Dimitri Goes Off on Rant About Dishonest Liquid Vendors

[YoursTruli]

If that were something that concerned me, no, I would not accept that claim without proof. If you're making the claim, you should have evidence.


First, they aren't KNOWN to pose a serious health risk, they are BELIEVED to, and with good reason, but they are not KNOWN.

Next time there's a bake sale, ask the person selling the muffins if they know whether or not their muffins are diketone free. It may be perfectly logical to know if your product contains a whole constituent, such as walnuts as an example. Does this contain walnuts? Yes, no, could contain trace amounts... But for something that is somewhat ubiquitous in the flavoring industry, and can also be created as the result of a reaction between two other chemicals, I don't find it unreasonable that someone might not know.
However, if you don't know, don't claim to know.

but they are KNOWN to pose a serious health risk and from inhalation as the exposure... just because they are being inhaled by means of eliquid vapor all of the sudden that makes them safe now? I don't even think you believe that and yes the manufactures of eliquids have known this for a while now, years, and because no one was keeping tabs on them they could and did do and say what ever they wanted to instead of doing the right thing.

 

[Lessifer]

No difference between a known risk( in a different context ) and an unknown one ?

As it's not truly a KNOWN risk in the other context, and there are other flavors that are "of concern" in the flavoring industry that we're not talking about, and most aren't aware of, no, no real difference.

I can't remember if it was this thread, or the other one where I posted the link to an article discussing all of the flavorings that FEMA designated as at least some risk for respiratory conditions.

 

[Jman8]

but they are KNOWN to pose a serious health risk and from inhalation as the exposure... just because they are being inhaled by means of eliquid vapor all of the sudden that makes them safe now?

How are you defining "safe?"

 

[Rossum]

Yes.
I think it is folly to plan on not vaping it, while still planning on vaping.

Seriously? There are plenty of flavors available with very low (approaching zero) levels of diketones, and even if there weren't, one could vape unflavored.

 

[Jman8]

Seriously? There are plenty of flavors available with very low (approaching zero) levels of diketones, and even if there weren't, one could vape unflavored.

Well, if there are plenty of flavors available with very low to zero diketones, then why is this even a big issue? Cause there are still some flavors that some vapers don't want around anymore? I mean, they're not going to ever vape them, but they want them removed from the market cause it hurts the industry, or something like that? Cause, ya know, non-vapers are totally on board with us vaping (poisonous) nicotine. Maybe we ought to make sure our vaping liquids are safe, and free of flavors and nicotine. Who's with me?

 

[Rossum]

Well, if there are plenty of flavors available with very low to zero diketones, then why is this even a big issue?

Because there are vendors who have misrepresented whether high levels of diketones are present. That's unacceptable.

 

[Lessifer]

but they are KNOWN to pose a serious health risk and from inhalation as the exposure... just because they are being inhaled by means of eliquid vapor all of the sudden that makes them safe now? I don't even think you believe that and yes the manufactures of eliquids have known this for a while now, years, and because no one was keeping tabs on them they could and did do and say what ever they wanted to instead of doing the right thing.

Can you tell me, with absolute certainty, that diketones suspending in a mixture of pg/vg that actively seeks out moisture and bonds with it, makes it past your mouth and throat into your lungs, deep into your lungs where it does damage to the bronchioles? Or, do we think that because it has been shown to possibly do this in other applications, we think it might do this in ours as well?

 

[AndriaD]

Can you tell me, with absolute certainty, that diketones suspending in a mixture of pg/vg that actively seeks out moisture and bonds with it, makes it past your mouth and throat into your lungs, deep into your lungs where it does damage to the bronchioles? Or, do we think that because it has been shown to possibly do this in other applications, we think it might do this in ours as well?

As far as I can ascertain, the damage that diketones CAN do to lungs rules out any equivocation about whether or not vaping it is dangerous, or what levels are dangerous, etc -- if there is even the SLIGHTEST risk that something can DESTROY -- not just "irritate" -- my lungs, then I want no part of it, ever, at any level.

But then, I won't gamble either, for anything over $1 -- a lottery entry -- because $1, I can afford to lose, but no more. But if that $1 lotto ticket also carried the risk of wiping out everything I own -- no matter HOW slight the risk -- then I wouldn't gamble that either.

Andria

 

[Mazinny]

As it's not truly a KNOWN risk in the other context, and there are other flavors that are "of concern" in the flavoring industry that we're not talking about, and most aren't aware of, no, no real difference.

I can't remember if it was this thread, or the other one where I posted the link to an article discussing all of the flavorings that FEMA designated as at least some risk for respiratory conditions.

Never mind then, i give up ! You are too invested in your fight against regulations imo. The only comforting thought is that you all seem to be in the minority. I still chose to believe that we are capable of self-regulation despite people like Bill Godshall. Was reminded of something my father told me long ago " There are usually zealots on both side of any issue ".

