Donate to Dr Farsalinos' new study
- Thread starter rolygate
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- diacetyl dr farsalinos
- Status
I think it is understood that he meant "da/ap free" rather than "Safe to Inhale."
I'm about to give it a try.
The secondary benefit of it is that it's RIDICULOUSLY less expensive than anything with flavor in it.
The secondary benefit of it is that it's RIDICULOUSLY less expensive than anything with flavor in it.
If you use 10% flavor, the cost of the flavor can be about 50% of the total cost to make a DIY liquid.
Attys last much longer with unflavored too.
Last edited:
I've gone several weeks on one coil/wick so far. Apparently they just don't clog with burnt debris like they do with flavoring.
Less compounds to decompose. Some flavors darken or gunk more than others. And of course, using minimal flavors also helps this.
This has always been a question i pose to many vendors and i have never received a convincing answer. Every big company declares that they do testings in their products but when you ask for results and documentation they all say the same thing: industrial secret!!
In reality, using this excuse probably means that you have pretty bad results. Otherwise, i cannot understand why they do not use the documents for marketing purposes. Of course, we do not ask for the recipies, the amount of flavoring they put etc. These are industrial secrets, but is useless information in terms of safety....
I also have another lab i work with in Greece, using different methodologies but again with very low limits of detection (in the range of 0.1-0.5micrograms per ml).
Last edited:
Unfortunately, I get the feeling that the large majority of vapers use flavors, and safety is a concern to those of us that do use flavors as well as for those who only vape unflavored. And, if I remember the whole purpose of the study, it was to determine the amount of AP and DA in those flavors. The safest route is not to vape or smoke which is sort of a moot point.
I think we need to be very careful and rigorous in the wording we use. You and he may know this, but others may not, and propagate something that is impossible, and yet, at the same time, expected. Exact words matter.
It all depends on what your definition of "is" is, LOL. Words will get parsed, interpreted and spun no matter how carefully and plainly they are written.
That was all that was on the table for me.
The scientists who did the study, which the topic is about, have suggested testing is the only way to know if there is DA and AP in liquids.
This was my original frustration with the topic drift. Study was about DA, AP testing.
Instead of talking about word definitions, can we cut to the chase, is there a list of eliquid and flavor mfgs. who, as of today's date, have tested their products for DA and AP?
I see no reason to wait on this when I could be patronizing the "early adopters" who I would like to reward with my business, quite frankly. If it 'occured" to them then they seem like the kind of vendors who seem a little ahead of the curve, so to speak.
I started vaping as a Harm Reduction method. I just want to continue to reduce my harm as much as is within my power, and what i know and are learning, while I still realize that there is no definitive research that can reduce my risk to 0.
Last edited:
That was all that was on the table for me.
The scientists who did the study, which the topic is about, have suggested testing is the only way to know if there is DA and AP in liquids.
This was my original frustration with the topic drift. Study was about DA, AP testing.
Instead of talking about word definitions, can we cut to the chase, is there a list of eliquid and flavor mfgs. who, as of today's date, have tested their products for DA and AP?
I see no reason to wait on this when I could be patronizing the "early adopters" who I would like to reward with my business, quite frankly. If it 'occured" to them then they seem like the kind of vendors who seem a little ahead of the curve, so to speak.
I started vaping as a Harm Reduction method. I just want to continue to reduce my harm as much as is within my power, and what i know and are learning, while I still realize that there is no definitive research that can reduce my risk to 0.
Absolutely.
I'm going unflavored until we get more clarity. Hoping I like it. I've never been one who has experienced this detailed blast of flavor with notes of "this" or "that" on inhale then different flavor on exhale. It's always been the slightest hint of flavor for me. No matter what I use.
I contacted my go-to vendor. He readily disclosed the name of the external lab that tests his e-liquid and described the level of analysis (thanks to Kurt for knowing what to ask about and look for). He's long said that nothing enters his production line unless Diketone free. There's now a statement on his website noting that he'll be adding analysis reports from the lab listing testing methods, results and certification (ie Da/PA free etc.) to the site, once he has a format that doesn't disclose legitimately confidential information. Rather than "advertise" that vendor here (and per his request), I'd suggest that everyone who shares this concern (and isn't interested in unflavored liquid or DIY) contact their own vendor (assuming claims about d&a are made) and ask specific questions about the lab, analysis level and documentation.
I agree emphatically with Racehorse - we've long known that risk can be addressed by eliminating flavor altogether, and that it's impossible to eliminate all risk in any case (always good to be reminded, of course), but the function of this study was to address a particular concern and I for one am really grateful for the information.
Some of the subsequent discussion here was enormously helpful, to me anyway, in clarifying the problem and deciding how I want to address it. Everyone finds their own sweet spot and it differs a lot from person to person (as represented in the enormous range of choices people make about food). So thanks again to all concerned - I think we're better equipped now to make informed choices. Kurt, your comments have been tremendously helpful in that regard!
I agree emphatically with Racehorse - we've long known that risk can be addressed by eliminating flavor altogether, and that it's impossible to eliminate all risk in any case (always good to be reminded, of course), but the function of this study was to address a particular concern and I for one am really grateful for the information.
Some of the subsequent discussion here was enormously helpful, to me anyway, in clarifying the problem and deciding how I want to address it. Everyone finds their own sweet spot and it differs a lot from person to person (as represented in the enormous range of choices people make about food). So thanks again to all concerned - I think we're better equipped now to make informed choices. Kurt, your comments have been tremendously helpful in that regard!
