CEH files shakedown lawsuits in CA against 24 large e-cig companies alleging high carcinogen levels

[RobbyRocket]

I just don't get why people can't mind their own business. That's part of why this country is so messed up too many people constantly saying they're offended by something or preaching to other adults. If you don't like vape, don't vape. There is no way anyone can convince me that simple vapor could contain anything comparable to tobacco smoke. That doesn't pass the smell test.

 

[Bill Godshall]

CEH also issued this fear mongering propaganda report
http://www.ceh.org/wp-content/uploa...-Cancer-Causing-Chemicals-in-E-Cigarettes.pdf


After CEH sued a bunch of companies last year for not posting Prop 65 warnings about nicotine, it appears CEH now wants those same companies (and virtually all others) to change those warnings to also cite formaldehyde and acetaldehyde.

If CEH's test results were accurate (which may or may not be the case), perhaps a legal solution would be for e-cig companies and vape shops to post Prop 65 warnings for vapor products saying:
“This product contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.”

 

[nicnik]

It is a scam to make money by suing companies selling in California who don't have the warning. Adding the warning solves the problem...

No, they know they'd lose in court and look very bad. The goal is getting the scary headlines in the media, very quickly. They seem to be in a very big hurry.

 

[stevegmu]

No, they know they'd lose in court and look very bad. The goal is getting the scary headlines in the media, very quickly. They seem to be in a very big hurry.

In a California court? I wouldn't count on that...

 

[nicnik]

It's a scam anyway you slice it

Also helps explain how labels could be a bad idea for industry

And helps explain how labels for other products could be based entirely on lies

And there action attempts to force e-liquid packaging to lie.

 

[stevegmu]

It's California. They think everything causes cancer. The good people of California voted for Prop 65...

http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/files/P65single082515.pdf

 

[nicnik]

CEH also issued this fear mongering propaganda report
http://www.ceh.org/wp-content/uploa...-Cancer-Causing-Chemicals-in-E-Cigarettes.pdf


After CEH sued a bunch of companies last year for not posting Prop 65 warnings about nicotine, it appears CEH now wants those same companies (and virtually all others) to change those warnings to also cite formaldehyde and acetaldehyde.

If CEH's test results were accurate (which may or may not be the case), perhaps a legal solution would be for e-cig companies and vape shops to post Prop 65 warnings for vapor products saying:
“This product contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.”

Here's how Charles Margulis responded to one of the questions on a page answering questions about that earlier action:
http://www.ceh.org/news-events/blog/ceh-legal-action-safe-vape/

February 6, 2015
CEH Legal Action: Be Safe When You Vape
By Charles Margulis

CEH has been receiving questions about our recent legal action against companies that make e-cigarettes and vaping products. We welcome an open exchange on the topic. Below are some responses to the more frequently asked questions.
<snip>
Q: Isn’t vaping different from using e-cigarettes? Vaping doesn’t produce smoke so why would it pose any health risks? Since e-cigarettes and vaping products don’t produce smoke, how can you say they produce second-hand smoke?

A: All of the products we purchased contain nicotine and are intended to deliver nicotine via vapor (smoke).[vi] Nicotine is known to cause serious reproductive health problems. In addition, some studies have suggested that other toxic chemicals may be produced by e-cigarettes, including chemicals known to cause cancer and/or reproductive health hazards.[vii] One recent study suggested potential health risks from nicotine in second-hand smoke produced by e-cigarettes,[viii] and another found higher levels of toxic metals in second-hand smoke from e-cigarettes than traditional cigarettes.[ix]

He seems oblivious and determined to call it smoke. Same as in his email to me. Maybe the email was literally calling it smoke because they designed the recent test to produce combustion.

 

[Kent C]

[nicnik - posted while you were posting the above - I suspect the same - purposely 'junking' their "science"]

If they based their conclusions on data toward the end (eliquid "used up") then for one, that doesn't replicated normal vaping - because low levels in tanks tend to leak - and two, it is at that point that some by products that aren't actually part of the makeup of the eliquid could be seen - similarly to Peter Hayek's "When a chicken is burned, the resulting black crisp will contain carcinogens but that does not mean that chicken are carcinogenic."

 

[pennysmalls]

Well the timing of this lawsuit isn't surprising. It would take something like this to cancel out the possible good the UK report created. But you know what? I haven't seen this mentioned yet in my tiny social sphere so this stuff isn't making it down into every nook and crannie of society, yet.

 

[RobbyRocket]

They're trying to discredit the legitimate positive findings of the UK study. The simple problem for the nanny nazis is that the facts aren't on their side when it comes to vaping. Big tobacco i.e Philip Morris/Altria & RJR want to outright ban mods & customized vaping. Of course. They want to squeeze whatever profits left out of regular cigarettes they can. Down the road, the tobacco companies in my estimation want everyone to be forced to have to vape off of crap devices like Blus or MarkTens so people will be so disgusted by vaping that they'll just go back to cigarettes. Oh the irony. The nanny nazis & big tobacco on the same side. That's scary as hell.

