Dr. F must not spend too much time on this forum if he thinks that everyone agrees with the bolded section above !
Diactyl scare.
- Thread starter guambred
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
IMO, the only relevant news here is what Dr. F. is stating (in response).
As I said in other thread with this same topic:
I fail to see how this (medexpress claim) is different than the anti-freeze and formaldehyde claims / scares for yesteryear.
The link (between eliquid flavors and respiratory problems) is about as scientific as I am a top notch scientist.
My added thoughts: As I don't claim to be a top notch scientist, then I would also assert that the link is not scientific. Meaning it is not an observed connection that has been tested based on the known hypothesis.
Therefore it is a philosophical claim. And what @Kent C has posted from Dr. F., especially the bolded part is scientific rebuttal to what is, IMO, a scare tactic.
And yet, I strongly disagree with Dr. F. that 'everyone agrees there is no reason for never smokers to use eCigs.' There may be no (good) reason to Dr. F. (and many others) for that to occur, but there are easily reason(s) why never-smokers would vape. Some of them, IMO, good. Glad to elaborate on that.
But it doesn't really matter, now does it, if the scientific link for the scare tactic is yet too be established?
Dr. F. also wrote in his rebuttal (in opening and closing paragraph):
I emphasize what I did because this is (scientific) opinion. I be one that criticizes Dr. F. for use of the words "should not be used" and all that entails. This is CLEARLY his opinion, and not scientific assertions. He is welcome to this opinion and I honor his choice to express it.
But we are clearly on a playing field where opposition will not play fairly and will spin these assertions / analyzed risks, albeit potential, in ways that amount to scare tactics. Designed to ensure that harsher regulations are perceived as warranted/necessary. While also having fairly clear evidence that we (all of humanity) have "no idea if the substitution for 'these chemicals' will be any better for us over the long term." And overwhelming evidence, as in how could you doubt it, that every conceivable substance carries with it some risk. Therefore, if risk aversion is truly the name of the game, no one 'should' vape, nor do really anything (involving substances) unless risks are somehow, magically, deemed acceptable. And who decides that?
I would submit the clear and self evident fact that we all deem levels of risk entirely acceptable, and that to judge / restrict others is entering into territory where you ABSOLUTELY deserve criticism. And plausibly deserve counter judgment of creating a shared reality where an alternative market will ensue due to the nature of how scare tactics work on this planet, 10 times out of 9.
IMO, that other market, has ongoing potential to reflect the utter hypocrisy of the (non) righteousness from within that judgment of forbiddance. As if, it is only a manifestation of that tactic, run amok.
As I said in other thread with this same topic:
I fail to see how this (medexpress claim) is different than the anti-freeze and formaldehyde claims / scares for yesteryear.
The link (between eliquid flavors and respiratory problems) is about as scientific as I am a top notch scientist.
My added thoughts: As I don't claim to be a top notch scientist, then I would also assert that the link is not scientific. Meaning it is not an observed connection that has been tested based on the known hypothesis.
Therefore it is a philosophical claim. And what @Kent C has posted from Dr. F., especially the bolded part is scientific rebuttal to what is, IMO, a scare tactic.
And yet, I strongly disagree with Dr. F. that 'everyone agrees there is no reason for never smokers to use eCigs.' There may be no (good) reason to Dr. F. (and many others) for that to occur, but there are easily reason(s) why never-smokers would vape. Some of them, IMO, good. Glad to elaborate on that.
But it doesn't really matter, now does it, if the scientific link for the scare tactic is yet too be established?
Dr. F. also wrote in his rebuttal (in opening and closing paragraph):
I emphasize what I did because this is (scientific) opinion. I be one that criticizes Dr. F. for use of the words "should not be used" and all that entails. This is CLEARLY his opinion, and not scientific assertions. He is welcome to this opinion and I honor his choice to express it.
But we are clearly on a playing field where opposition will not play fairly and will spin these assertions / analyzed risks, albeit potential, in ways that amount to scare tactics. Designed to ensure that harsher regulations are perceived as warranted/necessary. While also having fairly clear evidence that we (all of humanity) have "no idea if the substitution for 'these chemicals' will be any better for us over the long term." And overwhelming evidence, as in how could you doubt it, that every conceivable substance carries with it some risk. Therefore, if risk aversion is truly the name of the game, no one 'should' vape, nor do really anything (involving substances) unless risks are somehow, magically, deemed acceptable. And who decides that?
I would submit the clear and self evident fact that we all deem levels of risk entirely acceptable, and that to judge / restrict others is entering into territory where you ABSOLUTELY deserve criticism. And plausibly deserve counter judgment of creating a shared reality where an alternative market will ensue due to the nature of how scare tactics work on this planet, 10 times out of 9.
