View: 4094|Reply: 37
|
[Tempatan]
Berita baik utk para vapers - Propylene Glycol
[Copy link]
|
|
Propylene Glycol dlm e-juice boleh basmi kuman......!
HEALTH, LEGISLATION, POLITICS, STUDIES, VAPING
EPA & FDA: Vapor Harmless to Children
In the continued war on e-cigarettes, we hear about the “potential dangers” of e-cigarette vapor and the “unknown public health risks.”
First, I find it absolutely absurd that we’re attempting to pass laws based on unknowns, but what makes it even more absurd is the fact that there’s very little that isn’t known about e-cigarette vapor at this point. The primary ingredient of concern to those who wish to see e-cigarettes banned is the propylene glycol vapor, which has been studied for over 70 years.
I recently came across a document titled, “Reregistration Eligibility Decision For Propylene Glycol and Dipropylene Glycol“, which was created by the United State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Catchy title. I was intrigued.
This quote caught my eye:
Propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol were first registered in 1950 and 1959, respectively, by the FDA for use in hospitals as air disinfectants. (page 4, paragraph 1).
In a previous post, I had shared the summary of research that had been done in 1942 by Dr. Robertson regarding the antibacterial properties of vaporized propylene glycol, but I had never heard that the FDA wound up approving it for the purpose of an air disinfectant in hospitals.
Indoor Non-Food: Propylene glycol is used on the following use sites: air treatment (eating establishments, hospital, commercial, institutional, household, bathroom, transportational facilities); medical premises and equipment, commercial, institutional and industrial premises and equipment; (page 6, paragraph 2)
Continued…
Method and Rates of Application
….
Air Sanitizer
Read the directions included with the automatic dispenser for proper installation of unit and refill. Remove cap from aerosol can and place in a sequential aerosol dispenser which automatically releases a metered amount every 15 minutes. One unit should treat 6000 ft of closed air space… For regular, non-metered applications, spray room until a light fog forms. To sanitize the air, spray 6 to 8 seconds in an average size room (10’x10′). (page 6, paragraph 6)
A common argument used to support the public usage ban is that, “Minnesotans have become accustomed to the standard of clean indoor air.” However, according to the EPA and FDA, so long as there’s a “light fog” of propylene glycol vapor in the air, the air is actually more clean than the standard that Minnesotans have become accustomed to.
General Toxicity Observations
Upon reviewing the available toxicity information, the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol. This conclusion is based on the results of toxicity testing of propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol in which dose levels near or above testing limits (as established in the OPPTS 870 series harmonized test guidelines) were employed in experimental animal studies and no significant toxicity observed.
Carcinogenicity Classification
A review of the available data has shown propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol to be negative for carcinogenicity in studies conducted up to the testing limit doses established by the Agency; therefore, no further carcinogenic analysis is required. (page 10, paragraphs 1 & 2)
Ready for the bombshell? I probably should have put this at the top, as it could have made this post a lot shorter, but I figured the information above was important, too…
2. FQPA Safety Factor
The FQPA Safety Factor (as required by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996) is intended to provide an additional 10-fold safety factor (10X), to protect for special sensitivity in infants and children to specific pesticide residues in food, drinking water, or residential exposures, or to compensate for an incomplete database. The FQPA Safety Factor has been removed (i.e., reduced to 1X) for propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol because there is no pre- or post-natal evidence for increased susceptibility following exposure. Further, the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol based on the low toxicity observed in studies conducted near or above testing limit doses as established in the OPPTS 870 series harmonized test guidelines. Therefore, quantitative risk assessment was not conducted for propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol.
In a paper published in the American Journal of Public Health by Dr. Robertson in April of 1946, Robertson cites a study published in the Edinburgh Medical Journal, which was conducted in 1944:
The report of the 3 years’ study of the clinical application of the disinfection of air by glycol vapors in a children’s convalescent home showed a marked reduction in the number of acute respiratory infections occurring in the wards treated with both propylene and triethylene glycols. Whereas in the control wards, 132 infections occured during the course of three winters, there were only 13 such instances in the glycol wards during the same period. The fact that children were, for the most part, chronically confined to bed presented an unusually favorable condition for the prophylactic action of the glycol vapor.
An investigation of the effect of triethylene glycol vapor on the respiratory disease incidence in military barracks brought out the fact that, while for the first 3 weeks after new personnel entered the glycolized area the disease rate remained the same as in the control barracks, the second 3 week period showed a 65 percent reduction in acute respiratory infections in the glycol treated barracks. Similar effects were observed in respect to airborne hemolytic streptococci and throat carriers of this microorganism.
I don’t expect the prohibitionist lawmakers to delve this deeply into this subject on their own, but I certainly hope that when presented with this data that they reevaluate their stance on the subject and consider what science has to say. If they don’t, they’re simply basing their judgement off of rhetoric, misinformation, and personal bias and we all know where that gets us.
http://mnvapers.com/2014/04/epa-fda-vapor-harmless-children/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rilek lah acom.. We use PG as carrier solvent utk buat sgala jadah flavor tu...either PG or etanol...bnda2 uols mkn mnum yg ada artificial flavoring gna hok jugak lah.... Cuma nya in food/drinks tu final concentration nya tu hujung2 jg sket je..
Hbs uols ingt mna dtg flavor strawberry,mint, blavkcurrant dr vapers sume ni? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
buatlah apa engkau orang semua nak. last2 mati kejung jua semuanya, baik yang ber-vape mahupun yang tak ber-vape. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mwahahahaha, tergelak aku baca artikel ni. Sama mcm persoalan mana dtg bahan kimia rokok? Tembakau: daun, kertas: pokok, cig butts: cotton, coloring: dyes. Rokok mengandungi bahan berbahaya asas hampir 99% tumbuhan. Amazing kan? Mcm mana plant based thing boleh mengakibatkan cancer? Or bende yg lg kecik dari jari ni mengandungi berjuta2 chemicals while pengusaha tembakau kebanyakkannya aku tgk lebih mcm pesawah dr roket saintis.
Of course, aku xnak tegakkan benang basah, studies has been done, while rokok mostly written as "top" culprit. Ramai yg lawan benda ni mcm dialah satu2nya penyebab. Aku x salahkan, ramai perokok perangai assholes, tapi ramai gak yg baik.
Sekarang vapor plak kene lawan losing fight ni, so nasihat aku, xpayahlah lawan dgn ignorance2 ni sume, bazir masa. Aku spend 6-7 years kaji benda ni, baca banyak benda. Yg aku boleh simpulkan. SAINS VS SAINS = SAMPAH. SAINS HANYA DIGUNAKAN UTK VS AGAMA JE. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U can vape all u want as long as the vaporians be respectful to others. Harap gomen laksanakan jangan bervaping di tmpat larangan merokok.
Ni dalam opis ber aircond pun ko nak bernapas naga. Mothep? Tak cukup ke cleaner letak air fresher merecik bau oren tambah pulak bau strawberry wap vape tu? Akak suffocate dekk |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Celup je vape tu dlm air,
terus rosak , tkleh gune.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uol kene berterimas kasih dgn vaporians yg hembus pembasmi kuman ke muka uol.
mungkin sebahagian kuman punca jerawat berjaya dihapuskan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
koser sangat bangcak nih. Uols mesti bervaping napas naga kan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
isu vape hanya nak selindungkan isu 2.6 Billion itu.
