Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 65

Thread: Smoking is restricted. Should "vaping" or e-cigarette use have the same restrictions?

  1. #31 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    land-locked in Ocala,FL
    Posts
    27,321
    Thanks
    30,862
    Thanked 16,758 Times in 11,557 Posts
    Groans
    1,063
    Groaned 889 Times in 847 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sear View Post
    I deduce you're asserting there's no 2nd hand nicotine.

    That might be nice, if it were true.

    BUT !!

    For it to be not true, it would have to be:

    a) That the drug transfer ratio is 100%. That's extremely unlikely. The subject inhales vapor, and then exhales vapor. Your claim is that 100% of the nicotine penetrates & is fully retained by the initial vaper (or that somehow nicotine becomes neutralized in that narrow time window).

    b) Perhaps not fatal. But the law doesn't limit protections to only that which is fatal. Loud music at 4:AM isn't fatal either. But police still respond to noise complaints, to "turn it down".

    MM #26

    I'm w/ you on this one MM.
    BUT !!

    Even if not, the contents of the vaper's exhale is visible. So it can't be nothing. Some people may not mind. Others might. But it's not my job as a citizen to find a place to stand that isn't downwind of fumes, lethal or not.
    I'm trying to be reasonable here. With all the full strength crappola that is in the air that we directly inhale, whatever minuscule particles of non-harmful nic would come wafting one's way is nothing. You'd get more direct nic from ingesting eggplant (fact) than from whatever is left from an exhaled vapor.
    Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
    empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
    pain in abortion.

    Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
    which has begun. To abort life is to end it.



  2. #32 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    land-locked in Ocala,FL
    Posts
    27,321
    Thanks
    30,862
    Thanked 16,758 Times in 11,557 Posts
    Groans
    1,063
    Groaned 889 Times in 847 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sailor View Post
    I do not allow smoking on any of my vessels unless on deck. That being said some years back some crew asked about vaping. At first I said no until I understood it better. Now a few of the crew vape all the time. Smells nice.
    hahaha True. When I vape my White Lotus flavor (apricot, nectarine, papaya) Someone will turn around smiling and say something like "WOW, that smells delicious, what IS that?" I tell them it's a vape and we laugh. Most of us agree it would make a terrific summertime candle scent for the home. My hazelnut cinnamon coffee cake flavor gets a good reaction as well.
    Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
    empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
    pain in abortion.

    Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
    which has begun. To abort life is to end it.



  3. The Following User Groans At Stretch For This Awful Post:

    Rune (08-19-2018)

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Stretch For This Post:

    Sailor (08-19-2018)

  5. #33 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    land-locked in Ocala,FL
    Posts
    27,321
    Thanks
    30,862
    Thanked 16,758 Times in 11,557 Posts
    Groans
    1,063
    Groaned 889 Times in 847 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    I switched from tobacco to ecigs on January 20, 2010......back in those days we still had to build our own cartridges and they would last about as long as a cigarette would have.....the by product of vaping is actually H2O in the form of steam.....so, if you are allergic to water, vaping may be hazardous to your health.......I have burned holes in my pocket because of the key chain thing and I did have a lithium battery catch fire and burn a hole in my formica desktop......after that I got a piece of slate roofing shingle and do all my battery charging on top of it.......over the years I worked my nic level from 24 down to 4......had surgery in 16 and they made me go off nicotine all together......interesting note.....the hospital had no objection to me vaping in my room........vaped at zero for a year and finally gave it up completely (though I still have one set up by my computer and another at my office......just posting this makes me think of going downstairs and taking a couple of hits).......if you know anyone who still smokes tobacco, buy them an ecig and stop whining about them..........
    Lot of good gourmand flavors out there these days and the newer mesh coils really dramatically increase the flavor quality.
    Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
    empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
    pain in abortion.

    Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
    which has begun. To abort life is to end it.



