Slashdot Mirror
E-Cigarettes Emit Toxic Vapors, Says Study (upi.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from UPI: All electronic cigarettes emit harmful chemicals, and levels of those toxic compounds are affected by factors such as temperature, type and age of the device, a new study finds. In laboratory tests, scientists found that the heat-related breakdown of propylene glycol and glycerin -- two solvents found in most e-cigarette liquids -- causes emissions of toxic chemicals such as acrolein, acetaldehyde and formaldehyde. All three are either respiratory irritants or carcinogens, the investigators said. The researchers also found that levels of harmful chemicals in e-cigarette vapor increase between the first few puffs and later puffs as the device gets hotter, and with each use of the device.The new study was published July 27 in the journal Environmental Science and Technology. "Advocates of e-cigarettes say emissions are much lower than from conventional cigarettes, so you're better off using e-cigarettes," study corresponding author Hugo Destaillats said in a Berkeley news release. "I would say, that may be true for certain users -- for example, long-time smokers that cannot quit -- but the problem is, it doesn't mean that they're healthier. Regular cigarettes are super unhealthy. E-cigarettes are just unhealthy," he explained. The FDA will start regulating e-cigarettes like tobacco on August 8, 2016.
That does not give the temp they are burning the e juice at.
Burning PG will give off harmfull chemicals. But ecigs dont get hot enough unless you are sitting there with the button pressed.
With the advent of temperature controll in ecigs the temperature does not get anywhere close to burning the PG.
This is a device that was designed to emit toxic vapours.
Nicotine may be a toxin, but in the amounts in which it's consumed, that's the least concern about the effects upon the body. However, these devices weren't intended to emit other toxic vapors.
It's like saying that fireplaces pose a fire hazard or that an electric outlet carries the risk of electrocution. It's what it's supposed to do.
False. A fire hazard is an uncontrolled fire. A fireplace is designed to control a fire. An electric outlet is not designed to electrocute you. It's designed to deliver power to an appliance. Granted, some of them are not very well designed to explicitly not electrocute you, but that's a separate issue.
The idea of the vaporizer is to deliver as clean a smoking experience as possible. If you put water-based herbal extracts into them, that's what you're doing. What's interesting is that these other things aren't that clean, either. Anyone remember transparent cigarette papers? They were everywhere for a while, I went through a couple of packs myself on the basis that I was already smoking tobacco so who cares, but what was found is that only the center of the cherry is hot enough to burn the combustion byproducts into something harmless, which meant that you were getting a bunch of toxics from them even worse than smoking paper.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Gee, that's a nice relatively free market ya got there. Be a shame if somethin happened to it. Yeah, I think we're going to step in and interfere with it, against the wishes of both the buyers and sellers. To protect you from yourselves, of course, and absolutely not because we can't stand to have something that we don't control.
Seriously, making any sort of health claims about e-cigs was already illegal.
Replying to myself: remember, these are the people who approved aspartame (by firing the FDA employee who cared about the studies and replacing him with someone who would play ball). These are also the people who told us Vioxx was safe as aspirin, while all the deaths it was causing were known only because of a whistleblower. Yeah, let's give them more control.
Fuck you, capitalism
Seriously, making any sort of health claims about e-cigs was already illegal
Bullshit. The federal government has both the power and duty regulate such devices. If people choose to ignore the evidence that is their right as well. This has nothing to do with free market and everything to do with getting facts out to the people.
Further, if you want to go down the "control" path, that's fine. Don't control these things. At the same time I shouldn't have to pay for injuries or damages caused by people using these things by raising my insurance rates. They should be solely responsible for everything, free market and all that.
The same with my mandated health insurance tax. If smokers and vapers want to ignore the scientific evidence of how harmful both items are to their health that is their right but again, I shouldn't, nor should the government, have to pay for their medical bills.
Fair enough?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Thank the lord God Barack Hussein Obama that I have a government that loves me enough to protect me from my sinful ways. I will consult with Ms. de Rothschild regarding what penance I owe.
You think this type of thing started when Obama became President? What, are you 8 years old?
Clicking through to the article finds - for example - they are refering to Glycidol.
NIOSH in the USA recommends a limit of 25ppm over a 8 hour shift for workers.
The first link I find says 350l/hr are breathed, meaning 3000l/ work day.
This is about 4.5kg of air. 1ppm is 4.5mg, so 25ppm is 110mg.
It showed about 2 micrograms per puff in the graph at http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2016...
In order to exceed the NIOSH recommendations for worker safety for glycidol, you need to take _HALF_A_MILLION_ puffs.
PER DAY.
So, yes, they have found novel compounds in the vape, but at least some of these are considered 'safe' in other context at levels way above what is found in the smoke.
I am always amazed by the people "smoking" e-cigarettes in places where smoking is not allowed. I've seen people use them in restaurants where smoking is prohibited, inside a school, and I even saw someone use one on an airplane.
Just because it doesn't create smoke like a conventional cigarette doesn't mean that the vapors and your exhalations aren't harmful. Stop using them in places where smoking is banned. Thank you.
It's already covered in the UK govt report: https://www.gov.uk/government/...
Flip to page 75. The report is fairly well written, and surprisingly not someone trying to prove pre-defined results via poorly conducted experiments.
This is only applicable to mechanized vaping tests. Essentially, you need to burn the vaping chemicals rather than atomize them. As someone that quit vaping, I can testify that you know when your vaping unit get cranked to the max while being in your pocket and fried the coils, along with some of the nicotine liquid. It is extremely unpleasant. Theoretically a person could continue to try to inhale the results, but it would be a spectacularly unpleasant experience. It's extremely noticeable
. It's called a 'dry hit' and it's pretty rare under normal circumstances. I've had... three, maybe? It's certainly not good for you, but probably not as bad for me as my old pack a day of cigarettes would be if I continued smoking.
Bullshit. The federal government has both the power and duty regulate such devices.
How is that bullshit? Have you ever bought an e-cig, yourself? The companies selling them are very careful to tell you they are not smoking cessation devices, are not FDA approved for such a purpose, and they are also careful never to say anything like "this is safer than tobacco". Because they know they'd be shut down in a heartbeat if they said any such things.
So let's recap: I say something demonstrably true about Subject X. You say "bullshit" and make another true statement about Unrelated Subject Y. You're either deliberately deceitful (strawman) or having some kind of emotional reaction.
Yea, I'm up at 6.0v
Gonna have to wait for the study to be pirated before I can read the full text.
Advocates of e-cigarettes say emissions are much lower than from conventional cigarettes, so you're better off using e-cigarettes. I would say, that may be true for certain users -- for example, long-time smokers that cannot quit -- but the problem is, it doesn't mean that they're healthier. Regular cigarettes are super unhealthy. E-cigarettes are just unhealthy.
Dude, if they're less unhealthy, that means that they're healthier. You just contradicted yourself.
Well, I guess he's from Berkeley, so they wouldn't have released it if it didn't involve at least some doublethink.
I too think e-cigarettes are an annoying and asinine way for people to keep doing something they know they shouldn't. And who knows what further problems we may eventually figure out they may cause. But that doesn't mean we get to lie about them. It makes it really hard to get behind a movement when its participants are spewing propaganda along with their actual science.
Well, when we started this moral crusade to stop people smoking we didn't expect them to come up with an alternative so now we have to start the demonising program again, oh well at least it will easier to switch the smoking association over so its better than starting at scratch :|
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
What these companies dont have the right to do is make claims about a product when their "testing" procedures far exceed any normal use.
Standard use of a ecig will NOT burn the e juice which is required to produce these chemicals. Notice they dont give the temperature they are pushing the units to ? Should tell you that they are burning the ejuice and not just vapourizing it.
My grandpa was smoking and rolled his tobacco in normal newspaper paper, complete with ink and all.
Granted, back then people died from other diseases before the cancer had a chance to get them, so...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The same with my mandated health insurance tax. If smokers and vapers want to ignore the scientific evidence of how harmful both items are to their health that is their right but again, I shouldn't, nor should the government, have to pay for their medical bills. Fair enough?
I sure hope you don't put alcohol, or too much/little salt/sugar/fat or any of the other shitload of things that are known to have negative affects on you into yourself. I suppose that whatever happens to you is all completely natural and non-fault on your own part? You wouldn't want your fuckups, like say a injury while you're off having fun, affecting other people's premiums would you?
As an aside can you explain why you feel good health is something you should have to pay for (regardless of the cause) and if you can't might as well be left to die in a gutter?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
of course not, after all who funded the study? The tobacco industry as they were losing profits to this and they want it heavily regulated with all vape liquids having to be officially tested and approved...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
The patent on atomization technology for e-cigs will expire soon enough. Then there won't be a need to heat the liquid. The only question will be if the liquid can be preserved well enough that it doesn't harbor bacteria and thus cause pneumonia.
Just enjoy it. They're killing themselves while the exhaled stuff isn't killing you. Think of it as booze, just without the drunk puking on your shoes.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So dance clubs, concert venues, most Broadway shows - those are all death traps? Because most of those places go through *gallons* of propylene glycol a night - as where most eCig users are puffing 50ml every 3-6 months. THINK OF THE BROADWAY ACTORS
imagine a soft, buttery paw gently pressing down onto a sleeping soldier's face. forever.
it starts tasting bad if you overuse it too.
thats a feature. it starts tasting bad so you keep a pause -or buy a better one.
and gotta love how he says that chem levels are lower than cigarettes(By a lot!), but loads up the the sentence with comparison to not using either e cigs or cigs. Nobody asked that!
so. here is just another study proving ecigs are healthier than cigs, that was meant by the reaearcher to prove that they are harmful. 0% new info. repeat of the previous study.
also theres now temp regulating models. study the titanium and nickel in those
Damn right. Off to McD I am, to get 2 greaseburgers (not that pampered veggy replacement crap but the real deal) and wash it down with a gallon of root beer.
Uh... and can someone call me an ambulance when I'm done, my chest and left arm hurt in a rather suspicious way...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I think one of the things smokers find unsatisfying about things like using a nicotine patch is that they also develop a physical habit. It’s like taking a caffeine pill vs. having a cup of coffee. Sitting down with breakfast with a nice cup of coffee with cream and sugar, as with any kind of eating or drinking, causes a release of dopamine, which enhances the positive effects of the drug. Something similar happens with smoking, I assume.
If you’re actually trying to break the habit, e-cigs seem like a reasonable temporary solution, as you ease off your dosage. However, there may be other ways of doing this. For instance, you can get L-dopa (a precursor to dopamine) from Mucuna Pruriens, directly boosting your dopamine levels. Or you can take low-dose naltrexone (LDN). Naltrexone is a dopamine receptor antagonist. Large doses can be used to block the effects of addictive drugs, while low doses trigger the brain to compensate by increasing dopamine levels. You can also take tyrosine, which is a precursor to several neurotransmitters, including serotonin, norepinepherine, and dopamine.
None of them probably has quite the same emotional satisfaction that people get from the act of smoking, however.
Because it's not needed?
Anyone still not knowing that smoking kills you is too stupid to be saved and should be required by law to smoke at least 2 packs a day.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
However smoking is rather popular around the world, in countries with less than free markets as well.
Now these e-Cig are safer than smoking... However they are not treated as a way to step down your smoking addiction. But are marketing the cool new drug for hipsters. So now kids no longer look like walking tail pipes but more like walking nuclear reactors meltdowns with huge amount of vapor puffing out of their face.
Getting them addicted to nicotine. Sure it won't kill you as fast as burning chemical treated plants, but still the drug high is just just putting poison in your system and your body reacting to it.
Sure there are other socially acceptable drugs, like caffeine and I had my morning coffee today, where taking too much can be bad for you. However most of these other like drinking coffee are more natural form of ingestion, ingesting it like food and drink, where the body had additional features to filter out bad stuff (As naturally we would eat stuff that have a lot more nasty chemicals in it, often produced by plants and animals as self defense mechnisms). Vs. breathing it where it more directly goes into our bloodstream, by passing much of the safety filters. So if you drank too much coffee you would would be peeing most of it out.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
How come I've not seen a comparison of vaping risk vs cigs? Why is it when I tell a doctor I quit cigs for vaping they all respond VERY positively?
against the wishes of both the buyers and sellers.
Against the wishes of the sellers? Sure, the sellers would prefer no regulation at all.
Against the wishes of the buyers? Possibly. There are certainly some buyers who bought into the e-cigs in the belief that these were somehow health alternatives to regular cigarettes. However so far there has been no research and no regulation to prove or disprove that. In fact the majority of what is sold is completely free of regulations, inspections, etc. We generally don't know what is actually in the liquids that are going in to these devices, and these liquids often coming from places that don't tend to place any significant regulations on much of anything.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
"Nicotine may be a toxin, but in the amounts in which it's consumed, that's the least concern about the effects upon the body. However, these devices weren't intended to emit other toxic vapors."
True, they weren't intended to emit other toxic vapors. However the concentration of those vapors is an important consideration as well. Most importantly, the concentration when dilluted into the air volume of a room.
After all, your tap water isn't intended to contain arsenic but it most assuredly does and likely contains some concentration of more harmful chemicals than even actual cigerettes.
Luckily only the tobacco companies will be able to produce these devices soon which will solve the problem of intent. The tobacco companies add harmful chemicals to cigerettes intentionally I see no reason they won't do the same here.
All kidding aside, people have been throwing hissy fits over second-hand smoke for years. Why isn't anyone complaining about (and legislating control of) second-hand pot smoke? Or are people too stoned to do anything about it?
As long as you promise to quit driving and telecommute like a sensible person. Why should I have to pay higher premiums because you engage in a known risky activity.
We'll send someone around next week to confiscate your kitchen knives. You should be nuking pre packaged approved meals.
So you're disparaging an organisation that wants to restrict something for both 1) wanting to restrict freedom 2) for not having restricted the same freedoms for two different things in the past?
Thalidomide.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
So you think they should use chewing tobacco instead?
"Your tap water isn't intended to contain arsenic" does not say "your tap water doesn't intend itself to contain arsenic". It's your municipality doing the intending.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Because it's not needed?
Anyone still not knowing that smoking kills you is too stupid to be saved and should be required by law to smoke at least 2 packs a day.
In 2016, lawyers still work for tobacco companies, working hard to defend their company's right to kill thousands of humans every single day by pointing the finger at anything from genetics to shoe size as to the cause of death.
The fact that tobacco is still one of the largest killers of humans worldwide should tell "anyone" why it's still needed.
I had the same with Vioxx. I think they were mostly nailed for knowingly lying to the FDA about the risks of the drug. I now take Meloxicam which works almost as well.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
It's good that research is being done, but it would be nice if they were a bit more complete and helpful with their findings. Simply listing the toxic constituents is meaningless without content. Is 7 micrograms of acetol per puff actually harmful? Tomatoes contain nicotine, Apples contain cyanide. These are toxic chemicals, too. Burning a steak creates all kinds of nasty toxic chemicals too.. the question is are they actually harmful? Secondly, "Shown here are emission rates of seven of the most toxic chemicals from a single-coil e-cigarette operated at 3.8V" is a very useless metric. Is it a 2Ohm coil? 1.5? Sub Ohm? 3.8V will produce vastly different results in each case. I would love to see a study that gives actionable conclusions, such as operating a standard single coil e-cigarette with a 1.2Ohm coil at 3V produces dangerous level of (pick a toxic constituent.)
Most importantly, the concentration when dilluted into the air volume of a room.
That's....not how e-cigarrettes work... At least not until long after. The concentration is much higher than that at the delivery point.
I really hate the fact that these devices are called e-cigarette; you don't have to use an e-juice that contains nicotine.
Are dry herb vaporizers going to be regulated as well?
>Replying to myself: remember, these are the people who approved aspartame
You do realize that the LD50 of aspartame is high enough that you will die of water poisoning (or possibly caffiene poisoning) before you die from aspartame poisoning from drinking Diet Coke.
>by firing the FDA employee who cared about the studies and replacing him with someone who would play ball
Sounds like the FDA did the right thing. Based on its use as a sweetener, it's safer than the water it sweetens.
Here, you can do your own verification:
http://web.uvic.ca/~saroy20/chem361/aspartame.pdf
LD50 Oral - rat - > 10,000 mg/kg
http://static.diabetesselfmanagement.com/pdfs/DSM0310_012.pdf
Diet Coke contains 125 mg per 236 ml (or 530 mg/l)
http://www.newsmax.com/US/average-weight-man-woman-obese/2015/06/15/id/650546/
Average weight of American female: 166 lbs (75 kg)
Aspartame required to reach LD50: 750 grams
Litres of Diet Coke required to cause aspartame based death: 1415 litres. Same sitting.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/water-intoxication-just-how-much-h2o-does-it-take-kill-person-312958
LD50 of water: 6L / 165 lbs (75 kg), or 80 mg/kg.
Death would occur from water intoxication before 0.5% of the required total is consumed.
Maybe if you had read the Constitution you wouldn't be spouting such crap. The power starts in the Preamble:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Then there's Article 1, Section 1:
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
In other words, Congress has been granted the power to pass legislation of any kind, which includes regulating things.
Then there's Section 7:
Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it.
Again, Congress passes legislation and the President approves or vetoes it. This includes regulating things.
Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The general welfare. In other words, the power to use taxes to inform people of the crap their ingesting or smoking to let them make an informed decision. It's also called regulation.
The last sentence of Section 8:
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Can you read and understand what those words mean? Congress has the power to make any law it deems necessary for any department to carry out its duties. That includes regulation.
Want more? I can keep going. There's an entire document I can go through to keep showing how you're ill-informed and just plain wrong.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
"After all, your tap water isn't intended to contain arsenic"
"Anthropomorphizing tap water isn't working for me. "
Huh? I said isn't intended, not doesn't intend. Your ecig was produced by a company, it also is what is is.
"Vaping cannot be anything but toxic"
Sure it can, just as your arsenic containing tap water can. Look at Nicotine itself, it is a "toxin" but at the concentrations contained in e-cigs is completely harmless. Everything is a toxin at a high enough concentration and that is the critical piece of information missing here, they give the total amount contained in a puff (which they've maxed to 5 full seconds and from their device instead of a real one) and failed to disclose the concentration.
I went from smoking 2 packs a day for 10 years to, nothing. Started vaping a couple of years ago, gradually moved the niccottene content lower and lower, and now i dont even vape anymore. The concept that somene just CANNOT quit is plain wrong.
Granted, back then people died from other diseases before the cancer had a chance to get them, so...
Like lead poisoning from newsprint ink? :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
"As clean a smoking experience as possible," from "water-based herbal extracts" no less! The hipster is strong in this one, fuck. First time I've read a comment and winced out of pity for its poster. You're better off not "smoking tobacco" anyway, I'd imagine you've inadvertently set fire to your neckbeard with a Zippo a few times over the years.
Horse crap. There are self regulating bodies in the states and canada that regulate what is done and what is in e juice. They dont want to kill people with shitty e juice.
E juice made by the companies paying into these self regulating bodies all get thier e juice lab tested to proove what they say they put in is true.
Want good e juice ? Dont buy cheap shit.
Did you read the article? That was the point of the article. Standard use of the ecig WILL produce these chemicals. Further, the amount and type of chemcials changes according to things like how much you're using the device, how old the device is and so on.
It's a free country and everyone has the right to off themselves in the most pleasurable way they can. Why do you hate freedom and capitalism?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I am not sure... I know Chewing tobacco is dangerous... However is it more or less dangerous than eCigs?
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
In the area I'm from, it was more liver cirrhosis from too much alcohol. You know what they say, in Winter, you can only code... or drink. And back when my grandpa lived, we didn't have computers, hell, we didn't have electricity. Or shoes. And the snow was THIS high, all the times. Especially in Winter!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Interesting that you would not know that.