Last edited:
That was all that was on the table for me.
The scientists who did the study, which the topic is about, have suggested testing is the only way to know if there is DA and AP in liquids.
This was my original frustration with the topic drift. Study was about DA, AP testing.
Instead of talking about word definitions, can we cut to the chase, is there a list of eliquid and flavor mfgs. who, as of today's date, have tested their products for DA and AP?
I see no reason to wait on this when I could be patronizing the "early adopters" who I would like to reward with my business, quite frankly. If it 'occured" to them then they seem like the kind of vendors who seem a little ahead of the curve, so to speak.
I started vaping as a Harm Reduction method. I just want to continue to reduce my harm as much as is within my power, and what i know and are learning, while I still realize that there is no definitive research that can reduce my risk to 0.
I wholeheartedly agree that a list of who is doing the best job, of letting their customers know what's in their product, is a great idea.
I mean, we have the Internet here, where everyone in the World can communicate. And there is this forum here, where interested vapers can all communicate with each other on the subject. So why not communicate to all, whatever each individual knows about the topic? That's what it's all for, isn't it?
You should start a new thread for the aforesaid list, and I think it would be appreciated by everyone following this one, if you posted a link to it here.
I thought it over, and beleive that is a topic best started, stickied, and moderated by ECF staff.
Vendors should be the ones posting to it, when they are able to provide verifiable information about their product(s).
The topic should probably be locked down insofar as "comments" are concerned, as there is really no pertinent information that can be provided by the end-user / consumer, since we do not test, manufacture, mix, or retail these items.
So, over and out on that idea, from my position. Hopefully a moderator and/or ECF staff will give some attention to this.
Third-party he-said/she-said information (from emails, phone calls, etc.by consumers) would not be at all useful to anyone here AFAIC.
Last edited:
I'm not as familiar with this forum as the other people posting to this thread, but I think the subject topic would be an appropriate thing to have, somehow.
Yeah. It should definitely be a moderated thread - there have been plenty of threads attempting to list juices that the thread-starter believes are 'healthier' - a lot extrapolate from food preferences like 'organic', 'natural', 'kosher'... and even 'diacetyl free' They usually disseminate a lot of misinformation, efforts to correct same, and then devolve into tangential, irritable arguments about whether or not anyone should care.
I think that the best idea would be to briefly present the results of the study, with a balanced rationale for concern that isn't vulnerable to charges that anyone here wants to set up a police state or start a misguided panic, and that reiterates the harm-reduction value of ecigs, especially since this is an easily avoidable problem.
It should also include a way to read the analyses in relation to cigarette levels/NIOSH standards or whatever seems best, so that they're meaningful to readers.
Some vendors who rigorously test and have very good results might not be particularly interested in posting lab results in ECF, for various reasons (not having to do with deception) - if those vendors publish their data on their website, though, there ought to be allowance by mods (via mods) to supply the link to consumers browsing the list, I think.
The difficulty might be that vendors are not allowed to advertise their products in ECF except in their own subforums, and to the extent that such a list could be construed as advertising, it's not gonna fly. And I think there are complications for vendors who want to use that as a marketing tool - it's not legal to claim harm reduction or health benefits, remember!!
Enough to make one tear one's hair.
I'd like thoughts from the mods and any vendors following this thread on that.
I think that the best idea would be to briefly present the results of the study, with a balanced rationale for concern that isn't vulnerable to charges that anyone here wants to set up a police state or start a misguided panic, and that reiterates the harm-reduction value of ecigs, especially since this is an easily avoidable problem.
It should also include a way to read the analyses in relation to cigarette levels/NIOSH standards or whatever seems best, so that they're meaningful to readers.
Some vendors who rigorously test and have very good results might not be particularly interested in posting lab results in ECF, for various reasons (not having to do with deception) - if those vendors publish their data on their website, though, there ought to be allowance by mods (via mods) to supply the link to consumers browsing the list, I think.
The difficulty might be that vendors are not allowed to advertise their products in ECF except in their own subforums, and to the extent that such a list could be construed as advertising, it's not gonna fly. And I think there are complications for vendors who want to use that as a marketing tool - it's not legal to claim harm reduction or health benefits, remember!!
Enough to make one tear one's hair.
I'd like thoughts from the mods and any vendors following this thread on that.
Last edited:
Maybe I'm thinking too simply, but why not allow people (anyone) to post a link to a seller's Website page which has their "statement of quality"?
Some sites might merely say, "Our ejuice is great," while other might go so far as to publish their lab results. And lots of them would be somewhere in between.
I think it would be legit if a person, whether they are a seller or not, posted the name of a seller, and a brief description of the quality claim, so long as they include a link to the actual statement page.
There might be a problem if their statement page also contains advertising, however. I guess if a seller really wanted to be known as straightforward and upright, they would be willing to make a plain "white paper" page, to qualify to be linked-to in the proposed thread.
The thing is---"it is what it is." I mean, if a seller wants to show what he is doing, and what he's got to offer, then he would want to participate in a fair way. (And if not, I wouldn't want to buy from them.)
I don't think that a bunch of baloney, circular logic, convoluted "reasons" are going to convince anyone that there is any good purpose to not disclosing what a seller is selling.
Note: A statement of quality would legally be considered part of a purchase contract.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