  6. The Following User Groans At Stretch For This Awful Post:

    Rune (08-19-2018)

  7. #34 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    4,121
    Thanks
    253
    Thanked 1,189 Times in 895 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 88 Times in 87 Posts

    Default

    S #31

    a) Fine.

    b) In law that's called "de minimus". But even the law doesn't claim it's zero.

    c) We're now in Sorites Paradox territory. How trivial does it have to be to be de minimus? Some patients on heart medication might not fare well with nicotine exposure that a healthy person could shrug off.

    d) Some of these risks manifest as bio-accumulators.

    e) It is not, and must not be the polluter's choice, or authority to declare what exposures are insignificant, and which are not. We have a right to breathe air that isn't contaminated by willful recreational acts. If they want to vape, let them go out behind the garage.
    "It should be obvious to anyone why conservatives and libertarians should be against Trump. He has no grounding in belief. No core philosophy. No morals. No loyalty. No curiosity. No empathy and no understanding. He demands personal loyalty and not loyalty to the nation. His only core belief is in his own superiority to everyone else. His only want is exercise more and more personal power." smb / purveyor of fact 18/03/18

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to sear For This Post:

    Rune (08-19-2018)

  9. #35 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    land-locked in Ocala,FL
    Posts
    27,321
    Thanks
    30,862
    Thanked 16,758 Times in 11,557 Posts
    Groans
    1,063
    Groaned 889 Times in 847 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sear View Post
    S #31

    a) Fine.

    b) In law that's called "de minimus". But even the law doesn't claim it's zero.

    c) We're now in Sorites Paradox territory. How trivial does it have to be to be de minimus? Some patients on heart medication might not fare well with nicotine exposure that a healthy person could shrug off.

    d) Some of these risks manifest as bio-accumulators.

    e) It is not, and must not be the polluter's choice, or authority to declare what exposures are insignificant, and which are not. We have a right to breathe air that isn't contaminated by willful recreational acts. If they want to vape, let them go out behind the garage.
    I gave you 2 videos to watch to answer medical questions more in depth. Take it or leave it. We can "if" our way through anything in earth, sea and water that COULD be disadvantageous to a human being.
    Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
    empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
    pain in abortion.

    Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
    which has begun. To abort life is to end it.



  10. The Following User Groans At Stretch For This Awful Post:

    Rune (08-19-2018)

  11. #36 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vinland
    Posts
    39,851
    Thanks
    41,529
    Thanked 10,833 Times in 8,248 Posts
    Groans
    11,150
    Groaned 5,899 Times in 5,299 Posts
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    Some people are just not bloody happy unless they can be health fascists, fuck 'em.
    Actually every dick on that video is full of shit.
    Nicotine is a powerful, deadly poison.
    It is the responsibility of every American citizen to own a modern military rifle.

  12. #37 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    4,121
    Thanks
    253
    Thanked 1,189 Times in 895 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 88 Times in 87 Posts

    Default

    "I gave you 2 videos to watch to answer medical questions more in depth. Take it or leave it. We can "if" our way through anything in earth, sea and water that COULD be disadvantageous to a human being." S #35
    a) I virtually never do video. Due to my location:



    I pay $top $dollar for broadband, or settle for dial-up.
    Text isn't too much of a burden on my ISP bandwidth. But still images are a problem, and video is a killer.
    If there's a concept you wish to communicate to me, communicate it in text. You know, the way I do to you?
    " We can "if" our way through anything in earth," S #35
    Indeed.
    But the issue here is public policy.
    And because of that, it's not a matter of one individual's risk. It's a matter of statistical risk to populations.
    And that's hardly an "if".

    "Your right to flail your fist ends short of where my nose begins."

    If you want to vape, go ahead. Just be sure it's not upwind, and within arms length of me (& vice versa).
    "It should be obvious to anyone why conservatives and libertarians should be against Trump. He has no grounding in belief. No core philosophy. No morals. No loyalty. No curiosity. No empathy and no understanding. He demands personal loyalty and not loyalty to the nation. His only core belief is in his own superiority to everyone else. His only want is exercise more and more personal power." smb / purveyor of fact 18/03/18

  13. #38 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    land-locked in Ocala,FL
    Posts
    27,321
    Thanks
    30,862
    Thanked 16,758 Times in 11,557 Posts
    Groans
    1,063
    Groaned 889 Times in 847 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sear View Post
    MM #26
    I'm w/ you on this one MM.
    BUT !!
    Even if not, the contents of the vaper's exhale is visible. So it can't be nothing. Some people may not mind. Others might. But it's not my job as a citizen to find a place to stand that isn't downwind of fumes, lethal or not.
    I already addressed this. I said that the vaper is the one to accommodate others' preferences.
    Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
    empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
    pain in abortion.

    Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
    which has begun. To abort life is to end it.



  14. #39 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vinland
    Posts
    39,851
    Thanks
    41,529
    Thanked 10,833 Times in 8,248 Posts
    Groans
    11,150
    Groaned 5,899 Times in 5,299 Posts
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stretch View Post
    I gave you 2 videos to watch to answer medical questions more in depth. Take it or leave it. We can "if" our way through anything in earth, sea and water that COULD be disadvantageous to a human being.
    You stupid bitch.
    Nicotine is a deadly poison, not one person on your idiotic videos admitted that simple truth.

    Shut the fuck up.
    It is the responsibility of every American citizen to own a modern military rifle.

  15. #40 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vinland
    Posts
    39,851
    Thanks
    41,529
    Thanked 10,833 Times in 8,248 Posts
    Groans
    11,150
    Groaned 5,899 Times in 5,299 Posts
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stretch View Post
    I'm trying to be reasonable here. With all the full strength crappola that is in the air that we directly inhale, whatever minuscule particles of non-harmful nic would come wafting one's way is nothing. You'd get more direct nic from ingesting eggplant (fact) than from whatever is left from an exhaled vapor.
    Nicotine is a deadly poison you fucking moron.
    It is the responsibility of every American citizen to own a modern military rifle.

  16. The Following User Groans At Rune For This Awful Post:

    dukkha (08-19-2018)

  17. #41 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    land-locked in Ocala,FL
    Posts
    27,321
    Thanks
    30,862
    Thanked 16,758 Times in 11,557 Posts
    Groans
    1,063
    Groaned 889 Times in 847 Posts

    Default

    His 2014 e-cigarette data review concluded that contaminants “pose no apparent concern” to bystanders. This we can say for certain: You're better off breathing in vapor than secondhand smoke. Tobacco smoke contains thousands of chemicals, 60 of them known carcinogens, says toxicologist Maciej Goniewicz.May 12, 2015

    The premier authority is Dr. Konstantinos E Farsalinos
    Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center · Department of Cardiology
    https://www.e-cigarette-summit.com/s...arsalinos-m-d/

    *****


    First evidence linking e-cigs to COPD and laryngeal cancer

    Thursday, 31 May 2018 09:49

    By Dr Farsalinos

    The biological and clinical evidence that e-cigarettes are really bad for health are rapidly growing. Now, the first evidence linking e-cigarettes with chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD) and laryngeal cancer is raising serious concerns about users of these products and has the public health community sending warning messages to everyone that not only there is no proof that e-cigarettes are less harmful than smoking but that they may very well be even more risky.

    Here is a case report proving the link between e-cigarettes and COPD as well as laryngeal cancer. It is the medical history of a 64 year-old retired mechanic in commercial ships. He was a smoker since the age of 16, smoking 3-4 packs (60-80 cigarettes) per day. In 2001, at the age of 47, he was diagnosed with COPD. Despite that, he continued to smoke at the same rate. In 2011, at the age of 57, he was diagnosed with laryngeal cancer. He underwent surgery followed by radiotherapy. During radiotherapy he was still smoking 3 cigarettes per day. Once the radiotherapy sessions ended, he went back to the previous consumption (3-4 packs per day). In 2013, at the age of 59 and 2 years after the laryngeal cancer diagnosis, he tried a 2nd generation e-cigarette (eGo type battery) as a smoking cessation aid, without success. In early 2016, at the age of 62, he had a serious COPD crisis and deterioration of his condition. He was hospitalized in a respiratory disease clinic and was discharged few days later with oxygen therapy at home and instructions to use oxygen for 18 hours per day. He was basically institutionalized at home, being unable to go out and developing dyspnea even when walking from one room to the next inside the house. But he kept on smoking. One week later (after 46 years of smoking) he decided to try a 3rd generation e-cigarette (variable wattage battery and tank atomizer). He managed to quit smoking on day 1. He stopped using oxygen therapy after about 1 week, and he eventually returned all the oxygen equipment and nebulizers that he obtained after the hospitalization. Today, he is fully mobilized, he is riding a scooter, he is building his own atomizer coils and he managed to convince his son and other relatives to quit smoking with the use of e-cigarettes.

    This person is an e-cigarette user and suffers from COPD and laryngeal cancer. But the link between e-cigarettes and these diseases is not only coming from this case report. This person, along with 1000 other daily e-cigarette users and non-users participated in a cross sectional survey which examined the association between these conditions and e-cigarette use. The study found 11 e-cigarette users like the case presented above, but only 6 non-users with these conditions. That meant that e-cigarette users were about twice as likely to have COPD and laryngeal cancer compared to non-users (I think the odds ratio is about 1.86 with the number I present above). The findings are extremely alarming and cannot be ignored. This is clinical evidence added to the biological data from cell and animal studies showing that e-cigarettes cause inflammation, genetic changes and immunological modulation (ignoring that usually there was no comparison with smoking while exposure levels to e-cigarettes were extreme).

    Note #1: the above is a real case of smoker who developed serious medical conditions BEFORE he initiated e-cigarette use. The participation to the cross sectional survey is science fiction, not different from comments that such an association (i.e. people who smoke and develop smoking-related disease at some point become desperate and try e-cigarettes as an aid to quit smoking) is proof of a “link” between e-cigarettes and disease (clearly implying that e-cigarettes cause the disease). To their credit, the authors of the study (conference abstract) clearly mentioned that: “Due to the fact that the data is cross-sectional, it is unknown whether E-cigs could contribute to COPD development, or if people who have COPD are more likely to use E-cigs (possibly as a harm reduction method).”

    Note #2: let’s assume that the case report above was a bit different, that the smoker switched from smoking to e-cigarette use in 2011 (after 41 years of smoking) and developed laryngeal cancer in 2016 (5 years after vaping). If anyone believes that the cause for the laryngeal cancer would be vaping and not smoking, I would appreciate if he would email me with his/her “convincing” arguments…


    http://www.ecigarette-research.org/r...2/264-ecig-dis
    Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
    empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
    pain in abortion.

    Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
    which has begun. To abort life is to end it.



  18. #42 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    land-locked in Ocala,FL
    Posts
    27,321
    Thanks
    30,862
    Thanked 16,758 Times in 11,557 Posts
    Groans
    1,063
    Groaned 889 Times in 847 Posts

    Default

    World No Tobacco Day 2018: tobacco cigarettes are the killers, smokers deserve every possible help to quit

    Wednesday, 30 May 2018 22:20

    By Dr Farsalinos

    May 31, 2018, the World No Tobacco Day. This is an(other) day to be reminded about the deadly effects of tobacco cigarette smoking. This global problem is not only related to the fact that 50% of smokers die prematurely (losing on average 10 years of life) from smoking related disease. It is even more importantly related to the large prevalence of smoking worldwide. There are more than > 1 billion smokers globally. And this is not only a problem of the developing world. The European Union still has a smoking prevalence of 26%, while Greece has a prevalence of almost 33% (according to my latest study).

    Smoking has killed about 100 million people during the 20th century, but the problem for the 21st century will be much more intense. The WHO has estimated that while today 6 million people die prematurely every year, the number will rise to 8 million in a few years. One billion premature deaths due to smoking are expected in the 21st century. So, smoking is still a major public health threat and has a major burden in life expectancy and quality of life.

    There are decades of intense efforts to combat the smoking epidemic. Obviously, smoking prevalence has decreased substantially since the first Surgeon General report in 1964, and there is no doubt that tobacco control efforts that have proven to be effective in reducing smoking need to continue and be implemented globally. But still we have a lot of things to do. The day that smoking will become obsolete does not appear to be near.

    Smokers are today very well-informed about the harmful effects of smoking. They have the ability, at least in developed countries, to ask for professional help through organized smoking cessation clinics that offer medications and psychological support. Smokers should be convinced to ask for help. They need help to be convinced that quitting smoking is one of the best primary preventive measures for a variety of disease conditions and should be done as soon as possible. And they need help because quitting is a very difficult (and largely unsuccessful when done without any aid) task. The states should help by providing financial incentives (subsidize) for such treatment. These efforts should further expand, especially in developing countries. However, even in developed countries, smoking cessation clinics are not very popular among smokers, while all available approved smoking cessation methods fail in the majority of smokers who try them. At the same time, we need to remember that quitting smoking is the #1 priority.

    Over the last few years, we are witnessing a major revolution in the smoking battle with the development and availability of tobacco harm reduction products. E-cigarettes have become very popular, especially after 2010. Their popularity is largely confined to smokers (when you look at regular/frequent use and not just experimentation), and there is a good reason for this. Their use resembles the rituals of smoking, and at the same time they deliver nicotine. But they do not deliver the products of combustion that are emitted in tobacco cigarette smoke. While e-cigarettes are not risk free, and thus not recommended to a non-smoker, they can literally be lifesaving for smokers who are unable or unwilling to quit by themselves or with currently approved methods. There is extensive evidence on their risk profile, and their public health impact is already evident in places where their use is actively endorsed by public health authorities as a smoking substitute (UK). E-cigarettes, however, are not successful for every smoker. Novel harm reduction products, heated tobacco products, have been developed and will increasingly become available, which may provide an additional opportunity for smokers to quit. While evidence on these products is still very limited and largely released by the manufacturers, we need to be open-minded, intensify our efforts to generate independent data and do our best to properly inform smokers about all available options and the difference in the risk between each option and in comparison with continuous smoking. We should not forget that snus, a proven tobacco harm reduction product with a large pool of hard epidemiological evidence supporting its role in reducing smoking related disease, is banned in the European Union depriving some smokers from another harm reduction option.

    While the evidence is accumulating and compelling on the vastly reduced risk of harm reduction products, especially e-cigarettes, there is still a lot of conflicting views and intense debate among the public health community about their role in combating smoking. Of course there are reasonable concerns that create the need to continuously monitor patterns of use by specific population groups, particularly youth and non-smokers, current evidence is reassuring and suggests that e-cigarettes are complementing rather than contradicting other tobacco control efforts. Of course there is the need to intensify research and eventually generate long-term epidemiological evidence. But the "we don't know yet" attitude is a never ending and highly uninformative process, and a statement that smokers do not deserve when they are continuously exposed to the risks of smoking.

    Smokers need to be provided with balanced and reliable information about all their options andbe advised on the best possible pathways of succeeding in quitting smoking (quitting by themselves or with approved medications). But they should also NOT be discouraged from using harm reduction products. The World No Tobacco Day reminds us that we are combating smoking, not smokers. On this day, official health organizations and scientific associations should focus on the ultimate goal, which is to enhance the chances of smokers to quit. I hope that the statements released by health associations on the 2018 World No Tobacco Day will be a polemic against smoking, not polemic against the unique prospects and hope that tobacco harm reduction offers. Otherwise, prestigious authorities risk being completely ignored by smokers and falling behind the developments and the evolution that we are witnessing. At the end of the day we will all know…

    http://www.ecigarette-research.org/r...2/263-wntd2018
    Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
    empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
    pain in abortion.

    Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
    which has begun. To abort life is to end it.



  19. #43 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    land-locked in Ocala,FL
    Posts
    27,321
    Thanks
    30,862
    Thanked 16,758 Times in 11,557 Posts
    Groans
    1,063
    Groaned 889 Times in 847 Posts

    Default

    E-cigarette flavors and aldehyde emissions: another failure to verify findings from a previous study

    Thursday, 08 March 2018 09:12

    By Dr Farsalinos

    More than 1 year ago, a study was published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology reporting that aldehyde emissions from e-cigarettes are derived from thermal degradation of flavoring compounds rather than the main liquid ingredients (propylene glycol and glycerol). The study found non-detectable levels of aldehydes in unflavored liquids, but up to 10,000-fold higher levels of aldehydes in flavored samples.

    At that time, I uploaded a comment clearly stating that the results contradict previous research on aldehyde emissions. I also emphasized that the findings were NOT related to overheating and dry puffs, unlike other studies that had seriously overheated the devices. In my comment I was very careful not to mention anything insulting for the authors of the study, since I had no proof that something went wrong and I could not find any flaws in the publication. I did however mention that: “One of the fascinating aspects of science is the ability to replicate, and thus confirm or reject, the findings of a study… We also plan to use some of the liquids used in the recent study (same brand), if the author replies to my email requesting information on the brand used (there is no such information in the manuscript, and I still have not received any response to the email I have sent).” I also remind everyone that I submitted a letter to the editor of the journal presenting my views on the issue, obviously before the replication attempt was made.

    The main author of the study responded to my comment in what I consider a clearly provocative and insulting tone. He mentioned: “Dr. Farsalinos revealed that (a) he is not up-to-date with the current literature, and (b) has not read our paper carefully”. I suggest everyone to read my previous comment and the comment by the main author Dr Khlystov in order to understand the difference in the context.

    As I had promised, we were planning to replicate the study. After 2 emails I sent to the main author asking to report the brand of the liquids tested (the e-cigarette device and power settings were mentioned in the manuscript, but not the liquid brand), and after many public requests by myself and Prof Peter Hajek through PubMed Commons (unfortunately all PubMed Commons comments have been removed from PubMed), the authors NEVER reported the liquid brand they tested. In PubMed Commons, the main authors referred us to the cigalike brand they tested, which was useless because we could not use unflavored liquid in the prefilled cartomizers of the cigalike and thus could not compare flavored with unflavored liquids. Additionally, prefilled cartomizers are known for their inconsistent performance, making such comparisons difficult. In my opinion, this was an unprofessional behavior. Additionally, the main author NEVER responded to any of my emails requesting for such information. I have never experienced in the past such a behavior, and unfortunately I must say that this was unprofessional.

    We were able to replicate the study due to a coincidence. One of the flavors used in the study was called “Dragon’s Café”. We could find only one company (a US company) which produced a flavored e-cigarette liquid with this name. We also found all other flavors from this company as they were tested in the original study, and chose the 3 flavors with the highest levels of aldehydes (Dragon’s Café, watermelon, blueberry). The liquids were available in standard and sweetened versions. Considering that sweeteners can be transformed to aldehydes when exposed to heat, we chose both the standard and most sweetened versions. The study was replicated using the same devices and power settings as the original study, while additionally we tested similar flavorings from a different manufacturer and a newer generation e-cigarette device.

    For start, no dry puffs were detected with any of the liquids. This verified my original assessment as documented in my first comment and the letter to the editor. Our results were revealing in identifying a very small contribution of flavorings on aldehyde emissions. In fact, aldehyde levels were so low that consumption of 5 grams liquid per day would expose vapers to less formaldehyde and acetaldehyde than just staying at home and breathing air. For acrolein, exposure was orders of magnitude lower compared to NIOSH-defined recommended safety limits. To give you an idea of the differences in results, the authors of the original study found up to 7000 ug/g formaldehyde, while we found a maximum of 62 ug/g.

    This is the third replication from our group which failed to verify previous findings. I should note that the journal Environmental Science and Technology has been involved in two of these replications, publishing 3 papers (paper 1, paper 2 and paper 3). The replication rejecting the findings of papers 2 and 3 can be seen in a previous comment.

    In a recent review on aldehyde emissions from e-cigarettes, I stressed the need to replicate studies reporting unusually high levels of aldehyde emissions. For example, I reported that only 4 of the 32 published studies verified that no dry puff conditions were generated during the laboratory experiments. It seems that in this case there are more methodological issues, possibly related to false-positive results. The authors of the flavorings study are now presenting findings that e-cigarette use increases aldehyde levels in exhaled breath. Considering their previous publication on flavorings and aldehyde levels, I will be very reluctant to accept their results unless they are independently replicated. If they publish the results, we will try to perform a replication study. There is already a publication showing that the exhaled breath of vapers has the same level of aldehydes as non-smokers. So, everyone understands my concerns about another study reporting “peculiar” results. However, I am not going to rush into judgment, I will wait for their results and the replication (if we will be provided with details on the study materials).

    http://www.ecigarette-research.org/r...18/262-flavors
    Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
    empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
    pain in abortion.

    Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
    which has begun. To abort life is to end it.



  20. #44 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    land-locked in Ocala,FL
    Posts
    27,321
    Thanks
    30,862
    Thanked 16,758 Times in 11,557 Posts
    Groans
    1,063
    Groaned 889 Times in 847 Posts

    Default

    November 11, 2014
    Stanton A. Glantz, PhD

    Surprise! Lorillard Tobacco publishes two papers finding e-cigs pose no hazard

    The International Journal of Enviromental Research and Public Health just published two papers by authors from Lorillard Tobacco reporting that "neither the e-cig liquids and collected aerosols, nor the extracts of the SLT or NRT products produce any meaningful toxic effects in four widely-applied in vitro test systems, in which the conventional cigarette smoke preparations, at comparable exposures, are markedly cyotoxic and genotoxic," and "exhaled e-cigarette areosol does not increase bystander exposure for phenolics and carbonyls above the levels observed in exhaled breaths of air." The second paper also reports virtually no nicotine in the exhaled e-cig aerosol.

    https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/surprise-lo...pose-no-hazard
    Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
    empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
    pain in abortion.

    Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
    which has begun. To abort life is to end it.



  21. #45 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    land-locked in Ocala,FL
    Posts
    27,321
    Thanks
    30,862
    Thanked 16,758 Times in 11,557 Posts
    Groans
    1,063
    Groaned 889 Times in 847 Posts

    Default

    Published 6 months ago

    on February 27, 2018

    By John Castle

    Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos has responded to the recent study from Johns Hopkins University which found trace levels of metals in vapor. Dr. Farsalinos’ response reads:

    “For those asking questions about the latest study on metal emissions from e-cigarettes, here is my comment:
    The “significant amount” of metals the authors reported they found were measured in ug/kg. In fact they are so low that for some cases (chromium and lead) I calculated that you need to vape more than 100 ml per day in order to exceed the FDA limits for daily intake from inhalational medications. The authors once again confuse themselves and everyone else by using environmental safety limits related to exposure with every single breath, and apply them to vaping. However, humans take more than 17,000 (thousand) breaths per day but only 400-600 puffs per day from an e-cigarette.”

    Simply put, the key phrase here is “daily intake.” The difference between intake limits and environmental limits is quite stark. Framing a study around the wrong type of limits completely skews its results.


    The numbers may be correct, but they fall well below the FDA set intake limits.
    In a nutshell

    The study’s authors not only failed to compare the relative risk of vapor versus tobacco smoke, they also failed to place their findings into a human-applicable context. Because vapers are not vaping with every breath they take, the study’s findings are flawed. While troubling if taken at face value, the findings say little when placed into the context of vapers’ actual behavior or, indeed, any realistic usage scenario.

    The study’s flaws can be compared to those of the “popcorn lung” scare that keeps finding its way back into the news. Sometimes information that sounds intimidating on the surface is simply the result of a poorly — or disingenuously — framed study.

    This appears to be another such example. With all that said, it doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be more investigation.

    https://vapenews.com/vape-news/vapor...inos-response/
    Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
    empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
    pain in abortion.

    Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
    which has begun. To abort life is to end it.



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-03-2018, 04:10 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-11-2016, 03:48 AM
  3. "The Making of Donald Trump" ~ ~ (The Final "Nail" In Trumpy's "Box")
    By Mr. Shaman in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-13-2016, 07:34 AM
  4. Media wants to ban word "terrorist". Replace with "gunman" or "shooter"
    By Text Drivers are Killers in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-23-2016, 09:29 AM
  5. City fines Army veteran for "smoking in the park"
    By Guns Guns Guns in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-08-2012, 08:33 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •