E-Cigarettes Under Fire--WebMD Article

[strayling]

In case it wasn't obvious, I want the mis-attribution in post #76 corrected. Hangar? Mods?

[Hangar]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you mis-attributed that quote to me out of incompetence rather than malice. I have to wonder, if the situations were reversed, whether you'd apply your knowledge of common sense and basic science consistently and assume the reverse

it was antoks quote, not yours...and its the forum software coding that mis-assigned it...not me.

[strayling]

it was antoks quote, not yours...and its the forum software coding that mis-assigned it...not me.

Classy. When I screw up, I admit it.

Edit: I see the attribution is fixed now. Thanks.

[Hangar]

Classy. When I screw up, I admit it.

sorry but i didnt copy and paste HIS quote into a reply that was clicked on for YOUR name. The forum software had a glitch...it happens. I clicked on his post for a reply and it gave me HIS text...but for some odd reason YOUR name was in the header...i certainly didnt type it in there myself thats for sure. I was able to copy and paste his name there instead of yours so its fixed now.

...and IM the arrogant one? ...its this sort of immature attitude that needs to stop.

[StratOvation]

Ok, this is way off topic but I just wondered if anyone else thought it ironic that... Of all the Dr's / Health professionals quoted in the article, the only one with some positive inclinations was also the only one who had actually conducted a study regarding the potential risks associated with the e-cig?

Mike

Oh wait.... maybe it isn't so off topic...lol

[strayling]

Ok, this is way off topic but I just wondered if anyone else thought it ironic that... Of all the Dr's / Health professionals quoted in the article, the only one with some positive inclinations was also the only one who had actually conducted a study regarding the potential risks associated with the e-cig?

Mike

Oh wait.... maybe it isn't so off topic...lol

Stop interrupting our flame war!

Kidding - yeah, that is an interesting observation.

[strayling]

sorry but i didnt copy and paste HIS quote into a reply that was clicked on for YOUR name. The forum software had a glitch...it happens. I clicked on his post for a reply and it gave me HIS text...but for some odd reason YOUR name was in the header...i certainly didnt type it in there myself thats for sure. I was able to copy and paste his name there instead of yours so its fixed now.

...and IM the arrogant one? ...its this sort of immature attitude that needs to stop.

Quoted for irony. Of course it's impossible that it was you who made a mistake.

And with that, I'm done with you.

[CJsKee]

nothing in e-cigs cause cancer in and of themselves. Combustion or burning of anything creates carcinogens, you burn your chicken it contains carcinogens, same with your toast. The combustion of tobacco is the most dangerous part of the whole scenario. E-cigs don't have the most dangerous component (combustion), its been proven pg vapor, nicotine vapor and water vapor is safe for inhalation.

The only thing that is questionable is flavoring which is safe when not inhaled. That is why we are comfortable saying it is safer then analogs. I literally am willing to bet my life that e-cigs pose very little health risk, not out of blind faith but because the research is there to some degree to show it. There does need to be more testing, but they should not be banned until it is done.

I agree...analogs have had many, many years of testing and the results have been in for a loooong time---they kill people, yet they have never been banned (that I'm aware of). Let's give e-cigs the same consideration.

[StratOvation]

LOL ...Sorry for the interference Strayling

Just that I'm stuck up here in da nosebleed section right behind a huge pilar and can't see a dang thing on the field anyway!

I can see the BigAss scoreboard though .... Looks like the Home team is Way ahead at the moment.

[klum]

LOL ...Sorry for the interference Strayling

Just that I'm stuck up here in da nosebleed section right behind a huge pilar and can't see a dang thing on the field anyway!

I can see the BigAss scoreboard though .... Looks like the Home team is Way ahead at the moment.

Maybe I'm not really understanding the hometeam's stance here. I don't remember seeing Hangar say that there should be a ban or that E-cigs should be taken off the market. What I did hear him say is that he doesn't know for sure that these are safer than cigarettes. I don't know for sure either, but I'm leaning pretty far for safer. I thought the hometeam was about keeping them available for those who wanted them and relaying as much info as we all have to help. I don't remember seeing a sticky on this forum that said that if we don't all have the same viewpoint that we'd be labeled a troll. Testing is a valid point. There should be comprehensive testing to find out everything there is to know about vaping the liquids with the hw that we use. I just hope that it's done concurrently with our use. Even if they find it's 100% safe, there could be other information that testing could help with. Compositions of the liquids after burning, what happens to the atomizer after prolonged use, battery safety issues... These could point manufactures to develop and build better E-cigs in the future.

One thing that we have to all acknowledge is that there is going to be every kind of viewpoint on this forum. There will be super positive and many people who are not convinced totally. These will also be the viewpoints of many of the general public until full testing is done. Rather than flame all of them to death, why not do as some have done and post some information, viewpoints and if all else fails, agree to disagree (Yvilla, Sun). I can't remember a time when flaming was an effective way to win an arguement either way. It just makes us lose track of the important talking points.

kevin