Oswald Hope Robertson

[maccafan]

jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/91/1/52.abstract

Extract:

The results of these experiments in conjunction with the absence of any observed ill effects in patients exposed to both triethylene glycol and propylene glycol vapors for months at a time, provide assurance that air containing these vapors in amounts up to the saturation point is completely harmless.

[Gordy]

its a shame that its animal testing but the results sound promising for vapers safety

[Anne (fuzzy)]

Sorry, can't look at it if it includes animal testing, thanks for the warning Gordy.
I'm a peaceful animal activist.

[Gordy]

me too Anne... when there are so many vapers already why cant they just study them?

[grizwald56]

Being an animal lover myself, I don't dismiss all animal experimentation as a while back I remember reading a post on UKV regarding cats and PG.

Apparently PG can have an adverse effect on cats, not by vaping around them, but if they get it say on their paws and then lick it off it can make them ill.

Doesn't affect dogs though.

[dvdfjojo]

Had a quick click through - am I getting it right in that this study was carried out in 1947?

[Perpetua]

It would appear so Jo . . . the study was Received June 4, 1947.

[hifistud]

Jan 16, 2012 1:53:08 GMT Gordy said:

me too Anne... when there are so many vapers already why cant they just study them?

The answer is quite simple, really - if there is a possibility of death, the law doesn't allow it, and since the testing is for both acute and chronic tissue and cell damage of the vital organs, it's also ethically disallowed.

Now, as much I dislike the testing of cosmetic products on animals and don't see the need for it, when it comes to this kind of thing, I can see that there's no viable alternative. Let's just say that I'm of an age where I'd much rather Thalidomide had had full animal testing before it was released to be "tested" on humans in the field.

[hifistud]

Jan 16, 2012 8:53:07 GMT dvdfjojo said:

Had a quick click through - am I getting it right in that this study was carried out in 1947?

It was, and is often cited in H&S risk assessments in the entertainment biz when it comes to the use of haze machines and such. It's as valid today as it was then.

[maccafan]

Yeah..study was started in 1942 and papers published in 1947..In the full text that was published, it was also found that propylene glycol vapour acts as a germicide.

I did not want to paste the full text as it is about 68-70 pages long..That was the abstract..

Sorry to disagree with many but I very much see the need for animal testing without which many wonderful drugs in the market wouldn't exist..I definitely don't support it for cosmetic products-another brand of no tears shampoo is not exactly what I am looking for-but for pharmacological reasons..most definitely.

[nicky]

Jan 16, 2012 13:19:41 GMT hifistud said:

Jan 16, 2012 1:53:08 GMT Gordy said:

me too Anne... when there are so many vapers already why cant they just study them?

The answer is quite simple, really - if there is a possibility of death, the law doesn't allow it, and since the testing is for both acute and chronic tissue and cell damage of the vital organs, it's also ethically disallowed.

Now, as much I dislike the testing of cosmetic products on animals and don't see the need for it, when it comes to this kind of thing, I can see that there's no viable alternative. Let's just say that I'm of an age where I'd much rather Thalidomide had had full animal testing before it was released to be "tested" on humans in the field.

i can think of a few alternatives, Ian Brady for one.

[Queenie Bee]

I am with you in that Nicky

[Deleted]

Good subject to be pulled from the archives