Debunking of the latest B.S. FDA claims.

Discussion in 'The Vapor Station' started by eric, Jul 23, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Image has been removed.
URL has been removed.
Email address has been removed.
Media has been removed.
  1. eric

    eric Forum Supplier ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Location:
    Texas, USA & Gloucestershire, UK
    In lieu of the recent FDA hype in regards to Electronic Cigarettes, please read through the following:

    FDA NEWS RELEASE

    Next is the FDA Safety Alert:

    Regarding Diethylene Glycol:
    Looking at the Health New Zealand study[SUP]1[/SUP], the presence of Diethylene Glycol was not tested for. They seem to have based their tests on manufacturer ingredient lists and known tobacco carcinogens.

    So what is Diethylene Glycol?
    The MSDS[SUP]2[/SUP] shows that chronic exposure to Diethylene Glycol can cause lesions on the liver and kidneys, as well as damage to the same organs. In the case of inhalation, the only first aid recommended is removal from the source to fresh air. The toxicalogical information is as follows:


    This shows that Diethylene Glycol is not a known carcinogen, nor is it expected to be found as one in the future. In addition, the dose required to kill half of the sample of rats tested is 12.565 g/kg and 11.89 g/kg for rabbits. Assuming this can be extended to humans, an average adult male would have to ingest 855.925 g to receive a lethal dose.

    Is Diethylene Glycol the main ingredient in antifreeze?
    The EPA[SUP]3[/SUP] has this to say about antifreeze variations:

    Ethylene Glycol is the main ingredient in antifreeze. While straight antifreeze is toxic, the main hazard is from used antifreeze, which absorbs heavy metals.

    What about Nitrosamines? Nitrosamines are carcinogens. Tobacco specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) are found in the liquid used by Ruyan in their cartridges. According to the Health New Zealand report[SUP]1[/SUP], the amount increases with the amount of nicotine, and the average is 3.928 Ng (or parts per billion [ppb]). The breakdown is as follows:


    The highest amount found was in 16mg liquid, which had an average of 8.183 Ng. In comparison, Nicorette Gum (which is approved as an NRT) contains about 8 Ng. To put that number into perspective, Swedish moist snuff contains between 1000 and 2400 ppb nitrosamines, and unburned tobacco from cigarettes contains around 1230 ppb.

    [SUP]1[/SUP] http://www.healthnz.co.nz/2ndSafetyReport_9Apr08.pdf
    [SUP]2[/SUP] DIETHYLENE GLYCOL
    [SUP]3[/SUP] Antifreeze | Common Wastes & Materials | US EPA
     
  2. eric

    eric Forum Supplier ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Location:
    Texas, USA & Gloucestershire, UK
    Thanks to TheIllustratedMan.
     
  3. wjmcspirit

    wjmcspirit Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Location:
    Tempe, Arizona
    The FDA/Government will do anything to control what we can and can not do. If it's not providing a benefit for them, they will find a way to make it be.
     
  4. AnglVapin

    AnglVapin Super Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    Location:
    Cajunland - Louisiana
    Excellent post!
     
  5. Luke15_7

    Luke15_7 Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    Location:
    Washington, A.C.
    Well done - thank you, Eric! Let's see what WFAA says to this information after their news report with the not quite accurate facts...

    The truly sad thing is that those that don't know about this already will likely never hear this correct information, but will have been heavily influenced and accept as truth he poorly factual reports made yesterday. :mad:
     
  6. eric

    eric Forum Supplier ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Location:
    Texas, USA & Gloucestershire, UK
    The FDA not only overstepped its bounds in seizing SE and Njoy property, but now they've bald face lied to the American people in a press release and it is very unlikely anything will ever even come of it.

    Our only bet now is word of mouth.
     
  7. midian

    midian Full Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2009
    Location:
    Coralville, Iowa - USA
    Agreed this is a very good reply to the FDA statement. In the end though we really need to identify 3 major facts surrounding electronic cigarettes and the FDA.

    1) Big tobacco doesn’t want electronic cigarettes to exist; this is why they allowed the last tobacco bill to be rubber stamped without hardly ‘any’ arguments. Therefore the FDA has the full backing of big tobacco – as long as they can still produce their cash-cow.
    2) Government as a whole doesn’t like electronic cigarettes either because they can’t find a way to tax it; it’s literally that simple – no surprises there. Give it time and someone with an actual science degree ‘might’ get into an office so that they can finally educate senators on how to tax based upon milligram levels…not a hard concept…but I’m sure there’s a politician who simply wont get it…
    3) The FDA pretty much got a major slap to the face when the last tobacco bill (AKA: the Marlboro Bill) when most to all the verbiage was adjusted to be specifically pointed at the tobacco plant. Now the only stand they have is to completely start over with all new legislation to target electronic cigarettes – and that REALLY pisses them off.

    Not sure about the rest of you, but the company who produced my eLiquid completely changed their recipe so that zero chemicals are being extracted from the tobacco plant (take that FDA). In addition, the company also can produce documentation on ‘every’ chemical used to produce my eLiquid; all of which are approved by the FDA (again – take that FDA). The bottom line is that the FDA has a long time to go before they’ll actually have ‘factual’ evidence to try and out-right ban electronic cigarettes. Until then, I’m continuing my use as normal and keeping my eyes out for any statements that actually have credibility – not baseless accusations or unfounded statistics that can’t be cited by a credible source.

    Vape on my brothers & sisters! Our day has come to tell big tobacco we are no longer blind and we plan on using our constitutional privilege to chose.
     
  8. Bigbob

    Bigbob Senior Member ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Eric, not to pick on you, while I'm sure your data is good and comes from trusted source material, you as a vendor are biased and should refrain from commenting on the subject. Even if it's good data a vendor's opinion will be mistrusted and do more harm than good. Of course this is just my opinion and should be taken with a grain of salt.
     
  9. beckah54

    beckah54 Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009
    Location:
    Ohio
    The government of this country is supposed to be the servant of the people. It now has become exactly the opposite. Put a warning label on the ecig if they want, but let me choose if I smoke them or not. My freedom of choice is going out the window, and I, for one, have not given them the right to monitor every aspect of my life. Geez, enough already!
    Civil war comes to mind.
     
  10. newbutt

    newbutt Super Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Location:
    Bedford, Texas, United States
    I have to disagree with you Bob. I feel voices like Eric's are the ones that need to be the loudest.Why, because most of what we are hearing/reading are rants from users that are venting & don't really know what is being said. Eric on the other hand,apparently stayed up late on this one & is well versed on the subject.
    At this time we need as many voices as will speak,IMO.
     
  11. eric

    eric Forum Supplier ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Location:
    Texas, USA & Gloucestershire, UK
    Why would I refrain from voicing my opinion on my own threads in my own Supplier sub forum that I pay for myself? Be practical here, my friend.
     
  12. eric

    eric Forum Supplier ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Location:
    Texas, USA & Gloucestershire, UK
    The more I look over this study, the more I realize how loaded it is.

    This is a total farce. The FDA needs to be called on this.

    I implore you all to donate anything you can to the ECA. Even if it's $1.00.
     
  13. lvlninety9

    lvlninety9 Senior Member ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    May 19, 2009
    Location:
    Texas
    Honestly I think vendors need to voice their opinions as well. I'm sure the majority of the vendors use the products they sell as well. Just like Eric. The threat of a ban not only affects the consumers but the suppliers as well. Especially those suppliers that use these sales to supplement their income. In this day of economic downturn and a rising unemployment rate, a ban could be devastating. It would mean that now only would suppliers be forced to shut down their business, but be forced into using analog cigarettes further creating a drain on their financial status. For the suppliers it's an even bigger concern. Everyone should become involved in this suit. Not just the consumers.
     
  14. mikol_g

    mikol_g New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Where could we go to donate to the cause? I would love to do something myself to help save a product that has helped save me, and to see ALL SUPPLIERS come together if only for a brief moment to stand up for their (and all of our) rights. These things are great and are helping a lot of people.
     
  15. souporvapor

    souporvapor Super Member ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    Location:
    Everett, WA
    Thanks Eric!

    and to donate - I believe there's a link at the top of each page to
    SUPPORT ECF

    30 years of smoking....
    Vaporized by my Screwdriver!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page