And now they're coming after drippers.......Monday morning junk science edition
- Thread starter Eskie
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Brown?
Dartmouth?
Columbia?
Cornell?
Why is there 8 when IV literally translates to 4?
Tapatyped
Of course not.
They are surely better at preparing young minds for the world.
Princeton graduated such enigmatic thinkers like David Duchovny and Brooke Sheilds, while Penn state likes to brag that Bruce Banner is an alumni and has more corrupt administrative issues than it can handle.
These are not places I would send my children for an actual education.
Penn (The University of Pennsylvania) and Penn State (The Pennsylvania State University) are not the same institution. The former is an Ivy League school, the latter is not.
Not surprising (coming after drippers) actually.
With dripping the coils and wick are typically running at high temperature, so the Formaldehyde does stuff fly at least some, with more ordinary and non sub ohm vaping its a tough sled for blaming vaping for much of anything. Dripping has acquired the reputation of being the most harmful form of vaping, and its not entirely without warrant. Its only natural that big tobacco would attack it.
More surprising is the tobacco vs dripping arguments are not really arranged in the same ungenerous journalism. They end up being effective advertising to keep people smoking. Its surprising to hear the number of people who will just flat out say, Vaping is bad for your health, worse then cigarettes. Big tobacco has done an astounding job, of using small sound bites and ignorance of the public for the cape and gown act.
With dripping the coils and wick are typically running at high temperature, so the Formaldehyde does stuff fly at least some, with more ordinary and non sub ohm vaping its a tough sled for blaming vaping for much of anything. Dripping has acquired the reputation of being the most harmful form of vaping, and its not entirely without warrant. Its only natural that big tobacco would attack it.
More surprising is the tobacco vs dripping arguments are not really arranged in the same ungenerous journalism. They end up being effective advertising to keep people smoking. Its surprising to hear the number of people who will just flat out say, Vaping is bad for your health, worse then cigarettes. Big tobacco has done an astounding job, of using small sound bites and ignorance of the public for the cape and gown act.
That's NOT how it works.
Joose doesn't suddenly atomize at a different temperature because of a different wattage, resistance or because you choose to drip.
A "hotter vape" is one that consists of more coil mass in a smaller chamber and/or less air flow. Or higher coil placement. So it cools less before it's inhaled.
A "hotter vape" DOES NOT produce any aldehyde.
A BURNT VAPE does.
And it tastes like ****!
Tapatyped
Last edited:
huh? I used the words high temperature not hot vape. The doctor in this article uses the word higher heat. Same thing.
http://www. electroniccigaretteconsumerreviews. com/e-cigarette-safety-and-e-liquid-safety-is-dripping-dangerous/
E-Cigarette Safety | E-Liquid Safety. Is Dripping Dangerous?
from this article: "Dr. Alan Shihadeh of Virginia Commonwealth University’s Center for the study of tobacco products said that dripping causes the e-liquid to heat with such intensity that the formaldehyde levels “approach the concentration in cigarettes”.
Notice that doesnt make them (drippers) more dangerous then cigarettes, it just means that the levels of formaldehyde can be about that of traditional cigarettes. Its not more dangerous because cigarettes contain chemicals that vaping (in this case dripping)doesnt. BTW, THIS IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE, SUPPORTED BY MANY ARTICLES ON THE TOPIC. Therefore your way out in left field with your object lesson.
The article also says, "The research indicated that at higher heat there were higher levels of detectable formaldehyde. At 4.8 volts and higher, higher concentrations of formaldehyde were detected." This is an indisputable fact, supported by many people who have researched the topic. It is also essentially what I said. Therefore I am correct.
Lastly, the article says this "It is the higher levels of heat commonly associated with dripping that have been linked to an increased detection in the levels of toxins according to the Nicotine and Tobacco Research study." Now as a practical matter, I realize there may be some dingbats out there who dont use high heat with dripping,in order to prove a preposterous point, but the reality of it is most almost always do. Secondly, there is no reason to to bring the air into the matter. Without substantial airflow you produce insubstantial vape quantity to even qualify the discussion. Your hand wringing is pointless.
Numerous articles, besides this one, support what I said and what Dr. Alan Shihabeh said.
I havent a clue what your talking about.
You either Rossum, you give the guy a like on a post which is clueless.
I am not going to debate what scientific culture, (the ones that are generous to vaping), have already proved in a lab to be true.
End of discussion, and I am not coming back on the topic, if you cant agree to trust what doctors have proved in a lab, neither is one more sentence by me going to qualify.
Last edited by a moderator:
You realize that the paper you're referring to is using a 510 dripping atomizer, you know, the ones that are basically cartos with no filler, and running them up to 5v? It's just like running a ce4 at 5v and saying, "see, there's formaldehyde." Yes, it's there, because you're burning it, not vaping in the way an actual person would.
Last edited by a moderator:
I can see that.
I'm talking about "doctors" and "scientists" that either do experiments TO OBTAIN THE RESULTS THEY'RE PAID FOR.
Or that didn't bother to taste their burnt experiments to realize nobody would inhale Acrolein or any other aldehyde.
Simple solution? Vape AT TEMPERATURES THE LIQUID ATOMIZES AT instead of burning it.
This "information" was debunked 3 years ago.
Now, either you're going to break that junk science link or a moderator will...
https://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/index.php?threads/51178/
Tapatyped
I've not seen a case I can personally verify the facts on where they were correct.
Though that only accounts for a dozen or two stories.
Either way, I'd say ill-informed, bought or forced to the will of their network and it's shareholders.
Shareholders which may just be our known enemies.
Tapatyped
This is what I was trying to talk about earlier in this thread, I don't believe it's fair to label something like this "fake news." Think about it from the reporter's perspective, a non-vaper. You have the FDA and CDC broadcasting their stance about vaping, and how it's the new threat to teenagers. You get someone who does a survey that says not only are teens vaping, but they're doing it in this "new" way called "dripping." Then you find a study that shows that "dripping" can have higher levels of formaldehyde than "regular" vaping.
If you didn't know all the specifics and had a full understanding of what vaping is and how these studies are skewed, like some of our fellow vapers even in this thread, you might think this story was a public service.
Happens so we know better about vaping than these reporters. and because of it we can see their lies. But vaping is not the only topic of a free press... Today "free press" = free to lie press.
I happily drip at less than 4v and never over 18w. Dripping isn't just for clouds, it can be about flavour as well. That's not to say i don't produce a reasonable amount of vapour.
Yours
A dingbat
Nope it's fake news, when's the last time they put Greg Conley or Farsalinos on their network? They just don't care about how safe vaping is because that's not exciting. We don't live in the 19th century anymore, information is VERY easy to get today, it took me 30 seconds to download Farsalinos' report. Greg Conley is more than willing to go on air I'm sure.
Ok, good luck convincing anyone outside of the vaping community to believe that.
You and I both know it's the truth. The problem is, no one, besides us, knows or cares who Conley or Farsalinos are. So you get FDA, CDC, Public Health vs random nutter that no one has heard of, telling you that Tobacco Products are a good thing. The vaping industry has a PR problem, and no one is doing much of anything about it.
I just did yesterday, my aunt is now vaping. That's not the first time either, turns out if you refute studies with evidence people might actually believe it. There's not just a nut saying that vaping is safe; there's a whole College that's saying vaping is safer, you know the same College that reported the dangers of cigarettes two years before us. The media doesn't care end of story.
It's not "fake" news. It's what we refer to as junk science. The results were real and purposely skewed to obtain a desired result.
I can see that.
I'm talking about "doctors" and "scientists" that either do experiments TO OBTAIN THE RESULTS THEY'RE PAID FOR.
Or that didn't bother to taste their burnt experiments to realize nobody would inhale Acrolein or any other aldehyde.
Simple solution? Vape AT TEMPERATURES THE LIQUID ATOMIZES AT instead of burning it.
This "information" was debunked 3 years ago.
Now, either you're going to break that junk science link or a moderator will...
https://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/index.php?threads/51178/
Tapatyped
I sway this direction myself.
Notice I gave 3 categories for the reporter.
Ill-informed.
Bought.
Bending to the will of the network.
Problem is with all the paid for "science", you'd be hard pressed to prove the reporter doesn't believe this garbage.
Just like the poster I was responding to.
I can't blame the poster either.
All I can do is try to inform him/her.
Shrug.
Tapatyped
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked