I don't know why people hate on Zeller either, but apparently some do.
Donate to Dr Farsalinos' new study
- Thread starter rolygate
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- diacetyl dr farsalinos
- Status
I don't know why people hate on Zeller either, but apparently some do.
(and to xtwosm0kesx)
How do you feel about Harkin? Glantz? Prue Talbot? Rockefeller - they all think they are "trying to help and make things safer".
It is history, that makes people 'cop an attitude' with those who claim to 'know what's best for us'. There is a wake of destruction in their paths. One has to know a bit more about the person other than their 'claim to help'. Do you know more about Zeller? I've made the point of taking him at face value in my last post but only as a stylistic way of making comments, but nothing to do with anything I actually know about him. That he's a gov't employee in a regulatory agency doesn't help, in my case
but that's just me. (well, others too as you might see by 'likes' 
I think all the gov't agencies and most of the cabinet departments are unconstitutional.I'll take another crack at what I said in vastly different way in post #201 (where I referenced Zeller).
Farsalino (et al.) is saying this is a problem of the magnitude of 2x the strict NIOSH-defined safety limits but 100 and 10 times lower compared to smoking respectively.
I fail to understand how this is not a trivial concern, or on par with formaldehyde data from before, and anti-freeze data before that. 100 times safer than tobacco truly ought to be good enough. I realize for some it is not. And that population of people (may be the majority) will make it so all the vendors have to change or forever deal with a problem that has taken a molehill and made it into Mt. Everest.
I can't even say this is science at work. Not if we are ignoring the perspective of what is said above, in bold. At that level, it is how we react and spin the data, and is why we now live in a world where "BT lied to us" is sound bite rhetoric that works for vast majority as if that is undeniable truth. IMO, this sort of study (regardless of who the researchers are) is setting up that sort of situation, likely indefinitely. Cause if they (vendors) were advertising "no diacetyl" and it is still present, then there really will never be a way for any consumer to be 100% certain that what they are vaping at any given moment is diacetyl-free. And keep in mind, this is just our side dealing with the data. So, rest of humanity will be basing all the information we are discussing, filtered through ANTZ perspective, some of which will be 'science based.'
I also think all of what's in eLiquid carries degree of harm with it. And I freely admit that is debatable, as magnitude of harm will be what determines how important that data is to each individual. But I predict that anyone that is a non-ANTZ researcher will continue to find vaping ingredients are as much as 100x safer than smoking those type of ingredients.
Farsalino (et al.) is saying this is a problem of the magnitude of 2x the strict NIOSH-defined safety limits but 100 and 10 times lower compared to smoking respectively.
I fail to understand how this is not a trivial concern, or on par with formaldehyde data from before, and anti-freeze data before that. 100 times safer than tobacco truly ought to be good enough. I realize for some it is not. And that population of people (may be the majority) will make it so all the vendors have to change or forever deal with a problem that has taken a molehill and made it into Mt. Everest.
I can't even say this is science at work. Not if we are ignoring the perspective of what is said above, in bold. At that level, it is how we react and spin the data, and is why we now live in a world where "BT lied to us" is sound bite rhetoric that works for vast majority as if that is undeniable truth. IMO, this sort of study (regardless of who the researchers are) is setting up that sort of situation, likely indefinitely. Cause if they (vendors) were advertising "no diacetyl" and it is still present, then there really will never be a way for any consumer to be 100% certain that what they are vaping at any given moment is diacetyl-free. And keep in mind, this is just our side dealing with the data. So, rest of humanity will be basing all the information we are discussing, filtered through ANTZ perspective, some of which will be 'science based.'
I also think all of what's in eLiquid carries degree of harm with it. And I freely admit that is debatable, as magnitude of harm will be what determines how important that data is to each individual. But I predict that anyone that is a non-ANTZ researcher will continue to find vaping ingredients are as much as 100x safer than smoking those type of ingredients.
As much as I like a good "back and forth", I can't come back with anything after that post!
(and to xtwosm0kesx)
How do you feel about Harkin? Glantz? Prue Talbot? Rockefeller - they all think they are "trying to help and make things safer".
It is history, that makes people 'cop an attitude' with those who claim to 'know what's best for us'. There is a wake of destruction in their paths. One has to know a bit more about the person other than their 'claim to help'. Do you know more about Zeller? I've made the point of taking him at face value in my last post but only as a stylistic way of making comments, but nothing to do with anything I actually know about him. That he's a gov't employee in a regulatory agency doesn't help, in my case
I'm quite confused now.
Are you guys actually comparing Dr. F to those ANTZ nut jobs?
If so that's borderline sickening.
The ANTZ version of "trying to help us" is by manipulating the truth/outright lying while attempting to destroy the industry as a whole and demonize us as nothing more than filthy drug addicts.
Dr. K's version of "trying to help us" is by working WITH us conducting research that NEEDS to be done regarding issues that NEED to be addressed, and he's doing it with the intent to help better position e-cigs for possible survival.
If he didn't do the research and find the diacetyl someone else would have, likely our actual enemies mentioned above, and honestly even before this study the vast majority of us knew it was an issue with some, if not many, juices.
