My email to the ECA - Your comments - E-Cigarette Forum

pbusardo · 07-30-2009, 07:08 PM

I recently wrote an email to the ECA. I'd like to hear your comments.

"I think this site and concept is great, but I'm concerned about your effectiveness.

When the FDA issued their report, I saw it in the news, on the websites, in print, etc. This made it highly visible to the general public, smokers, non-smokers, e-cigarettes users and potential e-cigarettes users.

However, I only see your response here and I didn't know about until today.

How is this effective? How would the general public even know about your response unless they were "in the know"?

You are asking for funding and donations, but what are the results?

Also, since you're asking for funding, why don't you sponsor the test we all need? A side by side comparison of the chemical makeup and dangers of a traditional cigarette compared to an electronic cigarette.

Here is chemical #1 in a real cigarette, here's how much, here is why it's bad, oh wait, the e-cig doesn't have that.
Here is chemical #2 in a real cigarette, here's how much, here is why it's bad, oh wait, the e-cig doesn't have that.
Here is chemical #3 in a real cigarette, here's how much, here is why it's bad, the e-cig DOES have that, but only x% of a real cigarette.
Go down the line for all chemicals in both products and and make it fair.

I keep reading that we "believe" the e-cig to be substantially safer. The words, "believe", "think", "may be" are going to KILL this industry.

Do you mean to tell me that with today's technology we can't find the facts? The proof we all need?

If you're asking for funding, let's use use it wisely and settle this once and for all, unless of course there IS something that needs to be hidden.

And that was me playing devil's advocate because I'm a strong supporter and user of electronic cigarettes. Not a single traditional cigarette for me for a month now thanks to my e-cig. I would like to keep it that way."

Mac · 07-30-2009, 07:15 PM

I don't think their pockets are really that deep. These type of lab tests go on up above 6 figures. If it was that easy to produce accurate and quotable toxicology reports there would be hundreds of studies instead of the handful that exist. I agree that the ECA isn't doing enough. I just don't think your proposed solution is realistic.

pbusardo · 07-30-2009, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac

I don't think their pockets are really that deep. These type of lab tests go on up above 6 figures. If it was that easy to produce accurate and quotable toxicology reports there would be hundreds of studies instead of the handful that exist. I agree that the ECA isn't doing enough. I just don't think your proposed solution is realistic.

That's fair Mac, but I'm wondering if it's a test that needs to be done or a report that needs to be compiled based on pre-existing results.

I'm sure it would be possible to find the chemical makeup of cigarette smoke somewhere.

And it looks like the FDA already did some tests on the makeup of vaporized e-Liquid.

I think they need to get these kids together in an easy to read comparative report.

And really, how hard can it be. They do it every week on CSI!?!

Mac · 07-30-2009, 08:16 PM

Now that is definitely possible and certainly leads to the question: Why hasn't this already been done?

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbusardo

That's fair Mac, but I'm wondering if it's a test that needs to be done or a report that needs to be compiled based on pre-existing results.

I'm sure it would be possible to find the chemical makeup of cigarette smoke somewhere.

And it looks like the FDA already did some tests on the makeup of vaporized e-Liquid.

I think they need to get these kids together in an easy to read comparative report.

And really, how hard can it be. They do it every week on CSI!?!

malyden · 07-30-2009, 08:27 PM

You also have to remember there are many different e-liquids available and even if it only cost $20,000 (just a guess mind you) which e-liquids would you choose and which flavors??
And most likely you would need the tests done at more than one lab so that the results could be verified.
I know that it may seem that the ECA isn't doing enough to some but I do also realize that they are a new association and it does take a lot of $$ and some time to accomplish what is needed. Very few things are accomplished overnight.

If you don't feel they are doing enough no one is stopping you from finding out what kind of things you can do to help. Instead of sitting back complaining that not enough is being done - volunteer I'm sure they would appreciate the help.
Or if you feel you can do better go for it!

By the way I am in no way associated with the ECA - just tired of listening to people whine. All the above is my own personal opinion.

pbusardo · 07-31-2009, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by malyden

You also have to remember there are many different e-liquids available and even if it only cost $20,000 (just a guess mind you) which e-liquids would you choose and which flavors??
And most likely you would need the tests done at more than one lab so that the results could be verified.
I know that it may seem that the ECA isn't doing enough to some but I do also realize that they are a new association and it does take a lot of $$ and some time to accomplish what is needed. Very few things are accomplished overnight.

If you don't feel they are doing enough no one is stopping you from finding out what kind of things you can do to help. Instead of sitting back complaining that not enough is being done - volunteer I'm sure they would appreciate the help.
Or if you feel you can do better go for it!

By the way I am in no way associated with the ECA - just tired of listening to people whine. All the above is my own personal opinion.

Nope, not whining.
Nope, don't think I could do it better.
Just pointing out some issues I think need to be addressed. That is my way of helping. That's all.

I do have a suggestion as to which juice to compare. Pick the one they found the problem with. I bet it is STILL safer than the real thing!

lvlninety9 · 08-04-2009, 06:34 PM

I have just ONE question. What exactly is the ECA doing? Yes, I've seen the whole we are lobbying and this and that. And to be honest anyone can say that. And there's really no way to prove it. I find this funny since they want to focus on that. As far as the ECA in the news? What do they really say? I've looked at it all, I've read it all. And I don't see anything that is helping our cause really. Lobbying is great start, but it's not providing results as I see more and more coming out against the electronic cigarette. To be honest the more I look at the ECA part of this forum there's one thing that sticks out like a sore thumb. Where's the beef? Where's the action to move us forward. I don't think that the ECA needs to conduct these studies themselves, while it would benefit us greatly, it isn't their responsibility. It's the manufacturers that should be doing this testing but I don't see any of them stepping up to it. At the same time is it really so hard to compile the evidence already out there? I don't think so. A lot of people on this forum have done it and have done a great job of it. I for one have taken a lot of the articles and reports that I have found and have been sending this information to dozens upon dozens of news organizations, newspapers, whoever I can find. Why isn't the ECA doing this themselves? Why is it that the public has to do it instead of the organization that says they are trying to move us forward and make it easier for us to buy our e-cigs? Really doesn't make sense to me.

Ridewithme38 · 08-04-2009, 07:00 PM

I Agree...It would show ALOT if the ECA would atleast compile a couple of Known/verified Lab test of Cigarette smoke and atleast the FDA results of E-cigarette Vapor...Show us what's in What and then come to a conclusion..."As you can see Nicotine Juice has X number of carcinagines and Tobacco smoke has XX number of carcinagines" OR "some of the Chemicals in Tobacco smoke(Specificly) have proven to cause these problems, These Chemicals are NOT in PV's Vapor"

Really when asked about PV's i say well it has 3000 less chemicals in it then Cigarettes...But what 3000? What are the Benefits of not having those 3000? Any long term testing of ANY of those 3000 chemicals and human response??

pbusardo · 08-04-2009, 07:20 PM

Thanks guys, I thought I was the only one seeing this group as one that is asking for money all over their site, but not deliverying anything.

TheIllustratedMan · 08-04-2009, 08:07 PM

If you guys are interested in actually doing something instead of criticizing someone else, see my signature.

08-04-2009, 06:34 PM	#7
lvlninety9 Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 161	I have just ONE question. What exactly is the ECA doing? Yes, I've seen the whole we are lobbying and this and that. And to be honest anyone can say that. And there's really no way to prove it. I find this funny since they want to focus on that. As far as the ECA in the news? What do they really say? I've looked at it all, I've read it all. And I don't see anything that is helping our cause really. Lobbying is great start, but it's not providing results as I see more and more coming out against the electronic cigarette. To be honest the more I look at the ECA part of this forum there's one thing that sticks out like a sore thumb. Where's the beef? Where's the action to move us forward. I don't think that the ECA needs to conduct these studies themselves, while it would benefit us greatly, it isn't their responsibility. It's the manufacturers that should be doing this testing but I don't see any of them stepping up to it. At the same time is it really so hard to compile the evidence already out there? I don't think so. A lot of people on this forum have done it and have done a great job of it. I for one have taken a lot of the articles and reports that I have found and have been sending this information to dozens upon dozens of news organizations, newspapers, whoever I can find. Why isn't the ECA doing this themselves? Why is it that the public has to do it instead of the organization that says they are trying to move us forward and make it easier for us to buy our e-cigs? Really doesn't make sense to me. __________________ Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.-Martin Luther King Jr.- There is only one step from the sublime to the ridiculous -Napolean-

