So my doc doesn't like vaping

[beckdg]

Hi beckdg,

Research (like this article: CDC - Flavorings-Related Lung Disease: Exposures to Flavoring Chemicals - NIOSH Workplace Safety and Health Topic) has shown a link between Diacetyl and lung disease, and research has further shown that the chemical reaction of Acetoin & Acetyl Propionyl may breakdown into chemicals in the Diketone family. Why take the risk if you don't have to? To say vaping comes with "zero risk" seems obtuse to me.

I ask myself is the risk worth the reward? I ride a motorcycle because the heightened risk of being exposed to injury or accident is worth the reward of the ride - doesn't mean I don't mitigate the risks where I can by wearing a helmet. I vape because the risk is worth the reward - doesn't mean I don't mitigate the risks where I can by keeping up with research and staying away from chemicals associated with lung damage.

First off... the CDC is an unreliable source IMO at this point. Prepare for a zombie apocalypse lately?

"A link" in the workplace is not the same as vaping.

To say that I said vaping comes with zero risk seems ignorant and furthering propaganda if one simply reads in context. Not that hard to decipher.

Zero reported cases of what you warn suggests there's possibly zero risk of it happening. Period.

I'm not going to spend my life avoiding things that never happen. If i did, I'd be limited to vaping unflavored at best. Do YOU know what the compounds and associated risks are of your alternative flavors? Wanna bet you're going to find out they're going to be very similarly, if not more dangerous in the long run?

I won't be avoiding deadly water or oxygen, either.

Good for you for posting a link for a discussion that's so old hat and dead horse beaten around here that any old timer already knows where they stand.

Tapatyped

 

[beckdg]

Hi beckdg,

Research (like this article: CDC - Flavorings-Related Lung Disease: Exposures to Flavoring Chemicals - NIOSH Workplace Safety and Health Topic) has shown a link between Diacetyl and lung disease, and research has further shown that the chemical reaction of Acetoin & Acetyl Propionyl may breakdown into chemicals in the Diketone family. Why take the risk if you don't have to? To say vaping comes with "zero risk" seems obtuse to me.

I ask myself is the risk worth the reward? I ride a motorcycle because the heightened risk of being exposed to injury or accident is worth the reward of the ride - doesn't mean I don't mitigate the risks where I can by wearing a helmet. I vape because the risk is worth the reward - doesn't mean I don't mitigate the risks where I can by keeping up with research and staying away from chemicals associated with lung damage.

All I ask is 1 case linked to vaping. Just one.

Thx.

Tapatyped

 

[Douggro]

Research (like this article: CDC - Flavorings-Related Lung Disease: Exposures to Flavoring Chemicals - NIOSH Workplace Safety and Health Topic) has shown a link between Diacetyl and lung disease, and research has further shown that the chemical reaction of Acetoin & Acetyl Propionyl may breakdown into chemicals in the Diketone family.

Oh my. Not again..

 

[skoony]

Research (like this article: CDC - Flavorings-Related Lung Disease: Exposures to Flavoring Chemicals - NIOSH Workplace Safety and Health Topic) has shown a link between Diacetyl and lung disease, and research has further shown that the chemical reaction of Acetoin & Acetyl Propionyl may breakdown into chemicals in the Diketone family. Why take the risk if you don't have to? To say vaping comes with "zero risk" seems obtuse to me.

Diacetyl has been linked to the use of using large highly concentrated pure forms primarily
in the mixing sections of food processing and or flavor manufacturing facilities.
It is considered a occupational hazard quite similar for manufacturing products
that use large quantities of silica sand.
It is group with other occupational diseases that cause lung disease under the
heading of Pneumoconiosis.

"Pneumoconiosis is one of a group of interstitial lung disease caused by breathing in certain kinds of dust particles that damage your lungs.

Because you are likely to encounter these dusts only in the workplace, pneumoconiosis is called an occupational lung disease.