IMO, that other market, has ongoing potential to reflect the utter hypocrisy of the (non) righteousness from within that judgment of forbiddance. As if, it is only a manifestation of that tactic, run amok.
I don't think Dr. F would discount the fact that there are never smokers - teens - who will experiment regardless of the bad PR that is posted about cigarettes or ecigarettes. I suspect his -never smoker group - would be those older individuals who chose not to smoke and won't and who have no need for ecigs. But yeah, as written, it's too broad of a generality of both 'never smokers' as well as the 'everyone agrees' part too :- ) There is no issue of which I'm aware, where 'everyone agrees' Lol.
Any statement that begins with "everyone knows..." or "everyone agrees..." needs to be looked at and picked apart with a fine-toothed comb; it indicates that the person making the statement is either so intellectually lazy they haven't even bothered to try and come up with a rational argument, or their reasoning skills are so weak/nonexistent that any rationale they do come up with is just weak and irrational -- so they resort to the emotional manipulation of some illusory peer-pressure to make you feel that if you disagree with their statement, there must be something wrong with YOU. A scientist has no business making statements like that, unless he wants to call into question his entire body of work, because it is nothing but emotional manipulation, not rationality.
Andria
Andria
The Daily Telegraph has an article on the story :
E-cigarettes contain flavouring chemical linked to deadly 'popcorn lung'
E-cigarettes contain flavouring chemical linked to deadly 'popcorn lung'
I agree. We are free citizens. if someone wants to vape, go for it.
Mike
addendum, to say non-tobacco users can't or shouldn't use e-cigs is tantamount to saying
people who consume adult beverages should not be allowed to drink Kool-Aid.
It works both ways.
Last edited:
Can anyone make a suitable flavoring without these chemicals???
Seems that there should be some alternative to remove the potential threat!
Seems that there should be some alternative to remove the potential threat!
Sure. TFA has quite a few; if you really want a custard flavor, mix their DX Bavarian Cream with their Vanilla Swirl -- both diketone-free.
Andria
Do you have a link to their test results ? I thought Flavourart was the only one of the flavor vendors that are diketone free. Sorry i don't know a lot about diy but i am planning on getting more involved.
Perfumers Apprentice - The Flavor Apprentice - World of Flavors
They have the results online for all their flavors. I was even able to discover that their Dbl Choc Dark contains sulfites, which is bad news for asthmatics. Though for the life of me I can't figure out why they would add something that's intended to keep food from browning... to something which is dark brown.
Andria
Yes i knew about diacetyl, just didn't know AP has been removed as well.
I don't understand then - I must be missing something. You said you thought flavourart was the only vendor that was diketone free, Diacetyl is a diketone, and while they have removed much of it, the products that still contain it are clearly marked. Not sure what you meant that you knew about diacetyl.
Sorry what i meant is that i knew most of the flavor vendors started removing diacetyl ( or clearly marked the ones that still have them ) circa 2010. What i didn't know was that TFA has been testing for Acetyl Propyniol as well. It wasn't until a year or two ago that AP became a concern within certain segments of the industry as well, when Dr. F and others stated that the potential risk was identical.
btw Kent C, seven of the nine brands tested were cartridges and the last two were e liquids that were added to empty cartridges for the purpose of the test. So one ml or less, was the total amount of eliquid in the testing.
Ok.... I'm thinking AP has been on the table a while as well - but not as long as DA - but AEMSA and ECITA have been on both from their start and ECITA, as ruwin? has said, go even further. That was also a while back so perhaps AEMSA is looking at other additives as well. I believe the NIOSH safety limit for AP is higher as well - 45ug/ml. And that again, calls into question the study, imo. There are many eliquids that had LOQ (undetectable levels of all three tested) but when you add up those that had only one, you can make statements in your conclusion "that 47 out of 51 showed 'some' level of these chemicals." Even though most had levels of one or two well below NIOSH limits or LOQ.
I saw that. Doesn't really change my views as the numbers tell the story. If anything for ug/ml you might add 5%. which only puts one more flavor above the 20 ug/ml level. They didn't say how many though... unless I missed it. All Boge cartos are 1ml - and most others were as well. Don't know about cigalikes....
Yeah i know, i read in the study that they don't agree that the NIOSH safety limits should apply to e-cigarettes. If they are making such a fuss about the tiny amounts od DA/AP in the vast majority of these liquids, imagine the headlines if they had actually tested some of the gourmet flavors available in vape shops, instead of cig-a-likes. Some of the liquids Vaporshark tested for were in the hundreds and a few over a thousand ( micrograms per ml).
Last edited:
That's the thing that may give this study some traction - it's tied to an issue that is real, even among vapers. The formaldehyde and other scares were based on unrealistic scenarios like burning a coil to extremes, etc. In this case, we know there is a grain of truth and that many vendors have sidestepped this issue for years. Of course it was bound to come back to haunt us.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