 

[Lessifer]

As far as I can ascertain, the damage that diketones CAN do to lungs rules out any equivocation about whether or not vaping it is dangerous, or what levels are dangerous, etc -- if there is even the SLIGHTEST risk that something can DESTROY -- not just "irritate" -- my lungs, then I want no part of it, ever, at any level.

But then, I won't gamble either, for anything over $1 -- a lottery entry -- because $1, I can afford to lose, but no more. But if that $1 lotto ticket also carried the risk of wiping out everything I own -- no matter HOW slight the risk -- then I wouldn't gamble that either.

Andria

That is perfectly fine, if this pertains to you and whether or not you will vape liquids that contain diketones, and not a mandate on the industry as a whole. I feel safe in assuming that, from your posting history.

Never mind then, i give up ! You are too invested in your fight against regulations imo. The only comforting thought is that you all seem to be in the minority. I still chose to believe that we are capable of self-regulation despite people like Bill Godshall. Was reminded of something my father told me long ago " There are usually zealots on both side of any issue ".

I believe we are capable of self regulation, I would just like this round to go better than the last.

Without an acceptable level of proof, we're back to accepting that SHS kills anyone that comes into contact with it, citrus flavors target 5 year olds, etc.

 

[Jman8]

Because there are vendors who have misrepresented whether high levels of diketones are present. That's unacceptable.

If I agree that's unacceptable, am I in the club (of concerned vapers)?

But if I suggest it is then most acceptable to find another vendor, am I back out of the club?

To me, they are all lying some of the time. If I deemed that unacceptable to level of something besides moving on, I'd think I'd want the whole world shut down, doing zero business with anyone. Or I'd learn to accept my hypocrisy on this principle realizing that some lies are generally okay with me, and others are where I draw a line of inflated concern which would then equate to demands that all seem reasonable to me.

 

[DC2]

There are some of us concerned enough to submit liquids to testing.
But what about those that can't afford that route?

Hypocrisy? Okay, I'm good with that.
We are all hypocrites, every day, so nothing special about that.

But misrepresenting results?
Not in any universe.

Popcorn Lung is not a demon I want to dance with.

 

[Rossum]

To me, they are all lying some of the time.

How so?

 

[YoursTruli]

Any corporation/business/individual that is making and selling anything for human consumption is responsible to know each and every ingredient that is in their product and disclose/warn consumers if their product contains ingredients that are known to/potential to pose a serious health risk... why should eliquids be exempt from this...because they can get away with it? If anyone is pushing for regulations it would be those in the industry that are exhibiting business practices like 5P knowingly selling a product with high levels of Da/AP and denying it even exist in any of their products. Seriously I don't know of one consumer that would stand for this with any other things they bought to consume yet this is somehow acceptable because it's eliquid? Makes no sense to me what so ever....

Can you tell me, with absolute certainty, that diketones suspending in a mixture of pg/vg that actively seeks out moisture and bonds with it, makes it past your mouth and throat into your lungs, deep into your lungs where it does damage to the bronchioles? Or, do we think that because it has been shown to possibly do this in other applications, we think it might do this in ours as well?

and it was not shown to possibly do this in other applications it was shown to which gives it the potential to in this inhaled application as well

 

[caramel]

Because there are vendors who have misrepresented whether high levels of diketones are present. That's unacceptable.

unfortunately the alternative is to let the government do the misrepresentation.

 

[LouisLeBeau]

Excellent, we agree on all but what we agree to disagree about.

Lets get down to brass tacks. We know and agree on these things:
Diketones MAY OR MAY NOT be a risk.
If we know they are there, we can choose to avoid this possible risk.
Just because a manufacturer SAYS they're not there, doesn't mean they aren't.

How then, do you propose, that those who do NOT want to expose themselves to this possible risk, do so?
This is what it all really boils down to. The industry has lied. There is only ONE solution that I can see that is left to those of us who want to avoid this possible. If you have a bullet proof solution that I haven't thought of, I'd like to hear it.

A blind man can fall from a 10 story building and not break a single bone. It is POSSIBLE. He probably doesn't want to try it though. OSHA will make you put a guardrail, with a spec sheet 10 pages long. Or we could just choose to not let him on the roof at all. Sorry, no sunshine for you, Mr. Blind Man. That doesn't seem fair. How about we just TELL him WHERE the edge is. If he then chooses to walk off it, well, it was his choice. But here's a better plan. Lets say there is NO EDGE AT ALL! It is POSSIBLE when he falls, he won't break a single bone. Hello, OSHA.

 

[BigEgo]

Can you tell me, with absolute certainty, that diketones suspending in a mixture of pg/vg that actively seeks out moisture and bonds with it, makes it past your mouth and throat into your lungs, deep into your lungs where it does damage to the bronchioles? Or, do we think that because it has been shown to possibly do this in other applications, we think it might do this in ours as well?

The latter. Someone linked a research paper on this very topic the other day. Essentially the guy said that even though cigarette smoke has DA/AP in it, the puff topograhpy (how it is inhaled) is different from e-cigs. Cigarette smoke may not make it as deep in the lung (the mouth and trachea act as filters), whereas e-cig aerosol likely makes it deeper into the lung (just as it would in a popcorn plant).

This is as good of a hypothesis as I've seen on why there's no documented cases of B.O from cigarette smoking alone. (Although I don't think anyone knows for sure if there are such cases due to the fact that a deep lung biopsy is needed to diagnose B.O. and no smoker is going to have that done).

 

[Mazinny]

The latter. Someone linked a research paper on this very topic the other day. Essentially the guy said that even though cigarette smoke has DA/AP in it, the puff topograhpy (how it is inhaled) is different from e-cigs. Cigarette smoke may not make it as deep in the lung (the mouth and trachea act as filters), whereas e-cig aerosol likely makes it deeper into the lung (just as it would in a popcorn plant).

This is as good of a hypothesis as I've seen on why there's no documented cases of B.O from cigarette smoking alone. (Although I don't think anyone knows for sure if there are such cases due to the fact that a deep lung biopsy is needed to diagnose B.O. and no smoker is going to have that done).

DA_PD_monograph.pdf - Google Drive

 

[Jman8]

As this thread could go on forever with saying some of the same things over and over, I think it time to take note of what the two sides are saying. I'll speak for the side I'm on and let anyone else speak for the other side. I believe I could speak (well) for that side, but not sure how fair minded I would be perceived.

On the one side are the following principles / assertions:

- Vaping diketones is a concern, but not a known risk for vapers.
- Voluntary disclosure of levels of diketones is something to request / encourage, but no one outside of management of the company ought to think it needs to be mandated.
- For any consumer to truly know what is in their eLiquid, they would strongly consider doing test themselves. Or consider DIY. There is also the option that vendors may do testing (voluntarily), but the consumer pushing for a particular vendor or vendors to do this, is engaging in politics or decision making that doesn't equal free market principles, nor would these vendor tests provide as reasonably sufficient knowledge as a concerned person doing their own testing.
- Lies, of varying degrees, are routinely told by most (if not all) businesses, some of the time. This doesn't excuse lying, as lying is always a very bad policy (IMO), but does address level of acceptability that is, how you say, reasonable when any consumer is faced with any vendor and the notion that they may be engaged in some sort of deception.
- It is possible that this particular issue has gone from general concern to unscientific fear mongering. In this way, it is similar to many other issues relating to risks/dangers of vaping, as reported by mass media, and elsewhere.
- It is plausible that this is becoming a wedge issue within the vaping community (most of which I identify as concerned consumers) and that ANTZ-like persons could exploit the division via FDA deeming, further scare tactics (a la CDC) and the inevitable day that ex-vapers roam the planet to provide more authority to what is it really like to be a vaper. I imagine ANTZ operatives tapping ex-vapers to increase fears around "known issues" within vaping community.

 

[Lessifer]

Excellent, we agree on all but what we agree to disagree about.

Lets get down to brass tacks. We know and agree on these things:
Diketones MAY OR MAY NOT be a risk.
If we know they are there, we can choose to avoid this possible risk.
Just because a manufacturer SAYS they're not there, doesn't mean they aren't.

How then, do you propose, that those who do NOT want to expose themselves to this possible risk, do so?
This is what it all really boils down to. The industry has lied. There is only ONE solution that I can see that is left to those of us who want to avoid this possible. If you have a bullet proof solution that I haven't thought of, I'd like to hear it.

A blind man can fall from a 10 story building and not break a single bone. It is POSSIBLE. He probably doesn't want to try it though. OSHA will make you put a guardrail, with a spec sheet 10 pages long. Or we could just choose to not let him on the roof at all. Sorry, no sunshine for you, Mr. Blind Man. That doesn't seem fair. How about we just TELL him WHERE the edge is. If he then chooses to walk off it, well, it was his choice. But here's a better plan. Lets say there is NO EDGE AT ALL! It is POSSIBLE when he falls, he won't break a single bone. Hello, OSHA.

If this is a concern for you, look for vendors who state "diketone free" and have test results to back up that claim. If they don't, don't buy.

The latter. Someone linked a research paper on this very topic the other day. Essentially the guy said that even though cigarette smoke has DA/AP in it, the puff topograhpy (how it is inhaled) is different from e-cigs. Cigarette smoke may not make it as deep in the lung (the mouth and trachea act as filters), whereas e-cig aerosol likely makes it deeper into the lung (just as it would in a popcorn plant).

This is as good of a hypothesis as I've seen on why there's no documented cases of B.O from cigarette smoking alone. (Although I don't think anyone knows for sure if there are such cases due to the fact that a deep lung biopsy is needed to diagnose B.O. and no smoker is going to have that done).

I read that, and the hypothesis is based on puff duration, that's it. So, a five second lung inhale could go deeper into the lungs, whereas a 5 second mouth inhale may not go deep into the lungs at all. I'm all for finding all of this stuff out, I just don't like overreactions and mandates that are premature.