08-04-2009, 07:20 PM	#9
pbusardo Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Rochester, NY Posts: 224	Thanks guys, I thought I was the only one seeing this group as one that is asking for money all over their site, but not deliverying anything. __________________

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-30-2009, 07:08 PM	#1
pbusardo Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Rochester, NY Posts: 224	My email to the ECA - Your comments I recently wrote an email to the ECA. I'd like to hear your comments. "I think this site and concept is great, but I'm concerned about your effectiveness. When the FDA issued their report, I saw it in the news, on the websites, in print, etc. This made it highly visible to the general public, smokers, non-smokers, e-cigarettes users and potential e-cigarettes users. However, I only see your response here and I didn't know about until today. How is this effective? How would the general public even know about your response unless they were "in the know"? You are asking for funding and donations, but what are the results? Also, since you're asking for funding, why don't you sponsor the test we all need? A side by side comparison of the chemical makeup and dangers of a traditional cigarette compared to an electronic cigarette. Here is chemical #1 in a real cigarette, here's how much, here is why it's bad, oh wait, the e-cig doesn't have that. Here is chemical #2 in a real cigarette, here's how much, here is why it's bad, oh wait, the e-cig doesn't have that. Here is chemical #3 in a real cigarette, here's how much, here is why it's bad, the e-cig DOES have that, but only x% of a real cigarette. Go down the line for all chemicals in both products and and make it fair. I keep reading that we "believe" the e-cig to be substantially safer. The words, "believe", "think", "may be" are going to KILL this industry. Do you mean to tell me that with today's technology we can't find the facts? The proof we all need? If you're asking for funding, let's use use it wisely and settle this once and for all, unless of course there IS something that needs to be hidden. And that was me playing devil's advocate because I'm a strong supporter and user of electronic cigarettes. Not a single traditional cigarette for me for a month now thanks to my e-cig. I would like to keep it that way." __________________

07-30-2009, 07:15 PM	#2
Mac Offline Supplier ECF Veteran Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Virginia Beach Posts: 1,221	I don't think their pockets are really that deep. These type of lab tests go on up above 6 figures. If it was that easy to produce accurate and quotable toxicology reports there would be hundreds of studies instead of the handful that exist. I agree that the ECA isn't doing enough. I just don't think your proposed solution is realistic. __________________ Did you hear about the dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac? He stays up all night wondering if there really is a dog!

07-30-2009, 08:27 PM	#5
malyden Super Member ECF Veteran Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Minerva, OH Posts: 576	You also have to remember there are many different e-liquids available and even if it only cost $20,000 (just a guess mind you) which e-liquids would you choose and which flavors?? And most likely you would need the tests done at more than one lab so that the results could be verified. I know that it may seem that the ECA isn't doing enough to some but I do also realize that they are a new association and it does take a lot of $$ and some time to accomplish what is needed. Very few things are accomplished overnight. If you don't feel they are doing enough no one is stopping you from finding out what kind of things you can do to help. Instead of sitting back complaining that not enough is being done - volunteer I'm sure they would appreciate the help. Or if you feel you can do better go for it! By the way I am in no way associated with the ECA - just tired of listening to people whine. All the above is my own personal opinion.

08-04-2009, 07:00 PM	#8
Ridewithme38 Moved On Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 334	I Agree...It would show ALOT if the ECA would atleast compile a couple of Known/verified Lab test of Cigarette smoke and atleast the FDA results of E-cigarette Vapor...Show us what's in What and then come to a conclusion..."As you can see Nicotine Juice has X number of carcinagines and Tobacco smoke has XX number of carcinagines" OR "some of the Chemicals in Tobacco smoke(Specificly) have proven to cause these problems, These Chemicals are NOT in PV's Vapor" Really when asked about PV's i say well it has 3000 less chemicals in it then Cigarettes...But what 3000? What are the Benefits of not having those 3000? Any long term testing of ANY of those 3000 chemicals and human response??

08-04-2009, 08:07 PM	#10
TheIllustratedMan Crusader Supporting Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Upstate, NY Posts: 425	If you guys are interested in actually doing something instead of criticizing someone else, see my signature.