Nicotine is not a carcinogen.
Chewing tobacco does cause mouth cancer.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Who isn't complaining? The last concert I went to - even though smoking was prohibited and dope was still illegal - you couldn't go near the floor without getting a nasty cloud of pot smoke. The previous concert was even worse.
Aaaand, nobody who could DO anything about it gave a f***.
Bouncers=no care
Management=no care
So yeah, no concerts for me now that I've got a little one. I don't need her inhaling lungfuls of smoke because nobody cares to enforce the f***ing rules or even the laws.
Tap water isn't meant to be flammable either, but that's what some people have; a Bunsen burner in their kitchen.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
They emit harmful clouds of smug.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
They saying vaping is safe indoors, but this leads me to believe that they are exhaling dangerous chemicals as well.
The chemicals are produced by high heat almost burn type heat. They dont give a temperature range they tested it at. So it really means diddly what they say. Any study that has said it produces carcinogenic toxins have over heated the e juice. Or used cheap shit e juice from china.
in Winter, you can only code... or drink. And back when my grandpa lived, we didn't have computers
Didn't he have Grandma?
So you're disparaging an organisation that wants to restrict something for both 1) wanting to restrict freedom 2) for not having restricted the same freedoms for two different things in the past?
Well, he's right. The commonality here being what the pharmaceutical companies want. If big pharma wants to sell something, the FDA says it's safe. If big pharma wants something off the market, the FDA says it's dangerous and needs regulations so strict it's effectively a ban.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
So you are saying that "cheap shit" is for sale. And presumably the "cheap shit" doesn't have labels saying "this will cause long-term damage, buy our competiter's shit instead".
You are saying that self regulation is not working. In that case, the options seem to be "add non-self regulation" or "force people to make health decisions without giving them useful information about health outcomes". I'm voting for regulation myself, but that's because I'll be paying for these idiots with my health-insurance dollars so I think I have a say.
The body is really good and getting rid of excess water. Aspartame and its constituents, not so much.
Aspartame is broken down into three components in the blood stream: Phenylalanine, Aspartic Acid, and methanol. Phenylalanine enters the brain, and it can build up there. Some people have a reduced capacity for metabolizing Phenylalanine and are at increased risk of harmful side effects (headaches, depression, and schizophrenia). Aspartic Acid is similar to MSG, and also builds up in the blood stream over time. It's considered an excitotoxin and can cause problems in the high amounts than can result from common consumption of soda with aspertame.
Inside the body, methanol breaks into formic acid and formaldehyde. Both of these products are toxic and symptoms of poisoning include headaches and nausea. Methanol poisoning can also result in retinal damage leading to vision problems including blurring and blindness. In addition, formaldehyde is both a neurotoxin and a carcinogen. These severe effects of methanol poisoning were seen in a study of the effects of aspartame on humans.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
The federal government has both the power and duty regulate such devices. If people choose to ignore the evidence that is their right as well. This has nothing to do with free market and everything to do with getting facts out to the people.
Reasonable regulation is one thing, but the FDA's deeming rule nothing of the sort. It's intended to get rid of the e-cig market entirely, with the possible exception of a few static, awful devices sold by the largest big tobacco companies.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Regular cigarettes are super unhealthy. E-cigarettes are just unhealthy. So healthier than regular cigarettes in author's own words. We should encourage as many people as possible to switch.
He had her at least once.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"Quote me where i said any of that.
Nicotine is not a carcinogen itself, but if you already have cancer, it can make it worse by interfering with apoptosis (programmed cell death) and making it less likely that a tumor cell will shut down in response to a signal from a macrophage.
Do you drive ? Better not as more people are hurt and killed in cars than any ecig has hurt someone.
Maybe before shooting your pie hole off you should go and see what the regulators do for the ecig industry. But you wont because it will prove your bullshit wrong and hurt your ego.
Ah, Chewbacco, Chewbacca's older, more surly brother. It's that surliness that made him more dangerous.
I'm dead sure, having tried a few, that those e-cigs at the convenience store are BAD, and maybe worse than plain tobacco. It's easy to cherry-pick data, ain't it - troll.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
Acetaldehyde can cause nausea and headache, and is (partly) what gives you a hangover after drinking. Your liver first oxidizes alcohol to acetaldehyde. then to acetic acid. (Weirdly enough, the brain also converts alcohol into acetaldehyde using a different enzyme.) OTOH if you drink methanol the liver converts it into formaldehyde which is extremely toxic because it denatures proteins.
Acrolein is a common smell near an outdoor barbecue, and also frying pans when the oil reaches its smoke point. In dilute form acrolein doesn't smell too unpleasant, but the vapor from pure liquid acrolein irritates and burns the eyes, skin, and throat, and also triggers coughing, severe shortness of breath, and fluid in the lungs.
Maybe if you had read the Constitution you wouldn't be spouting such crap. The power starts in the Preamble:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
As noted repeatedly by the Supreme Court, the preamble of the Constitution does NOT grant any powers which are not explicitly already mentioned elsewhere in the Constitution. See, for example, Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905): " Although that Preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."
In other words, Congress has been granted the power to pass legislation of any kind, which includes regulating things.
False. And there's nothing in Section 1 which implies that. Instead, Section 8 clearly enumerates the exact powers granted to Congress, while the 10th Amendment makes clear (which the Founders already intended, even without the Bill of Rights) that all others not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution are granted to the states or to the people.
Again, Congress passes legislation and the President approves or vetoes it. This includes regulating things.
I don't see any mention of a plenary power to "regulate" anything, especially not in Section 7, which is just about legislative process. What are you talking about??
Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The general welfare. In other words, the power to use taxes to inform people of the crap their ingesting or smoking to let them make an informed decision. It's also called regulation.
Uh, again, please note that this clause was significantly more restricted in interpretation before 1937 or so. It was generally accepted only as a power to tax, and there was great debate in the 1800s over whether it allowed taxation beyond the enumerated powers or only directly in relation to the enumerated powers. Eventually, it was interpreted more broadly, but still ONLY as an ability to TAX for "general welfare." Hence, for example, in the early 1900s alcohol couldn't be regulated or prohibited generally without a Constitutional amendment. But the federal government nevertheless attempted to tax it in various ways, e.g., the Harrison Act as a proxy for more general regulation. Anyhow, the "general welfare" clause here only relates to taxation (and has always been interpreted as such), not a broad power to regulate generally.
The last sentence of Section 8:
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the go
Its funny that US studies are the only ones coming to these conclusions. Add in the fact that they are using outdated, Chinese models also brings up another boatload of reasons to doubt the study. Everyone I know uses either mechanical or box mods, usually running sub 3.5v. Notice the actual resistance of the coils was never stated? That is something that should have been controlled for. Running 4.5v though a low resistance coil is going to burn the fuck out of the mrtal, wicks, and the juice, bringing the vape into a state that would never be achieved through normal operation.
So wrong. You've rewritten the Constitution in your head to mean the opposite of its intended meaning by the founders.
Madison:
"With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."
Jefferson:
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
Madison again. Full text: http://www.constitution.org/jm...
"To the House of Representatives of the United States:
Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled "An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements," and which sets apart and pledges funds "for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense," I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.
The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation with the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.
"The power to regulate commerce among the several States" can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce without a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.
To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision."
Back to buying shit from the Philippines like I had to back in the day when I wanted a new mod or atty. I just hope they don't regulate the purchase of pure nicotine powder or diluted nicotine liquid so I can at least home brew my juice.
There are two industries in the eCig business. The ones you find at tobacco shops and gas stations, and the ones where you go to a legitimate shop. Every legitimate shop I have gone to only carries known brands that are open about their production practices and gives breakdowns of what is in their juice. This includes how the flavors are extracted, mixture of PG/VG, and any kind of flavoring that may be added. Most of the major brands are made in labs, and are tested to verify that they meet certain standards.
.5-1.5MG/mL. THAT stuff needs to get taken off the shelf. The problem with self regulation is that it doesn't force all the companies to join up.
This study is looking into the stuff you get at tobacco shops and gas stations. The seedy shit. We've had someone roll into a shop I go to with something that said it was 24MG/mL of nic, saying they were craving cigarettes like they had just quit. I dropped a tiny bit on my hand and licked a bit off of it. 24MG/mL should have made my tongue go numb instantly. It did nothing. I vaped a tiny bit of it and it was probably closer to
it doesn't mean that they're healthier. Regular cigarettes are super unhealthy. E-cigarettes are just unhealthy
That's like saying "a millimeter is not longer than a nanometer. A nanometer is super short, and a millimeter is just short".
E-cigarettes can still be healthier than cigarettes, even though they are unhealthy. Cigarettes can be healthier than drinking bleach even though they are unhealthy.
This isn't a political debate. This is how English works.
>Inside the body, methanol breaks into formic acid and formaldehyde
Just like the 100% natural fruit juices it replaces. Except much, much less formaldehyde. So, thank you for proving my point, once again, that it is safer
https://whatdoesthesciencesay.wordpress.com/2010/06/13/aspartame-and-formaldehyde/
>Phenylalanine enters the brain, and it can build up there
Yes, if you have PKU you need to avoid it. You will know if you have this disease. Trust me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenylketonuria
For everyone else, the body has methods of removal.
>Some people have a reduced capacity for metabolizing Phenylalanine and are at increased risk of harmful side effects (headaches, depression, and schizophrenia)
Yes, they have PKU and were diagnosed at birth. If you have PKU, you know you are special and you know that the standard rules don't apply to you. Please don't find odd diseases to support your opinion, lest I prove sugar is deadly even in small quantities because... diabetes.
>Aspartic Acid is similar to MSG, and also builds up in the blood stream over time
Nice job trying to compare it to MSG, another maligned chemical that only causes problems with EXTREME overconsumption. This is getting boring. Feels like talking to the idiots who run the health food stores trying to sell me water as a cure for the flu.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monosodium_glutamate#Safety
>It's considered an excitotoxin and can cause problems in the high amounts than can result from common consumption of soda with aspertame.
You are basing this off the often discredited research from JW Olney, aren't you? He has produced reports on aspartame multiple times that scientists have wasted their time debunking. When it comes to Aspartame, he's proven completely unreliable. Any other proof than this debunked study?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6152304
discredited by
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230002915424
http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/10/1460
At least you're trying to quit. I can respect that. someone else who commented, however, is clearly an unrepentant addict, and seriously butthurt over being called out for it, and projecting like there's no tomorrow; 'imposing my will on others', indeed! All I'm doing is voicing my rather strong opinions on a semi-anonymous 'tech news' site; whoever that is, is 'imposing' their shitty health choices on everyone around them with their second-hand smoke/vapors. Sure, I'll respect someone's 'personal freedoms' -- so long as I don't have to be subjected to the same poisons you're expressing your 'freedom' to put into your body. Then I cry foul, and rightly so.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Do you drive ? Better not as more people are hurt and killed in cars than any e cig has hurt someone.
You are completely correct! Road vehicles are terribly dangerous, and most of us spend hours per week in them. They used to be much more dangerous per road-hour. But then we got:
* Regulations for safety features in vehicles (seat belts, airbags, crumple zones)
* Regulations for road design (traffic control, traffic calming, speed control)
* Regulations for vehicle emissions (many and varied)
* Regulations for driving under the influence of various chemicals
* Regulations for amount of time you can drive per day (for commercial drivers only)
* Regulations for licensing
Plus many more. And now vehicles are much less dangerous than before. The injuries and deaths per road-hour, or road-mile, or any other measure you'd like, are way down. So vehicles prove that regulation can be an effective way of taking a hazardous activity and making it much safer. Thanks for proving my point.
Maybe before shooting your pie hole off you should go and see what the regulators do for the ecig industry
If the choice is between letting an industry make lots of money or keeping people from suffering harm, well, I'm not sure I care about what happens to the industry. Fortunately, that's not the choice. We have many industries which are heavily regulated but make lots of money.
Regulations can be bad, and humans often choose dangerous activities. But bringing up driving means that you have no idea how we make tradeoffs and how regulations work. There is no perfect solution, but there are a lot of terrible solutions.
That's a bonus feature. I'm sure the fracking companies are trying to figure out how to charge for it without admitting liability...
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Back to buying shit from the Philippines like I had to back in the day when I wanted a new mod or atty. I just hope they don't regulate the purchase of pure nicotine powder or diluted nicotine liquid so I can at least home brew my juice.
The FDA has a reputation for raiding shipments from foreign countries that they think might contain regulated products, so you may have difficulty there, unless you have your own channel.
According to the new rule, all adjuncts are being declared "tobacco products". So, while it's likely the nicotine powder will still be available (suppliers are exempt), if you're mixing you become a "manufacturer" of a "tobacco product" and are subject to the regulations (obviously that only for resellers), but since the non-nicotine flavorings are being deemed "tobacco product" because they can "reasonably be expected to be used with tobacco-derived products", those will be regulated. Not sure if even nicotine-free vape juice will be available, but it sounds like probably not.
Some detail on the Tobacco Analysis Blog.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
As I understood it, the juice will still be legal to sell so long as it goes through an FDA approval for each Nic level of the juice, supplied in glass bottles, and is sealed. Besides how much money it would cost for the testing, this is pretty much a non issue, and plenty in the industry say is a good way to knock out the shady suppliers and manufacturers.
Where did it ever say that non-nicotine flavorings are being deemed a tobacco product? Its just a flavor extract in PG or VG... If its true, this is also the exact reason why most people are fighting against the regulations. While some would be good, coming down with an iron fist like this and crippling an industry is just terrible.
On a more humorous note, one of the vape shops said they would just sell their juice as personal flavored lubricants. Just add nic yourself.
Citation?
I don't recall seeing half the fat people in the US getting cancer back then, but I was a kid, and might have missed it. So, where, exactly, did that figure come from? Inquiring minds want to know....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
As I understood it, the juice will still be legal to sell so long as it goes through an FDA approval for each Nic level of the juice, supplied in glass bottles, and is sealed. Besides how much money it would cost for the testing, this is pretty much a non issue, and plenty in the industry say is a good way to knock out the shady suppliers and manufacturers.
Your understanding is either wrong, or informed by what the FDA is saying about it, which any quick analysis proves completely faulty. There is a good analysis of the deeming rule and the requirements that give lie to the idea that it's a "non issue", and instead will put most companies out of business. In fact, the FDA acknowledges that plenty of businesses will fold, but they minimize the numbers. There is a thorough analysis of the rule and its implications over at the Tobacco Analysis blog.
Where did it ever say that non-nicotine flavorings are being deemed a tobacco product?
They don't really give a yes or no answer to this, but most people interpret the rule to say it DOES include those things. For instance, from the FDA:
Emphasis mine. Also note that if it's "vape juice", since all vaporizer devices and components have also been deemed "tobacco products", anything sold to be vapped WILL be deemed a "tobacco product."
Its just a flavor extract in PG or VG... If its true, this is also the exact reason why most people are fighting against the regulations. While some would be good, coming down with an iron fist like this and crippling an industry is just terrible.
Right. I agree.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Your lungs emit toxic vapors. And contribute to global warming too!
Powdered nicotine is already a thing. Its also extremely dangerous and toxic.
Research reports like this on e-cigarettes annoy me. Ordinarily I might suggest that the press releases are making things appear more shocking than the paper, but it seems like the paper writers have also overemphasised the results of this study. This research appears to be a presence/absence experiment, rather than an actual harm experiment. The thought process seems to follow something like the following:
The problem is that studies of this sort aren't actually demonstrating harm. It's like saying that air contains carbon monoxide, so we shouldn't breathe it. In the paper, there are a few weasel words used that encourage thoughts like this:
Chemical analysis of e-liquids and vapors emitted by e-cigarettes led to the identification of several compounds of concern due to their potentially harmful effects on users and passively exposed nonusers... compounds are considered possible or probable carcinogens
The researchers say that they'll do the actual harm testing as an additional step:
The researchers are working on a follow-up study focusing on the health and environmental impacts of e-cigarettes.
Or, in the paper:
These chemical emissions are associated with both cancer and noncancer health impacts that will be quantitatively evaluated in an ensuing paper.
But until that's done (and has meaningful results) it's difficult to make a good case that E-cigarettes are doing the wrong thing and should be avoided.
Ask me about repetitive DNA
Those were the figured being quoted when the FDA laughed at Rumsfeld and his cronies when they tried to get that shit approved... fortunately for them, Carter was on his way out and Reagan's newly-appointed puppets gave that shit the green light.
Interestingly, the American Cancer Society seems to disagree with you about the carcinogenic nature or aspartame. The ACS seems to think there are no proven links between aspartame and any type of cancer.
Now, it's your privilege to decide the American Cancer Society are shills for the soft-drink corps if you want. But it does make you look rather like a dolt....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
These studies suck. What was the coil temp? 3.8v? What was the power level? I'll say this, for most light-use coils, 3.8v will torch the ever living hell out of the fluids, burn the wick, and impart a foul taste so bad you'll throw the coil/wick assembly away if it's a replaceable unit. Example, I have a 0.16 ohm quad-coil unit set to 75w, and it's putting 3.46v through the coil to get that rated power. They've got to be pushing over 450F on the coil, and at that temp, it will burn a cotton wick, rendering the coil useless unless it's rebuildable. These studies are funded by people that have a vested interest in either A) government overreach, B) the tobacco industry itself, or C) the nanny state (but I repeat myself).
None of this is valid. I've run the output of my vaporizer (a Wismec Reuleaux RX200 with a SMOK TFV4 tank) through the local gas spectrometer at the college around here, and damn if there aren't all of five chemicals: water, vegetable glycerin, flavor, menthol, and nicotine. Exactly what's on the label. Surprised? I'm not.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
So, which one of my recurring trolls are you? Well, I've got some time...
"As clean a smoking experience as possible," from "water-based herbal extracts" no less! The hipster is strong in this one, fuck.
Smoking is inherently dirty, but not inherently harmful depending on what you smoke. If you want it to me minimally dirty, which theoretically makes it minimally harmful, then you're going to want to use a water process, which can leave behind only water. This is as opposed to say a butane process, which often leaves behind butane.
The hipster is strong in this one, fuck.
I was a hipster before hipsters were even hip, but you probably hadn't heard of me.
First time I've read a comment and winced out of pity for its poster.
Obligatory you don't read your own comments, eh comment here
You're better off not "smoking tobacco" anyway, I'd imagine you've inadvertently set fire to your neckbeard with a Zippo a few times over the years.
A neckbeard is another thing I had before people were calling people "hipster". And why would I use a Zippo? If they can make your cigar taste like ass, which they can, imagine what they can do to anything else.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
False. A fire hazard is either a controlled fire (on a golf course),
I'd like to see that, but I haven't even seen it in mini-putt.
or it is the potential for uncontrolled fire.
Fair enough, but the point was that a fireplace is not designed to present a fire hazard. It is designed to minimize one.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
My guess is that this is overreach by the FDA though it would have been nice to see the actual amounts of said "chemicals". They mention formaldehyde but, is this formaldehyde at the levels you'd find in say a pear at the grocery store? Most likely this is state of California level of "harmful" and mostly nonsense.
Flamebait? Really? I was legitimately amused by the comment...
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Everything is a toxin at a high enough concentration and that is the critical piece of information missing here, they give the total amount contained in a puff (which they've maxed to 5 full seconds and from their device instead of a real one) and failed to disclose the concentration.
Actually, what is needed is the total amount in a puff, and the total amount in an exhale. Then we'll know the total amount which is actually absorbed into the lungs, from which we should be able to take a good guess as to the amount absorbed into the blood (I imagine that's close to 100% of what's absorbed by the lungs, but what if it's absorbed by foreign matter in the lungs? etc etc) and then make a determination as to the health hazard. The concentration and the amount are both critical pieces of information.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
In fact, that will be your only option after the FDA is finished getting all the e-cigarettes and all their component parts off the market with their regulations.
