Vaping is harmful?
- Thread starter AkiN111
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
correct ... yes, it would be wise to vape at lower temperatures in light of some findings by a few people in order to reduce carcinogenic intake .... However, there is one heck of a lot more research to do when it concerns long term effects.......... Even at extremely low coil temps, what will be the effect of long termed inhalation of vg/pg? .... That is something that no research lab is likely to be able to answer....... Only time will tell.............. But, whatever the long termed results, they more than likely are not any worse than lung cancer due to smoking tobacco.
High temps can occur due to choice (i.e. vape style), or to poor atty/coil design.
Hightemps (above 250c) are not necessary to get a decent vape.
That is a very subjective word, and that statement isnt really accurate.
Define: "decent vape".
I don't have a dog in this fight, but...
Decent vape: Stops me from smoking
Great vape: Makes me thrilled I *DID* stop.
I can't say anything more than that, so it's subjective alright. Perhaps the statement: Vaping above Temp X satisfies MOST vapers, not all of them, might be more accurate.
Anna
Decent vape: Stops me from smoking
Great vape: Makes me thrilled I *DID* stop.
I can't say anything more than that, so it's subjective alright. Perhaps the statement: Vaping above Temp X satisfies MOST vapers, not all of them, might be more accurate.
Anna
unless you are like some of us that don't pull the vapor down into our lungs. (just putting this out there for those that think it is necessary to involve the lungs to get satisfaction from vaping) It is necessary for some but not all.
I do fear one day we might find a bit of damage to those that pull massive amounts of flavorings deep down into their lungs though. Time alone will tell on that.
I managed to kick a 45+ year habit of smoking to the curb and other than trying a DTL inhale once or twice (determining that it just isn't for me) I have managed to stay smoke free without putting much of anything into my lungs. I truly do believe by not involving my lungs, vaping is even safer for me. Safety isn't my main reason for vaping the way I do but it is pretty close to the top of my list.
@ AkiN111 I am assuming that you are an adult and as such you are free to make your own decisions but do hope you give vaping the chance it deserves for the sake of your health.
Last edited:
MOST vapers?
Here we go again.
That's a very strong statement and again, incredibly subjective.
There is no way to know what "Most" vapers like.
I said I didn't have a dog in this fight. So rather than spend a lot of time pointing out how you have refuted absolute, unprovable statements with those of your own (there is technically a way to "test" what most vapers like, though I imagine you wouldn't enjoy the process I might lay out, either sampling or mandatory census-ing), the statement "there is no way to prove what most vapers like" is an absolute, and also false.
My dog died. I'm going to save it for when I need something to throw on the dead dog pile, which is what it's called in AA when members start infighting, or someone is freaking out over something fairly trivial.
If you're going to reply that words matter and technical definitions matter, I'm going to a) agree with you b) ask you to hold yourself to your own standard.
Anna
My dog died. I'm going to save it for when I need something to throw on the dead dog pile, which is what it's called in AA when members start infighting, or someone is freaking out over something fairly trivial.
If you're going to reply that words matter and technical definitions matter, I'm going to a) agree with you b) ask you to hold yourself to your own standard. Anna
I said I didn't have a dog in this fight. So rather than spend a lot of time pointing out how you have refuted absolute, unprovable statements with those of your own (there is technically a way to "test" what most vapers like, though I imagine you wouldn't enjoy the process I might lay out, either sampling or mandatory census-ing), the statement "there is no way to prove what most vapers like" is an absolute, and also false.
My dog died. I'm going to save it for when I need something to throw on the dead dog pile, which is what it's called in AA when members start infighting, or someone is freaking out over something fairly trivial.
Anna
Yeah those damn facts always get in the way of a good post.
Its not semantics.
Generalizing and framing peole with subjective labels tends to suck any validity out of an argument.
Statements like "most vapers" and "decent vape" are subjective terms and have no set meaning.
"Decent vape" for some is 1.2ohms @14watts.
For others, its at least .12ohms at 140 watts.
Thats pretty far apart.
Same with statments like "Most Vapers", which is inherently false as there is no way to poll all Vapers, so there is no accurate data available.
If you have such data Id love to see it.
Agreed, it is subjective.
I personally vape a STRONG MtL vape. I use clapton coils on a Merlin RTA atty with 36mg 50/50 juice. The coils range from 0.11 to 0.17 ohms depending on what gauges I am trying and how many wraps I do. I vape this on a DNA200 at 380f to 430f. It is a damn decent vape to me. Most, about 90%, of the people who tried my vape found it too strong for them. With a little tweaking this build could easily be tamed down to fit their sweet spot. I have helped many find that sweet spot.
Thats the thing, wire types, resistance, juice strength, etc are all so customizable that I believe "most" can find a setup that is quite decent to "them" under 480f. Those that cant are a minority in my experience.
