E-Cigarettes Emit Toxic Vapors, Says Study (upi.com) 312
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.
Always question a study... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
With the advent of temperature controll in ecigs the temperature does not get anywhere close to burning the PG.
That's nice, but most of them out there don't have temperature control. That costs substantially more. And we've all seen people exhale big clouds of vapor, right?
Re: (Score:2)
And we've all seen people exhale big clouds of vapor, right?
People do that all the time when it's cold, warm breath + cold air = water vapor. Does that on it's own mean something's bad? Are you instantly aware the composition and conditions of a vapor on sight?
Re:Always question a study... (Score:5, Informative)
There are good points all around this discussion, and a lack of organization. Let's try to clear this up a bit.
Different e-cigarette juices contain different carriers. Some specifically exclude chemicals which produce formaldehyde or, particularly, acetaldehyde, largely because acetaldehyde is known to cause popcorn lung in chronic, high exposure. Most high-quality formulations list their contents in full; and the content of lower-quality formulations is often known, but not readily-listed. High-quality formulations often don't contain chemicals producing acetaldehyde, and use propylene glycol as a carrier; lower-quality formulations also often omit those compounds, but frequently do not.
Different e-cigarettes have different temperatures and control mechanisms as well. They may prevent overheating, or they may reach high temperatures, or they may be designed for brief activation intervals with no temperature controls. Fast-reaction circuits necessarily draw high current, and will overheat without temperature management; thus cheap, fast-reaction circuits intended for brief activation will most often overheat and cause reactions, converting benign substances such as propylene glycol into dangerous substances such as formaldehyde.
Finally, gaseous vapors produce visual distortion when diluted. If you suck in 2cc of suspended smoke or vaporized PPG and then blow it out into the air, it will expand to a liter or more and demonstrate itself as a gray cloud. The real measures are temperature and mass of substance; the substance changes its standard volume at pressure and becomes diluted when diffusing through atmosphere, and so these are poor measurements.
Thus it is wholly-possible to engineer a substantially-safe e-cigarette, if examining specific concerns of e-cigarettes (conversion of chemicals to dangerous chemicals; high-temperature vapor irritating the throat and lungs; basic chemical content). This requires engineering of the compound itself and the delivery device.
Re: (Score:2)
Thus it is wholly-possible to engineer a substantially-safe e-cigarette, if examining specific concerns of e-cigarettes (conversion of chemicals to dangerous chemicals; high-temperature vapor irritating the throat and lungs; basic chemical content). This requires engineering of the compound itself and the delivery device.
Are all (or even most) compounds and delivery devices made this way? If not, then it sounds like the solution is to regulate the industry to only permit safe(r) products, along with studies so that safe(r) is based on the best known facts at any given time.
Will the free market solve this without regulation? Without labels and education, consumers don't even have the option of making an informed choice. Without something compelling accuracy in the labels, producers will put inaccurate labels on their prod
Re: (Score:3)
If not, then it sounds like the solution is to regulate the industry to only permit safe(r) products, along with studies so that safe(r) is based on the best known facts at any given time.
There are good and bad forms of regulation; it's not a matter of more or less. Regulation goes out of date, either becoming inadequate or hindering beneficial actions.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, TC is spreading like wildfire, including the low cost devices. Ironically, the FDA regs will put a stop to new safer designs.
Re: (Score:2)
With the advent of temperature controll in ecigs the temperature does not get anywhere close to burning the PG.
That's nice, but most of them out there don't have temperature control. That costs substantially more. And we've all seen people exhale big clouds of vapor, right?
Yeah I have to believe that those big clouds coming out of them can effectively create a 'second hand vape' effect. Not something I'd want around my kid.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Not a smart idea to base your argument on the assumption that these laboratories are putting the ejuice through some 'extreme' conditions. The fact of the matter is that the tobacco companies just put these devices on the market with no scientific testing, but with the subtle marketing campaign that they were 'safer'. Now that the science is coming in, we're discovering that these devices are not as harmless as the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Always question a study... (Score:2)
Since they dont give the operating temp or what they are using in the article. Any article that has claimed toxins in the vapour have A) used cheap shit e juice made in china. Or B) over heated and burned the e juice.
Re: Always question a study... (Score:2)
PG carries flavour better than VG, it is also much thinner and wicks better. PG does not give off as much vapour as VG.
What you see coming out is the vapor from the pg/vg mix not the flavour and nic addatives. Look up Cloud chasing they use 100% VG with no nic or flavouring and make massive clouds.
Re: Always question a study... (Score:2)
There was one i remember they heated the e liquid to almost 600c (im ammazed it didnt burst into flames) and said there were carcinogen compounds in the smoke. Duh.. you frigging burnt the e juice.
'Carcinogenic compounds'. (Score:5, Informative)
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... [lbl.gov]
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Also
Not that I'm an advocate for smoking (full disclosure: I quit cigarettes 4+ years ago and I don't vape), but would that not by definition mean that they're healthier, or does "super unhealthy" not mean less healthy than just "unhealthy"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
Weelll. The evidence for butter being actually bad for you is surprisingly thin.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... [nih.gov] - for example.
Is a systematic review of the literature that concludes:
"This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests relatively small or neutral overall associations of butter with mortality, CVD, and diabetes. These findings do not support a need for major emphasis in dietary guidelines on either increasing or decreasing butter consumption, in comparison to other better established dietary
Re:'Carcinogenic compounds'. (Score:5, Informative)
there is nothing healthy about butter
FALSE
Butter is rich in fat-soluble vitamins
Butter contains short and medium chain fats, which are the healthy fats
Butter is an excellent source of the 4-carbon fatty acid butyrate
Dutch researchers found that raw butter fat protects against calcification of the joints — degenerative arthritis — as well as hardening of the arteries, cataracts and calcification of the pineal gland
The list goes on. There's plenty healthy about butter, so long as it's in moderation...
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus, thank you, someone did some maths. I feel like there's a slew of upstart researchers out there who are trying to make a name for themselves by publishing papers to the effect of "omg! looks at the bad things we found in ecigs" with no regard to whether the concentrations are actually dangerous.
Guess what, kiddos, there's LEAD in every glass of water that comes out of the tap! LEAD!
If a cigarette doesn't "smoke", is it harmful? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
With a nick like this I have to ask: Pissed that they banned public drinking but public smoking is still ok?
Re:If a cigarette doesn't "smoke", is it harmful? (Score:4, Interesting)
With a nick like this I have to ask: Pissed that they banned public drinking but public smoking is still ok?
Nick was inspired by one of my favorite Jackie Chan flicks, not two of my pastimes rolled into one.
Strawman: I'm not advocating for a ban on e-cigs in public. I only ask e-cig users not to vape in places where smoking is banned.
False equivalence: If the mere act of drinking was harmful to others, then it would be equivalent and I'd certainly have no basis to oppose bans in restaurants and airplanes. (I'm indifferent that public drinking is not allowed in most places.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problems with smoking in public are that the smoke is irritating (dangerous to athsmatics and other compromised respiratory systems; unpleasant-smelling), that it does property damage (it leaves a tar on things it contacts, and puts a lingering smell in the air eventually), and that it's a fire hazard.
Second-hand cigarette smoke has not reliably been shown to increase cancer risk or cause respiratory damage to healthy individuals even when those individuals are children raised in smoker households.
Re:If a cigarette doesn't "smoke", is it harmful? (Score:4, Informative)
Second-hand cigarette smoke has not reliably been shown to increase cancer risk or cause respiratory damage to healthy individuals even when those individuals are children raised in smoker households.
I'm no scientist, but whenlots of scientists say something sciencey, and statisticians back them up [politifact.com], I tend to believe it, even if it's something I wish were untrue. You may make different choices. (I picked that link because I've been using Politifact a lot the last few months and while I sometimes disagree with their results I like that they explain their process and carefully list their sources.)
The secondhand smoke numbers are not as solid as, say, measurements of gravity; it's a very hard thing to measure directly, so the studies are mostly doing indirect statistical analyses. So it's always possible that there is another factor there that we are overlooking. But the vast preponderance of evidence points one way, and it's not the way you say it does.
Re:If a cigarette doesn't "smoke", is it harmful? (Score:4, Interesting)
Counterpoint [oxfordjournals.org]. This is only the largest study; there are a lot of less-interesting studies that try to reproduce a lot of studies which, as you pointed out, do exist and do show a lot of good data that second-hand smoke causes health issues. My problem is with this:
the vast preponderance of evidence points one way, and it's not the way you say it does.
There *is* a vast preponderance of evidence pointing one way, in the same way that there's a vast preponderance of evidence that video games make kids into murderers or that homosexuality can be cured by therapy akin to torture. There's also a significant failure rate in reproducing those same studies; a full examination of the evidence shows only weak statistical linkage, if any.
I actually rewrote that claim multiple times before posting. It would be incorrect to say that second-hand cigarette smoke has been shown *not* to cause any health effects, in spite of the rather large and statistically-sound study released recently; it has *not* *reliably* been shown to cause any health effects. There is no overwhelming body of evidence; there is a lot of difficult analysis that's hard to control for, and a lot of outcomes that don't reproduce well. The level of certainty is about even with chance.
There is also a lot of evidence that high-carbohydrate diets (above 40% of calories) cause arterial build-up, and high-fat diets do not. The original consensus is based on flawed statistics, and current studies don't yet reconcile a concrete position.
There is also emerging literature suggesting AHA-recommended levels of sodium cause heart attacks. Below 1350mg/day will likely cause your heart to stop (too much potassium will do this, too); while high levels of sodium (up to 6,000mg/day) have no detrimental effect after about 3 days. Your kidneys release hormones to restore homeostatic balance and pump all that sodium out of your blood, but it takes a few days and you have high blood pressure until then. Keeping people on diets long-term is hard, and flaky; modern research looks at high-sodium-intake societies and compares heart attack rates with low-sodium-intake societies, which has its own problems.
The thing is we have cancer groups, the USDA, CDC, and AHA ignoring new literature and doubling-down on old literature. We also have economists contradicting the BLS on things like minimum wage. Every large organization takes a position and uses evidence to back it up; the whole of evidence necessarily outpaces them, because shifting your position as a large entity requires a much stronger degree of certainty than doing it as a small entity.
Re: (Score:3)
Just because it doesn't create smoke like a conventional cigarette doesn't mean that the vapors and your exhalations aren't harmful.
Fun fact, human exhalations contain carbon dioxide which contributes to global warming and is poisonous in high concentrations.
Maybe you could be a little more considerate of the rest of us and stop breathing?
Re: (Score:2)
Well aren't you just a delicate little snowflake...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, it disperses much quicker and is devoid of particulates. Do you get choked up at concerts or parties where they use a fog machine?
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently, you have an allergy to PG. There will be a number of foods and drinks you will want to avoid.
If it makes you feel better, by the time a vaper exhales, they have absorbed a significant portion of the nicotine the vape contained.
Re: (Score:3)
ecig vapor does not smell like nicotine.
even high nicotine ejuice is what, 12mg/ml?
that is in the liquid phase, in the bottle. when it aerosolizes, the nicotine is radically diluted as it is drawn into the vaper's lungs (a sigificant component of the vapor is air drawn through the pipe.). some nontrivial amount then sticks to the walls of the lungs. The now less nicotine laden vapor is exhaled, and dilutes even more.
that 12mg\ml is now less than 1 microgram per cubic meter. nicotine does not have a strong o
Sigh, this again (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Yea, the taste is sort of like lighting the wrong end of a cig (anyone who has ever smoked for a while has done that at least once or twice). Its horrible and nasty, and you're definitely not going to just keep puffing on it like the lab machine is.
