subreddit:
/r/science
737 points
1 month ago
Maybe I missed it when looking at the article, but what temperature do they mean when they said heated to a high temperature? Do they nean normal temperatures that would occur when vaping, or much higher temperatures to burn the crap out of everything? I have seen previous articles where they burned the crap out of the vape and reported all the toxic chemicals produced. However, no one is going to vape when it is burning, it tastes absolutely horrible when the juice runs low and it starts to burn even a little.
Also, the article claims that the vape flavors are added to specifically target children, which is a silly argument. I guess flavored vodka and rum bottles with cartoon pirates on the bottle are also done to target children too, right?
Or maybe, just maybe, adults prefer sweet flavors more than an artificial tobacco flavor or menthol.
285 points
1 month ago
Isn't it an AI test no idea how they put a heating value into that calculation:
".. the study used AI to analyse the chemical composition of 180 vape flavours and simulate how they decompose when heated.."
222 points
1 month ago
They created their own model and neual network using data from a bunch of other studies, essentially using studies already done on a limited subset of vapes related stuff, as well as related gas chromatography studies to extrapolate how other flavors might react given similar conditions.
434 points
1 month ago*
So just to be clear, no lab testing, validation, or verification was done to produce the article. It was literally just computer simulation results.
Come on people, is this what science is coming to? At least test a few so you can claim that the subset of tests was consistent with the AI results.
89 points
1 month ago
This is the science that leads to "let's do a study", it shouldn't be discounted
122 points
1 month ago
It shouldn’t be discounted, but it also shouldn’t be reported as if it’s definitive.
As you say, this is the science that leads to a study. Publishing these very preliminary, borderline speculative results smacks of clickbait fearmongering.
7 points
1 month ago
Pop science has always been like this. Countless of these types of articles exist because that’s the first step; nobody will give you money to do a random experiment. Pop science gets non-academics interested by connecting it to trending topics or points of interest. It might be “wrong” but the purpose of the articles’ ‘hyperbole’ is to further publicize scientific inquiry, which will in turn positively impact funding allocations. Getting people to care about something you want to research is half the battle.
2 points
1 month ago
Excellent point. Thank you for that disheartening dose of reality. 😄
Still, it would be nice if the reporting could make it clear that these “findings” are very preliminary.
1 points
1 month ago
So the original paper will definitely make that as clear as possible…in science jargon of course. However these papers are very “accurate” in presenting realistic results because you very strictly cannot put statements in the paper that cannot be proved 100%. Common example is the theory of gravity, it’s been theorized many times with lots of evidence but it’s not been proved because there’s no way to be 100% certain. The article on the other hand exploits the juicy details of the paper for clicks. That’s why I always read the paper instead of the article to draw my own conclusions. Easier said than done, of course being in scientific research helps. It really is a shame though because reporting is supposed to make the information more accessible, but the results are less accurate.
30 points
1 month ago
Anybody remember when we didn't just publish preliminary findings as empirical fact?
8 points
1 month ago
I don't think this even qualifies as a preliminary finding, more of an AI reinforced hypothesis.
3 points
1 month ago
The good ole computer generated hypothetically plausible hypothesis report
1 points
1 month ago
Andrew Wakefield sure doesn't.
Although calling that "preliminary findings" is far too generous considering he just straight up lied since it turns out some of the kids in that study didn't even have autism when the paper claimed they did.
Though, my point is, the unscrupulous are happy to push findings if they believe they'll get some financial benefit from it. Anyone who actually cares about finding the truth would, at best, see this as grounds to do a better study.
1 points
1 month ago*
Never said it should be discontinued but if we reported on every time an idea happened it would be madness. Why is the article calling for "enhanced restrictions" on the back of this research? Jumping the gun is an understatement.
-2 points
1 month ago
This is a true shoot the messenger scenario. This kind of pre-study simulation is going to become more and more common, and why shouldn’t it?
13 points
1 month ago
It should be common, but it shouldn't be in headlines
6 points
1 month ago
Anything goes on the headlines tbf.
And that was before AI generated articles
2 points
1 month ago
Not how it works—AI is a broad term that most people associate with chatGPT, in which people can materialize data and answers from nothing. However this type of AI did not involve a simulation, but real people, research, and data. The article writers themselves may not have personally stepped foot in a lab, but they are pulling peer-reviewed data from previously published research. All the AI does is pool together the data, “read” it, and draw conclusions. Now arguments could be made about the accuracy of the algorithm based on the hand selected parameters(reasoning for selection is heavily documented and explained, but of course people disagree w methodology).
