e-cigarette Wikipedia article needs help
- Thread starter Wallace_Frampton
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
That's a crock. The study was nothing more than an attempt to discredit vaping on a whole. Nowhere in the study did they state one should not modify your hardware. It left the impression that vaping itself causes the results they provided.
It was and always has been a flawed study with results that do not represent normal vaping.
You really need to do a LOT of reading to educate yourself on this topic.
Thanks. While I appreciate the links and will read through them, if it were truly "common knowledge" the Wikipedia article would not be in the condition that it is, and I wouldn't be here asking the questions like I am. Many communities that have a specific focus truly fail to appreciate how much they know, and how specialized and rare their knowledge is.
I have experienced this myself, 1st hand. Earlier when I mentioned how much of my post-high school, post-college education came from Wikipedia and "other online sources", I did not mention that one of the "other sources" was online forums focused on Computer Repair. I went from being an interested novice to a professional computer repairman (making money and everything) after about 3 years of online study. At some point, I went from not knowing how much I knew to discovering that I knew so much that people would actually pay me to put that knowledge to use.
It was a revelation to me. And it may be to you.
You don't know how much you know. And when you assume that you know "what everyone else knows", you first downgrade yourself to a level that is not accurate, and you also upgrade everyone else to a level of expertise that they do not have. It's NOT "common knowledge". It's extremely rare and useful knowledge and that's why I'm (grateful to be) here to get it.
I agree with that, and did not mean to imply that I thought JAMA intended to produce a study to warn us all about the dangers of modifying vaping hardware. I meant that the only thing the study proved is that if you modify the hardware, you can create a toxic vapor (smoke?) that tastes bad. We agree on this. My point is the same as your point. JAMA proved "A" and claimed it proved "B".
That fact you have failed to grasp, even though it's been stated over and over in this thread, there are those who do not want vaping to succeed. Hence the plethora of bogus studies that are purposely skewed to provide the bad results the anti-vaping crowd so desperately wants. And this is why your crusade to "fix" the Wikipedia article is ultimately doomed to fail.
The anti-vaping zealots watch that article like a hawk and within minutes, any "Pro" stance is immediately removed to reflect their goal of portraying vaping in a bad light.
When you say "fog machine" I get the image of the old, propane-powered "fogger" we used to have when I was a kid. We'd fire the thing up and "fog" the area with insecticide in order to kill the mosquitos. I assume you don't mean that.
Is "fog machine" another term for "vaporizer", or are you referring to something else?
To point #3, what is the "taste" the individual vaper is adjusting. What is "too low", "too high" and "just right"? What happens to the vapor when the voltage changes? Another Member said that the "heat" of the vapor wasn't changing, but I still don't know what is. I guessed it had to do with how dense the vapor is with eliquid and therefore nicotine?
I had a big long reply typed out to previous questions, but they're coming so fast I can't keep up. I have farm work to do. I wish you luck, Wallace.
~Lannie
~Lannie
I think he's referring to the Hollywood style fog machine they use in the horror movies.
If it is on Wikipedia and about e cigs / vaping ,,, that covers it.
When it comes to Personal Electronic Nicotine Inhalation Systems there are far too many variables / options - accessories, styles, mix & match components, intended usages, power levels or ranges, beginners equipment or experienced users equipment, single, dual or more battery configurations, regulated vs unregulated, sizes, shapes etc... to nail down an article that covers them all, one size does not fit all, it's a myth.
Then there's the delivery devices & liquids involved with personal electronic nicotine inhalation systems to cover.
Actually I do "grasp" what you are describing, and while I appreciate the "doomed to failure" message, I disagree. I wouldn't be here if I thought that. It's not my 1st rodeo.
Plus the notion that Vaping is somehow going to be regulated out of existence is ridiculous. Sure they can try, and delay things for a while, make attempts at regulating the industry and maybe even succeed in establishing "Underwriter Laboratories" style government regulations intended to prevent people from modifying their vaping devices to prevent them from getting cancer, etc...
But the cat's out of the bag, now, and particularly in the United States, Health Care is socialized, so now it is "my" business if another person smokes, gets lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, etc.. and runs up hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical bills, most or all of which could have been prevented if the "doomed" smoker had taken up vaping instead.
