OF THE
TIMES
When we talk about compassion, we talk in terms of being kind. But compassion is not so much being kind; it is being creative [enough] to wake a person up.
Quote, "eliminate these foreign networks" that meddle in the country's domestic affairs". Africa, South America, the Middle East, the Far East,...
The USAID revelations will reverberate around the world. Who received the payouts?
The statement from the FAA was "research and other purposes ". "Other purposes" covers just about anything. It's the ultimate non-answer.
Jeeze, Now for the first in my life I am in full support of Elon Musk with this initiative...Go man Go. You are doing a phenomenal job disclosing...
Why should this physician dealing with the issues of the female reproductive organs, even given a months suspension. He declared his position at...
To submit an article for publication, see our Submission Guidelines
Reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views of the volunteers, editors, and directors of SOTT.net or the Quantum Future Group.
Some icons on this site were created by: Afterglow, Aha-Soft, AntialiasFactory, artdesigner.lv, Artura, DailyOverview, Everaldo, GraphicsFuel, IconFactory, Iconka, IconShock, Icons-Land, i-love-icons, KDE-look.org, Klukeart, mugenb16, Map Icons Collection, PetshopBoxStudio, VisualPharm, wbeiruti, WebIconset
Powered by PikaJS 🐁 and In·Site
Original content © 2002-2025 by Sott.net/Signs of the Times. See: FAIR USE NOTICE
The study notes that the lowest level of exposure at which popcorn lung was detected in workers working for 8 hours per day was 0.2ppm. According to the converter at [Link] I believe that works out to 200 mcg/Liter. that's 200,000 micrograms per cubic meter. At about one meter average working air intake per hour, it was found that workers inhaling 1,600,000 micrograms of diacetyl every day for years began developing popcorn lung.
As opposed to this concern about Vapers inhaling about 10 micrograms.
Actually, while Dr. Siegel didn't go into the specifics of it, if we reasonably dropped the weird high-level outlier of 238 micrograms supposedly measured for the kid-loving-candy-flavored "Peach Schnapps" variety (Golly but those kidz DO luv their Schnapps, now don't they?) the average exposure drops to below FIVE micrograms.
So the ordinary vaper of these weird flavored fluids would have to sit around vaping for roughly 160,000 days (i.e. FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRTY-EIGHT **YEARS**) to get just a one day equivalent exposure to the workers who need to work for years on end to get the dreaded popcorn lung. How many years? It's not clear what the minimum might be, but from the information supplied let's *guess* we're talking about popcorn workers generally working at least ten years before they're buttered up and put away.
So how many days of e-cigging would it take for e-ciggers to get that sort of nasty worker dose? 160,000 x 10yrs x 300 workdays per year equals:
584,000,000 days of puffing away on an ecig (about one and a half million years) before the typical e-cigger might get popcorn lung.
Feel free to check my figures: I *have* been known to accidentally drop/add a decimal point here or there as I do a lot of this stuff in my head... but realize this: even if I'm off by a full order of magnitude we'd still be looking at 160,000 years of puffing. If I was off by THREE orders of magnitude, it would STILL take the better part of 2000 years of constant puffing.
The jury is still out as to whether ecigs might be somewhat harmful or somewhat beneficial to health, but if they're truly beneficial enough to extend the average life span to over fifteen hundred years...
Well hell's bells on a trampoline, I'd take my popcorn lung at that point with a cherry on top and a big silly smile!
- MJM
EDIT: Heh, I *knew* this study reminded me of something! If you look at my analysis of the diethylene glycol study at [Link] (i.e the one that spurred all the "Antifreeze In E-Cigs!" headlines around the world), you'll find the same pattern of researchers finding VERY low results in just about everything they tested except for ONE absurdly high result in ONE sample. Of course in their case emphasizing that sample only meant ignoring 17 other results. In the present study we're being asked to ignore FIFTY-NINE other results!
EDIT TWO: I tracked down my 2007 article on popcorn fumes at [Link] if you'd like to read about parents murdering their children by exposing them to popcorn fumes at the movies. Odd that the ecig exposure wasn't compared to those sorts of exposure, eh?