e-cigarette Wikipedia article needs help

[Wallace_Frampton]

I am an editor working on the wikipedia article

Electronic cigarette - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Couple of days ago I talked to a store owner about vaping and then went to wikipedia to sort of "fill out" the details of all the things we talked about and got the idea that the wikipedia is in desperate need of some help. These are "general" editors that read articles and research papers in order to write an article and as I'm sure you all know vaping is moving very quickly, faster than the "reliable sources" can keep up.

I used to smoke (20 years) , and I've vaped a couple of times, and talked to the owner of a vaping store twice, and got burned by some scam online selling 1st generation e-cigarettes, and that is the sum-total of my qualifications on vaping, however I think the more senior editors are even less qualified but they've been around for so long they aren't going to hear it from just me.

So I thought I'd go looking online for people that know the technical details, such as (a big question of mine) what is the prefered terminology for the noun of the thing that you all use? "Nicotine Delivery System" seems to be the most accurate and clinically descriptive phrase to me, but the article wants to continue to call them "e-cigarettes". I hate this, instinctively, but before I start pushing my POV as an editor I want to check in with knowledgeable people. Maybe I'm wrong and they're all still being called e-cigarettes, IDK.

Also I've acquired the POV that there is almost no connection between "smoking" and "vaping". No flame, no burning, no tobacco, no smoke, no stink, no cancer, etc... and yet it seems that the wikipedia terminology is anchored to "Ye Olden Wayes" of thinking about Vaping. (I never one saw a single reference to smoking inside this Vaping Shop. No ads, no tobacco, no paraphernalia (for tobacco and otherwise), and then the Wikipedia article was smoke this, cigarette that, etc...

Again I could be wrong, but I suspect not.

So, some things I'm interested in includes correct terminology, and also if there are any official, legitimate (and not self-appointed internet marketers) associations and organizations that have as their mission to serve to educate the public on vaping (like so many other industries, etc... do.) I assume there's at least one for Vaping, and probably more. Knowing those organizations (particularly who is legit and who is not) would be useful.

And anything else anyone else thinks is worth knowing about Vaping.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

Okay so I came back to make another post and note that there's a "moderated" symbol and a "watched" symbol on this thread. What does that mean? I have more questions, but don't want to take the time to post them if the thread is going to be deleted, closed or whatever.

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

I'm going to post it anyways. I'm in the mood to do this now, so I'm doing it now.

Here's the latest:

Electronic cigarette: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While e-cigarettes with higher voltage batteries can produce carcinogens including formaldehyde at levels found in cigarette smoke,<ref name=Collaco2015>{{cite journal|last1=Collaco|first1=Joseph M.|title=Electronic Use and Exposure in the Pediatric Population|journal=JAMA Pediatrics|volume=169|issue=2|year=2015|pages=177–182|doi=10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.2898|pmid=25546699}}</ref> reduced voltage e-cigarettes produce vapor with levels of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde roughly 13 and 807-fold less than indicated in cigarette smoke.<ref name=Bekki2014/>

(I tried to quote the above but there's no "quote" button.)

Anyways, what the issue/question is whether or not "high voltage" "e-cigarettes" are really capable of producing "carcinogens". I'm thinking that at some point, the temperature COULD get high enough to cause an actual change in the chemical composition of the juice (it "burns"), but really who wants to inhale burned sugar? No one, right? JAMA is a legit publication, so some background on this would be appreciated. I would assume that the heating temperature of the juice is either "high enough" or "too high", with no in-between. True?

Does the vapor ever transition into something that could be called "smoke"?

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

Carbonyl Compounds in Electronic Cigarette Vapors: Effects of Nicotine Solvent and Battery Output Voltage

This is what I'm reading now. Sounds like these researches got a 3rd generation, modded vaping rig and are tweaking the voltages and then measuring how much carcinogenic formaldehydes, etc... are being produced.

Is this accurate? Can Vaping rigs be tweaked to increase the voltage like this? Does anyone really do this?

Conclusions: Vapors from EC contain toxic and carcinogenic carbonyl compounds. Both solvent and battery output voltage significantly affect levels of carbonyl compounds in EC vapors. High-voltage EC may expose users to high levels of carbonyl compounds.

 

[KentA]

bump

 

[retired1]

The problem with Wikipedia is the myriad of authors who tend to gum up the works with bogus information. It's the nature of the beast and trying to create a factual entry without the bogus science entries is virtually impossible to do.

 

[suprtrkr]

Hi and welcome to the board. Your thread is "moderated" because you are a new member and tried to post links which is outside the rules until you get your 5 posts in and get upgraded to full member. Thus it has been moderated. The watched symbol means somebody is watching the thread. It might even be you, if you told it to notify you to other posts. +1 to @retired1 . The problem with the Wiki is the plethora of authors, most of whom know little if anything; and the political axes they like to grind over there. In general you are correct. While a normal e-cig rig would not make the carcinogens they have "found," the gear could be tweaked-- it's just electronics, after all-- to do so. Making this happen means running the gear far outside the normal parameters, but hey, anything goes in the the pursuit of politically correct "science." Their actual purpose is to vilify vaping, they don't really care about anything else. I am tempted to say these conditions are not obtained in the real world, or within proper use parameters, but there are a number of people out there who don't know much about their gear, or who intentionally misuse it to produce certain effects, so I suppose it is possible.

 

[skoony]

the wiki page is always being changed.
someone asked for help about six months ago.
there is a group of ANTZ continually editing
anything that is good and put it in the worst
light possible.
wiki can be a good source of information but beware.
anything with political,social,health or,economic
implications leans way to the left.
regards
mike

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

My primary focus on this article, as with any articles, is to make the "lede" (the first paragraph of the article) as "inviting" as possible. I'm a laymen with some edit powers, in general. My "political agenda" is the idea that online information is a profound "leveler" between classes. A person of lower economic means may not be able to afford college, but they can afford a computer and internet service, and learn the same information that wealthier people pay tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars for.

Wikipedia is one such resource, and if you follow the sequence of this thread, we've gone from a link to wikipedia to a link to a research paper that quotes an article in JAMA to the JAMA article itself. Most of what I've learned since High School has been learned online and a good bit of that has been from Wikipedia. The problems with "those Wikipedia Editors" are more complex than those raised here. While true, there are myriad other reasons why Wikipedia articles have problems. One reason not mentioned is that some Editors are paid to push the POV (Point of View) of the people that are paying them. Just yesterday I read one Wikipedia Editor's opinion that the government of Pakistan is paying a team of editors to bias some article-or-other about Pakistan.

I don't want to get too deep into any of that. It's too easy for one good editor to get steamrolled by several bad ones and I'm not going to invest hours of my time into an article only to have a gang of thugs delete my work and the time it took to create it. So, I've made a personal decision to be mostly focused on the lede, with the intention of making it as accurate, as readable and as "inviting" as possible, so that an interested reader that happens upon a wikipedia article is encouraged to continue reading, and possibly have to "dig" through biased, outdated, inaccurate material deeper in the body, vs. being "run off" and discouraged from reading the article and never learning anything about something that the were originally interested in.

Meaning, Wikipedia can help to self-educate an intelligent, interested and motivated person, or it can discourage them and allow them to remain ignorant, and with the added negative of being discouraged as well. My focus is to try to make "A" happen, and discourage "B" from happening.

Anyways, that's my "Big Picture", i.e. what I'm about, what I'm doing and why.

My primary focus is the lede.

As I've mentioned before, I mostly just need to know what the best, most accurate words are used to describe these devices, and the liquid used in them. Obviously "juice" is not encyclopedic, more like a "common name", but it seems to me that "e-cigarette" is not only inaccurate, but it's not even very common any more. So comments on that area would be appreciated.

Also, list of "official" representative organizations with comments on which are legitimate, representative, advocate, political, lobbyist, etc... i.e. some sense of their mission would be appreciated and finally to the more technical and specific point about whether or not vaping rigs (I keep calling them that because it just feels natural to do so, but really I need correct language here) can actually heat the nicotine juice to the point that it creates carcinogens, and if so why would someone want to do this. If you start out with a method of nicotine delivery that is safe and carcinogen-free, why would you modify it so that it has the same (according to the JAMA article) levels of carcinogens as burning tobacco products?