How are they going to manage that? I can buy a device to unlock your car or rewrite its immo codes straight outta China, probably via Paypal, even though owning such a device is outright illegal if you're not a locksmith, dealer or otherwise providing service. I can buy any gun I want even though I live in California. How is the FDA successfully going to prevent me from buying a vape?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
No one complains about aspartame because they are worried about toxicity so I'm not sure who you are arguing with. The argument against aspartame has always been the studies showing it can be quite carcinogenic.
I'm not a smoker, and I don't vape. I hate being around cigarette smoke.
I still think the anti-vaping hysteria is bullshit.
Is vaping absolutely, totally, 100% safe? Of course not. Neither is dihydrogen monoxide, which (in large quantities) often causes death, is found in all cancer cells, can cause severe burns, and is the primary component of acid rain.
Just take a look at its MSDS! It's all here in black & white -- http://dhmo.org/msdsdhmo.html
(spoiler: dihydrogen monoxide is commonly known by its non-scientific name, "water")
Is vaping several orders of magnitude better than smoking cigarettes? Unquestionably. It doesn't bother me AT ALL when friends vape in my car. If they've been smoking cigarettes, though, I won't even let them get in until 30 seconds after taking their final draw from the cigarette (otherwise, they'll just exhale cigarette smoke into my car).
The real-world alternative to vaping isn't abstinence... it's cigarette-smoking. Unless, of course, we want to extend the disastrous 80+ year miserably-failed social experiment known as "prohibition" to include cigarettes, too.
If the FDA eliminates most currently-available e-cigarette products from American markets, the result won't be smoke-free Americans who don't vape... it'll be more Americans who smoke, plus a lot of Americans buying e-cig juice online by the gallon from China, with literally ZERO regulation and not even IMPLIED guarantees about safety or ingredients.
Is the cigarette industry opposed to e-juice? Not really. It's resisted them the same way all established industries try to fight off disruptive change, but if vaping became the overwhelmingly preferred method for getting nicotine, we'll just have Marlboro-branded $299 vaporizers, with screw-on (branded & visible) tanks of Marlboro e-juice (and lots of parts designed to be proprietary and require frequent replacement). Remember, most non-synthetic nicotine comes from... the same companies that make cigarettes. And at the end of the day, their profit per usage-minute for selling that pure nicotine to the e-cig industry is about the same as their net profit from cigarettes after you factor out the taxes.
IMHO, the REAL source of the panic over e-cigs lies with state governments that have come to depend upon the steady stream of revenue from cigarette taxes. They're doing their best to try and build up a case for taxing e-cig and vaping supplies as much as they currently tax cigarettes.
In fact, that will be your only option after the FDA is finished getting all the e-cigarettes and all their component parts off the market with their regulations.
How are they going to manage that? I can buy a device to unlock your car or rewrite its immo codes straight outta China, probably via Paypal, even though owning such a device is outright illegal if you're not a locksmith, dealer or otherwise providing service. I can buy any gun I want even though I live in California. How is the FDA successfully going to prevent me from buying a vape?
Black markets are difficult to control, you're right. But buying on the black market can be more expensive and more trouble than most people are willing to deal with, and that's what they are counting on. The FDA has certainly been very aggressive dealing with black market online pharmacies that ship to the US, they have seized shipments of contraband at the docks when they suspected someone was importing regulated goods, and they have been seizing shipments of e-cigarettes since 2009.
So, yea, if you're willing to pay the inflated black market prices for the devices and supplies, you'll probably be able to find a way to do so. But wouldn't it be better if they had some reasonable regulations that businesses can actually deal with, rather than send it all underground and encourage people to buy them (with who-knows-what kind of manufacturing and safety issues) from criminals?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
So, yea, if you're willing to pay the inflated black market prices for the devices and supplies, you'll probably be able to find a way to do so.
Except the stuff tends to actually be cheaper on aliexpress than it is in the local shop...
But wouldn't it be better if they had some reasonable regulations that businesses can actually deal with, rather than send it all underground and encourage people to buy them (with who-knows-what kind of manufacturing and safety issues) from criminals?
Yep. And the regulation should be that as long as the device itself has other uses, it should be legal. Even if they ban the juice, you can still do other things with a vape.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Why does it bother you so much that they are self-destructive? You need to take a deeper look at what you're proposing. There's a device that's come along with the potential to reduce the harm associated with nicotine use... and your proposal is to use the power of the state to ban it? I'd ask you if you were more concerned with people's health, or with being a self-righteous asshole, but your attitude tells all.
it's not smoke.
but that's irrelevant compared to my self-righteous rage.
even worse than those vapetard hipster arseholes are those fucking kids breathing out on cold mornings. that shit looks like smoke too and i want to punch the little turds in their tiny fucking faces.
tea & coffee cups are drug delivery devices. ban them too. so are boxes or bags containing chocolates. and cans/bottles of flavoured soda water, with or without caffeine.
ps: i don't think you're in any position to be criticising others for "irrational" behaviour.
The real issue to me is quality control of the device. (Why are the mods so harsh?) Forcing it into the black market would only make things worse. Even now though some of the fumes are coming from the cheap materials the thing is made of. I would be happy with one rule. Make the entire thing out of nice thick stainless, with a quick sure way of killing the power. Making it foldable (again with a robust metal hinge, or by unscrewing it a quarter turn) with the element/vial on one half and the battery/switch on the other might be workable. At least that way I know I'm not breathing somebody's burning plastic, and it can't turn itself on when its packed in the bag or purse and bring down the plane (Lucky that wasn't in checked baggage over the middle of the Atlantic, eh?). Googling exploding vape pens will also bring up plenty of results. I can think of better ways to die. Just basic safety. Is that too much to ask?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
One, they must have been using ancient devices. They are talking about variable voltage settings on the devices. Modern ecigs are set in terms of wattage (they measure resistance and compute the voltage setting). It would be more helpful if they would report on coil temperature directly since that appears to be the actual significant factor. The voltage tells us practically nothing about the actual temperature (that would vary GREATLY based on the coil).
Since most good e-cigs (read, not the ones produced by the tobacco companies or advertised on TV) have temperature control, knowing the temperatures involved would obviously be useful.
Note that while 'cloud chasers' inhale for 5 seconds, others are closer to 3 or less. I observed myself today and found I inhale for about 3 seconds for the first puff (and sometimes the second) after letting it sit for a while and then take a few additional puffs of a bit less than a second each. Sometimes the followup puffs don't reach my lungs at all.