Nice on quitting, I myself am down to 0 for the last few months and about to quit. I never thought I would quit smoking (15 years), vaping really did help me kick the habit (quit smoking 2 years ago for vaping). I think vaping helps re-wire your brain from wantin
Re:Sigh, this again (Score:4, Interesting)
It's really interesting how vaping is different from cigs in terms of addiction. I switched from cigs to 12mg vaping and that was fine for a while.. but then, oddly, I found I could no longer handle 12mg! I couldn't understand it, I would walk to work, puffing along the way like I always do, and then find I was having trouble swallowing, terribly anxious amongst other symptoms. Looked up "nicotine overdose" and bingo. Switched to 6mg and now down to 3. Every attempt I made to "cut down" with cigs failed miserably. Somehow vaping gives you a glide path away from the addiction.
Re:Sigh, this again (Score:4, Informative)
The problem with the gum and patches is that they don't really cover the physical/tactile aspect of smoking.
The real acid test is having a few beers and see if you crave a smoke. With gum and patches....no way, and I think most people that smoke can tell you that. Vaping on the other hand lets you follow through the motions if you feel the urge. Honestly after 2 years, I can walk through a cloud of cigarette smoke and not even be phased (to either smoke or vape), its really pretty awesome if you had a hard time quitting.
Re: (Score:2)
Hitler kicked one million dogs (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
I too think e-cigarettes are an annoying and asinine way for people to keep doing something they know they shouldn't.
This is where the magic is.
You probably "shouldn't" do something if it is extremely harmful to you, although even then there are some cases where it doesn't matter (ie, a patient with late-stage terminal brain cancer can do most everything, including smoking, since smoking isn't what's going to end their life).
If smoking tobacco cigarettes has a harm score of 95 on a scale of 1-100 and vaping has a harm score of 10 on the same scale, does vaping still count as "something I know I shouldn't do"? What's the
Concert Venues? (Score:5, Informative)
Pill, patch, or anti-drug drug? (Score:3)
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.
And in other news: Water is wet (Score:4)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, doesn't the old smoking ban apply to pot? Surly, the culture has changed enough that people are not being allowed to smoke that stuff indoors?
More Data would be nice (Score:2)
What if you don't use nicotine? (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
The study isn't about nicotine, but about the carrier chemicals. So assuming that the e-juice base is the same, then I'd say yes.
Everyone can quit even long time smokers (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
But what about second hand (Score:2)
It does mean they are healthier (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
> Regular cigarettes are super unhealthy. E-cigarettes are just unhealthy
Since vaping is still a relatively new phenomenon, and as far as I can tell there is no regulation over quality or healthiness of liquids on sale, so It wouldn't surpise me if after a few studies get done, they show that vaping is as at least as bad if not worse than tobacco (for the user).
As a non-smoker I do prefer vapers over cig smokers though, since there isn't any disgusting ash/ashtrays/butt-litter everywhere or apparently a
Your lungs... (Score:3)
Yet Another Study in Mental Acrobatics (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's a feature (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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...
Re: (Score:3)
Granted, back then people died from other diseases before the cancer had a chance to get them, so...
Like lead poisoning from newsprint ink? :)
Re: (Score:3)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
in Winter, you can only code... or drink. And back when my grandpa lived, we didn't have computers
Didn't he have Grandma?
Re:It's a feature (Score:5, Funny)
He had her at least once.
Re: (Score:2)
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 co
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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
Re: (Score:3)
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 [theclarkfirmtexas.com], and they have been seizing shipments of e-cigarettes since 2009 [stevevape.com].
So, yea, if you're w
Re: (Score:2)
They emit harmful clouds of smug.
Re:It's a feature (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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 treat
Re: (Score:2)
So you think they should use chewing tobacco instead?
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure... I know Chewing tobacco is dangerous... However is it more or less dangerous than eCigs?
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting that you would not know that.
Nicotine is not a carcinogen.
Chewing tobacco does cause mouth cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: So in other words... (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 d
Re: So in other words... (Score:2)
Quote me where i said any of that.
Re: So in other words... (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: So in other words... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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) a
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 m
Re: (Score:3)
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, a
Re: (Score:3)
Thalidomide.
Re:So in other words... (Score:5, Informative)
>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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:So in other words... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)