The disease appears in different forms, depending on the type of dust you inhale. One of the most common forms is black lung disease, also known as miner's lung. It’s caused by breathing in coal dust. Another is brown lung, which comes from working around dust from cotton or other fibers. Other types of dusts that can cause pneumoconiosis include silica and asbestos. Diacetyl, the compound used to give movie popcorn its buttery flavor, also can lead to the disease. This is known as popcorn lung. "
source: Pneumoconiosis | Johns Hopkins Medicine Health Library

Regards
Mike

 

[talion]

I have to say that I'm finding a lot of the responses here to be as dogmatic, narrow-minded or polarized as many are accusing the doctors of being. I also find it strange that people are saying they are "lucky" because they have found a doctor that supports their opinion on vaping because the once who don't support the stance they want to take, because they like vaping, are automatically idiots or to be scoffed at.

I love vaping, and I don't think there's anyone here that will say that vaping isn't both better and better for you than smoking. having said that, is there anyone here who can truthfully say that vaping is better for you, or even the same, as not smoking or not vaping? Of course not. We all also know that the smartest, healthiest choice would be not to inhale anything at all except the air we need to breathe.

Because I love vaping, and I want to continue vaping, I also want to be educated on the possible effects of vaping and to be able to make conscious, intelligent choices about how I vape and what I vape. I WANT people to be able to point out the possible negatives and I want to see the studies and the information available that will enable me to make better choices. People need to be open to hearing all sides of the argument objectively. If nothing else, in going through the information available on this thread we have learned that Diacethyl etc may (yes, I said may) pose a potential health risk. Given that you have the choice to vape products that are free of it, and reduce or eliminate this risk, how is knowing this in any way negative? If I have the choice to cross a busy street blindfolded or with my eyes open I would prefer to be able to see, and to avoid potential hazards. This just seems to make logical sense to me. I'm not interested in seeing things as I want them to be, I'm interested in seeing things as they are, and I welcome any information, pro or con, that lets me make better, more informed decisions.

 

[classwife]

Moved this to Health, Safety and Vaping

 

[Jman8]

Hi beckdg,

Research (like this article: CDC - Flavorings-Related Lung Disease: Exposures to Flavoring Chemicals - NIOSH Workplace Safety and Health Topic) has shown a link between Diacetyl and lung disease, and research has further shown that the chemical reaction of Acetoin & Acetyl Propionyl may breakdown into chemicals in the Diketone family. Why take the risk if you don't have to? To say vaping comes with "zero risk" seems obtuse to me.

I ask myself is the risk worth the reward? I ride a motorcycle because the heightened risk of being exposed to injury or accident is worth the reward of the ride - doesn't mean I don't mitigate the risks where I can by wearing a helmet. I vape because the risk is worth the reward - doesn't mean I don't mitigate the risks where I can by keeping up with research and staying away from chemicals associated with lung damage.

To say vaping comes with zero risk is obtuse. To say that vaping comes with zero risk in terms of popcorn lung is accurate as we understand science currently. If you have evidence to suggest otherwise, please do share it.

You ride a motorcycle, yes? If I say don't ride on roads paved with gray cement because the black ones are safer, what's your response? Wouldn't you like to see evidence for this? And if I reply with "to say riding a motorcycle on gray pavement has zero risk seems obtuse," wouldn't you wonder, just a little bit, who is the one being obtuse with that sort of counter point?

 

[Jman8]

I have to say that I'm finding a lot of the responses here to be as dogmatic, narrow-minded or polarized as many are accusing the doctors of being. I also find it strange that people are saying they are "lucky" because they have found a doctor that supports their opinion on vaping because the once who don't support the stance they want to take, because they like vaping, are automatically idiots or to be scoffed at.

I love vaping, and I don't think there's anyone here that will say that vaping isn't both better and better for you than smoking. having said that, is there anyone here who can truthfully say that vaping is better for you, or even the same, as not smoking or not vaping? Of course not. We all also know that the smartest, healthiest choice would be not to inhale anything at all except the air we need to breathe.

I could make the case it is plausibly better to vape than not at all. I don't believe it would be a convincing argument (for all), but one thing I recently noted on another thread is that vapers noticeably have less colds than non-vapers. That strikes me as monumental benefit that would suggest vaping is better for a person. Also, as one who's gone cold turkey before, I have had experiences where not using nicotine lead to period where I had migraines galore, but since vaping/using again, those are very few to none at all. Plus there is scientific data that establishes baseline of second hand vapor compared to normal room air, and notes that they are on par with each other, or even that SHV is possibly better for you to inhale.

So, to say "of course not," is debatable IMO. If I were to stop vaping and return to my previous average of 2 colds a year and migraine headaches every 4 to 8 days, I'm fairly certain I'd be convinced that vaping is better than that.

Because I love vaping, and I want to continue vaping, I also want to be educated on the possible effects of vaping and to be able to make conscious, intelligent choices about how I vape and what I vape. I WANT people to be able to point out the possible negatives and I want to see the studies and the information available that will enable me to make better choices. People need to be open to hearing all sides of the argument objectively. If nothing else, in going through the information available on this thread we have learned that Diacethyl etc may (yes, I said may) pose a potential health risk. Given that you have the choice to vape products that are free of it, and reduce or eliminate this risk, how is knowing this in any way negative? If I have the choice to cross a busy street blindfolded or with my eyes open I would prefer to be able to see, and to avoid potential hazards. This just seems to make logical sense to me. I'm not interested in seeing things as I want them to be, I'm interested in seeing things as they are, and I welcome any information, pro or con, that lets me make better, more informed decisions.

I'm interested in informed choice. Less interested is restricting options of current products based entirely (and I do mean entirely) on supposition. Again, if you have evidence to suggest the link between vaping eLiquid vapor and pulmonary issues is beyond supposition, please provide that. Bonus points if you can find any cases with humans involved. Without it, then it is as ridiculous as the pavement thing I brought up before. Doesn't mean a person like myself isn't going to be interested in the argument, but does mean I hope you come to the plate with more than supposition, or I'm fairly certain you'll suddenly show up as person who is no longer open minded about what the actual data is showing humanity when we pretend to be objective.

 

[talion]

I could make the case it is plausibly better to vape than not at all. I don't believe it would be a convincing argument (for all), but one thing I recently noted on another thread is that vapers noticeably have less colds than non-vapers. That strikes me as monumental benefit that would suggest vaping is better for a person. Also, as one who's gone cold turkey before, I have had experiences where not using nicotine lead to period where I had migraines galore, but since vaping/using again, those are very few to none at all. Plus there is scientific data that establishes baseline of second hand vapor compared to normal room air, and notes that they are on par with each other, or even that SHV is possibly better for you to inhale.

So, to say "of course not," is debatable IMO. If I were to stop vaping and return to my previous average of 2 colds a year and migraine headaches every 4 to 8 days, I'm fairly certain I'd be convinced that vaping is better than that.

I'm sorry, but I find this to be a specious argument. From a logical standpoint the absence of proof doesn't invalidate an argument, it simply fails to substantiate it. "Risk" by definition means there is a possibility of something happening. Risk is not certainty. To increase risk is to increase the likelihood that something might happen. However low a risk may be eliminating risky factors is beneficial when dealing with laws of large numbers. The fact that it fails to happen doesn't eliminate the risk, or the possibility that it might happen somewhere, sometime or to someone else. This is especially true because you are asking for evidence yet failing to provide evidence that vaping actually prevented your colds. In effect you arguing both sides with the same argument. The same is true with the migraines. You argue that migraines come from depriving yourself of nicotine, yet prolonged absence from nicotine would eliminate the migraines as effectively coddling the headaches by feeding them nicotine. Mitigating withdrawal symptoms hardly points to a health benefit, since kicking the addiction eliminates the problem permanently, instead of alleviating the symptom. If you provide a documented case backed by evidence that vaping improves your health I'd like to see it. Playing russian roulette and saying that nothing has happened after 5 trigger pulls doesn't mean that pistols aren't potentially dangerous. It just means you haven't gathered quite enough evidence yet.

I'm interested in informed choice. Less interested is restricting options of current products based entirely (and I do mean entirely) on supposition. Again, if you have evidence to suggest the link between vaping eLiquid vapor and pulmonary issues is beyond supposition, please provide that. Bonus points if you can find any cases with humans involved. Without it, then it is as ridiculous as the pavement thing I brought up before. Doesn't mean a person like myself isn't going to be interested in the argument, but does mean I hope you come to the plate with more than supposition, or I'm fairly certain you'll suddenly show up as person who is no longer open minded about what the actual data is showing humanity when we pretend to be objective.

Who said anything about restricting options? I said that with knowledge you get to make informed choices about the options available, and decide yourself what risks you want to take and what the rewards are. I didn't talk about eliminating choices at all. What I said was that if choices are better articulated then we as consumers can make better decisions.

 

[Jman8]

I'm sorry, but I find this to be a specious argument. From a logical standpoint the absence of proof doesn't invalidate an argument, it simply fails to substantiate it. "Risk" by definition means there is a possibility of something happening. Risk is not certainty. To increase risk is to increase the likelihood that something might happen. However low a risk may be eliminating risky factors is beneficial when dealing with laws of large numbers. The fact that it fails to happen doesn't eliminate the risk, or the possibility that it might happen somewhere, sometime or to someone else. This is especially true because you are asking for evidence yet failing to provide evidence that vaping actually prevented your colds.

Let me know what evidence looks like to you.

I would note that there have been a number of occasions (like about once every 2 months) where during some point of the day I get familiar feeling of "I may be coming down with a cold" and by end of that day (of vaping), I no longer have that feeling. In my past, just planting that seed in my mind was enough to bring on the cold and I knew of no way to prevent it. Now, I do feel there is a viable way to prevent a cold if you (or rather I) am showing early symptoms of developing a cold.

I do recognize that it is very likely that vapers somewhere, sometime are still getting colds regularly. I've started threads on this topic before and found this to be the case. But would say it was about 7 to 1 in favor of people reporting that they used to get colds on a regular basis and since starting to vape have had either 1 (at most) or none.

In effect you arguing both sides with the same argument. The same is true with the migraines. You argue that migraines come from depriving yourself of nicotine, yet prolonged absence from nicotine would eliminate the migraines as effectively coddling the headaches by feeding them nicotine. Mitigating withdrawal symptoms hardly points to a health benefit, since kicking the addiction eliminates the problem permanently, instead of alleviating the symptom. If you provide a documented case backed by evidence that vaping improves your health I'd like to see it. Playing russian roulette and saying that nothing has happened after 5 trigger pulls doesn't mean that pistols aren't potentially dangerous. It just means you haven't gathered quite enough evidence yet.

I know of nothing on the planet that is not 'potentially dangerous' so wouldn't consider that fair criteria for assessing whether or not vaping is perhaps healthier for an individual to do than not do. Kicking the addiction permanently doesn't lead to perfect health. Not saying you have asserted this, but is an inference from what you've written. If I were to stop, I would have to consider the notion that I could get colds regularly plus deal with a period of time (I would say many months, possibly a few years) where I routinely get migraines. As one who's quit previously for 8 years, I feel I understand benefits of not using at all, and don't think of that as inherently better or worse. For me it is not a clear case of "of course it's better to not use."

Who said anything about restricting options?

Not you. Others have in threads dealing with this topic of diketones in eLiquid. That we as a community would be better off if it were removed industry wide. While you may have not stated this, I am speaking on open forum to audience that is more than just you and so feel it is important to acknowledge/address that political rhetoric.

I said that with knowledge you get to make informed choices about the options available, and decide yourself what risks you want to take and what the rewards are. I didn't talk about eliminating choices at all. What I said was that if choices are better articulated then we as consumers can make better decisions.

I'm curious what better articulated choices look like for you (anyone) when it comes to diketones. Is it mandatory labels industry wide that jump through hoops that amount to communicating it as 'dangerous' to inhale it, or is it accurately stating that 'this product may contain diketones to enhance flavoring' along with caveat that as of printing of this label there have been zero links to inhaling eLiquid and pulmonary risks for human beings? Cause if it is the former, and 'potentially harmful' is all we have, then there is not an ingredient in eLiquid (or any substance on earth) that this could not be said. Kinda would help the opposing position if there were actual links to humans inhaling diketones via vaping to make the warning message a bit stronger. As it stands now it is 'may be harmful' and therefore what ought to suffice for that type of thinking is, 'this product may contain it.' If you wish to avoid it, you may want to avoid products where it may be present.

 

[Rossum]

I do recognize that it is very likely that vapers somewhere, sometime are still getting colds regularly.

The ones who use zero or minimal PG?

 

[AndriaD]

Hi beckdg,

Research (like this article: CDC - Flavorings-Related Lung Disease: Exposures to Flavoring Chemicals - NIOSH Workplace Safety and Health Topic) has shown a link between Diacetyl and lung disease, and research has further shown that the chemical reaction of Acetoin & Acetyl Propionyl may breakdown into chemicals in the Diketone family. Why take the risk if you don't have to? To say vaping comes with "zero risk" seems obtuse to me.

I ask myself is the risk worth the reward? I ride a motorcycle because the heightened risk of being exposed to injury or accident is worth the reward of the ride - doesn't mean I don't mitigate the risks where I can by wearing a helmet. I vape because the risk is worth the reward - doesn't mean I don't mitigate the risks where I can by keeping up with research and staying away from chemicals associated with lung damage.

Pretty much how I feel about diketones too. To me, it's an entirely avoidable risk, as I've never tasted any juice that contained diketones, to my knowledge, so I have no idea what I may be missing -- it's hard to be upset about something you don't know about! But it's just one of my reasons for switching to DIY -- my tightwad soul just loves the money-saving aspect. And my poor lungs are happy with 87% PG, which really can't be found -- I can find 80%, or 90%, but not in between.

Andria

 

[beckdg]

I have to say that I'm finding a lot of the responses here to be as dogmatic, narrow-minded or polarized as many are accusing the doctors of being. I also find it strange that people are saying they are "lucky" because they have found a doctor that supports their opinion on vaping because the once who don't support the stance they want to take, because they like vaping, are automatically idiots or to be scoffed at.

I love vaping, and I don't think there's anyone here that will say that vaping isn't both better and better for you than smoking. having said that, is there anyone here who can truthfully say that vaping is better for you, or even the same, as not smoking or not vaping? Of course not. We all also know that the smartest, healthiest choice would be not to inhale anything at all except the air we need to breathe.

Because I love vaping, and I want to continue vaping, I also want to be educated on the possible effects of vaping and to be able to make conscious, intelligent choices about how I vape and what I vape. I WANT people to be able to point out the possible negatives and I want to see the studies and the information available that will enable me to make better choices. People need to be open to hearing all sides of the argument objectively. If nothing else, in going through the information available on this thread we have learned that Diacethyl etc may (yes, I said may) pose a potential health risk. Given that you have the choice to vape products that are free of it, and reduce or eliminate this risk, how is knowing this in any way negative? If I have the choice to cross a busy street blindfolded or with my eyes open I would prefer to be able to see, and to avoid potential hazards. This just seems to make logical sense to me. I'm not interested in seeing things as I want them to be, I'm interested in seeing things as they are, and I welcome any information, pro or con, that lets me make better, more informed decisions.

Then riddle me this...

What chemical compounds in flavoring are safe to inhale as a heated aerosol?

Because nobody has answered that yet.

Nobody.

Only a few pieces of literature that have pointed out a very few compounds that MAY (though haven't despite the hundreds of thousands to millions of vapers inhaling them daily for over a decade) be harmful.

And some sheeple following the herd, parroting and repeating the same very limited pseudo - knowledge (assumption, false correlation, etc.).

I GUARANTEE YOU there will be compounds (in flavoring) commonly used that WILL be found WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT to pose some ACTUAL, definitive danger WHEN VAPED... that we've yet to hear about.

And when harm can be linked directly to vaping, I'm most definitely going to cease use of any product I find containing said substances.

Speaking of dogmatic, narrow minded and polarized. Try thinking for yourself. Lest we be led by the pack to be eaten by the wolves.

Again... NOT ONE case of respiratory harm associated to vaping documented by these compounds.

Some speculation, but no documentation.

Think about it.

Tapatyped

 

[talion]

Then riddle me this...

What chemical compounds in flavoring are safe to inhale as a heated aerosol?

Because nobody has answered that yet.

Nobody.

Only a few pieces of literature that have pointed out a very few compounds that MAY (though haven't despite the hundreds of thousands to millions of vapers inhaling them daily for over a decade) be harmful.

And some sheeple following the herd, parroting and repeating the same very limited pseudo - knowledge (assumption, false correlation, etc.).

I GUARANTEE YOU there will be compounds (in flavoring) commonly used that WILL be found WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT to pose some ACTUAL, definitive danger WHEN VAPED... that we've yet to hear about.

And when harm can be linked directly to vaping, I'm most definitely going to cease use of any product I find containing said substances.

Speaking of dogmatic, narrow minded and polarized. Try thinking for yourself. Lest we be led by the pack to be eaten by the wolves.

Again... NOT ONE case of respiratory harm associated to vaping documented by these compounds.

Some speculation, but no documentation.

Think about it.

riddle me nothing. You're arguing on one side of the equation, instead of being open to both. Once again, for the masses, I'm not advocating the elimination of anything. Instead, what I said was that instead of taking definitive stances on either side, lacking concrete evidence of anything, especially since vaping in general and sub-ohm vaping in particular are recent, that people be open to information on either side and not to simply dismiss anything that doesn't support the point of biew that people want to believe is true. That's true of both the pro and anti-vapers. I'm a vaper, so I know what I want to believe is true, but I'm also open to the possibility that what I want in my heart to be true may not be the case. Real smokers deluded themselves with half-truths or denials for years, and that's an indisputable fact. I didn't advocate stopping anything. The closest you could say is that I did advocate reducing known risks. I'm not quitting vaping because no one has demonstrated that I should to my satisfaction. However, we have been made aware of some potential risks which are easily avoidable and do not involve not vaping.

 

[talion]

Let me know what evidence looks like to you.

I would note that there have been a number of occasions (like about once every 2 months) where during some point of the day I get familiar feeling of "I may be coming down with a cold" and by end of that day (of vaping), I no longer have that feeling. In my past, just planting that seed in my mind was enough to bring on the cold and I knew of no way to prevent it. Now, I do feel there is a viable way to prevent a cold if you (or rather I) am showing early symptoms of developing a cold.

I do recognize that it is very likely that vapers somewhere, sometime are still getting colds regularly. I've started threads on this topic before and found this to be the case. But would say it was about 7 to 1 in favor of people reporting that they used to get colds on a regular basis and since starting to vape have had either 1 (at most) or none.

I don't have any evidence. That was exactly my point, so I have no definitive opinions, also even within this thread there have been links to arguments that suggest a possible problem. Again, since this is an easily avoidable problem and does nothing to diminish my enjoyment of vaping I don't see any reason to assume the risk, since it's not necessary and since it doesn't involve my having to make a choice of whether to vape or not. This again is a choice and people can themselves decide whether they see a benefit in consuming products that include them or not. The fact that it is brought up as a concern is a positive thing, because it makes people aware and gives them choices, but anyone can make whatever choice they want to, just like they would with any other chemical or substance they put in their body.

In beckdg's case, which I did not mention in the other post, the inference seemed to be that I was anti-vaping. Nothing could be further from the truth. I love vaping. I'm just choosing to point out that there are a variety of paths that we as vapers can take.

And again, for those who have studied logical arguments, the absence of information does not negate truth. Nothing can be disproven until facts arise to support something beyond faith. Religion is a classic example of this. You can't disprove the existence of God, so you can take a stance to disbelieve, but not one to disprove. This is of course a grossly exaggerated example of this concept, but to relate it to our "hobby" (perhaps a poor word choice) the fact that we haven't accumulated the evidence in the short time that vaping doesn't mean that there isn't any. It's really only hitting the purview of science now, and I suspect we will all learn things going forward. All I'm suggesting is that instead of polarizing an argument to an unsupportable position (which I think both fervently pro and avidly anti vaping positions take) that instead be open to the idea that we really don't know lots about it yet, beyond that we like it and we think it's better than smoking.

 

[beckdg]

You're arguing on one side of the equation, instead of being open to both.

LOL

NO

This subject was beaten to death 2 years ago. Yet it still continues despite nothing vaping related ever surfacing.

I'm open to the possibilities. I even warn the people who's habits I support and inform them to make their own choices.

But I don't post industrial incidents as if there's a definite correlation to vaping. And I'm not going to be brow beaten into being paranoid about it.

My respiratory and lung functions have improved unbelievably despite knowingly inhaling these compounds daily.

I do limit my exposure to flavorings, by using a low percentage in my mixes. I do believe something will definitively be exposed one day.

But as of now all we have is unassociated correlation, assumption, conjecture and a misguided, narrow focus on a small portion of flavoring compounds that I believe is stifling progress finding and/or legitimizing any true threats that may be.

But, yeah... Go whole hog and full strength on anything you like so long as it's not AP, diacetyl and diketones. Be my guest.

Tapatyped

 

[AndriaD]

I don't have any evidence. That was exactly my point, so I have no definitive opinions, also even within this thread there have been links to arguments that suggest a possible problem. Again, since this is an easily avoidable problem and does nothing to diminish my enjoyment of vaping I don't see any reason to assume the risk, since it's not necessary and since it doesn't involve my having to make a choice of whether to vape or not. This again is a choice and people can themselves decide whether they see a benefit in consuming products that include them or not. The fact that it is brought up as a concern is a positive thing, because it makes people aware and gives them choices, but anyone can make whatever choice they want to, just like they would with any other chemical or substance they put in their body.

In beckdg's case, which I did not mention in the other post, the inference seemed to be that I was anti-vaping. Nothing could be further from the truth. I love vaping. I'm just choosing to point out that there are a variety of paths that we as vapers can take.

And again, for those who have studied logical arguments, the absence of information does not negate truth. Nothing can be disproven until facts arise to support something beyond faith. Religion is a classic example of this. You can't disprove the existence of God, so you can take a stance to disbelieve, but not one to disprove. This is of course a grossly exaggerated example of this concept, but to relate it to our "hobby" (perhaps a poor word choice) the fact that we haven't accumulated the evidence in the short time that vaping doesn't mean that there isn't any. It's really only hitting the purview of science now, and I suspect we will all learn things going forward. All I'm suggesting is that instead of polarizing an argument to an unsupportable position (which I think both fervently pro and avidly anti vaping positions take) that instead be open to the idea that we really don't know lots about it yet, beyond that we like it and we think it's better than smoking.

The principle is "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." In many things, an absence of evidence can lead to a fairly reliable inference -- or, it may simply mean that not enough time has gone by, or technology is not sufficiently advanced, in order to uncover the evidence. Witness "cold cases" which are later solved by DNA evidence, when that sort of evidence was not available at the original time. However the absence of evidence worked out really well for OJ, and I've always thought, he couldn't possibly have done the crime, or there *would* have been physical trace evidence -- he's not a scientist nor a forensic genius, and would not have been capable of eliminating that trace evidence, if it had ever existed. Forensic criminology was well advanced in the '90s. JMHO of course.

Andria

 

[Jman8]

riddle me nothing. You're arguing on one side of the equation, instead of being open to both. Once again, for the masses, I'm not advocating the elimination of anything. Instead, what I said was that instead of taking definitive stances on either side, lacking concrete evidence of anything, especially since vaping in general and sub-ohm vaping in particular are recent, that people be open to information on either side and not to simply dismiss anything that doesn't support the point of biew that people want to believe is true. That's true of both the pro and anti-vapers. I'm a vaper, so I know what I want to believe is true, but I'm also open to the possibility that what I want in my heart to be true may not be the case. Real smokers deluded themselves with half-truths or denials for years, and that's an indisputable fact. I didn't advocate stopping anything. The closest you could say is that I did advocate reducing known risks. I'm not quitting vaping because no one has demonstrated that I should to my satisfaction. However, we have been made aware of some potential risks which are easily avoidable and do not involve not vaping.

Hey, as long as you're open to the idea of continuing to vape diketones because there's no actual (or known) risk at this point, then I think there is agreement on the larger point. But if stuck on specific point of 'avoid this potential risk' and that doesn't somehow equate to 'not advocating stopping anything' for you, then there's a debate to have given your doublespeak.

In beckdg's case, which I did not mention in the other post, the inference seemed to be that I was anti-vaping. Nothing could be further from the truth. I love vaping. I'm just choosing to point out that there are a variety of paths that we as vapers can take.

I wouldn't say anti-vaping, but would say like the doctor, a bit anti science (with regards to the specific point). The potential risk is barely at the correlation stage, and to advocate it as avoidable risk, without anything resembling causal relationship (thus known risk) is anti-science. Which is fine, in a sense. But if wanting more information for the consumer, that needs to be clear on what, why and how. If so easy to avoid now, then really the how is taken care of and industry need do nothing more. All worked out on that end, no? The why is already addressed by understanding the actual degree of risk. Which leads to the what, and my earlier post presented most reasonable warning at this time, "this product may contain diketones." Without an actual known risk, there is in reality no need for anything further than this. Some may wish to avoid it, and that warning is fair game to avoid those products that may contain it. Even then, I wouldn't make it mandatory, and as you've stated it's easily avoidable, then really isn't necessary to be mandatory warning. Apparently the vaping market as it exists right now is providing the option for those who choose to avoid.

All I'm suggesting is that instead of polarizing an argument to an unsupportable position (which I think both fervently pro and avidly anti vaping positions take) that instead be open to the idea that we really don't know lots about it yet, beyond that we like it and we think it's better than smoking.

The side I feel I'm on says avoid it if you choose to avoid it, and seek vendors that match what you want. Nothing really needs to change as is. Study the data all that is desired. Report observed/tested findings. Not sure what there could be to argue with this other than this notion of a) it should be avoided (already squarely addressed) and b) there should be labels that have detailed information regarding precise amount of it found in eLiquid or some other information. Not saying you have said this, but like all things vaping politics right now, this issue is bigger than whatever we are currently discussing. And I don't get why any vaper would side with the people putting forth FUD with regards to this topic. But if they must, and must advocate for something that equals avoiding a potential risk and still think they are the ones being open minded, then I say please, let us continue the debate. Cause, in my mind, it won't be so hard to show how that position isn't all that open minded and is advocating something that is not backed up by evidence to match its trumped up concerns.

 

[beckdg]

In beckdg's case, which I did not mention in the other post, the inference seemed to be that I was anti-vaping.

For the record, I'm pretty up front and bold in my verbiage. Always have been.

"Seemed to be" is nearly always wrong when it comes to me. Same as right now. What I said is what I meant.

Not what you're reading into it.

Tapatyped

 

[DC2]

My mother... a 20 year nurse... often made her living removing dozens of prescriptions treating side effects caused by each other to improve patient health...

My father was on the path of increasing medications...
And was getting worse and worse.

Finally I insisted on removing medications instead of adding more and more.
And he is getting better and better by the day.

That's pretty much all I have to say about that.
Folks are free to infer the rest as they see fit.