After following this bill closely and attending the council meetings in person, I am now convinced that only 4-5 members of the council have an intelligence level above that of a mature cucumber.

by: Indy Vapor Shop 1 Comments

<< Blog Home

Smoking Ban Passed - E-Cigarettes Included

Indianapolis soon may have a much stricter smoking ban that would cover the city's bars, bowling alleys and hotels.

The City-County Council voted 20-9 Monday night for a comprehensive smoking ban that would outlaw smoking in all but a few places.

It's the second time this year that the council has done so, but Mayor Greg Ballard vetoed the first ban passed by the council in January by a 19-9 vote.

Ballard will receive a copy of the ban later this week and will have 10 days to decide whether to sign it, said Marc Lotter, Ballard's spokesman.

John Barth, a council Democrat who co-sponsored the ban, said he thinks Ballard will support it.

"All the signaling has been positive," Barth said, "so if we got (anything) but support, it would be extremely surprising at this point."

If the smoking ban wins the mayor's approval this time, some of Indianapolis' neighbors say they might follow suit and enact their own comprehensive bans.

"The very second I find out the mayor signed the bill," Lawrence City Councilman David Parnell said, "I'll introduce ours."

Parnell said he has been waiting for Indianapolis to ban smoking in bars so he can propose a similar ordinance in Lawrence. He said he didn't think it would be fair to Lawrence's bars to ban smoking before Indianapolis did because it would draw business away from them and into Indianapolis.

Only a few of the city's suburbs -- Hancock County, Plainfield and Zionsville -- ban smoking in nearly all areas.

Several areas, including Carmel, Westfield and Lawrence, ban smoking in some areas, such as public places and restaurants.

The state legislature passed a statewide ban earlier this year that bans smoking in restaurants and most public places and businesses, but it exempts bars, gaming facilities and nonprofit private clubs and fraternal organizations. That ban will take effect July 1.

Indianapolis' ban is stronger than the state's and would exempt only nonprofit private clubs -- including fraternal organizations and veterans halls -- retail tobacco shops, existing cigar and hookah bars, and the Downtown Indianapolis off-track betting parlor.

Indianapolis passed a ban in 2005 that is similar to the state's, but it took the city several more years and proposals to get close to passing a more comprehensive ban.

Ballard vetoed the council's previous smoking ban in February because it would have allowed private clubs to have smoking but said clubs that allowed smoking couldn't be open to children.

The new version defers to the statewide ban that allows children in clubs with smoking as long as the children aren't permitted in smoking areas.

Lotter said he thinks Ballard will look more favorably upon this version because of the changes made to the provisions that regulate private clubs and veterans halls.

"It's good to see that we're finally close," Lotter said.

Lindsay Grace, chairwoman of Smoke Free Indy, said her group will encourage the mayor to sign it.

"It's about health," she said. "It's about the best image for our city. This was the right decision tonight."

Still, some are unhappy with the revised ban.

Council member Ryan Vaughn, a Republican, took issue with parts of the ban and asked to send it back to a committee, but the council voted against it. He was concerned about some of the language regarding private clubs, so Barth and his co-sponsors agreed to amend the ban before it passed.

Vaughn also was unhappy that the ban applies to e-cigarettes and that a provision that exempts hookah and cigar bars applies only to bars that were open by Jan. 1, 2012. He said he worried that if others opened after that date, they will have to be shut down. He had the same concern for private clubs, which had to meet certain criteria by April 1 to be exempted.

Still, he voted for the measure.

"I've been an advocate for it for three years, so I think 95 percent of it's good," Vaughn said.

Republican Councilwoman Virginia Cain voted against the measure because she said she thought the government should stay out of regulating smoking.

"I've always been a 'no,' " she told the council before the vote.

Several bars have opposed the idea of a comprehensive ban throughout the years, but some of those bars are going smoke-free on their own.

The Slippery Noodle Inn made part of its bar smoke-free last year and went completely smoke-free at the beginning of 2012.

Owner Hal Yeagy, who is a smoker, said he wanted to go smoke-free because he had cleaned up the bar before the Super Bowl and didn't want the film from the smoky air on his freshly painted walls. He said he also felt pressure from nearby businesses that wanted to host lunches and parties in a smoke-free environment.

Going smoke-free likely has helped business, Yeagy said, because a lot of people no longer tolerate smoking.

But Yeagy said he still won't support smoking bans imposed by the government, including Indianapolis'.

"I don't think the government should be telling me how to run my business," he said. "Obviously, I went smoke-free, but I did it of my own accord. I didn't want the government telling me that I had to do it."

But the ban's supporters have no intention of backing off.

Angela Mansfield, a council Democrat who co-sponsored the ban, said it could lead to a stricter ban that would include private clubs.

Private clubs compete with bars, so it's only fair that they, too, should be included, she said. The council backed off the private clubs to get Ballard's support, but she said she hopes it can go back and include them in the future.

Barth agreed, but he said he is happy with the current ban for now.

"There's another day for another fight," he said, "but for now, we're doing the best thing for the city."

Follow Star reporter Carrie Ritchie

by: Indy Vapor Shop 0 Comments

<< Blog Home