Also, I am not talking about the "extremes". Those folks know they are at the extremes, and consequently they accept the risk of being on that edge. The average vaper is not on the extreme, and I firmly believe the average vaper can find a build that doesnt require 500f to be considered decent. Now, granted, it might take a little experimentation, but very few "require" vape that hot to get a decent vape.
When I smoked, towards the end I smoked six or seven 50 ring gauge cigars per day and inhaled every puff. That was an extreme, the average smoker does not do that. I chose to, and I also assumed it was a lot riskier than simply smoking cigarettes. It was a risk I accepted. The average smoker did not require inhaling cigars to get a decent smoke.
I agree.
What I consider a "decent vape" probably isnt what most vapers would consider decent.
And my "decent vape" is subject to change (and has, many times).
My exposure to other vapers has been through a few local shops and ECF, while a reaonable sub-section of vapers, its a tiny fraction of the global phenomenon, and not an accurate indication of "most vapers".
I was not trying to argue, my post stated upfront that it was subjective. I'm sorry for using what you may consider an absolute in my statement of "most". It was also surrounded by "maybe" and "perhaps". I don't think that statement deserved the response it received. It wasn't an absolute, it was a supposition that had been IMMEDIATELY prefaced by "It is subjective."
I still feel that PERHAPS most (the majority, meaning greater than 50%, per dictionary definition, though it CAN become more of a superlative, but I really wasn't using it that way) vapers can be satisfied by that target number. Not all of them. And my whole sentence was speculative hence Maybe and Perhaps.
I already indicated that I did not have such data, but that I felt that such data was TECHNICALLY obtainable, which it is. You know that it hasn't been, which is why you are asking me to provide proof. Perhaps saying something like, "At this time using MOST is not accurate as all vapers haven't been studied" would have been less black and white than what you actually said:
That's a non-temporal blanket absolute. There are ways to study what most vapers like. It hasn't been done yet. Will it be? I have no idea. But the statement "There is no way to know what most vapers like." is untrue without qualifiers. So, perhaps I could have used different qualifiers, as you are stating I should have done, but you did not. So to then restate it as being AT this moment in time when that was not what I responded to is not actually representing what you ACTUALLY said.
Perhaps you feel I am parsing words and definitions, however, I would hold you to the same standard. Unless you are able to prove your initial BLANKET statement you don't get to ask me to prove it for you because it was not surrounded by adequate qualifiers.
Although I have no dog in this fight, I'm actually finding this an interesting discussion. I would agree that I, personally, cannot VERIFY that greater than 50% of vapers can enjoy a satisfying vape at a certain temperature AT this moment in time, which is why a) I indicated it was subjective b) my second statement was surrounded by qualifiers.
Anna
I still feel that PERHAPS most (the majority, meaning greater than 50%, per dictionary definition, though it CAN become more of a superlative, but I really wasn't using it that way) vapers can be satisfied by that target number. Not all of them. And my whole sentence was speculative hence Maybe and Perhaps.
I already indicated that I did not have such data, but that I felt that such data was TECHNICALLY obtainable, which it is. You know that it hasn't been, which is why you are asking me to provide proof. Perhaps saying something like, "At this time using MOST is not accurate as all vapers haven't been studied" would have been less black and white than what you actually said:
That's a non-temporal blanket absolute. There are ways to study what most vapers like. It hasn't been done yet. Will it be? I have no idea. But the statement "There is no way to know what most vapers like." is untrue without qualifiers. So, perhaps I could have used different qualifiers, as you are stating I should have done, but you did not. So to then restate it as being AT this moment in time when that was not what I responded to is not actually representing what you ACTUALLY said.
Perhaps you feel I am parsing words and definitions, however, I would hold you to the same standard. Unless you are able to prove your initial BLANKET statement you don't get to ask me to prove it for you because it was not surrounded by adequate qualifiers.
Although I have no dog in this fight, I'm actually finding this an interesting discussion. I would agree that I, personally, cannot VERIFY that greater than 50% of vapers can enjoy a satisfying vape at a certain temperature AT this moment in time, which is why a) I indicated it was subjective b) my second statement was surrounded by qualifiers.
Anna
You are missing the entire point.
I never implied that I knew what most vapers like/do.
There is no way for me to know that.
Polling a section of vapers is a guess at best, and is incredibly susceptible to manipulation.
If you watched the news during the recent election you would see multiple examples of how "polls" and "surveys" weren't accurate.
