agreed, but I don't see it happening unless the government gets involved, (I'd hate that)
Do you agree or disagree?
- Thread starter FieryOne
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I would really like to know what is in the products I vape so I totally agree! Thanks for doing this..at least it's a start!
Happy Thanksgiving all!!! And because I didn't want to browse through all the pages to see if I've responded to this....I agree!
Yes, letter is clearly worded and not overly onerous in it's request IMO. I say go for it! Too bad you can't add a real poll to this thread. I think it really add more of an impact to the request and letter.
I don't know how many times this needs to be said before it sinks in, but your stomach and lungs are two different organs that deal with things in different manner. You can eat asbestos (though this may be cancerous it will not cause "stomach scaring"), you can not however get it in your lungs. Comprehend? Stop comparing the two no one is here claiming poisoning due to the substance, poisoning would be the result of a chemcial your body can not handle in any form, lung damage can be caused by harmful substances that are ONLY harmful to the lungs and may be fine on your skin or in your blood.
This whole "you can eat it argument" is not a real argument. There are tons of things your stomach can deal with your lungs can not...don't believe me? Try having a doctor insert a hamburger in your lungs and see how well that works out.
edit: for clarification I am not saying that diacetyl is bad I am just saying the above argument is not proof that it is ok.
double edit : don't eat asbestos
Last edited:
We agree more than you realize; I'm not saying diacetyl is not bad either, just pointing out some flawed logic in the current outrage.
My comment actually has nothing to with comparing the stomach and the lungs or eating versus inhaling but about the limited understanding of how many of things most humans do without concern for our bodies makes the whole diacetyl fear seem like a bit of an over-reaction, so the question of comprehension should be directed elsewhere.
My analogy may be more extreme than necessary but alcohol causes far more damage to our bodies than most people clearly understand or are willing or able to acknowledge, probably because drinking is socially acceptable FDA-approved "fun".
Only about 20% of ingested alcohol is absorbed by the stomach walls; the remaining 80% is absorbed into the blood stream through the small intestine where it's dispersed to the rest of our organs.
While concentrated amounts (slamming shots) can irritate the stomach mucous and delay absorption, the liver, central nervous system, blood, gastrointestinal tract, muscles, and endocrine system are all impacted when our bodies metabolize alcohol. Long-term use can cause harm, more in some than others based on their individual metabolic rates, and long-term abuse will slowly kill you.
There are likely far more drinkers in the world than non-drinkers and if that's the case, statistically, the same should hold true for the ECF membership. I wonder how many of those members are riding high on the anti-diacetyl train while they continue to poison their bodies with the *one* drug that causes more social damage than any other, legal or illegal substance. It's interesting to note that tobacco is the second most harmful "legal" drug in society.
If anyone's interested the effects of alcohol, check out the very simply written Biological Impacts Of Alcohol Use: An Overview.
My comment actually has nothing to with comparing the stomach and the lungs or eating versus inhaling but about the limited understanding of how many of things most humans do without concern for our bodies makes the whole diacetyl fear seem like a bit of an over-reaction, so the question of comprehension should be directed elsewhere.
My analogy may be more extreme than necessary but alcohol causes far more damage to our bodies than most people clearly understand or are willing or able to acknowledge, probably because drinking is socially acceptable FDA-approved "fun".
Only about 20% of ingested alcohol is absorbed by the stomach walls; the remaining 80% is absorbed into the blood stream through the small intestine where it's dispersed to the rest of our organs.
While concentrated amounts (slamming shots) can irritate the stomach mucous and delay absorption, the liver, central nervous system, blood, gastrointestinal tract, muscles, and endocrine system are all impacted when our bodies metabolize alcohol. Long-term use can cause harm, more in some than others based on their individual metabolic rates, and long-term abuse will slowly kill you.
There are likely far more drinkers in the world than non-drinkers and if that's the case, statistically, the same should hold true for the ECF membership. I wonder how many of those members are riding high on the anti-diacetyl train while they continue to poison their bodies with the *one* drug that causes more social damage than any other, legal or illegal substance. It's interesting to note that tobacco is the second most harmful "legal" drug in society.
If anyone's interested the effects of alcohol, check out the very simply written Biological Impacts Of Alcohol Use: An Overview.
I happen to be a teetotaler, does that make my opinion any more valid? Or the fact that I don't use illegal substances? What matters is what you choose to do today and in the future to safeguard your health. And every bit of information you can get concerning health risks is important unless your brain is already so fried that you don't care. I care.
That's also one of my concerns. I would rather see a consumer oversight group formed (like has been done in the UK) that isn't on anyone's payroll then just believe whatever is presented by a vendor.
Good for you, Bovinia; glad to know that I'm not the only one in the statistical minority!
I'm looking forward to any info that can help me better understand the risks of vaping but in the meantime, after knowing the risks of smoking and continuing to do it for ~30 years I'm just not in a big panic about the unknowns of vaping and believe that even with potential risks, it's got to be less harmful than tobacco.
At least I'm hoping it is; guess I'll know in another 20 years if I live that long.
I'm looking forward to any info that can help me better understand the risks of vaping but in the meantime, after knowing the risks of smoking and continuing to do it for ~30 years I'm just not in a big panic about the unknowns of vaping and believe that even with potential risks, it's got to be less harmful than tobacco.
At least I'm hoping it is; guess I'll know in another 20 years if I live that long.
that is on my list of action items. I thought this letter would be an easy quick win....so maybe on to the next.
I agree with this proposal. Simply knowing do not hurt and offers a choice to the consumer.
Happy New Year everyone. I apologize for not being around much, but life sometimes gets in the way. In light of recent developments, I think we can say we have been heard and changes are being made. 
Hooray!! Unless there is any objection, I'll ask for this thread to be closed.
Hooray!! Unless there is any objection, I'll ask for this thread to be closed.
Happy New Year everyone. I apologize for not being around much, but life sometimes gets in the way. In light of recent developments, I think we can say we have been heard and changes are being made.
What recent developments are you referring to Fiery? I know that Flavour Art is reformulating to remove diacetyl from most of their flavorings, just wondering if there is something else that I may have missed.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