 

[Topwater Elvis]

---> Learn About Electronic Cigarettes

 

[skoony]

the JAMA article misrepresents the findings.
when a standard clearomiser is bumped up to
5 volts the heat overheats the liquid base
producing unwanted chemical reactions such
as excess formaldehyde. it should also state
when the clearomizer was run at the correct temperature
no formaldehyde was detected. also at 5 volts
the result is unvapable.
for a good source of info go to CASAA.ORG.
use the search function on this sight.
i think you mean well but,there is a lot of
fundamental knowledge you need to catch up on.
keep at it and,good luck.
regards
mike

 

[retired1]

One should never, ever use Wikipedia as a sole source of information, regardless of the footnotes attached.

Using Wikipedia as the definitive source for a scientific argument is like asking Atilla the Hun advice on human rights issues. Just shouldn't be done.

 

[Lannie]

I'm sorry, but JAMA has no credibility with me. A lot of people trust them, but they're in bed with Big Pharma, so I don't. And Big Pharma is losing money to vaping because people aren't buying their horrible stop-smoking drugs, or the patches or gum. Big Tobacco has the most to lose, followed closely by Big Pharma, and by extension, the AMA.

I don't trust doctors, either.

~Lannie

 

[Topwater Elvis]

My guess is your links to the JAMA article have been broken because they have been debunked and are considered junk science.
Stanton Glanz / JAMA legit? you must be joking.

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

the JAMA article misrepresents the findings.
when a standard clearomiser is bumped up to
5 volts the heat overheats the liquid base
producing unwanted chemical reactions such
as excess formaldehyde. it should also state
when the clearomizer was run at the correct temperature
no formaldehyde was detected. also at 5 volts
the result is unvapable.
for a good source of info go to CASAA.ORG.
use the search function on this sight.
i think you mean well but,there is a lot of
fundamental knowledge you need to catch up on.
keep at it and,good luck.
regards
mike

So the critical detail JAMA leaves out is that no one would ever WANT to do this? Like claiming that a stove could be modified so that it burns hamburger into carbon, leaving the reader to conclude that since carbon is bad for you cooking hamburger on a stove top is dangerous?

I need to nail this down. Is there any reason why anyone vaping would want to "overheat" the chemical base so that it's carcinogen levels rise? Is "overheating" a "thing" within vaping culture? I read about modifications of vaping hardware involving voltages, etc... Why would anyone want to change voltages.

And also, the "fundamental knowledge" that I need to "catch up on" is the reason why I am here, and I'd be willing to bet that none of the editors on the Wikipedia article are taking their theoretical knowledge they've learned from reading research papers (like the JAMA article) and putting it to the test of people that actually vape regularly and understand the activity in practical terms.

 

[skoony]

I’d be willing to bet your links to the JAMA article have been broken because they have been debunked and are considered junk science.
Stanton Glanz / JAMA legit? you must be joking.

holy schmoly!
i just read the first three paragraphs of the wiki.
i am going to have to change my advice.
forget about that wiki page. its beyond hope.
regards
mike

 

[retired1]

And also, the "fundamental knowledge" that I need to "catch up on" is the reason why I am here, and I'd be willing to bet that none of the editors on the Wikipedia article are taking their theoretical knowledge they've learned from reading research papers (like the JAMA article) and putting it to the test of people that actually vape regularly and understand the activity in practical terms.

Those people could care less about the truth. They're on a crusade to stamp out vaping by hook and crook and will spew all sorts of misinformation and lies to get their point across.

 

[retired1]

I should also add that attempts have been made over the years to correct that Wiki article. As soon as factual information is published, the anti-vaping zealots remove it and put their own flawed studies up in its place. It's a loosing battle unless one is willing to watch over it like a hawk 24/7.

 

[somdcomputerguy]

One should never, ever use Wikipedia as a sole source of information, regardless of the footnotes attached.

Using Wikipedia as the definitive source for a scientific argument is like asking Atilla the Hun advice on human rights issues. Just shouldn't be done.

{Bold added by me}

 

[Train2]

That study intentionally cranked up the voltage until the device was beyond usable. Probably "burned" the wick. No one in their right mind would take a puff of that. Stupidity.
If you use high voltage/wattage, you do it with an atomizer, airflow, and wick capably of producing a nice vapor at that wattage.

There is a ton of technical information about e-cigs here.