Many? Try 2 so far. That would be diacetyl and a related flavoring. Both are butter flavoring (not popcorn). Most vendors (read, not Chinese) got rid of it fast or sharply reduced the amount used. Years before OSHA reacted BTW. Note that one consumer was affected due to his extreme love of microwave popcorn (another case where it is heated to the point that it vaporizes). I haven't heard of any vapers affected.
The part that wasn't blared over the media in 40 foot tall letters is that cigarettes give you 18 times the amount found in the most risky ecig flavors, so it still represents a substantially reduced risk vs. cigarettes. Cigarettes contain 600 times the amount found in the most risky flavors after the warning went out. All of those are lower level exposures compared to what the popcorn workers got.
It does go to show that nothing is absolutely without risk. It was a surprise to everyone involved including the regulators. However, the e-cig industry was the fastest responder to the bad news even though it was entirely unregulated. The next fastest was a food flavorings manufacturer's association.
One of the companies (Purple) does appear to be making much less of a good faith effort than the others, but even they are doing better than my hypothetical Bubba and Cletus.
The problem with pre-emptive regulations that look reasonable is that you never get to find out which (if any) of those regulations are actually helpful vs. just being a drag on the economy. There are some that are sufficiently obvious or sufficiently inexpensive to implement that the risk is worth it, of course.
I'm not one of those people who never met a regulation he liked, but I do strongly believe in regulations being evidence based and issued promptly. In the absence of prompt regulatory guidance, I am willing to give anyone making a good-faith effort at safety the benefit of the doubt rather than insisting they float in limbo indefinitely.
A few high rollers dumping their profits into a summer yacht from another country (especially since any further transactions won't take place within our economy) isn't likely to counterbalance 99% (or more) of the population cutting back due to worsening finances.
The data is highly suspect given the poor quality control. This is a very common problem with research into "nicotine" There are thousands of studies purporting to find harm from nicotine that upon careful reading turn out to be about consuming nicotine by smoking cigarettes. It's not uncommon for that important bit of information to be buried in a footnote! How much credence would you give to a report claiming harm from consumption of bananas when it turns out that they mean smoking bananas, cyanide injected bananas, or being drowned in banana pudding? How much credence would you give to a report that presumes bananas have been proven deadly based on such a report?
Personally, I would say the former is evidence of a hidden agenda and the latter indicative of sloppy research at best. Neither inspires confidence. Though, as I said, I don't think pregnant women should vape.
In any event, the study confined itself to fetal harm. There are a wide variety of substances that are perfectly safe for adults and even children that are harmful to a fetus.
There are no pregnant women in my home. If there were, I would go outside to vape. If you are concerned about the minute amount of nicotine emitted by me in my own yard, you will definitely want to see all fossil fuels banned immediately as well as all neonicotinoid pesticides. Also, perfumes and air fresheners. You'll want to consider warning labels on tomatoes. If you're concerned about your neighbor vaping in his yard, you'll definitely want to avoid tomatoes.
As for your link, read carefully and see how much of their data on "nicotine exposure" is actually data on smoking. I still wouldn't recommend that pregnant women vape unless the alternative is smoking.
Millions of people have been vaping for years, that's a pretty good safety study. The PG used in e-juice has been used in theatrical fog machines for years. Hospitals are considering installing atomizers to take advantage of it's antiseptic properties.
Do you *REALLY* want to risk driving millions back to smoking cigarettes? It would represent the biggest setback in the history of the effort to reduce smoking. As for kids, I agree that they shouldn't be vaping, but given the choice between smoking or vaping, which would you rather see? (NOTE, it's been illegal to sell cigarettes to minors for decades, it hasn't stopped them)
No, nicotine has never been shown to cause cancer. If you actually read the reports that say otherwise, you'll invariably find them talking about nicotine consumed by smoking or chewing tobacco directly. NOT studies where purified nicotine was consumed.
The industry has been entirely unregulated for years. In spite of that, there have been very few incidents and none of them because of bad ejuice vendors. The reputable vendors have never been willing to sell to minors. There have been a very few potentially dangerous designs that have been fixed through customer feedback and voluntary recalls.
Even the Chinese e-juice has proven reasonably safe.
The ecigs teens have gotten their hands on have been mostly the couple of brands sold in gas stations (made by (drumroll please) R.J. Reynolds) or bought using their parent's credit cards (where the itemized charges make it fairly clear what was bought if the parents are paying any attention at all).
I'm not saying no regulation is in order, but requiring each individual item to go through a byzantine pre-martket approval that costs about a million dollars a pop is a tremendous overreach. As long as the vendors stick to already safety regulated ingredients (the U.S. ones do), that's most of the ground already covered.
Because it didn't end up in the hands of the 99% of the population who (collectively) do most of the spending. Prices on non-essential goods cannot rise if most of the population would be priced out of the market.
The total number of assembly line workers is a spit in the ocean compared to the number of drivers out there. Given the current state of the art, it isn't at all unreasonable to think automated vehicles will actually be a thing.
Keep in mind as well, Flint Michigan used to be a decent place to live. Do you want that sort of "adjustment" where you live?
It's the recording it for all of your friends to see that is alleged to be contributory enough to attach liability. That is what the speed filter is explicitly for.
The flavorings are already food grade and are made primarily as food additives. That should cover the whole cyanide thing. Plenty of food, BTW is imported from China and the FDA hasn't seen fit to get involved there.
The nicotine I buy comes from the U.S. and includes the analysis sheet for the batch.
Meanwhile, god only knows what's in an air freshener, even the ones that are misted into the air.
According to the FDA, they want to regulate the BATTERIES as well. The batteries in question are industry standard LiIon cells like you find in laptop batteries, RC cars, and some flashlights. That will prove interesting. It tells me that the FDA hasn't bothered to think this through.
Then definitely don't buy it. But I can tell you they aren't making "bathtub ejuice". The only business I've heard of that was alleged to be doing that is long gone.
I vape in my living room. I assure you, it is not a public space. How do you justify regulating something I use in my own home? Something, BTW that has never been shown to be harmful.
And as for addictive, nicotine without the MAOIs found in cigarettes is a lot less addictive (closer to caffeine). Did you know that just walking past a coffee pot exposes you to a tiny amount of a mildly addictive substance?
It's a bit of a desperation play by an injured plaintiff who may now have no real hope of a decent living otherwise. Improve the safety net and you'll see a lot less such desperation plays.
Slashdot Mirror
Many? Try 2 so far. That would be diacetyl and a related flavoring. Both are butter flavoring (not popcorn). Most vendors (read, not Chinese) got rid of it fast or sharply reduced the amount used. Years before OSHA reacted BTW. Note that one consumer was affected due to his extreme love of microwave popcorn (another case where it is heated to the point that it vaporizes). I haven't heard of any vapers affected.
The part that wasn't blared over the media in 40 foot tall letters is that cigarettes give you 18 times the amount found in the most risky ecig flavors, so it still represents a substantially reduced risk vs. cigarettes. Cigarettes contain 600 times the amount found in the most risky flavors after the warning went out. All of those are lower level exposures compared to what the popcorn workers got.
It does go to show that nothing is absolutely without risk. It was a surprise to everyone involved including the regulators. However, the e-cig industry was the fastest responder to the bad news even though it was entirely unregulated. The next fastest was a food flavorings manufacturer's association.
You may find these references interesting: Popcorn Lung Coming to Your Kitchen? The FDA Doesn’t Want to Know, New Study Finds that Average Diacetyl Exposure from Vaping is 750 Times Lower than from Smoking, Media Bias Exposed: ‘Popcorn Lung’ Chemical 750 Times Greater In Tobacco Vs. E-Cigarettes
I'm well aware that you didn't. Perhaps you should re-read what I have been writing and see how it fits together.
One of the companies (Purple) does appear to be making much less of a good faith effort than the others, but even they are doing better than my hypothetical Bubba and Cletus.
The problem with pre-emptive regulations that look reasonable is that you never get to find out which (if any) of those regulations are actually helpful vs. just being a drag on the economy. There are some that are sufficiently obvious or sufficiently inexpensive to implement that the risk is worth it, of course.
I'm not one of those people who never met a regulation he liked, but I do strongly believe in regulations being evidence based and issued promptly. In the absence of prompt regulatory guidance, I am willing to give anyone making a good-faith effort at safety the benefit of the doubt rather than insisting they float in limbo indefinitely.
A few high rollers dumping their profits into a summer yacht from another country (especially since any further transactions won't take place within our economy) isn't likely to counterbalance 99% (or more) of the population cutting back due to worsening finances.
The data is highly suspect given the poor quality control. This is a very common problem with research into "nicotine" There are thousands of studies purporting to find harm from nicotine that upon careful reading turn out to be about consuming nicotine by smoking cigarettes. It's not uncommon for that important bit of information to be buried in a footnote! How much credence would you give to a report claiming harm from consumption of bananas when it turns out that they mean smoking bananas, cyanide injected bananas, or being drowned in banana pudding? How much credence would you give to a report that presumes bananas have been proven deadly based on such a report?
Personally, I would say the former is evidence of a hidden agenda and the latter indicative of sloppy research at best. Neither inspires confidence. Though, as I said, I don't think pregnant women should vape.
In any event, the study confined itself to fetal harm. There are a wide variety of substances that are perfectly safe for adults and even children that are harmful to a fetus.
There are no pregnant women in my home. If there were, I would go outside to vape. If you are concerned about the minute amount of nicotine emitted by me in my own yard, you will definitely want to see all fossil fuels banned immediately as well as all neonicotinoid pesticides. Also, perfumes and air fresheners. You'll want to consider warning labels on tomatoes. If you're concerned about your neighbor vaping in his yard, you'll definitely want to avoid tomatoes.
As for your link, read carefully and see how much of their data on "nicotine exposure" is actually data on smoking. I still wouldn't recommend that pregnant women vape unless the alternative is smoking.
Millions of people have been vaping for years, that's a pretty good safety study. The PG used in e-juice has been used in theatrical fog machines for years. Hospitals are considering installing atomizers to take advantage of it's antiseptic properties.
Do you *REALLY* want to risk driving millions back to smoking cigarettes? It would represent the biggest setback in the history of the effort to reduce smoking. As for kids, I agree that they shouldn't be vaping, but given the choice between smoking or vaping, which would you rather see? (NOTE, it's been illegal to sell cigarettes to minors for decades, it hasn't stopped them)
All of the methods I listed accomplish that.
Nor is that the main attraction for nicotine. People also don't say "I think I will start using nicotine so I can be addicted".
I'm going to need a citation on that one. Nothing reduces transactions faster than not having enough money to transact with.
No, nicotine has never been shown to cause cancer. If you actually read the reports that say otherwise, you'll invariably find them talking about nicotine consumed by smoking or chewing tobacco directly. NOT studies where purified nicotine was consumed.
That's just a roundabout way to say people can't afford stuff.
It is why inflation has been limited.
The industry has been entirely unregulated for years. In spite of that, there have been very few incidents and none of them because of bad ejuice vendors. The reputable vendors have never been willing to sell to minors. There have been a very few potentially dangerous designs that have been fixed through customer feedback and voluntary recalls.
Even the Chinese e-juice has proven reasonably safe.
The ecigs teens have gotten their hands on have been mostly the couple of brands sold in gas stations (made by (drumroll please) R.J. Reynolds) or bought using their parent's credit cards (where the itemized charges make it fairly clear what was bought if the parents are paying any attention at all).
I'm not saying no regulation is in order, but requiring each individual item to go through a byzantine pre-martket approval that costs about a million dollars a pop is a tremendous overreach. As long as the vendors stick to already safety regulated ingredients (the U.S. ones do), that's most of the ground already covered.
At least in that case, only the individual id10t cooks.
Because it didn't end up in the hands of the 99% of the population who (collectively) do most of the spending. Prices on non-essential goods cannot rise if most of the population would be priced out of the market.
The total number of assembly line workers is a spit in the ocean compared to the number of drivers out there. Given the current state of the art, it isn't at all unreasonable to think automated vehicles will actually be a thing.
Keep in mind as well, Flint Michigan used to be a decent place to live. Do you want that sort of "adjustment" where you live?
It's the recording it for all of your friends to see that is alleged to be contributory enough to attach liability. That is what the speed filter is explicitly for.
So you're out to get Folger's?
The flavorings are already food grade and are made primarily as food additives. That should cover the whole cyanide thing. Plenty of food, BTW is imported from China and the FDA hasn't seen fit to get involved there.
The nicotine I buy comes from the U.S. and includes the analysis sheet for the batch.
Meanwhile, god only knows what's in an air freshener, even the ones that are misted into the air.
According to the FDA, they want to regulate the BATTERIES as well. The batteries in question are industry standard LiIon cells like you find in laptop batteries, RC cars, and some flashlights. That will prove interesting. It tells me that the FDA hasn't bothered to think this through.
Then definitely don't buy it. But I can tell you they aren't making "bathtub ejuice". The only business I've heard of that was alleged to be doing that is long gone.
I vape in my living room. I assure you, it is not a public space. How do you justify regulating something I use in my own home? Something, BTW that has never been shown to be harmful.
And as for addictive, nicotine without the MAOIs found in cigarettes is a lot less addictive (closer to caffeine). Did you know that just walking past a coffee pot exposes you to a tiny amount of a mildly addictive substance?
Does it matter that much if the passenger yelling "Faster, FASTER! Almost there" does the snapping?
It's a bit of a desperation play by an injured plaintiff who may now have no real hope of a decent living otherwise. Improve the safety net and you'll see a lot less such desperation plays.