Vape tu haram. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
menteri kerling hadap cukai rokok sila letak jawatan...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kau salah di situ. lelaki merokok = akhlak mulia. perempuan merokok = tak berakhlak = keji = buruk perangai.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jom kita viralkan fakta ini kasi malu itu gomen...
asik nak mencukai jer kerjanya gomen ini....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so dari pembacaan you dari reputable journal merokok tu berbahaya, nicotine tu , apa pendapat you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tak kisahla kau nak isap rokok ke vape ke jerebu ke, kot ye pon jangan la dok hembus kat orang. Akai ada ka? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tak kiralah propylene glycol tu ada vitamin c atau pun omega 3 sekali pun. hak lubang hidung individu haruslah dijaga. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mbhcsf replied at 8-11-2015 11:39 AM
so dari pembacaan you dari reputable journal merokok tu berbahaya, nicotine tu , apa pendapat y ...
Kesimpulan yg dibuat apa2 benda yg berlebihan adalah berbahaya.
Apa2, termasuk air masak. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
edee_91 replied at 8-11-2015 11:19 AM
kau salah di situ. lelaki merokok = akhlak mulia. perempuan merokok = tak berakhlak = keji = buruk ...
Semua bergantung pada mata masa merokok, bukan pada gender. Kalau mata mase smoking xmelilau carik judgemental, xtimbul masalah sape keji sape mulia. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
news pagi ni menteri kesihatan dah tobat tak nak buat kenyataan bimbo. lepas kat pegawai ja katanya...
pasal akta ketum pun pass kat KDN kasi handle.
akhirnya mengaku jua kesihatan tu alasan sahaja...
baik kasi KPDNKK terus...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by GhostWalking at 9-11-2015 02:19 AM
aku pulak rasa segelintir je perokok berperangai assholes.Biasanya gentleman macam aku
What Kills More People: Sugar or Cigarettes?
By Dr. Scott
You might find this a bit of a silly question, but a close look at the statistics will show you that the competition for what kills more people isn’t even close.
CigarettesEverybody knows that cigarettes are bad – but that wasn’t always the case. It took years before people actually understood that cigarettes caused damage to our bodies. Part of the reason for this is that humans are very good at picking out immediate dangers, but have a much more difficult time when dangers come slowly. After all, smoking one cigarette does no harm; in fact it makes you feel calmer, alert and gives you a boost of energy. The damage that happens from cigarettes is not that noticeable until you wake up one morning with a cough.
Cigarettes do cause harm, though, and they are linked not only to lung cancer, but also heart disease, stroke and a number of other diseases. If we use world-wide figures, the deaths from cigarettes amount to around 5 million deaths a year.
Now, let’s see how sugar stacks up.
SugarCould sugar be the same as cigarettes? Could the damage done by sugar happen so slow that no one notices it? The answer to that question is yes.
While you won’t find medical doctors admitting that sugar causes harm, there is a growing number of research studies that are demonstrating that there is a connection between the amount of sugar we eat and obesity. How many world-wide deaths are attributable to obesity? The number is 17 million deaths a year. No one dies from being obese, though. Being overweight increases the risks for other diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and even some cancers.
Sugar has also been shown to directly cause diabetes and heart disease, even in someone with normal weight.
What are the world-wide deaths from these conditions? Let’s add them up:
Obesity: 17 million deaths Heart disease: 17 million deaths Diabetes: 4 million deaths Total: 38 million deaths Now, some of these figures overlap (some obesity deaths may also be due to heart disease or diabetes), so let’s conservatively cut that number in half and use a number of 15 million deaths every year from sugar-related causes.
This means that sugar is most likely responsible for three times the number of deaths that cigarettes are, and, yet, we let our children eat the stuff every day.
Don’t be a FrogMany of you know the science experiment where you try to place a frog in very hot water and it jumps out, but if you slowly heat the pot the frog is in, it will kill the frog because he never notices the increasing heat.
Sugar is like that, you don’t notice the damage it does because it happens slowly over time. So, don’t be a frog. Notice now that what you are eating every day has an impact on your health when you are older.My book, Sugarettes can show you how to break the cycle of sugar addiction.
http://www.olsonnd.com/what-kills-more-people-sugar-or-cigarettes/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|