Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
Obvious finger pointing. Person to person age verification requires a level of interaction from the retailer. Retailer makes a guess at the buyers age and inquires if they feel the buyer does not comply. This is open for error and all businesses, convenience store, vape shops, liquor or even bars and clubs have all failed to some degree.
But in the context of underage vaping, what is the source? Tens of thousands of convenience stores/gas stations, or a couple hundred vape shops? Despite the system is flawed the major source is obvious.
About a year ago, the FDA did a sting survey on underage sales. Vape shops sailed through with better than 90% in compliance (could've been higher, I don't have the original reference), and it was the convenience stores and gas stations that were the problem. Of course 7 Eleven and Mobil have much bigger pockets for lobbyists and maneuvering in for a seat at the table like they did with that ridiculous Trump "vape summit" at the White House. But the facts remain vape shops have an excellent record at age verification, and the websites I order from all do third party verification before completing the order as well.
But hey, we're the evil tobacco companies who can't be trusted, right?
But hey, we're the evil tobacco companies who can't be trusted, right?
"1,2-Propylene glycol and glycerin, principal components of e-liquids, can thermally degrade to form acetaldehyde, acrolein, and formaldehyde when heated in electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). Recently the flavors in e-liquids were suggested to be the major source of these aldehydes. We used the same 10 ENDS devices to test 5 e-liquid formulations (four flavored & one corresponding non-flavored) and measured device mass loss and levels of acetaldehyde, acrolein, and formaldehyde (30 replicate measurements per formulation). Despite finding reasonable variability in measurements of device mass loss, two out of 10 ENDS devices tested produced outlier values for aerosol levels acetaldehyde, acrolein, and formaldehyde. After removing these devices from further analysis, acceptable variability (≤20% RSD) in aerosol levels of acetaldehyde, and formaldehyde were found. The flavored formulations tested resulted in a consistent and selective increase of 150%-200% in acetaldehyde, no increase or decrease in acrolein and depending on the flavor formulation, an increase, a decrease or no change in formaldehyde levels. Comparison of our results to the literature illustrates the need for development of a standardized ENDS testing protocol. Our results further support that device variability must be fully characterized and considered before assessing the impact of e-liquid formulations."
Actually, I dont doubt that this may be the case. Especially since it was authored by Ivan Gene Gillman who has done a lot of legitimate (politically neutral) vape testing.
I have requested the full txt of his report.
Actually, I dont doubt that this may be the case. Especially since it was authored by Ivan Gene Gillman who has done a lot of legitimate (politically neutral) vape testing.
I have requested the full txt of his report.
Here’s an idea. Prior research has shown a correlation between temperature and aldehydes production with levels generally recognized as safe below 450F and escalating thereafter (paraphrasing, my words). What if the study that mikepetro referenced above shows that flavors can change the heat capacity of the vg/pg; akin to how salt added to water before boiling? And thus increase aerosolization, and potentially aldehydes, for a given temperature e.g. 450F. Many vapers note “cotton candy” flavor produces more vapor/aerosolization. Might this also indicate more aldehydes than other flavors at a given temperature?
Anybody know a research team that is standing by? Seems an example of research needed for safer products.
Last edited:
"The inaccuracy of the conclusion can be linked to data being fabricated by the study’s authors, Drs. Stanton Slantz and Dharma Bhatta."
Why is this Not a Huge Shock to me?
LOL
I don't know who Dharma Bartta is, and please don't hate me, I hate the name because of that horrific Scientology person Jenna Elfman.
The ideas behind the authors of that show should be taken out and shot (am curbing my violence here.)
Why yes! A lawyer named Greg and a hippie named Dharma fall in love, and hilarity ensues. She can't even do the lotus pose correctly,
And that is only my FIRST complaint.
So, I'm pretty chill but I'm sensing some hostility from YOU @zoiDman .LOL you are normally pretty chill so I am going to guess it is um Glantz et al.
Glantz, that name reminds me of a horrible boil or swollen gland on one's crotch. No pressure Glantz . Or rather, redness swelling and pressure.
AND GREAT PAIN.
Anna
The ideas behind the authors of that show should be taken out and shot (am curbing my violence here.)
