Bye.BYe cherry flavors.

[skoony]

Even though the study showed 1000 times below safety standards
it's still bad?
Archives for February 1st, 2016 | PGVG Magazine benzaldehyde-another-molecule-in-the-flavors- war/
It never ends.
Regards
mike

 

[f1vefour]

Lucky for me I hate cherry.

 

[Gothicmace59]

Im not a expert .. just a vaping guy... BUT.. I read the report.. I am familiar with OSHA regulations in the work place and any product that is 1000 times UNDER the level presented by a similar source in a work environment.. I would still buy a cherry flavored e-juice. But then again.. I also owned a Pet Rock and voted for Jimmy Carter... but seriously.. these are way below levels considered dangerous.

 

[skoony]

Im not a expert .. just a vaping guy... BUT.. I read the report.. I am familiar with OSHA regulations in the work place and any product that is 1000 times UNDER the level presented by a similar source in a work environment.. I would still buy a cherry flavored e-juice. But then again.. I also owned a Pet Rock and voted for Jimmy Carter... but seriously.. these are way below levels considered dangerous.

That's my point. The article still implied there could be health issues even under
impossible conditions. They seriously say this needs to be studied further.
This is the kind of stuff us vapers have to put up with. No one can actually
prove vaping is harmful but insist there must be harm,we need more studies.
Regards
Mike

 

[RayRay69]

Damn.. Sicboy - Deviant (Cherry Strudel) is amazing. Wonder if they have this in it.

 

[RayRay69]

This is the same with anything new that comes to market. They really need a 30 year window to study all of this to really tell us what's bad or not. You have to take all this with a grain of salt. It's always in the back of mind that 10-20 years from now they tell us that vaping gives you a 10 gazillion more of chance to get cancer. What can you do though live your life in fear?? I can not and will not live that way. You only live once, and I try to enjoy this time I have on this earth as much as I can.

 

[skoony]

@RayRay69 Science has advanced somewhat over the last 50 years. All the
testing so far indicates that anything that may be toxic if found is so far below
accepted exposure levels as being not worth the ink to print them. People can
wait for the long term studies if they want but,don't hold your breath. As of
now they haven't found anything to warrant long term studies. No one will
bother. After the FDA deeming regs pass the FDA certainly will not do any
long term studies for fear thy will show what the short term studies and
use have shown. Vaping is in fact at least 95% safer than smoking and
likely 99% safer. At 99% safer there is no need for FDA regulation because
nothing can be safer than that.Not even so called clean air.

Regards
Mike

 

[retired1]

Ummm..

Levels reached with the cherry-flavored products were more than 1,000 times lower than doses inhaled in the occupational exposure study, on a daily basis. They added that the benzaldehyde yields in aerosol over a day of use of the cherry-flavored nicotine solutions were significantly higher than those recorded in non-cherry-flavored solutions and also higher than for conventional tobacco cigarettes use. The researchers point out the need for further research in order to establish whether these chemicals are safe for inhalation.

In other words, the levels they found in the cherry-flavored products were still 1,000 times lower than those exposed in the occupational exposure study. Seems to me someone's playing Chicken Little without anything to back it up.

 

[thetrucker]

I like the cherry flavored eliquid----but seem to get this lingering strange smell in my nose after exhaling and lasts about

15 seconds after-----just wondered if other people ever had this experience............and why the cherry flavor is the only

one to give me this sensation.......have tried a bazillion different flavors in 2 years..........

 

[retired1]

This is the thing I hate about **cough** studies like this. The researcher mentions a bad thing, fully expecting the media to key in on it and run with it.

Remember aspartame? The media has been telling us it's bad for decades.

Opinion: Sugar-free soda is safe - CNN.com

Aspartame was first approved for use in 1981, but it wasn't until 15 years later that health concerns showed up. In 1996, a research paper showed that there had been a recent increase in brain tumors and hypothesized that this might be due to aspartame. Mind you, it didn't prove that was so. But the potential link was all the media needed to go crazy. TV shows, magazine articles, and newspapers all questioned whether the artificial sweetener was safe.

Further work using data from the National Cancer Institute showed that the increase in brain tumors really began in 1973, long before aspartame was introduced. Moreover, the increases in incidence of cancer were seen primarily in the elderly, which as a group, was not the major consumer of diet soda.

And there's more. A randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial showed that aspartame didn't affect memory, behavior or mood. And a study published in 2006 followed more than 285,000 men and almost 190,000 women and couldn't detect any relationship between aspartame and brain or blood cancer.

It really chaps my hide when a researcher jumps out spouting non-substantiated nonsense knowing full well that once it gets out there, it'll take on a life of its own and if further research shows their premise was totally off and wrong, the damage will still have been done.

 

[ZCAR1]

"...we need more studies."
$$$ Gov. grants.

 

[retired1]

"...we need more studies."
$$$ Gov. grants.

We DO need more studies. Long term, thorough, and peer reviewed studies. What we don't need is some idiot coming up with a tiny hint that there might be something amiss, and go off the deep end before it's proven one way or the other.

 

[skoony]

@retired1 , I understand peoples concern and the call for long term studies.
Having said that I wonder if there will be any long term studies. If the FDA's
deeming regulations are as harsh and restrictive as some of us believe why
Would the FDA want to do and fund such studies? These studies are just as
likely to prove vaping to be relatively safe as they are to prove it's causing
serious harm. It would be against their best interests not to find harm being
caused. No one else will continue funding such research as when 99.9%
of the industry goes out of business where's the money going to come from?
Of course this is my usual doom and gloom take on the mater but, I think
it does have some merit.

Regards
Mike

 

[retired1]

Who says the FDA has to do the study? I'd much rather see an independent agency that isn't beholden to one view or another pick up the ball and run with it.

 

[skoony]

Who says the FDA has to do the study? I'd much rather see an independent agency that isn't beholden to one view or another pick up the ball and run with it.

That would be the way to go but, as i mentioned in my above post who would pay for it.
When things shake out after the deeming regs are issued i am not sure there will be
a base large enough to finance studies independently. Any company left standing will
play the cards that are dealt to them.
Regards
Mike