Saltar para: Posts [1], Pesquisa e Arquivos [2]



 

Comparação entre as nitrosaminas presentes no líquido dos cigarros electrónicos, nas pastilhas de nicotina e em vários cigarros de tabaco:

 

Table 3. Levels of nitrosamines found in electronic and tobacco cigarettes. Prepared based on information from Laugesen [2009], Cahn and Siegel [2011] and Kim and Shin [2013].

 

Product

Total nitrosamines   levels (ng)

Daily exposure (ng)

Ratio

Electronic cigarette   (per ml)

13

521

1

Nicotine gum (per   piece)

2

482

0.92

Winston (per   cigarette)

3365

50 4753

971

Newport (per   cigarette)

3885

50 7753

976

Marlboro (per   cigarette)

6260

93 9003

1806

Camel (per cigarette)  

5191

77 8653

1497

 

1) uso diário de 4 ml; 2) uso diário de 24 pastilhas; 3) 15 cigarros por dia

 

Nota: o uso diário de 4 ml dificilmente se aproxima de um consumo de 15 cigarros, considerando que 2 ml se têm por equivalente a 20 cigarros. Se assim for, temos

 

2 ml = 26 ng vs 103 820 ng (Camel)

 

2 ml = 26 ng vs 125 200 ng (Marlboro)

 

 

Parece “muito mais seguro” ou não?

 

em Farsalinos, Konstantinos E., Polosa, Riccardo, Safety evaluation and risk assessment of electronic cigarettes as tobacco cigarette substitutes: a systematic review, published online 13 February 2014 Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety, DOI: 10.1177/2042098614524430, http://taw.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/02/12/2042098614524430

 

Novo estudo publicado na "Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety" (peer-reviewed), onde são apreciados os dados obtidos em 41 estudos científicos sobre os cigarros electrónicos. Para já, ficam as conclusões.

 

Para os vapers: o cigarro electrónico é “de longe muito menos perigoso” do que o cigarro normal

 

“chemical studies have found that exposure to toxic chemicals from ECs is far lower compared with tobacco cigarettes. Besides com­paring the levels of specific chemicals released from tobacco and ECs, it should be taken into consideration that the vast majority of the >4000 chemicals present in tobacco smoke are com­pletely absent from ECs”.

 

“toxicological studies have shown significantly lower adverse effects of EC vapor compared with cigarette smoke”.

 

“clinical studies evaluating the effects of short-term EC use on selected cardio­vascular and respiratory functional outcomes have shown that even if some harmful effects of vaping are reported, these are considerably milder compared with smoking conventional cigarettes”.

 

“Existing evidence indicates that EC use is by far a less harmful alternative to smoking”.

 

Se não fuma, continue a respirar ar puro (onde quer que ele exista).

 

Se fuma, o cigarro electrónico não elimina mas diminui consideravelmente os riscos do fumo de cigarro.

 

 

Para os terceiros: o vapor não coloca em risco os outros

 

“the half life of EC aerosol was 11 seconds compared with 20 minutes for cigarette smoke, indicating that risk of passive vaping exposure is significantly lower compared with passive smoking”.

 

“emissions from ECs are incomparable to environmental particulate matter or cigarette smoke microparticles”.

 

“Researchers found significant adverse effects in spirometry parameters after being exposed to passive smoking for 1 hour, while no adverse effects were observed after expo­sure to passive vaping”.

 

É só vapor, não é fumo.

 

 

Para quem luta contra o tabaco:

 

“ECs are a revolutionary product in tobacco harm reduction. [...] Due to their unique char­acteristics, ECs represent a historical opportu­nity to save millions of lives and significantly reduce the burden of smoking-related diseases worldwide”.

 

O estudo, na versão integral, está disponível aqui. Basta fazer o registo no site, que é gratuito.

 

Já não se pode mesmo dizer “não sabemos nada sobre os cigarros electrónicos”.

 

 

 

À primeira vista, parece fumo. Depois percebe-se que não tem cheiro e que se dissipa rapidamente.

 

É que não é fumo, é vapor de água. E este vapor, ao contrário do fumo, não é perigoso para os outros.

 

Num Estado de Direito, a liberdade não pode ser restringida se não causar danos a outros. 

 

Mesmo que não seja fumador, nem vaper, este é um problema que interessa a todos (veja mais em "Liberdade e Proibicionismo").

 

Estudos científicos:

 

 

“the exposures from using ecigarettes fall well below the threshold for concern for compounds with known toxicity

Burstyn, I, Peering through the mist: What does the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tell us about health risks?, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health School of Public Health Drexel University, 2013 July- Aug. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/18/abstract

 

 

“For all byproducts measured, electronic cigarettes produce very small exposures relative to tobacco cigarettes. The study indicates no apparent risk to human health from e-cigarette emissions based on the compounds analyzed.”

McAuley TR, Hopke PK, Zhao J, Babain S, Comparison of the effects of e-cigarette vapor and cigarette smoke on indoor air quality, Inhal Toxicol. 2012 Oct;24(12):850-7., http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08958378.2012.724728

 

 

 

“The above experiment, within the limits of the observed parameters, has underlined that e-smoking does not produce detectable amounts of toxic and carcinogenic substances in the air of an enclosed space.

 

CO (Carbon Monoxide) The levels of carbon monoxide did not show any variation during ecigarette smoking, remaining below the detection limits of the tool.

 

Nicotine Among all, the most interesting aspects we observed was that nicotine was not detected in air during the e-smoking session, although liquids used for experiments contained it.

 

Propylene Glycol Results on propylene glycol were also unexpected. During e-smoking tests, propylene glycol was not detected, although 50% of liquid consisted of propylene glycol.

 

PHAs Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are, without doubt, among the most important compounds in terms of chronic toxicity caused by tobacco smoking. These substances, which are produced during the combustion process, are well known for their carcinogenic and mutagenic effects. During the traditional cigarette smoking session, 6 out of 16 PAHs were identified. Nothing was identified during the e-cigarette session.

 

On the base of the obtained results and on ARPA data about urban pollution, we can conclude by saying that could be more unhealty to breath air in big cities compared to staying in the same room with someone who is vaping”.

G. Romagna MD, L. Zabarini, L. Barbiero, E. Bocchietto, S. Todeschi, E. Caravati, D. Voster, K. Farsalinos MD, Characterization of chemicals released to the environment by electronic cigarettes use (ClearStream-AIR project): is passive vaping a reality? - http://clearstream.flavourart.it/

 

 

 

Electronic cigarettes used in planes or crowded situations are clearly not a health risk

Nicotine and Health, American Council on Science and Health, 2013 - http://pt.scribd.com/doc/195347257/Nicotine-and-Health

 

 


Movimento Vaper

foto do autor


*Movimento de cidadãos sem ligações comerciais

movimentovaper@sapo.pt