Slashdot Mirror


US Bans Electronic Cigarettes From Checked Baggage Over Fire Risks (foxnews.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Earlier this month, the FDA announced it would regulate electronic cigarettes and other new tobacco products. Now, the U.S. Transportation Department announced it is permanently banning passengers and crew members from carrying electronic cigarettes in checked baggage or charging the devices onboard aircraft. They have cited a number of recent incidents that show the devices can catch fire during flight. Passengers can still carry e-cigarettes in their carry-on baggage or on their person, they just can't use the devices on flights. "Fire hazards in flight are particularly dangerous," Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said in a statement. "Banning e-cigarettes from checked bags is a prudent and important safety measure." The new rule covers e-cigarettes, e-cigars, e-pipes, and battery-powered portable electronic smoking devices in general. It does not prohibit passengers from transporting other battery-powered devices for personal use like laptop computers or cellphones.

131 comments

  1. First puff! by PPH · · Score: 0

    n/t

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  2. Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by OzPeter · · Score: 2, Funny
    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re: Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The truth is, yes, this type of thing can happen, but it is easily preventable by being careful about marrying your batteries and not using a low resistance coil at high wattages (to prevent drawing too many amps from being pulled from the battery). There are simple calculators you can use online if you can't be assed with learning Ohm's Law, too. No excuse for stupidity.

      Also, stay away from so-called mechanical mods unless you know what you're doing (in mech mods, the activation button physically completes the circuit between the battery and the coil instead of using a circuit board to control it all).

    2. Re:Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Cheap batteries explode when charged improperly, news at 11.

    3. Re: Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No excuse for stupidity.

      If the TSA could screen for stupidity, then there wouldn't be a TSA in the first place.

      Unfortunately for the rest of us there is no test to keep stupid people from flying.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    4. Re: Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by Ossifer · · Score: 2, Funny

      If the TSA could screen for stupidity, then there wouldn't be...

      ... anyone to bring these devices onto the plane.

    5. Re: Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by solidraven · · Score: 1

      Learn2BuckBoost stupid vapers

    6. Re:Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Informative

      If a moron built his own 22 pistol and it blew up in his face....would you blame firearms?

      Because that is EXACTLY what this fucknuts did, he bought a VERY expensive and VERY specialized MECHANICAL MOD. For those that do not know a "mech mod" is a very specialized piece of kit really only used by a handful that consider themselves "pro vapors" as it has NO protection or overload circuits, its just a battery and a trigger. this means you HAVE TO know Ohms law like the back of your hand, know the battery output down to the .0 wattage, I know guys that have been vaping a decade that won't touch mech mods because of how much time you have to invest in them to keep them from being seriously dangerous....can we ALL guess where this is going?

      If you said "rich dipshit with more money than brains and who doesn't know Ohm's law from a seatbelt law buys a $300+ mech mod, throws a $20 gas station top on it and blows his dumbass up"? Then you win a cookie. I mean for fuck's sake guys, we've seen morons take a glock and promptly shoot themselves in the foot, hell I've even seen video of a future Darwin award winner that has a fucking 110v POWER STRIP floating on a donut in a pool to power a portable TV...do we blame these objects for the fucking idiots that don't know how to use them properly?

      If you buy a normal vaping device, not some crazy mech mod or $5 Chinese special? Then you have absolutely ZERO to worry about as they all have overload and short circuit protection, hell I'm looking at a 40 watter right now I have to take to the local vape shop to get a seal replaced on because the rubber grommet got a teeny tiny bit worn down with all the tanks I've swapped on the thing and just that little bit of wear was enough for the unit to shut down with a "short circuit protection" error code. this is why I have ZERO worries about any of my units blowing up in my face, no matter what tank i throw on it as even the $30 basic box mods have automatic adjustment for ohms and will not allow the unit to fire if you put a top on that is too high or too low ohms for it to fire safely.

      What we have in the article you cited is no different than a rich dipshit that buys a Kawasaki Ninja was his first bike and promptly fucks himself up or kills himself, he bought the vaping equivalent of a dragster without even knowing where the gas goes in the fucking thing.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    7. Re: Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it can be prevented by not using these devices at all. People only use them because they think it makes them look "cool".

    8. Re:Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      hell I've even seen video of a future Darwin award winner that has a fucking 110v POWER STRIP floating on a donut in a pool

      Interestingly enough this is the one thing on your list that would be very unlikely to kill you. If it's attached to a ground fault interrupter it would almost be outright impossible to kill.

    9. Re: Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what I was thinking. The article completely neglects to mention what kind of battery and coil head he was using. If he was using a sub-ohm coil with a mechanical (unregulated) mod and/or unprotected battery, then the fault was solely his.

      As for the story, it's BS. I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to have my vapes in checked bags so long as the coil heads and aren't in them. The risk of fire would be no more than say a mobile phone and those are allowed in checked luggage.

    10. Re:Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by dwillden · · Score: 2

      IF the socket it's plugged into has a GFI, many homes still don't have those at all, or only have them in the bathrooms and kitchen. And then there are the capacitors in the TV itself.

      PP is correct in calling that a Darwin candidate.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    11. Re: Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're an idiot. I use my vape because it's what got me to quit smoking. I've been cigarette free for two years now thanks to it. If it helps others the way it helped me, then there is no reason why they shouldn't vape.

      Eventually I plan to quit the vape and have been gradually reducing the nicotine level in my eliquids to my current 0.3% level. At this point it's mostly the physical habit of having something to puff that I need to get past and that's getting easier each passing day.

    12. Re:Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      For those that do not know a "mech mod" is a very specialized piece of kit really only used by a handful that consider themselves "pro vapors"

      And considered by everyone else to be massive hipster douchebags?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    13. Re:Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like those hipster douchebags who smoke cigarettes, smoke weed or drink alcohol? They're all just doing it to try to look cool.

    14. Re:Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by rsmith-mac · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the explanation. There's one thing I don't get though: why would anyone want to use an (apparently unreliable) mechanical mod in the first place? I'm assuming there's some sort of benefit, perceived or real, that makes users seek them out?

    15. Re:Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by wtfamidoinghere · · Score: 1

      With a mec mod there are no buit-in protections, so no restrictions. The only "rule" is Ohm Law. That means you can build a ridiculous low coil setup, in the low sub-ohm range, and get the most watts out of the battery.
      Of course, that also means that if you fuck up your build, there are no built-in protections to save you if your battery goes into bad territory.

      That being said... with the ample selection of regulated devices that support high wattage output, up to 200W in some cases... it's mainly a question of looks, or preference.

    16. Re:Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      There's one thing I don't get though: why would anyone want to use an (apparently unreliable) mechanical mod in the first place?

      Just a guess, but I'm assuming it is perceived as letting you get more nicotine faster....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    17. Re:Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      idiot "pro" vapers think that strapping the atomizer directly across the battery lowers resistance of everything that isn't the coil. i'm not saying they're wrong, but it's a useless argument when you're jacking 200 watts.

    18. Re:Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by burtosis · · Score: 1

      If a moron built his own 22 pistol and it blew up in his face....would you blame firearms?

      Because that is EXACTLY what this fucknuts did, he bought a VERY expensive and VERY specialized MECHANICAL MOD. For those that do not know a "mech mod" is a very specialized piece of kit really only used by a handful that consider themselves "pro vapors" as it has NO protection or overload circuits, its just a battery and a trigger. this means you HAVE TO know Ohms law like the back of your hand, know the battery output down to the .0 wattage, I know guys that have been vaping a decade that won't touch mech mods because of how much time you have to invest in them to keep them from being seriously dangerous....can we ALL guess where this is going?

      If you said "rich dipshit with more money than brains and who doesn't know Ohm's law from a seatbelt law buys a $300+ mech mod, throws a $20 gas station top on it and blows his dumbass up"? Then you win a cookie. I mean for fuck's sake guys, we've seen morons take a glock and promptly shoot themselves in the foot, hell I've even seen video of a future Darwin award winner that has a fucking 110v POWER STRIP floating on a donut in a pool to power a portable TV...do we blame these objects for the fucking idiots that don't know how to use them properly?

      If you buy a normal vaping device, not some crazy mech mod or $5 Chinese special? Then you have absolutely ZERO to worry about as they all have overload and short circuit protection, hell I'm looking at a 40 watter right now I have to take to the local vape shop to get a seal replaced on because the rubber grommet got a teeny tiny bit worn down with all the tanks I've swapped on the thing and just that little bit of wear was enough for the unit to shut down with a "short circuit protection" error code. this is why I have ZERO worries about any of my units blowing up in my face, no matter what tank i throw on it as even the $30 basic box mods have automatic adjustment for ohms and will not allow the unit to fire if you put a top on that is too high or too low ohms for it to fire safely.

      What we have in the article you cited is no different than a rich dipshit that buys a Kawasaki Ninja was his first bike and promptly fucks himself up or kills himself, he bought the vaping equivalent of a dragster without even knowing where the gas goes in the fucking thing.

      I've dissasssmbled 10 different models or so and they ranged from no safety (on regular cheap ass models) to leaky over voltage and under voltage protection. None had over current protection which is what you would need to prevent a fire by shorting the terminals. The real problem is China garbage with no safety to shave off 50 cents on each model. It is not limited to a single brand or mod.

    19. Re:Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by swb · · Score: 1

      The e-cig world is no different than any other niche interest area.

      There are always people with a knack for tinkering who want something better than the other guy, vendors willing to take their money, and people with more money than knowledge wanting to appear to be elite, and an entire online community to foment such a mindset.

      I've seen it over and over. Computers. Gaming. Boats. Guns. Woodworking. Cars.

      IMHO, the reality is there are dozens of simple, safe basic vaporizing setups that use cheap disposable parts that will work just fine for vaping. All the ones I've ever seen have batteries with auto shutoff that will cut out the power if the button is pressed too long.

      But they don't produce the largest clouds of exhaled vapor nor do they look like a light saber in your hand, so they lack the status factor.

      There are fairly uncommon stories of batteries catching fire and melting, but it doesn't strike me as having a frequency greater than cheap USB chargers and other cheap lithium powered devices. They all use the same cheap Chinese electronics supply chain and fail for the same reasons.

    20. Re:Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually most of those "pro vapers" use little to no nicotine in their juice. The amount of juice they inhale to make those fucking nimbus clouds of theirs would kill a horse if you used any real amount of nicotine. I have a buddy that smokes and vapes. His vape juice has 0 nic in it though. He just likes making fucking clouds from what I can tell.

      No they mod to make bigger clouds. If you want (more)nicotine you go get an el cheapo and some juice.

    21. Re:Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Either they're going for a bigger hit, or they're smoking something other than juice and they want more power. I believe the current euphemism for solids is "flour".

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re:Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have two different batteries in front of me right now. One came in a kit, and the other was just a battery with adjustable voltage. The adjustable voltage battery DOES have current protection. I can put a coil on that is maybe seeing the end of its useful life and it will refuse to fire. Sometimes changing the voltage will get a bit but not for long. Put another coil on the same batt and its fine.

    23. Re:Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would I blame firearms?

      No, but I would sure as fuck ban them from airplanes.

    24. Re: Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're an idiot. I use my vape because it's what got me to quit smoking. I've been cigarette free for two years now thanks to it.

      The puritans that have given rise to the idiocies like Prohibition and the war on drugs are having nightmares about vaping. Without the cancer causing agents, they have lost their second and third and so on arguments that have allowed them to demonize smokers.

      Don't worry though, that won't stop them from making shit up.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    25. Re:Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      hell I've even seen video of a future Darwin award winner that has a fucking 110v POWER STRIP floating on a donut in a pool

      Interestingly enough this is the one thing on your list that would be very unlikely to kill you. If it's attached to a ground fault interrupter it would almost be outright impossible to kill.

      As well, the volume of water will make it very unlikely that anyone could get a fatal shock. Still a stupid trick.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    26. Re: Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry. By this time in 2017, vape shops will be history, and only the big tobacco companies will be able to sell vaping products.

    27. Re: Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      If the TSA could screen for stupidity, then there wouldn't be a TSA in the first place.

      If there were no stupid people, there would be no market for vapers.

    28. Re:Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Informative

      No he's not. Electricity takes the path of least resistance through a body. If the power plug fell into the pool the people likely wouldn't notice. In order to get electrocuted the people themselves would need to be between the active source of electricity and the return path it is taking, and the probes would need to be close enough together such that the resistance of the water causes an insignificant enough voltage drop compared to the resistance of the human body.

      In something the size of a swimming pool if the current return path is through some metal part of the closest edge of the pool then the cross section of the human body is likely insignificant and may experience a small tingling sensation. If the current return path is through the outlet itself then it would almost impossible to get your body in a position where it can kill you. Even if you did try to get yourself into that position you'll be in pain before you get close enough to dying (there's pools in Japan that offer this sensation via two electric plates that get closer together. The further up the pool you swim the stronger the electrical sensation).

      But the best part is this is not a case where you have to take my word for it. Go throw an extension cord into the pool sans GFI, get out your multimeter and put the probes a set distance apart and start measuring the voltage drop. You'll find it almost impossible to measure a voltage drop anywhere short of almost sitcking your probes right into the power outlet.