I get that everyone wants names named, i can actually relate to that, but i also understand the futility of naming 70% ~150 flavors (from likely fewer than 150 vendors) likely doing major damage to their business, when the estimated 7000+ other flavors out there (that also are VERY likely to have the SAME issues) from hundreds, if not thousands, of vendors continue on unscathed.
He has said he will contact all the vendors that had issues, and since we're basically at their mercy(and have been), we'll have to trust that they will address it somehow.
The industry has to address/acknowledge this issue whether they like it or not.
The difference is that this is an avoidable molehill. So far as we understand at present, diacetyl is an added ingredient. It is probably in a flavouring sold by one company, bought by another, added to stuff which is then sold on, and so forth until it finds its way into our liquid. You seem to be assuming that it is a contaminant. I suppose that is possible, the levels are about 0.01%, 100ppm, in the concentrated flavourings, but I don't believe that is the current understanding.
I was addressing jman's comment about Zeller mainly but you prove one of my points: "One has to know a bit more about the person other than their 'claim to help'." And, as you point out, we know more about Dr. F than we do about most of the others mentioned. And I know more about him when he replied that he didn't think the vendors 'lied'. Or wasn't accusing them of that. That tells me something more.
That said, I still look at anyone who worked in the anti-cigarette movement (esp. anti-second hand smoke - a hoax when it comes to carcinogens) with a jaded eye. I (we) had the right to smoke cigarettes or ingest, inhale, use any substance that doesn't harm others in the process, even though it may harm us. So the whole 'anti-smoking' gov't movement was unconstitutional and violated the rights of individuals and the companies that provided the materials. They will say that there is 'harm' in health care costs but that's only because through insurance, private and gov't, those costs are socialized - and in gov't, that's also unconstitutional despite what Roberts said
In private insurance, one has a choice to participate or not. When one does, then the company can impose costs (premium adjustments) to those who smoke. I am good with that or have the choice to self-insure. I'll give that some 'anti-tobacco smoking zealots' have 'changed their ways' (or altered them to accept ecigs), so to speak, but along with harm reduction being their focus now, I still see a lot of anti-tobacco company rhetoric with which I don't completely agree. I could go further into that (and have in other posts) but it isn't necessary for this reply.
Last edited:
Dr Farsalinos, I know you've been working with FlavourArt over the years, so I'm wondering if you can please tell me if their claim of their ClearStream line being acetyl, acetoin and diacetyl free can be believed?
thank you
Not if "science is science."
That is entirely spin. And not one I strongly disagree with, but also not one that I can say is fully accurate. ANTZ stated purpose for charging $330,000 per product (or whatever the figure is) is to address / resolve questions that raise a concern toward public health.
Sounds pretty when you say it. Better positioning of eCigs as a result of this study is going to cost vendors some money. And is fueling the FDA claims that absolutely there is justification in federal research being conducted to ensure safety and address concerns of public health.
I don't have much of an issue with Dr. F.'s research, but with idea that this is an issue that I don't see how it could plausibly be resolved easily. It was already previously "resolved" and as this thread clearly shows, that even vendors may not know. So solution then is vendors must test what was conveyed to them as 'safe product.' Testing costs money. DA and AP aren't only things they'd be testing for, well not if they are playing the CYA game. So, positioning just became a huge added expense for a whole lot of vendors.
Then there is the fact that the consumer will never know for 100% certainty. How would you? Cause they said they did the tests? Welcome to 2011, come see me when you arrive at 2014, and we'll discuss this issue when you are up to speed.
I honestly don't know what point (if any) you're arguing anymore.
The results are the results, you can either accept them and the fact that it NEEDS to be addressed by vendors/suppliers or you can stick your head in the sand and keep yelling "BUT ITS SAFER THAN SMOKING".
We all know its safer than smoking already (including Dr. F, as he obv states), the goal is to make it AS SAFE AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE, even if that means admitting issues exist that could be used as ammo by the ANTZ crazies.
I'd like to see what you are saying backed up. "Contaminant" is word I got from this thread, and not even sure if I stated that word before this post. Perhaps I did.
Here is information I pulled from one of my vendors web page that speaks on issue of diacetyl:
After posting this quote, I actually did a google search on the whole quote and first link leads to DIY thread here on ECF. Anyway, I'd rather not say the vendor's name cause, well, you know.
IMO, there is just enough confusing information around diacetyl that I don't see this being as simple as industry will just go with flavors that are 100% diacetyl-free and all we be peaches and cream (pun intended) in a couple of years. I think very experienced vapers have tough time understanding this issue and potential vapers will either do what some of us do (see magnitude of harm as substantially less) or figure vaping has own issues to work out before it is "safe" and thus best to stick to smoking until it is all sorted out. Doesn't mean I think they are right, but we already live in a world where some smokers fully believe smoking is safer than vaping. I don't see how this report, in and of itself, would lead someone to conclude otherwise, UNLESS they emphasize the 100 times safer than smoking aspect, that I keep emphasizing.
I don't have any issues with it being an avoidable molehill, as long as it stays a molehill whereby vendors who don't change are not deemed significantly less safe, reasonably speaking.