 

[Jman8]

I would rather industry stop selling product to CA than put on label that confirms what Prop 65 is looking for.

Yeah, I realize that would upset a whole lot of CA vapers, but right about now I'm upset by a state that would think this is a good course of action and that to appease the situation, the label ought to be affixed to our products. I see that as one avenue towards resolution, but see the other avenue as making more sense, politically. Let the black market in CA be wide open as far as I'm concerned.

 

[nicnik]

They're trying to discredit the legitimate positive findings of the UK study.

Likely true. It also seems to be coordinated with the latest Glantz "study" (the 1-50% harm compared to smoking idiocy). And you're right - Big Government and Big Tobacco have been working together since 1998.

 

[RobbyRocket]

The nanny nazis & big tobacco have the same motivations but different goals..all based on controlling people like sheep. Big Tobacco scoffs at vapers, they want everyone to see it as a novelty, but want basically total monopoly smoking, via regular cigarettes. They want the only game in town to be the mass produced nasty gas station ecigs, so people will just keep smoking regular cigarettes. The nanny nazis just want to control everyone's minute actions but yet I'd venture those same people who are always on tv whining about this or that or claiming to be so righteous wouldn't stop and pull you out of a ditch if you needed help. Yea I got their number lol.

 

[nicnik]

CEH also issued this fear mongering propaganda report
http://www.ceh.org/wp-content/uploa...-Cancer-Causing-Chemicals-in-E-Cigarettes.pdf

They pepper this trash with references to the vapor as "smoke", with this excuse:

*Note: In technical terms, e-cigarettes produce an aerosol containing nicotine and other compounds. In this report we refer to the aerosol as smoke, in the sense of the dictionary definition: “fume or vapor often resulting from the action of heat on moisture.”

Lame. Deceitful. Corrupt. "THE" dictionary definition? Took some fishing around to find that one way down the list of unusual, non-literal uses of the word. Not a definition fit for science and they know it!

 

[Kent C]

"THE" dictionary definition? Took some fishing around to find that one way down the list of unusual, non-literal uses of the word.

In regard to ecigarettes it may have the [ARCAIC] tag soon.

 

[Kent C]

I would rather industry stop selling product to CA than put on label that confirms what Prop 65 is looking for.

Yeah, I realize that would upset a whole lot of CA vapers, but right about now I'm upset by a state that would think this is a good course of action and that to appease the situation, the label ought to be affixed to our products. I see that as one avenue towards resolution, but see the other avenue as making more sense, politically. Let the black market in CA be wide open as far as I'm concerned.

Same with a lot of products. If I were GM (instead of the gov't being GM ) there would be no "California models". Same with guns, and other products. "We make cars (guns) the way we like. If your 'state' doesn't like it, then either buy something else, or start up a cottage industry to make the changes you require. We are not going to have two assembly lines just to accommodate your idiot regulations - let your own idiots do that. Perhaps it might create some jobs in your area."

 

[Kent C]

"go up in smoke" - Something that goes up in smoke fails to produce the result that was wanted:

Kind of like their definition of 'smoke'

 

[philoshop]

Common sense would indicate that putting a warning label on everything would dilute the very intent of the labeling.

 

[nicnik]

In regard to ecigarettes it may have the [ARCAIC] tag soon.

Well, I was exaggerating a bit there with "way down" and "unusual". "Smoke" is a very strong word. It evokes powerful images. Smoke is a danger to living things, and a warning sign of greater danger, for example, fire.

Because of the strong images and emotions it conjures up, the word has various common, non-literal uses, none of which are appropriate when discussing science. Scientists researching the mystery of how Nolan Ryan was able to throw a baseball so fast, weren't about to test the air for combustion byproducts, even though it was often said, "He put smoke on that ball!" by the play by play announcers.

I wonder if CEH's use of the word has made it to the lower ranks on a dictionary or two only recently, in the same way "vaping" has made it to the dictionary only recently, although much more prominently, because ANTZ have spread that non-literal application to the public like a virus, to try to destroy vaping, but only since vaping started appearing on the scene. Either way, it's not fit for the discussions and science of vaping.

 

[nopatch]

the coils may reach 200 C but,the liquid in an e-cig starts vaporizing at about 84.4 C when the residual
water starts vaporizing atomizing the base mix into an aerosol.optimal vapor production is at about
90 C.
this is beside the point as theoretically they could have used ultrasonic methods too.
its still a cost thing.
regards
mike

That temperature thing is wrong.In unsteadystate vaporization that occurs in ecig equipment vapor is not produced at boiling points of liquids.
The boiling temperatures encountered are not less than 140-150 deg c assuming steady state conditions. 90 deg c is completely wrong.You don't get any vapor that you can see at 90.