      Or if you don't feel like doing this experiment just jump on Youtube where plenty of people have done it, and then even put their body parts in between the leads, and then even repeated it with salt water.

      Yes stupid unlikely things happen, but this is still very unlikely to kill you.

    29. Re: Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. The regulations will be on eliquids only. Vape hardware will still be available everywhere. Oh and it's 2018, not 2017.

      It doesn't matter to me since I mix my own eliquids anyhow.

    30. Re:Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good. Fuck vapers.

    31. Re: Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately your laws don't apply to me.

    32. Re:Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spot on. I use an iStick 40W with a Herakles tank and 0.5 ohm coils and have never had a problem. In the eyes of some I might not be a "true" vaper, but it serves my purpose nicely and I don't have to waste time rebuilding coils or worry about it blowing up on me.

      My mod will auto shut off if there is a short, if it's overheating or the trigger is held for more than ten seconds. It also prevents the use of temperature control if you are using a coil that can't safely handle it.

    33. Re:Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Uhhh it was one of those little 4 foot above ground jobs, so I really don't think there was enough water there to keep him from frying his ass. Also remember the TV SET, a tube type no less, which I have zero doubt if one went in the other would too...those have capacitors with some pretty high voltages in it.

      In the end it doesn't change the point, which was the dumbfuck in the link took a highly specialized pro vape mod that had some serious wattage and which required actual knowledge to use properly and promptly slapped a $20 gas station top on it and surprise surprise, he fucked himself up...duh. If played Russian Roulette with an automatic...would we blame the manufacturer? Same applies here.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    34. Re:Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Uhhhh actually? I can blow clouds so damned thick it looks like a scene from a Cheech and Chong flick, that is on an eLeaf 100w box mod which has full protection from shorts and overloads, even lets you charge the removable batteries in the unit. Cost me a whole...let me check...$34 with shipping. If you want one that looks like a light saber, again with all the protections and which will blow fog banks? You can get one of those for around $75. Personally I don't care for those as they get knocked over too easy as they tend to be a bit top heavy. Hell if you wanted to be an elite and show off you have more money than you know what to do with? They make units for around $150 with touchscreens built in, you can even swap wallpaper on it if you like.

      The mech mods are for guys that want to build everything themselves, usually wanting to go for what I call a "batshit build" like sub 0.1 ohm or with a half a dozen coils. If I were to compare them to any niche I would compare them to the gun modding community and like that group you REALLY have to know WTF you are doing, and every forum I've ever been to actively discourages users for going to mech mods unless they have been building their own units for awhile and know resistances and ohms like second nature.

      But the only "incidents" like that dumbshit that I've heard of has always been either 1.- Dumbshit buys super insane mech mod as first unit, throws on $5 tank and fucks himself up, or 2.- Cheapskate dumpshit buys from some shady as hell Chinese site and gets a knock off thrown together for 50c US which is nothing but a battery wired direct to the terminal because circuits? Those cost money. But we have seen Chinese knock offs that are dangerous in everything from batteries to baby food and we don't blame the product they are knocking off because some moron bought a fake and fucked himself up.

      All the dipshit would have had to do is simply walk into his local vape shop and say "Give me something that makes big clouds" and he would have gotten a setup that would have been 100% safe and reliable, so I have a real hard time feeling bad for this fucknuts.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    35. Re:Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Still won't matter. Those capacitors have really high voltages but the path of electricity is again very tight. Electricity is about as slack and motivated as Homer Simpson with a beer, it's not going to go out of its way to find someone and kill them, it'll take the path of least resistance (or the path of least inductance for transient pulses). For a capacitive discharge that is the distance between two plates. For someone to get electrocuted by the HV circuit they'd need to simultaneously have a fault (TV under water) and stick their hand inside the TV. Again you don't need to take my word on this. There's a simple and safe (if you know what you're doing) test you can do to prove that electricity won't go out of it's way. Based on the scenario in the picture the bodies in the pool will most definitely have less voltage drop across them than when they touch the terminals of a 9V battery. And don't forget, safe touch potentials are up to 50V and you don't need to be far away from the source of an uncontrolled electric discharge to be fine, which is why the general advice is to stay away from trees during a thunderstorm. I know the picture you're talking about. Generally the small above ground pool scenario is even safer as the entire mess is insulated from ground via a layer of PVC.

      But yes we're arguing semantics here. Idiots are idiots. Just because they're unlikely to die this time, doesn't mean they won't pull the bread out of a running toaster with a knife, or by blowing his head off with a modded vape. I wholeheartedly agree that is a dumbshit move.

    36. Re:Fire hazard? No shit sherlock. by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Some cloud chasers THINK** that by building their own coils and using a mech mod to get to super low ohms they can get bigger cloud banks, there is a whole scene where there is even contests to make the biggest cloud.

      **.- Its bullshit, and has been bullshit for a couple of years now, because you can buy high wattage regulated mods that easily go down to as low as 0.15 ohms and which will blow out clouds so thick if you were to draw on it more than a second it would choke you out.

      I personally use a 20w mini boxmod on the road and a 100w brick of a mod at home, both regulated with circuit protection, and at anything higher than 16w both will put out such huge rolling clouds that a single drag will make the air so thick you couldn't see me. Of course I still have nicotine in mine (most cloud chasers don't) so I'm not gonna crank them up to anything above 14w or so, but if I wanted just to be my own personal fog machine? all I would have to do is slap a sub-ohm tank on there with some 0 nic juice and I could completely fog out my entire house in a few drags.

      So there really isn't any point in mech mods anymore except for the old guys that just like to DIY.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  3. wonder how far the ban will eventually extend by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    terminals/parking lots/shuttles/etc....

    1. Re:wonder how far the ban will eventually extend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can still carry them, you just can't leave them unattended in your luggage. The law is the same, while it seems counterintuitive given the liquid regulations, for lighters and matches. Hand luggage is fine, but you can't check fire-making stuff.

    2. Re:wonder how far the ban will eventually extend by NIGGERpenisgoodPENIS · · Score: 0

      terminals/parking lots/shuttles/etc....

      And what the actual intent is. The new rule covers e-cigarettes, e-cigars, e-pipes, and battery-powered portable electronic smoking devices in general. It does not prohibit passengers from transporting other battery-powered devices for personal use like laptop computers or cellphones.

      So in other words ... the rule doesn't cover more popular battery-powered devices - that use the exact same lithium-ion battery technology. Occasionaly cell phones explode too but strangely, that doesn't get the sort of press reaction as those EVIL SMOKING DEVICES.