Next, they show that the worst case was 1/4th the level of a cigarette. That certainly sounds safer to me. Nobody I know of has claimed e-cigs to be perfectly safe, just significantly safer than smoking. It is known that many far more potent carcinogens in cigarette smoke are absent from e-cigs.
It would be useful to know the levels emitted by other common activities likely to involve decomposition, such as cooking or exposure to auto exhaust.
No one wants to burn their cotton. Its pretty much vomit inducing. Which is bad when you are trying to cough the foulness out of your lungs at the same time.
Wanna show how many people have been injured or killed by an E cig in the last 10 years ?
Im willing to bet the only ones you will find are people hurt by the cheap shit gas station variety.
Any brand name ecig company have saftey blocks in their e cigs to keep batteries from over heating and exploding. Reputable studies that actualy say how they tested the e juice come back with no harmful toxins.
So, so far to me, if the consumer is smart and looks and buys a brand name e cig and e juice from a reputable company they are pretty safe. On the other side of it, if they try and cheap out then they get what they pay for, just like any other product on the market.
Holy smokes!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Absolutely, I can't argue with that. But the concentration is important information in it's own right a small overall amount of many substances in high concentration can be dangerous while a large amount of dillute substance is sometimes not. I'd absolutely agree that the total in the puff combined with the total in the exhale would provide a complete picture of absorption and be critical information, without the measurement of the exhale it is useless information.
Hopefully the paper has more details but their methodlogy involved constructing their own machine and voltage adjustment is discussed at length. There is a lot of information missing there, these kind of low voltages aren't likely very meaningful or relevant information without the resistance. Also what was the flow rate through the device, did it actually replicate a human breath and airflow in e-cigs.
The suggestion that SOME e-cigs allow for voltage regulation is somewhat disturbing. Only the absolute lowest grade devices lack voltage control, certainly nothing you'd find in a vape shop, and quality devices regulate wattage (important because the device adjusts voltage automatically with varied resistance in the coil) as well as coil temperature regulation. The last especially seems important given their hypothesis that toxins levels correlate with higher coil surface temp.
The fact these gases are lung and eye irritants may well have driven the industry to have already produced devices that solve/minimize this problem simply seeking a more pleasant vaping experience. Hopefully they conduct a useful study actually looking to minimize health risks. I very much doubt these levels amount to anything significant when exhaled and dilluted into the gas volume of an indoor space. Calling nicotine vapor devices "e-cigs" and likening them to cigerettes remains unjustified at this point. There are many things without "cig" in their names that emit far higher levels of known carcinogens into common indoor spaces every day including the kitchen at the restaurant you are eating in.
Heard a commercial on the radio today asking to inform your politicians about local vaping legislation, calling it. "life saving technology".
Yeah, I am pretty sure it is straight up illegal to make that claim.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
They'll find some way to accuse them of stealing the gas in their well. Actually, in many places they could do this. Like here in WV the coal/gas companies own the mineral rights to the majority of the state. That means that the people with wells are technically stealing from the corporations.
With vehicles, most of the damage is now well understood. There is an accident, people die. Some issues took longer before we understood that they were a big problem (car emissions causing smog, greenhouse gasses, and other airborn pollutants; drunk driving claiming lots of lives) but now, after a hundred years of almost every american being in or near vehicles daily, we have a pretty good handle on it.
Consider tobacco. For a very long time, smoking tobacco was considered healthy. Even when studies started to show the terrible effects, corporations and deniers tried to deny the studies. I remember my best friend's dad saying "I'm not a lab rat, how they do testing is totally different than how people smoke, so obviously those studies are wrong." Now we know better.
And now we have e-cigs. We have studies which show, not proof yet, but strong cause for concern. We have a market full off cheap products which you say are dangerous, and expensive products which you say are not dangerous, and no labelling or education to teach consumers to avoid the cheap shit. And we have people saying "how they do testing is totally different than how people vape, so obviously those studies are wrong."
The harm from e-cigs isn't "you use a cheap one and you die". It's "some products, or maybe all products, emit toxins which are then inhaled". With cigarettes, we know that inhaling certain toxins has little immediate effect but extremely large effects over many years. Do the e-cigs cause the same issues? We're not sure, but it's not exactly rocket science to say "maybe we should study this and put some regulations in sooner rather than waiting until a few generations have damaged their lungs."
I do like your "Reputable studies that actualy say how they tested the e juice come back with no harmful toxins." Do you remember the reputable studies that tobacco companies did which showed no harmful effects? I don't know if the e-cig companies are lying or not; I don't know if they are fooling themselves or not. But I do know that I don't trust companies to regulate themselves; I've seen how that works out.
With the exception of snus (real snus, not the stuff being passed off as snus in the U.S.), oral tobacco is known to be a significant cancer risk.
http://blog.thedripclub.com/no...
That's...not how anything works. We have this thing called the law of conservation of energy and mass.
Take a puff on an e-cig, release, watch it rapidly expand into the air as it disperses. As it expands the concentration diminishes and the ppm in a cubic centimeter of air diminishes, since this is expanding in three dimensions it does so at an exponential rate. Even the inhaled puff is mostly atmosphere drawn in through the air intake vents on a vaporizer.
The ambient air concentration could increase in a tiny unventilated space but in order to achieve a concentration higher than at the source it would need to be restricted to the point where oxygen would be depleted and CO2 would be increasing more rapidly.
The point is, it's not dispersed into the entire volume of the room instantaneously. Especially not for the person directly using the device.
If talking about a single puff, for the person directly using the device it is dispersed into the volume of their lungs. For a third party it is, all else being equal, the volume of the space which encompasses both parties spreading equally in all directions. This of course is only the maximum concentration, in normal travel, for a brief window before the vapor further disperses. Air currents do of course change things.
Obviously the concentration will be higher if the vapor is blown in your face but given the amounts of any substance we are talking about here even the dispersion in that case combined with the amount you actually inhale mixed with atmosphere and volume of your own lungs has a huge diminishing impact on the concentration. There is nothing here to compare with the combustion output the restaurant kitchen adds to atmosphere in a restaurant for example.
I like how I got modded down for telling my own personal experience with e-ciggs.
Do people now have to provide a note from their doctor to be believed on the internet? I get that trolls are a problem, but it's insulting that a slashdot user for more than 10 years gets meta-moderated down for a comment involving personal experience.
Hell I even have to wonder now if those doing the moderating aren't socks suppressing information that is inconvenient to them. I haven't done studies, or research, nor do I know anything about eciggs other than what I stated: I tried one for a few months and yes, my lungs hurt and I coughed blood.
I had the same problem when I tried switching to smoking a pipe (not the blood, but it did make my chest hurt more). Am I now anti pipe for stating that experience?
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so