I guess I meant "MY whole point here... "
Obviously others have a different agenda, which I really don't understand.
So it's laughable that I don't think members should call each other d-bags?
Wow.
The Muffin Man and The Milk Man - Company's response to Diacetyl, Acetoin or Acetyl Propionyl
- Thread starter emolinare
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Obviously others have a different agenda, which I really don't understand.
So it's laughable that I don't think members should call each other d-bags?
Wow.
In the case of the Titantium Dioxide, that "was" liquid poison, IMHO.
With no LONG TERM studies (yeah, I get tired of hearing about all the studies, both pro and con.....because they are not 1) long term; 2) sufficient sample size; 3) myriad of other problems as any good research scientist could point out and this topic can't delve into that.
But, lacking 100% "for certain facts", in the absence of anything like that, I tend to default to the *educated* / *expert* who also has no agenda and is independent. Dr. F. has come closest to that for "me". vape friendly doctor, but who is also not going to tell you a "happy story" if he doesn't think it is in the best interest of your health.
If ya don't mind, I would HAVE to put the word "avoidable" before the potential risk phrase.
Make that "avoidable potential risk." To me there is a huge difference. AP and DA are definitely avoidable.
And, not overly inconvenient...its not like giving up driving or something, also a risky behavior, but somewhat less "avoidable" for most people in the US.Nonsense. The word "risk" implies an unknown factor. The unknown is what makes risk risk, rather than suicide. Adding qualifiers to it changes nothing. Potential = unknown = risk.If ya don't mind, I would HAVE to put the word "avoidable" before the potential risk phrase.
Make that "avoidable potential risk." To me there is a huge difference. AP and DA are definitely avoidable.
Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk
If ya don't mind, I would HAVE to put the word "avoidable" before the potential risk phrase.
Make that "avoidable potential risk." To me there is a huge difference. AP and DA are definitely avoidable.
Titanium Dioxide served no purpose in the liquid, other than appearance, so yeah, no reason for it to be there.
Dr. F does good work for us, I respect him a lot. He also has a different view of vaping than I do, but even he has said it is an "avoidable risk" not "liquid poison." I don't need vaping to be as close to 100% safe as possible. I accept a modicum of risk to participate in an activity that I find beneficial. That doesn't mean I ignore all potential risks, but it also means I don't try to dictate what is acceptable to others.
It may be a completely avoidable potential risk to you, to some it is less so. I don't believe I need D/AP in my liquids but I will say that I tried a custard from one vendor, and the first time I tried it, I loved it. When I ordered it, I ordered the v2 which was reformulated to remove the Diacetyl I believe, I'm not sure about AP, and it lost all flavor to me. It went from tasting like a rich custard to smelling like butterscotch and tasting like absolutely nothing to me, I can't taste butterscotch vapes for some reason. I can smell them, but can't taste them, which drives me insane. If that were the only flavor tenuously keeping me from smoking, would it be better for me to go back to smoking?
the positive aspects of things:
1) things DO improve, however imperceptibly to some of us.
If you were around here BEFORE Dr. F. did his study, and if "Dr. F hadn't said it", you have no idea how truly LESS WELCOME posts about DA and AP were back in 2010, 2011, 2012, etc.
You should go back and read all of those sometime. It takes a few days.
Instead of a 50%/50% agreement/disagreement on the topic, it was more like 99%disagreement/1% agreement. In other words, if you were concerned about those chemicals, you were pretty much an "outlander". 
As a matter of fact, if you want to see some fireworks, look what happened when Bill Godshall used the term "CHEMOPHOBE" in one of the posts in this 2010 topic ---- reactions to that word.........we're talking 2010 here!:
Ask your favorite suppliers to remove diacetyl from their e-liquids! | Page 34 | E-Cigarette Forum
2010 is almost ancient history in ecig land terms.
So, things are getting better. Dr. F. expressed concern, some vendors are testing, there is consumer pressure from some vapers in terms of WHERE they spend their $$$, etc.
What I learned in this topic so far: despite the fact that I thought I was pretty hard-{blank} about DA and AP, and find that there are certain courtesy limits i have about posting certain things on forums (in this case, calling out one vendor) it turns out there are people that are equally or even more passionate about the subject than i am (and I didn't think that was possible
), but there are also people that i usually don't agree with who I can find SOME "commonality" with. I think this is the beauty of forums. Why name calling etc. is necessary, I do not know. I always see progress being made in good conversations and interchange ????
This will all be moot in less than a years time imho. The Vapocalypse is upon us and all vendors will be under federal regulation to both test and disclose and dispense their eliquid under laboratory conditions....well, the very few eliquid makers that will survive. This will end these ridiculous and absurd discussions.
Well, what I learn from my engineer brothers is that words matter. When you are building space station freedom, and talking with the astronauts about the door handle design, it matters. I appreciate your perspective that avoidable risk isn't the same as liquid poison. FWIW, I think I do try to avoid being hyperbolic (despite that I am passionate) .....just like I always call vaping "harm reduction, not harm free".
If you see me going in the other direction, I have no problem with you pointing it out, I am pretty sure I haven't (or at least consciously) used the poison word in terms of AP and DA, although i have referred to them as "contaminants".
