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

[DrMA]

No, that's not the study in question, but it is a massive pile of bovine waste and the links should be broken ASAP

 

[nicnik]

No, that's not the study in question, but it is a massive pile of bovine waste and the links should be broken ASAP

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?

 

[Jman8]

I think this might be the study. If it is, can anybody make sense of it? Especially, the part about figuring 70ml per puff. Is that meant like it sounds?

iee-sf.
com/pdf/ASHRAEJOffermann.pdf

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.

 

[DC2]

I've just turned in my human card, and from now on I am going to be a dog.

 

[Kent C]

I've just turned in my human card, and from now on I am going to be a dog.

Attack dog or lap dog?

I like both kinds btw....

 

[DC2]

Attack dog or lap dog?

I like both kinds btw....

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...

 

[AndriaD]

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...

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

 

[jtpjc]

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

 

[Endor]

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.

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.

 

[jwbnyc]

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.