I don't, but I feel that A: it's being blown out of proportion, B: some of the reasoning behind certain recommendations (and the initial thrust of the posts on the Safety Spec) is not based in sound science or statistical analysis and C: that much of the language being used actually provides ammunition for those who would oppose e-cigs.
a - My position is that it's not being blown out of proportion if people are being hurt through bad design that is easily rectified, and if these incidents result in ecigs being banned in some places or restricted in others.
b - The EMSS is the best that has been suggested over the 2 years it has been in operation. If APV makers want to suggest other options they are welcome to. So far no alternative has been suggested that will stop all explosions in all metal tube mods. If the trade don't make viable suggestions, we will.
c - This is not a realistic statement. The press will get hold of these incidents and run with it. What we do is irrelevant - the Butte City Monitor staff do not read ECF.
..... I still maintain, and will until someone can prove without a shadow of doubt, that we have not seen a confirmed case of an e-cig going postal when it is being used within spec, with batteries within spec. The Colorado case is an example - the mod was not, as evidenced by the plaintif's filing, being used with the correct equipment.
Basically, our argument is that although the incidents are caused by the batteries and/or mistakes or incorrect use, only a badly-designed APV can explode. It's simple enough to fix. People are always going to make mistakes; batteries are always going to be counterfeited; twin-battery failures are always going to happen as long as there are APVs that can take them (which will be forever). Just design them right is all. As these things are always going to happen no matter what anyone does about the issue, fix the core problem: bad APV design. Easy.
You will never in a million years convince me that a consumer device to be used in front of the face and partly inserted into the face doesn't need to take account of that fact that the users will make mistakes, and/or fake batteries might be used.
Now, had I the mind so to do, I could quite easily decant a mixture of nitroglycerine and ethanol into the tank of my car. In all likelihood, that would cause major problems, and, potentially, an explosion. The car manufacturer is well aware that I could do that - the facility exists, and it's not outside the realms of possibility. Would they be liable if, as a result of my foolishness, the car exploded and rendered me incapable of consort with my wife? I think not. In fact, I am as sure as I can be that, were I to bring suit, it would be thrown out of court.
This is a faulty analogy. It should read like this: if I put diesel in my petrol car and it blows up and burns me and my family up, who is at fault? Answer: the car manufacturer, because it is obvious that people are going to do this by mistake. It will happen in 1 in 50,000 fill-ups or whatever, it's not as if anyone will be amazed if it happens. It happens every day.
What I see in the ECFSS is a solution to a problem that has not be proven to exist, in my view - again, I'll issue the challenge - if anyone can show, reliably and repeatably, a method whereby a tube mod can be made to enter catastrophic failure mode immediately and with no warning, in normal use, with the recommended batteries, three times in succession, I'll eat my words. My bet is they can't - and it's not just "here's how I think it will happen" - it has to happen.
Some APVs explode, but you seem to be saying this doesn't happen. If you want to show how it's done, then do so. Otherwise just read all the reports of it on ECF. I can't see how denialism is going to help when ecigs are restricted due to their 'dangerous nature'. Maybe you need to tell the press this isn't happening, it would work better. If the police, ambulance, fire service and hospital staff are halucinating, it should be easy to prove that.
The issue is partly the perception of the problem by the press. As long as they think it's newsworthy, they'll print it. If incidents don't occur they won't report them, so we won't have to worry. On the other hand if the incidents recur then we should do something about it. Totting up the figures, a blowup seems to have happened three times a year. This year looked to be starting out bad, with one a month in the first two months. Let's hope it stays with the average, and there is only one more this year.
Once again, there are multiple reports of these events on ECF and several that have been deleted by supplier forum owners (as you know). There are a number we have heard of that were not reported on ECF. Now the media have got hold of this, it will be used against us. As the trade are not collectively doing anything to stop the incidents, we will try to exert gentle pressure to convince people it is a very bad idea to suck on a potential pipe bomb. Some people may think it's OK but we don't.
And yes, that language is inflammatory. It might be the only way to get some people to wake up. A metal tube mod that appears on cursory inspection to be sealed, and that has two batteries inserted in series, and that has no electronic controls, is not safe to use in front of the face. You won't convince me otherwise in a million years. There are people who have been severely injured to prove it.
Some APV makers will be sued out of existence and I guess that will solve the problem in the end. Unfortunately it will hurt us badly in the process.
Just make your APV so it can't explode in the user's face even if they mistakenly use the wrong batteries. That's all we are asking.