You sound similar to myself as I was a 40+ year smoker........ The longer I am away from commercial tobacco the more I realize just how nasty the activity of smoking really is .... As to your point about vaping styles, yes, everyone is different and some folks do not inhale deeply (if at all)....... I know from hanging on the New members area that there are also many people who vape that are not prior smoker's......... I used to blow clouds when I first started vaping but I no longer do that as my style is now MTL ...... If there are potential hazards with vaping, then it would stand to reason that the direct lung hitter's would be highest at risk not only from the higher temps but from the amount of vapor always pouring into their lungs and throat.... If it wasn't for my intense, addictive personality, I would probably quit vaping as there have been a couple of times when I went an entire day or longer without vaping and it didn't bother me much at all (as compared to when I went without tobacco for awhile).... But, my addictive personality rejects that idea
BN, you are diverting. It's not about polling. It's not about any of that. You had a fit about a word choice I made that was liberally sprinkled with qualifiers by offering a non-temporal absolute statement.
"There is no way to know what most vapers like." (Unqualified absolute, also untrue. It would take enormous RESOURCES to do it, but that statement is not factually correct, nor would it be correct unless you are referring to the present time. You didn't. If you say "most" people would think it implied, I think I'm going to laugh).
I'd like to understand how such a qualified statement "Perhaps..... might be...." Could be anything other than qualified, subjective opinion. I'm allowed to have one. So are you. When I make a valid point, rather than addressing it you divert or ignore. I am aware of polling limitations. I am also aware that censuses are done every 10 years due to their expense and difficulty. Etc. It CAN be done, it's not in the category of levitating, it's genuinely possible to find out, though I doubt it will happen, in fact I am *fairly certain* (qualified opinion) that it won't. But, you don't know at the present time, is what might have been a more accurate statement, since you are ALL about accuracy and facts? I'm finding it obnoxious that you seem to want to present an absolute statement as true, while calling mine untrue when it wasn't even presented as fact, but a qualified opinion.
There is no way for me to know either, hence the qualifiers "perhaps" and "might be" in my statement. Please just address THAT, or move on. I never said you DID know, I said your statement was an absolute and non-temporal, and mine wasn't, it was speculative. Could you please address that omission in your next argument? You don't get to mow people down with black and white statements by accusing them of making one when they didn't, and then hold fast to YOURS. That is not logical and does not hold up to logical scrutiny, which is why you are diverting. Please address the argument I have presented, not polling data or anything else. Please explain how the word "most" in a qualified, speculative statement is somehow wrong without red herrings. I'd really like it to be clear.
Anna
"There is no way to know what most vapers like." (Unqualified absolute, also untrue. It would take enormous RESOURCES to do it, but that statement is not factually correct, nor would it be correct unless you are referring to the present time. You didn't. If you say "most" people would think it implied, I think I'm going to laugh).
I'd like to understand how such a qualified statement "Perhaps..... might be...." Could be anything other than qualified, subjective opinion. I'm allowed to have one. So are you. When I make a valid point, rather than addressing it you divert or ignore. I am aware of polling limitations. I am also aware that censuses are done every 10 years due to their expense and difficulty. Etc. It CAN be done, it's not in the category of levitating, it's genuinely possible to find out, though I doubt it will happen, in fact I am *fairly certain* (qualified opinion) that it won't. But, you don't know at the present time, is what might have been a more accurate statement, since you are ALL about accuracy and facts? I'm finding it obnoxious that you seem to want to present an absolute statement as true, while calling mine untrue when it wasn't even presented as fact, but a qualified opinion.
There is no way for me to know either, hence the qualifiers "perhaps" and "might be" in my statement. Please just address THAT, or move on. I never said you DID know, I said your statement was an absolute and non-temporal, and mine wasn't, it was speculative. Could you please address that omission in your next argument? You don't get to mow people down with black and white statements by accusing them of making one when they didn't, and then hold fast to YOURS. That is not logical and does not hold up to logical scrutiny, which is why you are diverting. Please address the argument I have presented, not polling data or anything else. Please explain how the word "most" in a qualified, speculative statement is somehow wrong without red herrings. I'd really like it to be clear.
Anna
Actually even just breathing the air can be harmful sometimes!
The really good thing about being older than retirement age is that I don't have to worry about the long term effects of anything.
The simple old experiment is to exhale vapor into a cloth, and cig smoke into another cloth. See which residue you'd rather inhale. As a refinement, then rinse both out with water and let dry and compare again.
A weird argument I came up with possibly against vaping is that if you actually look at cig residue intuitively, you might not believe it is possible for anyone to inhale that and live for many decades, or even past a few months really. So intuition cannot be trusted and maybe vaping is long term more dangerous, OR tobacco smoke is magically less harmful than you would expect (if you're religious that possibility should be even more scary). Like I said, it's a weird argument...
A weird argument I came up with possibly against vaping is that if you actually look at cig residue intuitively, you might not believe it is possible for anyone to inhale that and live for many decades, or even past a few months really. So intuition cannot be trusted and maybe vaping is long term more dangerous, OR tobacco smoke is magically less harmful than you would expect (if you're religious that possibility should be even more scary). Like I said, it's a weird argument...
best way to shut up a troll....
- Status
Similar threads