Hate to say this, but a couple of you guys are coming off as juice suppliers that have their heads stuck in the sand, and will resist any needed changes ... even if it kills them.
So are you all mad because Dr K didn't test your juices, or he did test your juices
So are you all mad because Dr K didn't test your juices, or he did test your juices
Last edited:
And the goal you are citing, I say will never be reached for those who don't already understand that this (diacetyl issue) is a very trivial concern. There will always be micrograms of harm constituents found in eLiquid.
Want to avoid the problem at level where risk is deemed 'significant?' You really do?
Then stop vaping.
Again, I don't see how the consumer would ever know, for certain, that this problem has been resolved.
Wow. Where were those other exorbitant figures that people were tossing around here for months coming from?
Rolygate, I guess I'm confused, becuase you also said:
Really?
Why isn't this exactly the sort of thing that business/professional trade groups in the eliquid industry should be doing?
Isn't this why professional businesses, who operate in specific industries, create industry trade associations and professional societies...Pay dues, share resources, so they can lobby, advertise, educate, test, do R&D, and generally improve their industry collectively in addition to using their profits for such things? Almost every industry has trade and professional organizations.
I guess the vaping industry will be *different*.
They will ask their consumers to shoulder their business costs (like R&D) and for Dr. F. to be their *nanny* to call or write and explain to them what they are doing wrong after he already did his job conducting a scientific study. (Can you imagine if the food, hair dye, cosmetics or auto industries asked the purchasing consumers to both fund their R&D, as well as pay (a hefty price) to purchase and use their *improved* products afterwards? )
I pay $20 for 30ml of eliquid (by the time i add shipping) from so-called professional or artisan or (insert pet word here) mixers who are supposed to know what they're doing. I can't afford to pay them to test and develop their products that they sell to me, too.
If the FDA or Gov't. doesn't make things more expensive, it looks like the industry itself will have their hands in both my pockets (instead of just one) pretty soon. Or at least be asking me to "dig deeper."
I already have charities I donate to. American Businesses operating at a profit in the free market usually aren't on that list.
Of course. But that's not the point for some consumers. Some do not wish to have certain chemicals that represent avoidable risks in their eliquid. Even if it is safer than smoking.
So how 'bout I have a company and I want to make my product "taste better" or "smell better" and I sneak aspertame, or sugar, gluten, or trace amts. of peanut butter, nitrates, caffeine, sulfites (or something that other people don't want to injest) into some products...... and then tell the consumer it's not in there, or I don't know if its in there.
cuz all that stuff is "safer" than a lot of other things. Except, it may not be for YOU. And you want to know.
I find it interesting that in your mind harm reduction stops at some arbitrary risk level you assign to it.
So after a certain point we should just ignore it, even if it can be remedied?
In the real world harm reduction would/should continue until every easily exhaustable change/tweak could be made to make the product AS SAFE AS POSSIBLE.
Why is this so hard to understand? Even if its a tiny amount of contaminant, why not remove it, if its a possibility?
Nice red herring friend, but i'm not much of a seafood person.
How do you know your steak isn't full of deadly poison or e-coli?
Short answer, you don't, nothing is 'certain'.
I get what you are saying (with bolded part), but not sure you get what I'm saying, or perhaps find it easy to dismiss. I'm saying whatever is put into eLiquid will be something that "other people" don't want to ingest. Can you think of a current eLiquid around, including no nic stuff, that is highly safe for everyone to vape it? And I'm feeling confident that we currently understand that no type of eLiquid is harmless, or at best we don't know. I feel that is large part of what I am conveying, and in this thread saying the concern for diacetyl is trivial, based on what this study has cited as levels found.
Other part of what I'm saying, that I just wish to reiterate, is that I don't see how consumer of massively distributed product would ever know, for certain, that an alleged diacetyl problem (or other issue) is resolved. And not sure how fair it is to say any vendor is lying when fact is they may not even know (which is what I heard Dr. F. saying). I do get that vendor could resolve the problem, but consumer wouldn't have full proof way of knowing that, as we have already experienced a vaping industry that became aware of diacetyl issue, addressed it, thought they corrected it, marketed themselves as having corrected it, and voila 70% are still passing along diacetyl laced eLiquid, that has a problem 2x the strict limit for safety.
Perhaps the reasonable next step is to get down to under 70% that are tested via samples say 2 years from now. Ideally, sure 0% are detected for diacetyl, but I think that is unrealistic. And I'd be surprised that if vaping remains as we know it over next 2 years, that number is under 40%, especially with regards to sweet flavors.
Other thing I continue to wonder about is at what cost will the issue be corrected? I don't see that being inexpensive. Perhaps it is, and wonder if DIY vaper could afford testing on product received to have even stronger assurance that what they are vaping is in fact highly safe? If no possible way average DIY vaper could afford it, I would wonder if vendors encounter early exit from the market based not on what FDA requires, but what segment of consumer population is essentially demanding from all vendors going forward.
At this point, with this issue, it would seem manufacturer would be required to do the testing, vendor likely required to test as a double-check or CYA, and consumer would be wise to test to know for certain.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
