vaping/running

[Imfallen_Angel]

Wow. There's only so long they can say all of these stories are anecdotal surely!

Not really...

1) vaping has been around for a longer time than most realize... so there's plenty of example / test subjects
2) PG has been used since the 1950s in many ways, including as an aerosol in hospital to "clean" the air (anti-bacterial properties)... via the air systems.

 

[JoeMischief]

Just think that in this Particular Thread, it would be Well to keep in mind that References were compared to Smoking.

Also, if the OP said that they were vaping Unflavored, it would Eliminate some of the other Potential Hazards associated with the Inhalation of Flavorings and or Artificial Sweeteners.

Whereas I applaud the RCP results as a guideline for those who are Current Smokers, I would be Cautious for those to Use these Unlikely to Exceed results for a Non-Smoker.

I love this place as it's so easy for us unwashed masses to be behind the times on the current facts. There's such an information overload for the untrained or uneducated mind like mine to sift through it becomes untenable. Not that this is entirely relevant but have started a little Facebook group to try and get this message out to a lot of the people who might not be inclined to come to a forum but use social media. They love vaping but don't know the most up to date facts or the need for advocacy. This sort of info is gold. Thanks.

 

[Imfallen_Angel]

I love this place as it's so easy for us unwashed masses to be behind the times on the current facts. There's such an information overload for the untrained or uneducated mind like mine to sift through it becomes untenable. Not that this is entirely relevant but have started a little Facebook group to try and get this message out to a lot of the people who might not be inclined to come to a forum but use social media. They love vaping but don't know the most up to date facts or the need for advocacy. This sort of info is gold. Thanks.

I've read so many reports and studies about the effect of PG and VG that I couldn't remember where I read a lot of it now...
And on Facebook, I'm with at least 6 (or is that 8 or more?) vaping groups that swap stories and news articles/reports, government activities, etc.

 

[Imfallen_Angel]

but about the PG and VG effect.. lots and lots done on animal for a lot of years since the 50s... which is why it's 100% approved by all health institution as completely safe.

Seen the lung testing reports from a few months ago...

Super-exposed lung tissue, not a single impact whatsoever with PG VG... compared to cigarettes (lung tissue dead within minutes).. not even a question of "in time there's degradation" either.. there was none, nothing, no affect at all.

 

[JoeMischief]

Not really...

1) vaping has been around for a longer time than most realize... so there's plenty of example / test subjects
2) PG has been used since the 1950s in many ways, including as an aerosol in hospital to "clean" the air (anti-bacterial properties)... via the air systems.

Wonder if you might have misunderstood my comment. I was ridiculing the vaping nay sayers and their disbelief that real life stories of improvement in health can be merely genuine not anecdotal. I wasn't impuning your excellent knowledge of the facts sir.

 

[Imfallen_Angel]

Quick search for the lung stuff:

Comparison of select analytes in aerosol from e-cigarettes with smoke from conventional cigarettes and with ambient air

Not one of the ones that I've read before (I should have bookmarked them) but the point is similar... no DNA mutation, no effect, etc. basically, no difference between the lung exposed to vape compared to regular air we breathe...

In other words, walking next to cars on a busy street is really bad... and a lot worse than vaping...

 

[Imfallen_Angel]

Wonder if you might have misunderstood my comment. I was ridiculing the vaping nay sayers and their disbelief that real life stories of improvement in health can be merely genuine not anecdotal. I wasn't impuning your excellent knowledge of the facts sir.

Oh, I know.. at this time, everyone's an expert (and anti-vaping) thanks to the propaganda. I've had smokers that still absolutely believe that smoking is better than vaping.

 

[zoiDman]

I love this place as it's so easy for us unwashed masses to be behind the times on the current facts. There's such an information overload for the untrained or uneducated mind like mine to sift through it becomes untenable. Not that this is entirely relevant but have started a little Facebook group to try and get this message out to a lot of the people who might not be inclined to come to a forum but use social media. They love vaping but don't know the most up to date facts or the need for advocacy. This sort of info is gold. Thanks.

If you would like More Information on the RCP Opinions and or Public Health England recommendations, you might look at these 3 Links.

E-cigarettes: an evidence update - GOV.UK

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa..._authors_note_on_evidence_for_95_estimate.pdf

http://www.karger.com/article/FullText/360220

The Last Link is Very Interesting. Especially the "The Criteria of Harm" section.

 

[JoeMischief]

but about the PG and VG effect.. lots and lots done on animal for a lot of years since the 50s... which is why it's 100% approved by all health institution as completely safe.

Seen the lung testing reports from a few months ago...

Super-exposed lung tissue, not a single impact whatsoever with PG VG... compared to cigarettes (lung tissue dead within minutes).. not even a question of "in time there's degradation" either.. there was none, nothing, no affect at all.

Excellent. I'm glad to be educated. I know there's a significant number of groups already out there across all social media but we seem to have found a little home for a few people who didn't seem to be getting some of this information from the places they were already going to. If they come away better armed with the facts because I can pass on the superior knowledge of you good people then all the better.

 

[JoeMischief]

My personal Facebook account is broken at the moment but when it's fixed I'll upload the links to the group. This will be of interest I believe even to the mod hungry cloud chuckers

 

[Imfallen_Angel]

If you would like More Information on the RCP Opinions and or Public Health England recommendations, you might look at these 3 Links.

E-cigarettes: an evidence update - GOV.UK

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa..._authors_note_on_evidence_for_95_estimate.pdf

http://www.karger.com/article/FullText/360220

The Last Link is Very Interesting. Especially the "The Criteria of Harm" section.

Nice, thanks for those,... that first link has a document pertaining to that 95% thing we started with, and states: that it is now regarded as below that, even stating 1% or less (already!).

" The estimate that e-cigarette use is around 95% safer than smoking is based on the facts that:

1. the constituents of cigarette smoke that harm health – including carcinogens – are either absent in e-cigarette vapour or, if present, they are mostly at levels much below 5% of smoking doses (mostly below 1% and far below safety limits for occupational exposure)
2. the main chemicals present in e-cigarettes only have not been associated with any serious risk"

 

[zoiDman]

My personal Facebook account is broken at the moment but when it's fixed I'll upload the links to the group. This will be of interest I believe even to the mod hungry cloud chuckers

Good Deal.

One other piece of Advise. Be Careful when you see a "Bare" Statistic. Because the Methodology to calculate the Statistic, or a something like a Weighted Average, may or may not be a Methodology or a Weighted Average that applies to you as in Individual.

An example of this would be the OP. If Vaping effects Him in an adverse way relating to His Football Performance, what would be the Ramifications of Not having a Athletic Scholarship?

 

[zoiDman]

Nice, thanks for those,... that first link has a document pertaining to that 95% thing we started with, and states: that it is now regarded as below that, even stating 1% or less (already!).

" The estimate that e-cigarette use is around 95% safer than smoking is based on the facts that:

1. the constituents of cigarette smoke that harm health – including carcinogens – are either absent in e-cigarette vapour or, if present, they are mostly at levels much below 5% of smoking doses (mostly below 1% and far below safety limits for occupational exposure)
2. the main chemicals present in e-cigarettes only have not been associated with any serious risk"

Yeah... But I would suggest that you Read the 3rd Link completely.

 

[Imfallen_Angel]

Yeah... But I would suggest that you Read the 3rd Link completely.

The Criteria of Harm one?

Read it quickly... talks more about nicotine and relates to what I said earlier about the nicotine isn't as per once believed.

Unless your point is about something else?

 

[zoiDman]

The Criteria of Harm one?

Read it quickly... talks more about nicotine and relates to what I said earlier about the nicotine isn't as per once believed.

Unless your point is about something else?

I just think it is Worth Reading. Especially if the UK Health reference of "95% Safer" is used as compared to Smoking.

 

[Imfallen_Angel]

I just think it is Worth Reading. Especially if the UK Health reference of "95% Safer" is used as compared to Smoking.

all the info is worth reading though technical and might be a bit of a wall of text for many, but as I stated already, the correlation between that 95% figure and now that they are finding that nicotine isn't that bad, is part of the "it's not 95% anymore but a lot less" since the nicotine was a great part of the "bad part" (of that 5% leeway).

 

[JoeMischief]

all the info is worth reading though technical and might be a bit of a wall of text for many, but as I stated already, the correlation between that 95% figure and now that they are finding that nicotine isn't that bad, is part of the "it's not 95% anymore but a lot less" since the nicotine was a great part of the "bad part" (of that 5% leeway).

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. I'm not SO stupid I can't manage to walk through a doorway without bumping into the frame EVERY time. However I, like many people don't have the skills or maybe the intelligence to decipher even the fairly basic scientific reports or papers and just get lost. It's a skill for many that has atrophied since school. Putting a lot of it into bite size chunks for us that we can understand and digest is quite important to increase the reach of the most important parts of the message...

 

[Imfallen_Angel]

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. I'm not SO stupid I can't manage to walk through a doorway without bumping into the frame EVERY time. However I, like many people don't have the skills or maybe the intelligence to decipher even the fairly basic scientific reports or papers and just get lost. It's a skill for many that has atrophied since school. Putting a lot of it into bite size chunks for us that we can understand and digest is quite important to increase the reach of the most important parts of the message...

Absolutely... and it's not even close to being an "insult" for anyone... myself, I will NOT write anything too complex, I have nothing to prove like some people do, I'd rather be clear and simple.

I've seen some on here that did post that you could see that they have to try and "impress how smart they were", and actually didn't even understand what they were saying, and would contradict themselves from one post to another.

I admit, I'm terrible as writing walls of text at times, but at least I do write about multiple things or in details but still go with simple things.

I prefer having someone reply with "AHHH that's how that works!/how it'd done" than getting a .

I've started a blog on here due to multiple request from new members that I've supported, and bit by bit hope to cover every possible angle about vaping that I touch upon. Just haven't had time to do more this last week or so, but this thread gave my a "new" item to put it... the 95% thing will be a new addition once I get the time.

 

[JoeMischief]

I'm the worst for rambling whether in script or in person. My own joke about myself is 'why use one word when a thousand will do'. There are always a few smarty pants who want to show off. What I've liked about coming here is people will take the time and the patience to help until I do understand. One guy on here must have spent something like 6 hours helping me fix the broken link I'd posted to my Facebook group the other night. You guys have taken the time today to treat me not like the uninformed dimwit I am after 24 hours now with no sleep and patiently help me understand important stuff I need to take away and tell others that aren't aware. You do good work for the vaping community. After all it's pretty important in the big scheme of things. As a newbie to the site where do I find your blog?

 

[JoeMischief]

Absolutely... and it's not even close to being an "insult" for anyone... myself, I will NOT write anything too complex, I have nothing to prove like some people do, I'd rather be clear and simple.

I've seen some on here that did post that you could see that they have to try and "impress how smart they were", and actually didn't even understand what they were saying, and would contradict themselves from one post to another.

I admit, I'm terrible as writing walls of text at times, but at least I do write about multiple things or in details but still go with simple things.

I prefer having someone reply with "AHHH that's how that works!/how it'd done" than getting a .

I've started a blog on here due to multiple request from new members that I've supported, and bit by bit hope to cover every possible angle about vaping that I touch upon. Just haven't had time to do more this last week or so, but this thread gave my a "new" item to put it... the 95% thing will be a new addition once I get the time.

Found it! Seek and ye shall find!