I think you should add your worries to this thread Paladin - http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-valid-vaping-health-claims-7.html#post192265
Symptoms of Chemical poisoning- propylene glycol
- Thread starter MissVapor
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I am not sure if I am writing it as my concern, because I am not sure if its something to be concerned about or not really. I was just wondering if anyone else thought of it.
Like I said numerous times. guys like leaford and others are comparing Something new, e-cigs, to something that has been around for a very long time, cigarettes. On top of that everything bad about cigarettes has been probed protted, explored and even exaggerated in all this time. So when you make comparisions to that, you might start to mislead yourself a little. Why not compare e-cigs to arsenic, cause thats how cigarettes are being discussed now a days.
The way I would state things if I were leaford, is that from current research or current knowledge, it appears that e-cigarettes might not pose the same specific risks associated with cigarettes because they lack some of the damage causing ingredients that cigarettes have. Like tar for example. But I would avoid making absolute claims this early on. How could you?
Like I said numerous times. guys like leaford and others are comparing Something new, e-cigs, to something that has been around for a very long time, cigarettes. On top of that everything bad about cigarettes has been probed protted, explored and even exaggerated in all this time. So when you make comparisions to that, you might start to mislead yourself a little. Why not compare e-cigs to arsenic, cause thats how cigarettes are being discussed now a days.
The way I would state things if I were leaford, is that from current research or current knowledge, it appears that e-cigarettes might not pose the same specific risks associated with cigarettes because they lack some of the damage causing ingredients that cigarettes have. Like tar for example. But I would avoid making absolute claims this early on. How could you?
I do agree that no-one should be making absolute claims. Have you not read numerous times on this forum how fed up / upset / etc people are at retailers who make these claims?
HOWEVER, of course we are going to weigh the risks of e-cigs against the risk of ordinary cigarettes, since if it wasn't for e-cigs we would all still be smoking analogues, so that is really what the measurement is for everyone.
If these were being marketed to NON-smokers, then a different standard would be applied.... but I don't think I've seen anyone advocating that non-smokers should start vaping!
HOWEVER, of course we are going to weigh the risks of e-cigs against the risk of ordinary cigarettes, since if it wasn't for e-cigs we would all still be smoking analogues, so that is really what the measurement is for everyone.
If these were being marketed to NON-smokers, then a different standard would be applied.... but I don't think I've seen anyone advocating that non-smokers should start vaping!
I agree that makes good sense. But another way of looking at it to is that lets say there is a smoker who really wants to quit smoking. After reading about e-cigs I am sure a current smoker would be interested, even if it is remotely. because lets face, no one really enjoys giving up an addiction, they rather replace it. But now that person has a bunch of options. They could do the best thing, and go cold turkey, also the hardest, they could try smokeless tobacco, they can try the patch or something else. But the greater these gadgets sound, I am sure the more people would be interested in e-smoking more then the other quit smoking methods. So i think maybe its fair to these people to start talking about the risks of e-cigs in general, not just comparing them to cigarettes. people should make educated decisions. If there was one person who would have went cold turkey if it wasnt for the E-cigs, I think the e-cigs then did more harm then good in that one case.
Plus lets face it, you might start getting more and more non smokers who pick up vaping if and when it becomes more popular. Thats one of the arguments those anti-tobacco nazis love to give.
Plus lets face it, you might start getting more and more non smokers who pick up vaping if and when it becomes more popular. Thats one of the arguments those anti-tobacco nazis love to give.
Propylene Glycol is used as a moistener for pipe tobacco and other tobacco products such as dip and pouches. It is used as a base for pharmaceuticals for oral, injected, or topical formulations. It's used in most hand soaps, shampoo, body wash, hand sanitizers, and moisturizers. It's used as a solvent for food colorings and flavoring. It's used to regulate humidity in cigar humidors. It is used in tattoo ink. Not to mention it is used as the main liquid in any and every fog machine, even the fog machines used in training for firefighters. Propylene Glycol is used in almost any food or drink that you buy that has food coloring in it. It is also used as a moisturizer in dog food.
When you go to the hospital for respiratory issues, they might treat you with steroids in a vapor form--can you guess what the base is for that vapor?
We basically drink, eat, breath, and use PG in every day things, and yes, it was already in most of your cigarettes.
If these douchebags want to start trying to ban e cigs because of PG, they need to first admit that if they ban electronic cigarettes for that reason, then every other ingestible PG product has to also be banned.
Edit: I know I brought the dead back to life with a post on this ancient thread, but I wanted to add some information. Sorry if I come across as a jerk. Everything in life has a downside. PG and VG are both viable for usage as bases for nicotine vapor delivery.
When you go to the hospital for respiratory issues, they might treat you with steroids in a vapor form--can you guess what the base is for that vapor?
We basically drink, eat, breath, and use PG in every day things, and yes, it was already in most of your cigarettes.
If these douchebags want to start trying to ban e cigs because of PG, they need to first admit that if they ban electronic cigarettes for that reason, then every other ingestible PG product has to also be banned.
Edit: I know I brought the dead back to life with a post on this ancient thread, but I wanted to add some information. Sorry if I come across as a jerk. Everything in life has a downside. PG and VG are both viable for usage as bases for nicotine vapor delivery.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
