Dems Crack Down On E-Cigs in DC
- Thread starter Sirius
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
{MODERATED}
His "knowledgeable" tirade has about as much hard science in it as creationism.
When will the vaping community learn that the vapors we exhale are not simply water? Trying to spin that fallacy will only discredit us all.
Having this clown be a self appointed spokesperson for the vaping community will do us more harm than good because his garbage utterings can be discredited in about 20 seconds.
Someone please talk to him and get him to get his facts straight.
His "knowledgeable" tirade has about as much hard science in it as creationism.
When will the vaping community learn that the vapors we exhale are not simply water? Trying to spin that fallacy will only discredit us all.
Having this clown be a self appointed spokesperson for the vaping community will do us more harm than good because his garbage utterings can be discredited in about 20 seconds.
Someone please talk to him and get him to get his facts straight.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well then keep watching MSNBC for your political news. By all means get your lapdog media fix in..lol
I see his "knowledgeable" tirade as par for the course from where antis are speaking loudly and boldly. As they know they can't currently win on science, they go with tactics that make creationism look the best argument from "reason" in the last 100 years.
In a thread not too long, this was discussed in detail, and a post such as this one highlighted that we are in fact exhaling water vapor.
I must be really lucky not to be a lapdog since I don't watch MSNBC for my political news.
On the other hand, what do you call a person who respects the opinion of someone who cannot get his facts straight?
Oh so you are a scientist? With no political motivation?
See what Jman8 posted:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...erpetuate-water-vapor-lie-6.html#post11897235
Off topic I know, but if the junk science of climate change is any indication of what will be done with e-cigs, we are really in for it.
It's pretty clear from the post linked that the poster has no real chemistry knowledge, for example, there's a assumption that the reaction proceeds with 100% efficiency which rarely occurs. If you do even a cursory examination of published results you'll find a whole lot of other stuff in there, for example, scroll down here and you'll find VG and PG right at the top of the list. In truth, VG and PG is not destroyed in the reaction, just dispersed into a collection of particles which attract and bind to water molecules resulting in particles large enough to see.
I'd be more careful with Internet sources instead of just believing someone because they're saying what you want to hear. Just my $0.02.
Spin not facts are most relevant to birth of laws and regulations.
The link you provide is unbelievable, it looks like something an eight grader would put together. And then the source itself, TRDRP Cornelius Hopper Award recipient? Ya, you better look out for those internet sources. UofC and the TRDRP, unbelievable.
That sure is true emus..Look at the gun laws in Connecticut after Sandy Hook.
http://usfinancepost.com/is-connecticut-preparing-for-gun-confiscation-14238.html
Why do I get the sense that you wouldn't be satisfied unless he read one or both these papers aloud in their entirety - complete with citations?
BMC Public Health | Full text | Peering through the mist: systematic review of what the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tells us about health risks
Secondhand Exposure to Vapors From Electronic Cigarettes
If he had said that it was "mostly" water vapor, or "essentially indistinguishable from" water vapor, he'd have been 100% right. Maybe he gets one "Pinnochio" or maybe only a half of one on the Politifact scale. The ANTZ, meanwhile, tend to be more at the level of three or four. (Not that I live and die by Politifact, I'm just using the scale as a descriptive device.)
I'm no fan of Fox or Gutfield, but if someone gets things basically correct, then we should be applauding them, or at the very least not smearing them by association with creation science [sic]. (And I'm not a fan of that either.)
If Dr. Siegal appeared on Fox, would you say the same thing about Fox?
Your rhetoric is pointlessly incendiary, completely superfluous, factually misleading (insofar as you criticize this particular remark for a fairly minor deviation from 100% accuracy) ... and utterly gratuitous to boot.
I'd be with you if you griped in the Outside Forum ( http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/outside/ ) about other things on Fox, or other things that Gutfeld has said.
But not this specific assertion of Gutfield's, and definitely not in this particular venue.
Last edited:
LOL, so what you're saying here is you have absolutely no supporting evidence and are making stuff up as you go? And you can't even use Google to find out how thoroughly the water vapor myth has been debunked?
Dr Farsolinos publications have shown the exact same thing as have all other credible resources I've seen and I've read many studies over the last year of vaping. Making stuff up as you go is a terrible idea. Bias exists in most studies but generally manifests itself in the conclusions. When you read measurements from both sides of the debate, showing the same results, you can draw conclusions.
Well then since we have dove headlong into the vapor question, I give you what Sonic posted in another thread:
- Status
Similar threads
