*the* 1942 Pg Test

[Uma]

Here's *the* article by Times about the PG tests done by the scientist way back in 1942. Times Article/color]!

[juliery]

I don't think anyone has ever had a problem with PG, at least not that I have seen....the FDA itself deems that safe after many decades of use in various applications. I think THEIR "claim" is that in the samples they tested they found ONE that contained trace amounts (or I believe they used the term "detectable level") of diethylene glycol and that they say makes them question the safety of ALL the different e liquid because there are so many sources of it. So THEY SAY that they should ALL be banned until thoroughly studied blah blah blah. Of course that is all nonsense anyway, because they allow cigarettes to be sold with over 4000 chemicals of which over 50 are known carcinogens and poisons, SO EVEN IF there were trace amounts of ANYTHING in ANY sample, that would still be MUCH MUCH safer than smoking cigarettes. I would also LOVE for them to REALLY put this crap into context.....for instance, take an air sample on a street in traffic or in a walmart parking lot for instance, and compare what is being vaped in an e cig to THAT. OR hell, take a sample of air after someone has just cleaned with bleach or worse yet ammonia....like compare it to things we subject ourselves and children to ALL the time....maybe a carpet that has been cleaned and then we allow a baby to crawl on when it is dry. We are filling our bodies with chemicals ALL day every day, so let's have vaping compared to THOSE things, which are PERFECTLY acceptable to most people so we can put this is in a context that EVERYONE, non smoker, smoker, vaper, EVERYONE can TRULY understand. But as far as the PG, I don't think I have ever heard anyone question the safety of that, I mean, that has been well established as a relatively safe compound...unless of course you are allergic to it, but that is another matter. Although I don't know if I have heard of many people who are TRULY allergic to PG, maybe have a sensitivity to it when they aren't used to it, etc. But I don't think I have heard of anyone actually having an actual allergic reaction just to the PG, but of course anything is possible....but I think it is safe to conclude from our vast exposure to it, that most of us are fine with it. This is from wikipedia........

Propylene glycol is used:

* As a solvent in many pharmaceuticals, including oral, injectable and topical formulations. Notably, diazepam, which is insoluble in water, uses propylene glycol as its solvent in its clinical, injectable form.[5]

* As a humectant food additive, labeled as E number E1520

* As an emulsification agent in Angostura and orange bitters

* As a moisturizer in medicines, cosmetics, food, toothpaste, shampoo, mouth wash, hair care and tobacco products

* As a carrier in fragrance oils

* As an ingredient in massage oils

* In hand sanitizers, antibacterial lotions, and saline solutions

* In smoke machines to make artificial smoke for use in firefighters' training and theatrical productions

* In electronic cigarettes, as a vaporizable base for diluting the nicotine liquid

* As a solvent for food colors and flavorings

* As an ingredient, along with wax and gelatin, in the production of paintballs

* As a moisture stabilizer (humectant) for snus (Swedish style snuff).

* As a cooling agent for beer and wine glycol jacketed fermentation tanks

* As a non-toxic antifreeze for winterizing drinking water systems, and in applications where the used antifreeze eventually will be drained into the soil, water, or a septic system.[6]

* As a less-toxic antifreeze in solar water heating systems

* As a solvent used in mixing photographic chemicals, such as film developers

* In cryonics

* As a working fluid in hydraulic presses

* As a coolant in liquid cooling systems

* To regulate humidity in a cigar humidor

* As the killing and preserving agent in pitfall traps, usually used to capture ground beetles

* As an additive to pipe tobacco to prevent dehydration.

* To treat livestock ketosis

* As the main ingredient in deodorant sticks.

* To de-ice aircraft.[7]

* As an ingredient in UV or blacklight tattoo ink

* As a lubricant in air conditioning compressors.

* As a wetting agent, used to determine drying time in paints and coatigs

Edited February 2, 2011 by juliery

[Uma]

The FDA resorted to scare tactics. (not to protect the interest of the public, but rather the interests of big pharam, cig tax, etc).

What the FDA doesn't tell the public: The same trace amount (uber mircro) is found in every single big pharma Patch. Yet it was found in only one cart tested out of 18 tested. That means that 17 were clear of anything at all. This also means that consumers would have to literally vape 6,600 carts every day before it was toxic enough to poison/kill a 150 lb human. We have a lot of vaping to do in order to reach the Rosenthals and the FDA's 'quit or die! motto.

off to buy some more flavors

[mcquinn]

I don't have very much confidence in anything the FDA or American Cancer Society has to say.They have a track record of distorting the facte to support thier goal.In this case they want to ban vaping and will say whatever it takes.

[gmf1]

Juliery, your using logic and fact, government can't use either of them. They use fear and misinformation. And unfortunately there way works better.

[Uma]

Error correction. My math was off. It would be 6,500 x 18 (or was it 19?) carts vaped per day in order to jump to that conclusion. Do the math!

[juliery]

There is PG in tobacco products anyway. PG is in tons and tons of products. I never heard the FDA say anything about the PG in particular being a problem in e cigs. If you go on the FDA website THEY claim PG is a benign, water soluble safe compound. It is in nasal sprays, baby wipes, pharmaceuticals and all kinds of things we are in normal day to day contact with because THEY deemed it safe decades ago. Of course NONE of the banning has ANYTHING to do with safety anyway. If it did they would be trying to ban MUCH more dangerous things that they regulate. I think addressing letters to them from the safety standpoint is just a waste of time....THEY KNOW IT ISN"T DANGEROUS.....THEY need to know that WE KNOW what this is really about...namely that the tobacco and pharmaceutical companies are being permitted to manipulate government and laws to protect THEIR interests. Maybe if the election process was overhauled, and these jerkwads didn't try to outdo each other with multi million dollar campaigns this stuff would change. But these politicians are forced to OWE their contributors...the more money an entity has, with the more people involved to contribute end up being the entities owed. NO secret that the tobacco giants and pharma giants are the ones calling the shots. Has nothing to do with safety. The stuff I have seen was more along the lines of that they claim that we don't know WHAT ELSE might be in the e liquid, other than the things listed. And even when you mix it yourself, the nic liquid from china could be pesticide grade rather than pharmaceutical grade....then one item tested had diethylene glycol in it....granted trace amounts, but in there. And that is how they are saying that it is a safety issue. Which of course is still TOTALLY idiotic given that cigarettes have dozens of known carcinogens and poisons in them. So EVEN IF e cigs had one or two not so great things, that still beats the hell out of dozens of flat out dangerous stuff, along with the other 4000 less dangerous and some harmless stuff. The whole "safety/health" argument promoted by them is laughable.....look how many medications have been approved as "safe" with their blessing....and then later are taken off the market after they kill people, or cause hideous birth defects, etc. I think the point is WE ARE ADULTS....we should be allowed to make our OWN decisions for our OWN health and safety. The argument about being marketed to chilcren...stupid too....children don't have credit cards UNLESS PARENTS give them to them, in which case THOSE parents, as adults, need to be held accountable.