I think we all balance each other out.....if we take the time to stay open minded. I have never told anybody what to vape, nor suggested DA or AP be illegal. But I sure as heck don't want it for myself.
I think Smokey Joe pointed this out in a post somewhere once. That to somebody who absolutely could not quit cigs without having their custard vape, then it IS less avoidable. I do understand that! I can't relate to it (since to me there are always OPTIONS and choices in life) but I do understand it.
I don't subscribe to "the Tony Hayward Method of Managing Risk".
To be honest, I am quite tired of seeing it.I therefore support any effort to increase the ability of vaping consumers to identify and evaluate risks, as well as to communicate and address them.
That is best done with the cooperation of the vendors who are mixing the product and taking their money.
It would be unfortunate if vendors were forced into that, but that is what often happens to foot-draggers. It's called "a lost opportunity."
No, I find it laughable that one waited until the 12th page of this thread to decide to lecture on appropriate styles of written communication. It's laughable because that opportunity was glaring on page one. Again, it most likely has to do alignment and where one has decided to pitch their tent.
No disrespect meant to anyone. I'm just trying to be clear, speak my mind, tell it like it is, and not be "snarky."
I wonder if the people that think it is a ok to call a vender out (without their knowledge that their responses are being made public) would feel the same if this was done to them personally. If somebody made a post saying "I have emailed "so and so" to ask them if they are an offender of the latest dramatic topic". In the post it would go something like this.... They responded that they assure me that they are not an offender but I want to see proof and I have not received any thus far. If I was the target of such a post, I would feel rather slandered. If the vender was made aware that the emailed conversations were going to be publicized here, the thread was started after the company had ample time to respond and they still chose that action I may think differently but it appears they had no such warning. This is the point that has some a bit wary of threads like this. This company gave a response that most are giving at this time. It is neither a lie nor a truth. It is noncommittal.
IMO, they should expect these types of posts IF their personal life was a topic for conversation on a forum that has near 227,000 members. IMO, really not apples to apples.
"It is neither a lie nor a truth. It is non noncommittal." Yes, the response is certainly up to individual interpretation. IMO, the response was all of the aforementioned along with evasive. The reply really didn't answer a pretty straight forward question.
Some say we consumers are making problems for the vaping industry by demanding these practices stop...i disagree and say we are trying to prevent these types of practices from resulting in regulations that will be far more reaching then the simple actions vendors can take now to prevent it.
Some say we are creating fear for newbies by taking this stand and bringing these concerns to the forefront...i say once these newbies research vaping they will soon learn about diketones and see that some vendors are taking advantage of the free reign they have to intentionally misrepresent diketones in their eliquid...they will possibly see that as a red flag and wonder what other sketchy stuff is going on unchecked that they don't know about. They may end up looking at the vaping industry as irresponsible and therefore too risky and sketchy for their comfort zone......and how much worse does it make it when they see people in the vaping community defending these type of practices, especially when it's really hard to justify any defense for such practices.
I would much rather be seen as a vaping community that hold vendors accountable by speaking out on these issues then a vaping community that practices a shush shush turn a blind eye look the other way and just shop somewhere else mentality on the basis that that somehow benefits the vaping community?
Some say we are creating fear for newbies by taking this stand and bringing these concerns to the forefront...i say once these newbies research vaping they will soon learn about diketones and see that some vendors are taking advantage of the free reign they have to intentionally misrepresent diketones in their eliquid...they will possibly see that as a red flag and wonder what other sketchy stuff is going on unchecked that they don't know about. They may end up looking at the vaping industry as irresponsible and therefore too risky and sketchy for their comfort zone......and how much worse does it make it when they see people in the vaping community defending these type of practices, especially when it's really hard to justify any defense for such practices.
I would much rather be seen as a vaping community that hold vendors accountable by speaking out on these issues then a vaping community that practices a shush shush turn a blind eye look the other way and just shop somewhere else mentality on the basis that that somehow benefits the vaping community?
Accountable to what? What are the standards we're asking for? Zero diketones? I'm not even sure that testing to that level is possible (I seriously doubt it). So if not zero, then what? Who decides what the threshold is?
What if a juice tests below the threshold and the vendor publishes the result, then someone else tests the juice after it's been sitting on a shelf for a while and it tests over the threshold?
LOLjust for the record.
i am not Lessifer.
mike
No, you're not.
Neither am I (although I wouldn't be offended if someone thought I was - I think I'd even feel like it was a compliment!)
The flavors will survive. The nic base... maybe not.No, it won't, at least not with respect to DIY flavorings.
titanium dioxide can be a hazard in industrial applications the same as
silica sand. the fine particulate mater can damage the lungs.
its completely safe to use in most non-industrial applications.
its used as a coloring in paint and food coloring. its used to mark
the boundaries on any sports field.
California of course says it may be carcinogenic.
i used it when mixing paint. 50 lb gags at a time.
i used a mask of course. with that amount of potential
risk it would be foolish not too.
the amount dispersed in to e-juice should not be
of any concern. its used in the food production
industry all the time.aside from the mixers there
is no apparent risk from smelling it while things cook.
regards
mike
- Status
