have you seen these research?

[Kent C]

University California Riverside's ethics department

https://secure.ethicspoint.com/domain/media/en/gui/23531/

This hotline service allows you to report incidents of the following nature:

• Fraud, Theft or Embezzlement
• Economic Waste, or Misuse of University Resources
• Conflicts of Interest or Conflicts of Commitment
• Computer Security and other Privacy Violations
• Public or Environmental Health and Safety
• Discrimination or Harassment, Sexual Harassment
• Research or Academic Misconduct
• Compliance with University Policies
• Retaliation
• Workplace Misconduct

 

[DC2]

https://secure.ethicspoint.com/domain/media/en/gui/23531/

This hotline service allows you to report incidents of the following nature:

• Fraud, Theft or Embezzlement
• Economic Waste, or Misuse of University Resources
• Conflicts of Interest or Conflicts of Commitment
• Computer Security and other Privacy Violations
• Public or Environmental Health and Safety
• Discrimination or Harassment, Sexual Harassment
• Research or Academic Misconduct
• Compliance with University Policies
• Retaliation
• Workplace Misconduct

You missed one, so I took the liberty of highlighting it as well...

 

[Nimaz]

have you seen the studies - strategies to reduce tin and other metals in electronic cigarettes and ''puffing topography of electronic cigarette users'' ? both came out in teh plosone magazine recently online.

just thought it was a bit interesting. any thoughts?

Which studies? Quote some references so we can look at the science behind your claim!

 

[DC2]

Which studies? Quote some references so we can look at the science behind your claim!

They've been posted here before, and thoroughly debunked.
I'd go spend some time looking for the threads regarding those studies, but it's not worth the effort.

It's all garbage, and they know it.

 

[Nimaz]

Looking into the whole Plos One thing, I came across this on Wiki:
(I know Wiki is not the know all end all, but this, I believe, is accurate.)

"Publication concept
PLOS ONE is built on several conceptually different ideas compared to traditional peer-reviewed scientific publishing in that it does not use the perceived importance of a paper as a criterion for acceptance or rejection. The idea is that, instead, PLOS ONE only verifies whether experiments and data analysis were conducted rigorously, and leaves it to the scientific community to ascertain importance, post publication, through debate and comment."

Also this:
"PLOS ONE is financed by charging authors a publication fee. The "author-pays" model allows PLOS journals to provide all articles to everybody for free (i.e., open access) immediately after publication. As of July 2010, PLOS ONE charged authors US$1,350[20] to publish an article.....This model has drawn criticism, however. In 2011 Richard Poynder posited that journals such as PLoS ONE that charge authors for publication rather than charging users for access may produce a conflict of interest that reduces peer review standards (accept more articles, earn more revenue)."

And this:
"Operating under a pay-to-publish model, PLOS ONE publishes approximately 70% of submitted manuscripts."

So, getting this "study" published was just a matter of writing a check. I think I will ignore this breaking news.

Thank you for pulling this information out... Indeed, it's very easy to publish in PlosOne and investigators publish a paper in there when they cannot publish it in a better journal. Indeed PlosOne impact factor has decreased 1 point in the past 5 years. I've read some good publications in this journal but as far as I am concern, the one published on ecig related topics are pretty sketchy... "Publish or die" as they say in the field, so many scientists, postdoc even grad students are ready to do anything to publish, keeping the funding and moving on in their career. The journal is not biased, many researchers are...

 

[retired1]

Yeah, but the really sad thing is the original poster was coming directly from Prue Talbot's department. If I were a bettin' man, I'd wager the post is a put up job just to see what the response to it is going to be.

 

[Steamix]

Pay-to-publish, interesting. So if I mail them a cheque along with my thesis that the earth is flat...

So anyone with deep pockets can publish 'scientific research' which then gets quoted by others of the same interest group as 'scientific studies show...' and all of a sudden, utter hogwash becomes gospel...

Spin doctoring at its finest. Come to think of it, it is pretty disgusting as it devalues the hard work of the scientists who are in it for finding out and not trying to tilt the table...

 

[Marina2]

So anyone with deep pockets can publish 'scientific research' which then gets quoted by others of the same interest group as 'scientific studies show...' and all of a sudden, utter hogwash becomes gospel...

yep... it's called "Blinded by Science".

Thomas Dolby anyone? "...hit me with technology." lol

 

[Kent C]

To answer the OP's question - yes, we have seen this. It is a rehash of the 2013 study posted here:
https://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/f...igarette-cartomizer-fluid-and-aerosol.398309/

Oddly, the "updated" study has some of the same pictures in it as the older study.


Here's the "new and improved" study...(two spaces to break before and after www. )

http:// www. plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0138933&representation=PDF


EC were purchased between 2012–2013 (brand A), between 2009–2012 (brand B), between 2011–2013 (brand C) and in 2014 (brand D). Brands A, B, and C are all cartomizer models, while brand D is a disposable
device.

Basically all cartos. Wondering what the leaching properties are of cartos 6 years old... anyway...

See if you can see the problem with this 'technique':

For brand A, a saw was used to cut through the metal mouthpiece to expose the intact atomizing
unit. Particles created during sawing were made of stainless steel, which was not analyzed
in this study, and sawing was done away from the regions of analysis.

Remember now we're taking about sawing open a cartomizer that has the filler inside as well as the sock over the coil.... Would the fact that they didn't analyze stainless steel (the saw) and the fact that they sawed 'away from the regions on analysis' create 'pristine conditions' for analysis? What about the cylinder of the carto that you sawed? What - you 'shook off' the filler and figured that was 'good enough'?? Or did you RELY on the fact that some metal from the sawed carto body would be found??

Aerosol was generated using a smoking machine built at the University of Kentucky

We're familiar with these machines. Used to 'simulate' (not!) actual vaping (not!). Actually used to create extremely dry hits for long periods of time that no vaper (newbie or vet) would stand for, for more than a nano second.


4.3 second puffs were collected as an earlier study had shown this to be the average puff duration for EC users.

They must have watched old Parked (Parker) vaping videos Well, not that long, ... but wondering what the interval was for 10 straight puffs.

Tin, copper, zinc, silver, nickel and chromium concentrations were analyzed in the aerosol of
three cartomizers from each of the four brands included in the study (Fig 1). Except for tin,
concentrations were generally below 0.20 μg /10 puffs, and in some cases elements were not
detectable, e.g., tin was not detected in the aerosol of brands C (2013) and D (Fig 1A). In one
brand, C (2011), only copper and tin were detected, and in some cases there was significant
variation in elemental concentration within a brand (e.g., copper in brand C (2011) and zinc in
brand B had high variances) (Fig 1B). Silver concentrations were low or undetectable in all
brands. Zinc concentrations ranged from below the level of quantification to 0.127 μg/10 puffs.

Copper concentrations were higher in brands B-D than in brand A and were generally higher
than zinc concentrations (Fig 1B). Chromium and nickel were either not detected, e.g. brand C
(2011), or were detected at relatively low levels (e.g., brand D). Tin was the most variable element
with brands B-D having relatively low concentrations of tin (range = 0 to 0.036 μg/
10puffs), while brand A had on average 100 to 1000 times as much tin than the other three
brands (Fig 1A).

Dr. F could do a better critique at this point but some of the things that got my attention.

"generally below 0.20ug/10 puffs" - I'm guessing this is not a 'significant' amount (to be concerned about).

"were not detectable" and
"tin was not detected in the aerosol of brands C (2013) and D" [2014] and
"Silver concentrations were low or undetectable in all brands." and

"zinc in brand B had high variances". "High" according to what standard? "High" compared to those that were 'undetectable' in other brands??

Tin was the most variable element with brands B-D having relatively low concentrations of tin (range = 0 to 0.036 μg/10puffs), while brand A had on average 100 to 1000 times as much tin than the other three brands (Fig 1A). Again, if the range was 0 to 0.36μg then that would be 100 to 1000 x 0 = 0 or 100 to 1000 x 0.036μg or somewhere between 0 and 36μg. (the chart shows above 3.0 μg, btw).

Some of the pictures in the fillers look like something from the autopsies we did in Dangerous Cartos (in what? '09 or '10? )

See we already knew this stuff and things changed, and not by the gov't that pays you to dig up crap on ecigs - but by our own self-interested actions. Instead of culling the health forums for out-of-context 'dirt', you should have been reporting to new vapers that they can learn how to vape safely at ECF.

 

[somdcomputerguy]

And let's also be clear that an underground market will emerge because of such tactics in place and this is precisely where minors will be getting their product. I hope people who pay for and conduct such studies realize their responsibility and role they are playing in contributing to an underground market where QC is absolutely not necessary. This likely has a direct causal link to what type of product kids will be accessing given the fact that many do not wish for them to purchase from the open, legal market. Here's the part where the researchers and funders pat themselves on their collective backs for instituting an even more dangerous market for minors given their zealous, and rather trivial concerns about all the tiniest of nuances for all things EC. Insert slow clap here.

A lack of decent QC will result in poor quality and possibly dangerous liquids, batteries, and PV's. Then the one's that are saying there's danger already can say, "See.."

 

[Katmar]

Haters gonna hate.....shame...

 

[zapped]

I'd also like to know why University California Riverside's ethics department appears to have gone into hibernation.

University of California Ethics Department?

Isnt that akin to the "Irish Anti-drinking league"?

Or possibly The American Rugby League?

Maybe even the French Bathing Society?

 

[Jman8]

University of California Ethics Department?

Isnt that akin to the "Irish Anti-drinking league"?

Or possibly The American Rugby League?

Maybe even the French Bathing Society?

Or even Liberal Think Tank

 

[Katya]

Or we will.... :- )

One of the best 'standard' creation threads was Dangerous Cartos - perhaps Prue might peruse that one as well. It's the evolution of the clearomizer/tank. Not going to include all 'details' but it started with the 'E1' clearo by Royal Smokers? Badkolo was our "contact". In attempting to respond to feedback, solder was eliminated, as was glue, as was short wicks, and glass was used instead of plastic along with other 'tweaks' going through several 'versions'. Later bottom coils were a direct result of our 'dry hits' on top coils and it all is basically the reason why we have Kanger Subtanks, GS AIR, Nautilus, Delta KF4 and other tanks, today. No gov't standards needed. Just ECFers with minds. And because of word of mouth and demand, it even makes clones and less expensive clearos better as well for people who never heard of ECF.

Same could be said for a lot of threads here - Battery Surprise! thread, Some of the battery incident threads, which resulted in better short and charge protection by some of us contacting manufacturers and vendors.

Right...

We all know that Prue and her students/fellows have been using ECF for their shameful pursuits for years. We also know that the site is often visited by all kinds of agents provocateur who join and start all kinds of ANTZ mischief. Shame on them.

@greenleaves7: Electronic cigarettes are at least 95% safer (99% by other estimates) than smoking per Public Health England:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...mmissioned_by_Public_Health_England_FINAL.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-an-emerging-public-health-consensus

Please forward this information to Prue and other prominent researchers at your department.

 

[DrMA]

Clearly a case that must be referred to the FBI for further investigation. Cyber intrusions of this nature are a serious crime in USA and we must make examples of the perpetrators.

 

[retired1]

There was no unauthorized intrusion.

There was, however, unauthorized data scraping from ECF. And then they had the cajones (after we blocked them) to ask to use the data they filched.

 

[Katya]

There was no unauthorized intrusion.

There was, however, unauthorized data scraping from ECF. And then they had the cajones (after we blocked them) to ask to use the data they filched.

Do we have something in our TOS that specifically forbids data mining for research or other purposes without explicit permission of the posters? This is a private forum, after all. How can we prevent someone from using their private email to collect information that can subsequently be used for "research" or anti-vaping propaganda?

 

[retired1]

Not much you can do to prevent it. In this case, the "bot" was registered as a user. I just happened to catch the user doing strange things, which got me to digging.

 

[Steamix]

Not much to find here for ANTZ - really need to scrape the bottom and present whatever you might find VERY much out of context.
Sawing a carto in half and making a story out of it. In case they haven't noticed - we've moved on while they look at yesteryears technology.
Wonder what's next : they'll saw a wagon wheel in half and their research finds it to be a bumpy ride...sheesh.

Why bother with all that BS anway?

BT is hellbent on taking control of vaping - and governments are only to eager to oblige:

The article is in German - but the image of the letter is in english. And the EU's reply , well ... hard to tell with all the censored out stuff which language it actually is...

http://liquid-news.com/e-zigaretten...eiert-lobbyabsprachen-mit-der-tabakindustrie/

Scary, considering that this is coming from an outfit that's supposedly democratic...

Reminds me of a quote from the movie 'Avatar' :
"They're just p.... on us without even giving us the courtesy of calling it rain."

 

[TyPie]

Imagine that! PAYING to have your work published versus BEING PAID to publish.
Gee, I wonder what's wrong with THIS picture???
(What could POSSIBLY go wrong here???)

Yiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiikes!!!!