Why yes! A lawyer named Greg and a hippie named Dharma fall in love, and hilarity ensues. She can't even do the lotus pose correctly,
And that is only my FIRST complaint.
So, I'm pretty chill but I'm sensing some hostility from YOU @zoiDman .LOL you are normally pretty chill so I am going to guess it is um Glantz et al.
Glantz, that name reminds me of a horrible boil or swollen gland on one's crotch. No pressure Glantz . Or rather, redness swelling and pressure.
AND GREAT PAIN.
Anna
Yes, you nailed it. Glantz is a festering boil on the crotch of society. He is an ideologue who masquerades as a scientist. He consistently distorts and falsifies science without concern for ethics, truth, or those harmed.
Oh I know about Glantz just not who this Dharma person is, maybe they are the whimsical like,, counterpoint to the boil that is Glantz. You know, like a mole where the edges are all weird looking and you have to keep getting it monitored at the dermatologist.
It is I nan "Ohm" shape.
Anna
It is I nan "Ohm" shape.
Anna
May be we call their bluff.
"Hey, kids? The health experts say ecigs are worse for you than cigarettes so if you care about your heallth smoke cigarettes instead of using ecigs. We know this is true because they are taking ecigs off the shelf but cigarettes are still for sale."
"Hey, kids? The health experts say ecigs are worse for you than cigarettes so if you care about your heallth smoke cigarettes instead of using ecigs. We know this is true because they are taking ecigs off the shelf but cigarettes are still for sale."
Last edited:
Teens aren't that dumb. Oh trust me, they are dumb in other ways but they aren't going to BUY that "cigarettes are worse" deal.
We must do better. "Every cigarette you smoke takes a day off your EVIL mom's life, via stress?"
"Cigarettes make you more attractive?"
I blame the truth ads. They're so... Catchy . Teens know smoking is bad for you, hell I did too when I started.
It's more a pick your poison type thing, and they have chosen.
Despite them being pawns for the media I must say I admire ingenuity and the entrepreneurial spirit of the little monsters. Etc.
I mean it's just like MJ was back when, the government is going to claim well, whatever..
Anna
We must do better. "Every cigarette you smoke takes a day off your EVIL mom's life, via stress?"
"Cigarettes make you more attractive?"
I blame the truth ads. They're so... Catchy . Teens know smoking is bad for you, hell I did too when I started.
It's more a pick your poison type thing, and they have chosen.
Despite them being pawns for the media I must say I admire ingenuity and the entrepreneurial spirit of the little monsters. Etc.
I mean it's just like MJ was back when, the government is going to claim well, whatever..
Anna
I am quite dubious of this study. Its findings and their directness seem implausible; more tailored to an ideology. Funding by NIH and UC's Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program. Is that Glantz's home? Seems an independent assessment is needed.
Last edited:
First, that’s a press release, not a scientific paper. Second, it’s not Glanz.
Goung by only the information in the press release, they had smokers, vapers, and people who did nothing who acted as control. I haven’t read the article itself, but if the vapers were ex-smokers, how long were they vaping for after stopping smoking before this test was administered. It could represent carryover from their smoking days. It’s all a very, very small study group, and with that mentioned, it’s not exactly earth shattering in any way.
i don't have the back ground to really evaluate this study,
but, guys,
sooner or later vaping will be shown to cause some harm.
you can't just dismiss every study.
but, guys,
sooner or later vaping will be shown to cause some harm.
you can't just dismiss every study.
yep, they shown a lot of harm, mostly financial harm to Big T/P, that's why we are witnessing all that, especially in the US.
As for the health related harm for it's users, it's all about the harm reduction really. Vaping is made for smokers as a smoking cessation option, (not for damn kids), the harm should be always compared to the smoking and we know for sure it will always be around 95% safer to vape than to smoke.
i do try to move smokers to vaping because i believe that.
i just think putting stuff in your lungs is not the best idea.
i'd quit if i could.
i just think putting stuff in your lungs is not the best idea.
i'd quit if i could.
You do know that the nic from vaping is absorbed by your mucus membranes not your lungs, right? So there is no need to inhale!
Similar threads
- Locked