      --
      Learn to laugh at our differences. It's better than fighting over them.
    3. Re:wonder how far the ban will eventually extend by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      There's a world of difference in the QC and testing processes between these sorts of devices. How many of these "vape pens" are built, tested, and certified durable medical equipment? Since we're talking about semi-legitimate grey-market kit and chems that are sold in head shops and gas station quickie marts; I'll go out on a limb and guess very few, if any at all. How many are even vetted and certified by Underwriters Labs and Conformity Europeenne? The first couple pages of my own googling turned up none; just a "vape pen" perfidiously named the "CE-4" so as to bait google searches for a conforming and certified device.

      Legitimate and mainstream consumer electronics (And their batteries.) must meet UL or CE standards to be sold in retailers other than fly-by-night and unscrupulous types. And DME, which is where these devices logically fit, must meet even more stringent standards. While none of these are 100% fool-proof; all three speak to a higher level of confidence in their safety and reliability then sketchy and untested devices but in the darkest unmonitored pits of China. So yeah, until and unless the "vape" industry goes legit, it's entirely appropriate to restrict the devices more stringently than mainstream electronics.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    4. Re:wonder how far the ban will eventually extend by NIGGERpenisgoodPENIS · · Score: 0

      There's a world of difference in the QC and testing processes between these sorts of devices. How many of these "vape pens" are built, tested, and certified durable medical equipment? Since we're talking about semi-legitimate grey-market kit and chems that are sold in head shops and gas station quickie marts; I'll go out on a limb and guess very few, if any at all. How many are even vetted and certified by Underwriters Labs and Conformity Europeenne? The first couple pages of my own googling turned up none; just a "vape pen" perfidiously named the "CE-4" so as to bait google searches for a conforming and certified device.

      Legitimate and mainstream consumer electronics (And their batteries.) must meet UL or CE standards to be sold in retailers other than fly-by-night and unscrupulous types. And DME, which is where these devices logically fit, must meet even more stringent standards. While none of these are 100% fool-proof; all three speak to a higher level of confidence in their safety and reliability then sketchy and untested devices but in the darkest unmonitored pits of China. So yeah, until and unless the "vape" industry goes legit, it's entirely appropriate to restrict the devices more stringently than mainstream electronics.

      Personally I buy Panasonic batteries (made in Japan) from reputable vendors. As a bonus, spending a few extra bucks (it's not much really) means you actually get the stated capacity of the battery. I don't care about sub-ohm coils that draw high amperage. My own setup is low amperage enough that I can also use protected batteries (18650s) so I do, just as an added margin of safety. That means the battery itself won't let you short it, nor overcharge it, nor draw too many amps from it. If you've never seen one before, they're a little bit longer than standard batteries because one of the terminals has a circuit board with a chip that monitors these things and immediately cuts power if something goes wrong.

      In addition to that the mod (device) itself has circuitry which detects and shuts down immediately if there is a short, wrong polarity, excessively low voltage, too high or low of a resistence, or anything like that. This is a good quality mod, not some little Ego-knockoff. Like anything else you get what you pay for, but decent mods with safety features and replacable batteries can be had for around $50. Mods like this have a configurable buck-booster circuit and an LCD readout so you can control how much power they use. That's why I know what I'm doing and I still don't want to bother with a mechanical mod because I like being able to select voltage and wattage on a whim and easily adjust them anytime I like.

      What you describe is more like the very small "lookalikes" that are about the size and shape of a cigarette. Generally those suck. They tend to use low capacity batteries because of size constraints. They also tend to use a cartridge system - you buy pre-filled cartridges that come in half a dozen different flavors or so, and when they run out they're not designed to be refilled (though it can be done), they're designed to sell you more cartridges. The cartridges are cheaply made and don't last very long. With a proper mod and some kind of tank setup you get a much better experience and can choose from literally hundreds (pehaps thousands?) of different flavors from lots of different vendors and you can mix&match them if you want, or easily mix up your own.

      It wouldn't be hard to forbid one but not the other, except bureaucrats at large institutions really hate recognizing these distinctions.

      --
      Learn to laugh at our differences. It's better than fighting over them.
    5. Re:wonder how far the ban will eventually extend by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      Well, it sounds like you're a enthusiast. You do your research, and know what to buy so as to keep it safe.

      But the majority of the population isn't into the nitty-gritty of the electronics and automatic safety features of every product they own and every substance they consume. That's why we have Underwriters Labs and Conformity Europeenne. That's why the FDA regulates drugs and medical equipment.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
  4. People can combust too... should we ban them? by 0x537461746943 · · Score: 0

    People are capable of Spontaneous Human Combustion without a source of fire too. I guess we should ban them too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    1. Re:People can combust too... should we ban them? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      I seriously think you really do not get the concept of being a human being, a social species for whom empathy is a requirement for social cohesion. If just one blows up in some ones face it is a serious problem, eyes, ears, taste, appearance, let alone repeated examples. The manufacturer of a defective device in this context considering the nature of the harm, deserves a custodial sentences, anyone profiting by blowing up someone face, deserve a custodial sentence, regardless of context. If a particular gun blew up in people's faces it would be banned (they would require a redesign to ensure it as near as possible to never blowing up in any ones face, gun and munitions).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    2. Re:People can combust too... should we ban them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      even your linked source casts significant doubt as to SHC ever having occurred and that the likely scenario is ignition sources that are conveniently left out of most accounts (like smoking, next to a fireplace, candles etc etc).

    3. Re:People can combust too... should we ban them? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      This has been modded "Flamebait." Oddly appropriate.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    4. Re:People can combust too... should we ban them? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Not to mention all the oddities of "SHC" like melted bones can be explained quite satisfactorily by the wick effect, as experiments have repeatedly proven. When there IS a perfectly viable scientific explanation for the evidence you found, then claims of an unexplained phenomenon become extremely suspect. And the evidence mostly consists of bodies found in states of burning that suggest far higher heat than normal. Nothing to suggest it was spontaneous or extraordinary... all you need is to be wearing tight clothing or have a blanket wrapped around you, anything that can soak up fat when it starts to melt and form a wick so you burn out really slowly over many, many hours.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    5. Re:People can combust too... should we ban them? by PatientZero · · Score: 1

      Only from checked baggage. You are still free to pack people in your carry-on luggage or carry them on your person.

      --
      Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
      I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
  5. Tank Of Fuel, Jet Engine. by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

    Those also are flammable and cause explosions. Just glad cell phones don't explode or catch fire....o snap.

  6. The usual idiocy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Okay, so thing that can explode/cause a fire is banned from checked baggage, yet the same thing that can explode/cause a fire is allowed in carry-on luggage?!? Seriously, what the fuck? Oh, well, we can't have fires in the cargo space, but inside the cabin? Perfectly fine. Thanks USA, for the usual amount of sense in protecting your citizens.

    1. Re: The usual idiocy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually it does make sense, there are staff able to quickly deal with the issue rather than a fire growing in the cargo hold.

    2. Re:The usual idiocy... by irving47 · · Score: 1

      This IS a tricky one. Maybe they think that a fire will be more easily extinguished if one gets shorted out during flight. I am thinking their reasoning is based on shifting luggage, which could cause the older models to mechanically engage and just keep heating up. Whereas the ones on carry-ons might be dealt with sooner?

      The only argument I can come up with against the new rule is, "surely the TSA and the baggage handlers are treating each bag as if it were their own and with the utmost care...."

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
    3. Re:The usual idiocy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next you'll be telling me that fires where people are present are OK, but when people aren't present are dangerous. Why shouldn't I leave the burner on the stove when I go to work if it's safe while I'm standing in front of it?

      Oh wait.. you mean that when we're present when fire is being used, we have more of a chance of noticing it gets out of control, and putting it out?

    4. Re:The usual idiocy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a big difference. In the passenger compartment you can smell the smoke and put out the fire. I've been on two flights where Dell laptops went up, and it didn't crash the plane. If they had been in the luggage compartment, the fire might have spread.

    5. Re: The usual idiocy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've had the building's fire alarm go off twice for Dell laptop battery fires. I don't want to be on a plane with a Dell.

    6. Re:The usual idiocy... by goose-incarnated · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Okay, so thing that can explode/cause a fire is banned from checked baggage, yet the same thing that can explode/cause a fire is allowed in carry-on luggage?!? Seriously, what the fuck? Oh, well, we can't have fires in the cargo space, but inside the cabin? Perfectly fine. Thanks USA, for the usual amount of sense in protecting your citizens.

      Ever heard of the Helderberg? Cargo fires grow unnoticed until they consume the plane. Cabin fires are quickly spotted.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    7. Re: The usual idiocy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No protection needed, thanks for the interference and force. Take my money and I'll just get fondled, harassed and treated like cattle. I always think as I'm in the machine in my socks and hands up... " is the remotely the posture of a free man?". It sucks remembering what a pleasure flying used to be.

    8. Re:The usual idiocy... by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Cargo fires grow unnoticed until they consume the plane.

      That seems like a big problem that we already have the technology to address. Have there been efforts to increase the density of smoke alarms in the cargo hold or even add alternative methods of fire detection since then? Even a net of temperature sensors distributed throughout the hold would allow the detection of smoldering fires before they consumed the plane!

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    9. Re:The usual idiocy... by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      A small fire in the cabin is something that will almost certainly be smelt or spotted in time for someone to beat it out with a coat, towel, or hit with a fire extinguisher long before its likely able to threaten the plane. A fire in tightly packed cargo hold on the other hand will likely be quite a lot larger before a smoke detector is triggered and very much more difficult to get near enough to do anything about. It very well could threaten the plane. There may be enough air trapped in the luggage to permit combustion even while fire suppression methods are being deployed for quite some time time.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  7. Re:Thank god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Better vapetards than actual smokers. As someone with pretty bad asthma, I want to hug every single person that has the decency to get their nic-fix without making me get my albuterol fix.

  8. Re:Thank god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haha mouth fedora is awesome. I prefer douche flute myself.

  9. Re:Thank god by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    douche flute

    Well done.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  10. Re:China Battery by basecastula+ · · Score: 1

    What about a south Korean battery?

  11. When will they ban ceramic blades in planes by Trachman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Every time I go through the airport in a secured zone, I see shelves stacked with wine, whiskey, beer, vodka, champagne. Every bottle, when broken, is a potential ceramic knife. By the way, a very sharp knife.

    Two quarters of 100 proof spirit is very flammable. Whiskey in the bottle is just an expensive Molotov cocktail - lite.

    1. Re:When will they ban ceramic blades in planes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point - but banning such things causes too much outcry.

    2. Re:When will they ban ceramic blades in planes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are talking about intentional hazards, this article is talking about preventing accidental hazards.

    3. Re:When will they ban ceramic blades in planes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ceramic knives are all kindz of awesome. I have two Kyocera ceramic knives and they are better than serrated steel knives, by far.

    4. Re:When will they ban ceramic blades in planes by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      the tsa is not about "being safer" it is to "feeling safer" and a way for well connected people to bilk taxpayers with expensive scanning machines. the tsa should just be shut down and removed from airports, security would not change.

    5. Re:When will they ban ceramic blades in planes by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I don't think they serve or let you carry booze over 80 proof on planes.

      80 proof booze won't burn unless heated first. Then only the vapor burns.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:When will they ban ceramic blades in planes by DarkOx · · Score: 1
      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    7. Re:When will they ban ceramic blades in planes by Threni · · Score: 1

      Not sure where you're seeing beer bottles made of ceramic, whatver. I'm not concerned with that, or even sharp glass. Someone's got a knife; someone else will take it off them. I'm probably safe. A fire/explosion in the cargo hold; that's bad news for everyone. This restriction makes sense. If you need to smoke then sort it out when you land, or don't travel.

    8. Re:When will they ban ceramic blades in planes by Trachman · · Score: 1

      right... glass is ceramic. If you are not concerned with the knifes, then why are they are stealing nail scissors in the airports. Because of people like you people wait in the lines for multiple hours.

      Fire in the cargo hold is a royal fuckup, especially if the fire is in the middle of the ocean. That being said, electronic pipe in the passenger compartment is probably the safest thing that you can have.

      Now comes the checked baggage. E-cigarette has a battery, most of the time it is Li-ion battery. That being said, laptop has much larger battery. Same with the flashlights.

      Solution: if you have an e-cig, require remove the battery before travel. Problem solved.

  12. Dumbasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently don't realize that these rechargable batteries aren't any different from any other rechargable batteries. Batteries don't spontaneously combust, user error with chargers is the issue. So dumb.

  13. My Stash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How am I gonna carry my marijuana? No vape now. Flower is too obvious. Edibles are unpredictable.

    http://mystabis.com/

    1. Re:My Stash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess you're just going to have to vote to legalize it.

  14. Stupid, short sighted and naive! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh come off it, i just recently got off a flight from LA to SYD where another passenger from the same flight had his bag catch fire on the train from the airport. Turns out he had power drills and their batteries in there. How are you going to stop an e-cigarette when people are taking power drills and batteries aboard in checked baggage?

    Next we will be leaving laptops, tablets, watches and phones at home too.....

  15. This is already being enforced by eWarz · · Score: 2

    Just an FYI, Philadelphia was enforcing this when i flew out of there a few weeks ago to come home. They asked me specifically about those items prior to letting me check my bags in. Nashville (my hometown) had not started this procedure yet.

  16. I don't get it... by mark-t · · Score: 2

    The story talks about an ecig exploding during *USE*, not while it was unattended... or in luggage on a plane.

    Using it on a plane is a non-issue, since I can't remember the last time I was on a plane that allowed smoking at all during the flight.

    And in matters of storage, why are batteries for ecigs more dangerous than any other kind of battery?

    1. Re: I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because, big tobacco needs to ensure the recently announced enforcement doesn't wander into logical regulations. Don't think, feel afraid and glad you are being protected from such dangerous things. Have a Marlboro and stay away from danger.

    2. Re:I don't get it... by Solandri · · Score: 2, Informative

      Li-ion and LiMn batteries are already banned from the cargo hold of passenger planes. This seems more to be a case of people not knowing ecigs contained a lithium battery, and blithely packing them in their check-in baggage.

      Lithium batteries can suffer a runaway thermal failure when they're punctured or shorted, which can then lead to an explosion and/or fire. While this is more common during use, it can happen while stored if the casing is already damaged and something (like turbulence or something falling on top of it) jostles it further.

    3. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Using it on a plane is a non-issue, since I can't remember the last time I was on a plane that allowed smoking at all during the flight.

      Two things:
      * I see a lot of people allowing themselves to vape in areas where smoking is forbidden (e.g. a train), assuming that.. well, technically vaping is not "smoking", and "it's not dangerous", etc., so it should be allowed, therefore they may vape if they wish to, and "deal with it old man".
      * I've recently been on a plane (Lufthansa flight) where a dozen passengers played the "I dare you to smoke a cigarette without being spotted by the attendant". Not very funny when you don't like the smell of tobacco and your head is smaller than their fists.

    4. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      batteries as cargo is banned i.e. you can't move a pallet of batteries on a passenger flight, but personal items that contain batteries like laptops are not banned

    5. Re: I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thing 1 happens because it's true.
      Thing 2 makes you look like a crybaby.
      I swear you act like someone put a gas mask on you and pumped smoke into it. "Eww I don't like the smell!" Then jump off the plane pussy.

    6. Re: I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thing 2 makes you look like a crybaby /.../ pussy.

      I swear I'd throw the keyboard at your comment on my screen if I had the balls to prove you I'm a man and not a pussy.

    7. Re:I don't get it... by wtfamidoinghere · · Score: 1

      I can understand what you're saying (but the other commenter already corrected you about the specifics on that ban), but ... what most people are not aware is that these batteries (normally 18650 bats) are EXACTLY the ones that are used in laptop batteries. If you break open a battery pack from a laptop, all that you'll see inside is a row of 18650 bats ;)

    8. Re:I don't get it... by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Typically lithium batteries will pass a puncture with no fire safety test. It's much less likely to happen than in the movies, in fact in many cases rather unlikely. But anytime you have a reasonably high power battery and short the terminals you can create a fire through resistive heating.

    9. Re:I don't get it... by burtosis · · Score: 1

      The answer is most esigs have no to little safety electronics to shave off the last 50 cents in production. Laptops on the other hand have smart protection circuits with multiple redundancy so there really is no comparison.

    10. Re:I don't get it... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The story talks about an ecig exploding during *USE*, not while it was unattended... or in luggage on a plane.

      the story was about a modded vape that could trivially trigger in baggage due to settling, and something pressing its button... not like normal vapes that you have to press the power button five times (or whatever) in quick succession to turn on. And if you did turn one of those on, it wouldn't blow itself up.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:I don't get it... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Actually, most vapes and e-cigs are too small to accommodate 18650s, and they contain even smaller cells. The one that blew up in this kid's mouth might have had cells that big, though.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's probably flat out wrong to say most at this point. If an ecig has removable batteries, they are almost certainly a 18650s. Been that way for a while now.

    13. Re:I don't get it... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's probably flat out wrong to say most at this point. If an ecig has removable batteries, they are almost certainly a 18650s. Been that way for a while now.

      All I see any more is pens. But hey, maybe you're not living in the Emerald Triangle.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re: I don't get it... by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      Actually I think you will find that big tobacco does have a hand in this through lobbying. The problem that big tobacco has is that a vaping habit only costs five dollars a month instead of the $100 that they are used to from tobacco smokers. Any regulation of cheap stuff from China is to their advantage, so some home brew short circuited battery explosion is the best news they have had for ages. Banning them from checked luggage is just one step on the road to getting China out of the market and replaced with their own brand approved systems at joke prices. This is about making money out of the dumb-fuck customers just like all modern business is supposed to do.
       

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    15. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're going to provide answers, you could at least site your sources.

    16. Re: I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can move a large pallet of lithium ion batteries down the road as long as it's branded Tesla or Prius.

    17. Re:I don't get it... by cbeaudry · · Score: 1

      Pens are not the majority and pens are not the one of the few stories of batteries blowing up. Its the mods with 18650s.

    18. Re:I don't get it... by thegarbz · · Score: 0

      That's firstly a load of crap, secondly not backed up by the plenty of evidence of batteries bursting into flames spectacularly, and thirdly quite irrelevant since laptop batteries are just as banned in the cargo hold as ecigs.

    19. Re:I don't get it... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Pens are not the majority

      [citation needed]

      and pens are not the one of the few stories of batteries blowing up. Its the mods with 18650s.

      Yes, that was part of my point. Thanks.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re: I don't get it... by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      Actually I think you will find that big tobacco does have a hand in this through lobbying. The problem that big tobacco has is that a vaping habit only costs five dollars a month instead of the $100 that they are used to from tobacco smokers. Any regulation of cheap stuff from China is to their advantage, so some home brew short circuited battery explosion is the best news they have had for ages. Banning them from checked luggage is just one step on the road to getting China out of the market and replaced with their own brand approved systems at joke prices. This is about making money out of the dumb-fuck customers just like all modern business is supposed to do.

      Pretty much this.

      Government and the tobacco industry are co-conspirators in keeping the public smoking tobacco. Like any drug dealer, the government and the tobacco companies are moving to crush anything that might threaten their income and reduce the numbers of people hooked on their poison. There's also a lot of money in the treatment and hospice care industries from smoking-related lung cancer and COPD patients that vaping/e-cigs threaten to reduce.

      If those in government really gave a crap whether or not people die and was actually trying to encourage people to stop smoking they'd be promoting vaping vs tobacco smoking. But their priorities are for more power, control, and lobbyist/campaign contributions for reelection, and so what's a few 10s or 100s of thousands of unnecessary deaths every year compared to that?

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    21. Re: I don't get it... by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Don't be ridiculous. There isn't a conspiracy to hook people on smoking by the government. The tobacco settlements are over dear old Uncle Sam has wrung just about as much money out of them as was possible.

