The costs of running this huge site are paid for by ads. Please consider registering and becoming a Supporting Member for an ad-free experience. Thanks, ECF team.

Dr. Farsalinos preemptive debunk of a study uthored by an Indoor Environmental Engineering scientist from California and published by the journal “Bui

Discussion in 'Media and General News' started by Painter_, Apr 17, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Image has been removed.
URL has been removed.
Email address has been removed.
Media has been removed.
  1. DrMA

    DrMA Ultra Member ECF Veteran

    Jan 26, 2013
    Seattle area
    No, that's not the study in question, but it is a massive pile of bovine waste and the links should be broken ASAP
     
  2. nicnik

    nicnik Ultra Member ECF Veteran

    Apr 20, 2015
    Illinois, USA
    Thanks, DrMA. And sorry, I should've thought of that. I edited the post and I think the links are properly broken now. Please, somebody let me know if it's still not good.

    Yes, it's about as bad a study as I've seen. It's from last year, but are you sure it's not the same study, but about to be published in that journal Dr. Farsalinos mentioned?
     
  3. Jman8

    Jman8 Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Jan 15, 2013
    Wisconsin
    If I had a dollar for every time this study used the word "assumed," I'd be able to buy a Provari today.

    And yeah, the 70ml/puff thing had me scratching my head. I was thinking they meant .70/ml per puff (which would be high by my vaping standards), but they went with 70ml/puff.

    And some people actually believe science is objective. If any other endeavor used the word assumed this much in a report reaching this sort of conclusion, it would be laughed at by 100% of the people.
     
  4. DC2

    DC2 Tootie Puffer Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jun 21, 2009
    San Diego
    I've just turned in my human card, and from now on I am going to be a dog.
     
  5. Kent C

    Kent C ECF Guru Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jun 12, 2009
    NW Ohio US
    Attack dog or lap dog? :D

    I like both kinds btw....
     
  6. DC2

    DC2 Tootie Puffer Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jun 21, 2009
    San Diego
    I'm going to be my dog.
    Nobody has a better life than my dog.

    Oh wait...
    I'm not sure I thought this through...
     
  7. AndriaD

    AndriaD Reviewer / Blogger Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jan 24, 2014
    LawrencevilleGA
    I think I'd rather be a cat. Soft and warm and so darn cute, everybody wants to feed you... and if anyone wants to mess with me, they'll show the marks of it quite redly... ;)

    Andria
     
  8. jtpjc

    jtpjc Ultra Member ECF Veteran

    Jun 8, 2010
    Netherlands
    I want to be two sloths. Because of synergy. One sloth may be 100%, but two sloths are close to 300%.

    [​IMG]
     
  9. Endor

    Endor Super Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jan 31, 2012
    Southern California
    I also thought... perhaps they meant MICROliter, but that's a completely different prefix (uL with that funky "u" that I don't know how to type).

    So by their assumptions, I direct-attach a 100ml bottle of eliquid to my box mod and get less than 2 puffs. Can you imagine the clouds you'd blow? Forget fogging up a small office, I'd fog up the entire building.

    Unless there is a typo (which is unforgivable in a published study by educated scientists), there is one other option: they purposely used ungodly amounts of eliquid per puff to greatly exaggerate the amount of harmful compounds shown in the direct and indirect vapor (err, aerosol), and hoped that nobody would notice. Certainly the mass media won't.

    The other flaw is they didn't describe the type of vaping equipment they used. I see a fair amount of formaldehyde and acrolein shown, which (per my understanding) is created by overheating / dry hitting. It reeks a bit of the whole formaldehyde / CE4 study a while back.

    DrMA called it, a pile of bovine waste, but one that is still steaming and particularly odorous.
     
  10. jwbnyc

    jwbnyc Vaping Master Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Mar 4, 2014
    Soooo... we are emptying almost an entire Kanger T4 mini tank with every puff with our cigalikes, assuming they meant .70ml?

    I don't think so.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice