- Status
Only if there were some evidence that my current high current flavored juice represented an increased risk over the other.
In a heartbeat. I still do low-wattage mtl, often with unflavored juice, as well as sub-ohm DL. If I could get rid of this nagging feeling that vaping might be hurting my health, you bet.
That is what I was implying... I see many say they couldn't... They would go back to cigs - I am in no way in ... going back to cigs...
That is absolutely correct. You shouldn't have to reinvent the wheel every time you need one. The FDA even alludes to it in an attempt to downplay impact on the market by saying stuff like "people can reference our master ingredient list", as though the ingredients are already approved to make vape juice. Which sounds great, until you ask them "where is it?"
Yes, there is a list of ingredients, but no statement or evidence of approval that you can actually USE those ingredients. Big help there. We already knew what that stuff was before you listed it.
You should be able to start with VG/PG and nic, and then move on to flavorings. Once a flavoring is approved at a certain concentration, unless there's some known byproducts with mixing certain things, you should be good to go. They know what products can be produced in given mixtures, for the most part, that shouldn't be an issue.
You would have to add temperature ranges to that because some things change depending upon how much heat is applied...
Easy solution there would be to simply test at what temperatures do you begin to produce breakdown products, such as formaldehyde from PG, and then specify that as a temp limit. Compliance is then a matter of showing a cap set on the hardware.
Hopefully on a small chip like a throttle control implementation on a car engine that's easily pulled after purchase. Yes, I'm being bad....
It IS an insurmountable task, but only if you go at it from that side. If instead you say, according to the tests we are able to do now, and with up to 10 years worth of usage, we haven't seen any health issues, then you can keep looking but the products don't have to sit in the lab until you rule out all possible harm(which you wouldn't be able to do anyway).
As per your question, I would use that as my starting point, then know that anything beyond that may increase my risk of something. Like I know that a small amount of dark chocolate can have some health benefits, too much and I'm getting too much sugar, doesn't mean I won't sometimes eat too much. Or how moderate alcohol consumption isn't necessarily bad, and over consumption is, but I will still consume a large quantity on occasion.
Or a speedometer type mechanism that could tell you you're over the "limit" without necessarily stopping you?
Bot good and what I would hope to be acceptable to the greater audience on both sides of the argument...
Can we really say that there have been no negative health effect in 10 years? I'm not sure we can. I don't think we track this and most doctors don't even have a box to check if you're a vaper.
No widespread, or widely reported effects. Some have had effects, usually an allergy or a reaction to a particular substance or style of vaping. It's not as if there haven't been people looking though. I would lean toward the idea that if there were problems, they would be telling us every chance they had. I'm biased though.
The only major thing I can think of off the top of my head (other than user error and faulty parts making the odd ecig blow up in someone's face, which doesn't really count, nor is it a regular occurrence) would be the diacetyl/popcorn lung thing, which is only relevant for juices that actually contain diacetyl.
Funnily enough, I actually think that particular risk aspect has been hugely under-reported. Knowing how anti-vaping a lot of media can be, I expected a much bigger hoo-hah about it, but outside of actual vapers nobody seems to know or care. Kinda makes me wonder if we would hear about the negative impacts that show up from a source outside of the vaping community, honestly, because as it stands it seems very much that everything we really know is coming from the inside.
We would have to start having bodies that the doctors and scientists can open up and study just what vaping did to that body, but we would have to be able to separate what smoking or any other additive in their lifestyle could have been the cause at the same time...
Ahh, come on, you know those "bodies" would be mice and rabbits. Smaller doses to see results, faster results, no laws requiring them to wait until the test subject died a natural death, ability to completely control diet and other lifestyle factors. Animal testing is the only way they could reasonably do it without just waiting for us human guinea pigs to show an adverse effect.
There have been others and many of them even the diacetyl are still used to some extent. While from what I can remember it never had linked health effects, but cinnamon was very hard on tanks before and I always wondered if it did that to tanks what was it doing to our body...
We do get reports of complaints on here from time to time. Not a lot, but once in a while. I also read about people who have quit vaping because they think their health problems are caused from vaping. Our little group, usually, quickly tells them that it's likely residual effects from previous smoking. This may very well be the case, but we all do have a vested interest in believing in the relative safety of vaping. So you're right, we don't hear too much, but when we do, we tend to want to blame something else.
- Status
Similar threads