      Alcohol is actually the new poising. Consumption of that took a big hit after prohibition and did not recover until the mid sixties but has been steadily growing sense. Alcohol will be the next big public health crisis just like it is/was in post soviet Russia. I do think the government wants it that way. There is the token anti-drink and drive PSA once and awhile and states like to pass crazy low BAC rules for driving but there is No effort to really reduce the sale or availability of booze. Compared to tobacco the restrictions on marketing are highly lax.

      Arguing that government should encourage vaping is silly. Find me one medical professional that will say using the common vaping products is good for you. I am sure you can find many who might say its mostly harmless and preferable to smoking so as such might be recommendable as a smoking cessation aide. I doubt you find any who would advise a non-smoker take up vaping or a former smoker should plan on being a life like vape user. The sensible thing to do is neither. Certainly our lungs were not made to inhale mass quantities of glycerine, water, and nicotine at high frequency. Some water sure, but not the the other two and probably not in that frequency and amount with regard to the water. How damaging is it, likely not very but still you'd probably have fewer respitory issues over the course of your life time if you abstain.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    22. Re: I don't get it... by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      The tobacco settlements are over dear old Uncle Sam has wrung just about as much money out of them as was possible.

      The government counts on State and Federal tobacco taxes. Then there is the government bureaucracy, infrastructure, and obligatory and attendant bureaucrat fiefdom/budget-protection as a result of tobacco regulation and taxation and the mechanisms/personnel required to implement it, make it function, and maintain it all. Nobody wants to lose power/control and especially the government doesn't want less revenue.

      Arguing that government should encourage vaping is silly. Find me one medical professional that will say using the common vaping products is good for you.

      Strawman argument. I never said vaping was good for you. I said that government should encourage vaping *versus* smoking for exactly the reason you state, that it's far healthier and easier to quit.

      The sensible thing to do is neither. Certainly our lungs were not made to inhale mass quantities of glycerine, water, and nicotine at high frequency. Some water sure, but not the the other two and probably not in that frequency and amount with regard to the water. How damaging is it, likely not very but still you'd probably have fewer respitory issues over the course of your life time if you abstain.

      There are many things people choose to do that incur risks to health as well as risks to others. Many sports and outdoor activities like boxing, football, motorsports, sport aviation, etc incur risks to health both short and long term. Even choosing to have that extra serving of dessert has health risks. All behaviors and activities pose risks to health. Since we all pay into the health system for others does that mean all behavior and activities can be regulated? How does that work in a free and open society?

      These types of risks and the ability to choose to take them will exist in a free and open society. The only way to eliminate these risks is to eliminate the freedom of the individual to make choices.

      That's a prison/police state.

      Vaping is not a perfect system or solution and is not risk-free. *Nothing* ever is. Don't let an unreasonable requirement for the perfect and government-controlled be the enemy of the pragmatic and practical private sector solution society has developed and voluntarily chosen without government involvement.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  17. Re:China Battery by solidraven · · Score: 1

    Those perform automatic face lifting and eye lid modification surgeries.

  18. Transformer Rectum Fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BOHICA - Only irritated rump qualifly for free tsa sausage sandwiches.

    I could work on Jets, Launch them, Fix them, Trouble shoot them, Love, Hate, Bleed, Cry, Build them, Modify them and so on, oh hell

      You could say,
    "I even know how to safely piss on them."

    Which is what YOU should do until the jack boots (and you know exactly what I speak) goes away again.

    - in my opinion

  19. Better idea by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    How about the baggage compartment is actually sealed and inert during the flight.

  20. Suck it bible babies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe that's part of it. For some I could see it. But in my opinion it is because you asshats won't stop trying to ban nicotine. You've been downright bastards against smokers since I was about 18. Problem is, like any other chemical, people who want to consume it will do so if they damned well please. These items have successfully circumvented all of the annoying policies you busybodies have put in place and it is just annoying the dogshit outta you! My old ass smiles ear to ear every time I hear someone bitching about it. That's why we get all these calls for "safety" and "the kids". You church ladies already told us a million times to stop, but we already told you a million times to fuck off. It's a never ending battle. Now I am not a vaper. I still get my nicotine like a man- straight from the goddamned plant with fire or my teeth. But I have sat by all these years and watched you guys like a hawk. You're pissed because these damned yungguns are BREAKING THE RULES! AND GOD'S RULES ON TOP OF THAT!!! FIRE AND BRIMSTONE! Why do you think they are very careful and deliberate to correct you that it is vaping? Because vaping isn't against the rules but smoking and probably chewing is. They aren't smoking in their cubicle. They are vaping- a perfectly legal process. Now you and I both know that's a difference with no distinction because the end result is the same. Gotta catch a buzz. And if that buzz doesn't come from the sunday sermon from the preacherman? Well we'll just make those people walk the straight and narrow because saving souls gets us a bigger plot of cloud in heaven or some shit. I didn't realize there was a score being kept, but the bible thumpers around here are quick to remind me. So let me say this for the one millionth and one time, FUCK OFF!!!!

    1. Re:Suck it bible babies! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Maybe that's part of it. For some I could see it. But in my opinion it is because you asshats won't stop trying to ban nicotine. You've been downright bastards against smokers since I was about 18.

      I'm seeing calls for a war on vaping, complete with confications and criminalization, horror storuies about vapers gone mad, and attacking teh childrenz, and how vaping is a gateway drug to crack cocaine and watching The Young Turks on Youtube.

      All sarcasm aside, the issue of vaping is a big problem for the puritans, because without the carcinogenics, they don't have much to rail against. And the properties of small amounts of nicotine make for a pretty innocuous but often useful effect on people.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  21. So you agree? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you're in agreement with him then? Because what he said was that if you buy a quality controlled and non-cheaply manufactured device, its built in ground fault interruption circuitry will shut it down to prevent an explosion. So just like that power strip, it is going to be unlikely to kill or injure anyone. I think you're agreeing, but then again, you could be pointing out that "error" as a means to tear down his argument. I guess it depends on which side of the argument you're on.

    1. Re:So you agree? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Even without a GFI the risk is extremely close to zero. Electricity always takes the shortest route. If that powerstrip falls in the water, the shortest route is a direct short circuit from live to neutral. A tub of water can't hold charge and even if it could charge can't kill you - no current would be flowing through the pool. Hell even if by some miracle current did flow through the pool it still wouldn't harm a human in the water - it would flow around the person since water (especially chlorinated water) is far, far lower resistance than human skin.

      The only real danger actually is removing the thing at the end, if your hands are still wet - or the powerstrip got wet you risk creating a short circuit that DOES run through your body. It's very unlikely (and even more unlikely to run through more than your thumb) but it's at least theoretically possible, unlike the "powerstrip fell in the pool and electrocuted him" idea, that only works in murder movies, in the real world you would almost certainly not even be injured. It's the high-tech version of ground-glass-in-food - as a method of killing somebody, it's so close to impossible to succeed that you would be better off just wishing the guy would get hit by lightning.

      People have a lot of paranoia about electricity based on really not understanding it. Human skin has incredibly high resistance and so even if you are a short circuit it mostly runs outside the body. The risk comes in when the voltage heats you up. Clamped to the cable long enough the heat burns skin away - and electricity gets really dangerous when it hits the bloodstream. Directly through the bloodstream - 1v is more than enough to kill you. The calculations have been done, one volt in the blood -hits the heart with a stronger current than the electrical signals from the brain... and it obeys what it sees as a regulatory signal and basically shuts down. Instant heart attack (like a defibrillator in reverse).

      But the powerstrip on the pool ? Nah. That's really not a high risk situation, you take a much higher risk every time you drive a car.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    2. Re:So you agree? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No. I'm only in agreement if you can't read words good like.

      I gave two statements. Let me break them down:
      a)Interestingly enough this is the one thing on your list that would be very unlikely to kill you.

      Analysis: I said the entire contrived example is unlikely to kill you. Nothing more nothing less.

      b) If it's attached to a ground fault interrupter it would almost be outright impossible to kill.

      Analysis: Given an additional restriction on top of statement a, with that restriction it would be almost outright impossible to kill. This statement doesn't invalidate or in any way affect what I said in statement a.

      If you disagree with my statement of a, then look at the parallel thread one up where I explained why it won't kill you. Or if you want more entertainment look it up on Youtube.

    3. Re:So you agree? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Electricity always takes the shortest route.

      To be specific, electricity takes all routes, but most of the current will go along the path of least resistance; for the purposes of bathtime fun, this isn't a super important distinction. And I apologize for lack of a -1, AKSHULLY mod.

  22. I like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any announcement that includes the words "bans" and "electronic cigarette" are music to my ears. The less other words it contains, the better. You can take the nicotine out of the smoke, but you can't take the dipshit out of the smoker.

  23. Has vaping ever been allowed on-board? by heldal · · Score: 1

    In my country, vaping is regarded as smoking, and is not allowed on planes, trains, buses or inside any other public space. It's still second hand smoke containing nicotine. Isn't it so in the US?

    1. Re:Has vaping ever been allowed on-board? by armanox · · Score: 1

      As of right now, no it's not. Give it a couple more years and it likely will be, since regulations are popping up.

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    2. Re:Has vaping ever been allowed on-board? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Checked Baggage ?

      Also - does it feel like industries that just need a small boost get the TSA to take things away for them ?

      I've had to buy more small toothpastes since 9/11 (that are, surprise!, the same cost as the large toothpastes)

    3. Re:Has vaping ever been allowed on-board? by operagost · · Score: 1

      Not all of it contains nicotine. And of course, nicotine is one of the LEAST dangerous substances in tobacco smoke.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    4. Re:Has vaping ever been allowed on-board? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's still second hand smoke containing nicotine.

      The same way fog is smog. Containing nicotine, yes, though the delivery method isn't very efficient.

  24. Junk electronics with lithium batteries by burtosis · · Score: 1

    I've dissasssmbled around 10 different brands and examined the electronics just for fun. I've designed smart battery systems for actual products in the field and was curious what types of protection were used. Tl:dr they shaved about half a dollar off each one by providing almost no safety at all.

    Decent single battery systems have over voltage, under voltage, current limiting during charge and discharge, and temperature sensing with bonus points for more advanced features like fuel gaging so that you have an accurate idea of the power left. The models I looked at had everything from none at all (serious fire/venting risk even with the matched charger) to at most a leaky over and under voltage protection. The kind where if you left it on the wrong charger it would likely be a fire/venting risk.

    There really needs to be a concrete law with actual fines and punishments about including some basic safety whenever you release a product into the wild with lithium batteries. Too often people remove the safety features to save a few cents because they tested two for 5 minutes and were fine, not realizing that 1M in the field would mean a fire a day.

  25. Is there any evidence by silentcoder · · Score: 2

    that e-cig batteries are more likely to catch fire than any other rechargeable electronic device ?

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    1. Re:Is there any evidence by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Actually you can be fairly sure of this because they typically don't have any of the safety circuitry of quality products.

    2. Re: Is there any evidence by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Every ecig I ever owned had safety circuits to shut down power if the overdraw. Now perhaps some cheaply made ones lack this but those are decidedly not "typical".

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  26. Follow the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The greatest threat from vaping is the loss of all those lovely, lovely sin-tax revenues from tobacco.
    You didn't really think that politicians in (say) Colorado suddenly give a shit about their stoner constituents?
    Or that alphabet agencies are really concerned that you'll swallow the battery from your e-cig?
    They just see a big, big pot of kick-backs, slush money and political influence shrinking as tobacco junkies move on to other,
    less taxable, things.

  27. Pro-Cancer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just more progress from the pro-cancer group.
    Big pharma/big tobacco/prepaid politicians who loved the taxes/and a drooling mob of people who want to hate someone.
    Together they wage their war on the most effective smoking cessation device man has ever come up with. One that works like a magic wand and gets people off cigs immediately.
    It is not like the vapors from vapes are not the same stuff that has been used in theater and stage for decades. Well tested because we love our actors and care about their health.,
    Nicotine is not a carcinogen no matter how much money has gone into trying to prove it is one.

    So throw some FUD out there and stupid people will form a mob and demand laws for you to kill 500,000 people in the US and 10 million world wide each year.

    Murdering droves of people for this quarter's profits. At least Pfizer will not supply execution drugs, that will save what 10 people a year?

  28. stop legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Best way to stop eCig legislation
    walk into congress with team of armed men
    seal yourselves in
    force congress to sit and smoke a carton of cigarettes each
    force each one to eat cig if they don't smoke it
    treat them like law enforcement treat black people
    Give them all stockholm syndrome
    afraid to pass more legislation
    violence works
    is answer

  29. Flour? by PatientZero · · Score: 1

    I think you mean flower, the seed-bearing part of the plant.

    --
    Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
    I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
  30. They're not "electronic". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    US Bans Electronic Cigarettes

    They're not electronic. They're electric.

    The word "electronic" pertains to signals and data.

    The word "electric" pertains to power.

    The cigarettes do not use electricity for handling signals and data. They use electricity for power only. Hence, they are "electric cigarettes".

  31. Wow. You druggies are an angry bunch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. You druggies are an angry bunch.

    I suggest you all just move to that desert in India that will soon be abandoned and burn to your heart's content.