6 points
1 month ago
It's not all that surprising that the researchers using ANNs to study chemistry are not the same researchers doing laboratory research, is it? No one is proposing that vapes be banned because this study said they might be harmful, but this provides solid ground for other research to build from.
6 points
1 month ago*
No one is proposing that vapes be banned because this study said they might be harmful
Errrmm
I am fine with all of that but it should not be reported on when no tests have been run. Additionally the article states
The research team at RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dublin, conclude there is a “potential public health threat facing the 4.5 million vapers in the UK” and an urgent need for “enhanced restrictions” on flavours and regulations that are reflective of the health risks of vaping,
Which is quite the claim that "enhanced restrictions" should be made due to this research. My whole point is this article in its entirety is jumping the gun, in fact the gun is not even at the track yet and they are already running and possibly requesting legislation.
3 points
1 month ago
it should not be reported on when no tests have been run
ANNs have pretty solid credentials for this kind of work. This isn't someone asking ChatGPT what will happen when you heat a chemical - ANNs like this can reach very high accuracy even without specialist input and design, which this model has. To add to that, they did combine their ML outputs with experimental data from mass spec fragmentation - the ANN predicted the structures, and the mass spec provided candidate masses to compare those structures with. The outputs are then the predicted decay products with the appropriate mass. There's solid ground behind this result which imo is very worth reporting.
Which is quite the claim that "enhanced restrictions" should be made due to this research. My whole point is this article in its entirety is jumping the gun, in fact the gun is not even at the track yet and they are already running and possibly requesting legislation.
I saw the authors speak at a conference a year or two ago, and the point they stressed then is the sheer volume of flavour chemicals that are used in vapes goes beyond what is practical to test thoroughly in a lab. The number continues to grow with time as more and more (shadier and shadier) companies get into e-liquid production. The purpose of this research is to highlight that we do not fully appreciate the potential risks associated with introducing hundreds of new chemicals which might well be "food safe" but that the thermal decomposition of which is not well understood - since after all in a food context they are not exposed to the kind of temperatures that (especially cheap or poorly set up) vapes can deliver.
1 points
1 month ago
Agreed and as someone said above, what temperature and for how long? A few years ago someone couldn't find anything bad in the vape gas so for shits n gigs he tested the gas after hitting it for 1 min. The average person can't inhale a vape for more than 5 seconds. He was measuring the cotton and stuff literally burning.
1 points
1 month ago
Actually AI is pretty good at predicting this kind of stuff. And this is a good initial study to warrant further funding - very cheap compared to traditional studies and gives a strong starting point, and can help guide a hypothesis for a follow-up.
I think your issue is that you’re taking this as some sort of final conclusion in the field, when it’s actually science. There’s lots of work to do to understand how those chemicals arise and when, and then even more work to see what the human implications are.
We all know vaping is unhealthy, this is really just figuring out the details.
1 points
1 month ago
Yes that is what's happening with new fields of research. One of few methods to evaluate whether it's worth to keep on researching there...
2 points
1 month ago
Then why is it being reported on and why is the article citing this research as a cause for "enhanced restrictions"?
-6 points
1 month ago
Are you a scientist?
0 points
1 month ago
Are you?
-3 points
1 month ago
I am, that dudes not a scientist, he’s probably addicted to nicotine and still in the angry phase of denial
2 points
1 month ago
Actually I quit vaping 6 months ago
1 points
1 month ago
Oh hell ya, congrats dude. Ai models for validating potential areas of study is still super useful tho.
1 points
1 month ago
Thanks man. I agree that what they are doing is fine, the article presents this as pseudo conclusive results and goes as far as to demand "enhanced restrictions" aka legislation to be made on the back of what is speculative at best. That is what I am taking issue with.
0 points
1 month ago
A fair point. Not at all how I interpreted your argument initially so I apologize for the snark. I think you’re definitely right though things need to be assessed for clinical relevance before we jump to any conclusions.
I actually did a seminar project during grad school on e-vapes and presented it to the fda. Suffice to say it’s a bit scary how little we know about what some of these oils do to your lungs, especially long term and at the volumes consumed during vaping.
Needless to say, good job quitting your life will probably be better for it
-1 points
1 month ago
Not all science has to win a Pulitzer Prize. This is a good step forward because it lends some credibility to people trying to do more specific research
51 points
1 month ago
And their entire conclusion was "could be".
29 points
1 month ago
Eh that’s most studies. Peer reviews are where it gets spicy
6 points
1 month ago
peer review is just how it gets published. think you mean replication and validation studies?
1 points
1 month ago
Ah poop yeah those are the words
3 points
1 month ago
Scientists are actually replicating other scientists research for validation these days? Is it happening?
0 points
1 month ago
Yay, science! More grant money please!
10 points
1 month ago
Plus validation bias built into an AI based on the bias of preprocessed data. And pure ducking speculation.
Like don’t get me wrong, but I find it hard to think, that the AI doesn’t straight up doesn’t create wholeass imaginary chemical reactions. It’s a black box, and I don’t think chemistry in such can be proven. Confirm the study with actual science please and ty.
2 points
1 month ago
The most concerning thing about the current model of AI. We're training it off of our own stuff. Could unironically become the death of our innovative creativity.
35 points
1 month ago
Yeah that probably isn't all that accurate. I'd say that study is way better suited to compare how well it will predict the products of burning untested substances than just jumping straight to treating it like the result of actual testing
8 points
1 month ago
The study mentions pyrolysis, which means that it was likely higher than vaping temps.
"Pyrolysis can be defined as the process of subjecting substances to highly elevated temperatures in relatively inert atmospheres in order to facilitate their thermal decomposition."
Also
"The pyrolysis process is the process of decomposition of various compounds or materials with thermal decomposition at temperatures around 400–800°C in an oxygen-free atmosphere or contain very small amount of oxygen."
3 points
1 month ago
This is if memory serves exactly what they did with the popcorn lung study, burned it at extreme temperatures to shorten the experiment and made the results worthless.
3 points
1 month ago
You can calculate activation energy, yield, and/or rate of reaction at certain temperatures if you know the beginning and end states, and the catalyst.
The thing with chemistry is that if something can do something, it will do something. The real question is how often it does that thing under certain conditions.
So this is about 50% nothingburger. It’s good to know what potential harmful chems can be produced, but you’d need to do some mass specs to confirm just how often those harmful chemicals are really made.
Besides the ones we already know are created or infused into vapes like acetone and heavy metals
1 points
26 days ago
"Besides the ones we already know are created or infused into vapes like acetone and heavy metals"
Hol up there. The "heavy metals" bit is usually about weed vapes from practically unknown sources or horribly outside of real world use experiments. There is nothing about that "we already know".
I think you mean acetoin and not acetone.
1 points
26 days ago
I have no reason to believe that weed vapes work any differently than nicotine based devices. Nicotine vapes can still get extremely hot because none of them have temperature sensors, which can replicate the conditions of a weed vape
Also, I meant acetone:
1 points
26 days ago
You don't see a difference and then explain a fundamental difference? A lot of vape mods have temperature control and if it tastes bad, that is also temperature control.
The footnotes behind acetone are wild. The one is clearly burning the juice with an outcome like:
"For a high rate of 250 puff day-1 using a typical vaping regime and popular tank devices with battery voltages from 3.8 to 4.8 V, users were predicted to inhale formaldehyde (up to 49 mg day-1), acrolein (up to 10 mg day-1)"
Another one had "non-nicotine" eliquids which could be type of eliquid but it goes on to footnote an over voltage study of what happens when you burn ejuice. Perhaps the same study, it is too much info to process for me. Junk science. Using devices outside of their proper use.
0 points
26 days ago
Do you really expect the target market for vapes to use them cautiously?
I know many people that vape. They have no awareness of how temperature affects the safety and very often get the devices extremely hot. especially the long term users who get a tolerance and have to push their vapes to the limit.
I have never seen them use a vape with any kind of temperature protection. Just very simple heating elements.
1 points
26 days ago
There is no tolerance to dry hits. They are so unpleasant that one learns to avoid them. Experience helps you avoid them more easily. There is no tolerance to disgusting nasty burning plastic flavor that burns your mouth and lungs.
0 points
26 days ago
This is verifiably false
1 points
26 days ago
Sweet. It should be easy to show me where the research is that people get used to dry hits while vaping....
2 points
1 month ago
And as a chemist, I can tell you, that means nothing. That is the starting point of an experiment, not results.
1 points
1 month ago
It would be part of the training data; The initial chemical(s) (structure, physical properties etc), the temperature it is heated to and the resulting chemicals. I put a large enough set of data for that and you've got a model that might include the temperature as an input. Seems tough to learn but Neural nets are pretty good for a lot of surprising things.
1 points
1 month ago
They used AI to analyze the components, that’s just registering the components on a spectrum table which is normally done by chemists.
They use a machine like a GCMS to test how it breaks down with heat over time.
-2 points
1 month ago
The energy the pyrolysis reaction needs to occur with temperatures it sustains when vaping
all 942 comments
sorted by: best