Eventually, public pressure will force Vaping to be a government approved alternative to smoking, So there's my political counter to your political point, and on a personal level I'm not going to quit just because some, most or all people (who are not me) think that I'm not going to succeed.
I'm NOT going to succeed, but "we" are going to succeed. The question is only one of time, i.e. how long is it going to take, and whether or not I'm going to participate in "our" success. You (and everyone else) has the same question, and the same opportunity. Like anything else, it's an individual choice. Also (in case anyone wants to go here), I'm not on a "crusade"; I'm "doing my thing" (just like everyone else), and asking for help. People can, or not, as they choose. I'm grateful for the help.
1: fog machine;
well hey let's check Wikipedia!
They're used in like live music rock concerts/shows
2: adjusting to taste.
When you use different types of coils, some coils operate at lower power and if you put too much power, it gets too hot or tastes a bit burnt.
If you change the coil to a higher powered coil you have to increase the power to get the coil to perform well.
It isn't what you're trying to do is doomed to fail and or few want to help, several around here have been to this same dog & pony show several dozen times.
It has been done before, many many times and it is successful, if you measure success by the amount of time any factual information on the subject stays up, in hours.
It has been done before, many many times and it is successful, if you measure success by the amount of time any factual information on the subject stays up, in hours.
I have the same sense of being overwhelmed and not knowing how to structure it all, which is why, at this point, all I'm truly interested in is the Lede, or the 1st paragraph (or sometimes 2nd or even 3rd paragraph) of the article.
I'm a layman. I use Wikipedia regularly. I think it's the single-greatest accomplishment of all humanity. I think it gives people that have no other opportunity the ability to lift themselves up from where they are, to where they want to be. And I believe that the Lede is the most critical point in the entire article. A well-written Lede can invite an interested reader to continue on and read the entire article and acquire a substantial amount of information and understanding of a subject, or a poorly-written Lede can convert a motivated and interested reader into someone that no longer cares to learn something about a subject, and then from there they put energy into bad-mouthing Wikipedia and encouraging other people to avoid it, and remain ignorant. Agree with me or not, that's what I think and that's who I am.
So it's the Lede of the e-cigarette article that I care about the most. How to best present the subject of e-cigarettes to an interested and motivated reader, so that they want to continue reading the entire article, and possibly learn something useful. The Lede might be 500 words or less, and I bet I've typed/keyboarded 2 or 3 times that already, on this forum. It's only 500 words, maybe 1,500 words. All I'm really trying to do here, all I'm asking for help to do, is write 1,500 words. Easy. Simple. Attainable.
Plus (channeling Machiavelli now) one you acquire a "lock" on the 1st 1,500 words, whatever it is that "Big Tobacco" wants you to know gets buried somewhere near the bottom of the article where 90% of the people never read anyways. So, one thing the socio/political people should consider is that it's not about WHAT information goes into a Wikipedia article, it's WHERE the information goes. The battle isn't over this study or that study, it's whether or not either of those studies should be mentioned within the 1st 1,500 words. My default is almost always a flat "NO".
So, back to the conversational thread of the JAMA article, at some point what it says, what it doesn't say, whether or not it's biased, etc... becomes completely moot, when it's mention is buried in between two other contentious and equally inane studies at the bottom of the article. Let other people fight over these details no one ever reads. The Lede is a "roadmap" to the rest of the article. If the Lede promises the body will contain X, Y and Z and some editor wants to include their biased and fake study in the Lede, they are going to have to re-write the entire article.
Win the Lede, win the article.
Feel me?
Last edited:
Can you post any links to any of the "several dozen" previous efforts, names of Members, names of Wikipedia Editors, links to archived versions of articles that were reverted, or any other example of how a "good" version was deleted or otherwise done away with?
These types of beliefs in local cultures can get repeated so often that they acquire the illusion of proven truth. And maybe be they are. And I'm not asking for "proof", but I'd be interested in seeing some evidence, at least.
The deception of measuring formaldehyde in e-cigarette aerosol: the difference between laboratory measurements and true exposure
Verified: formaldehyde levels found in the NEJM study were associated with dry puff conditions. An update
No offense, but this, (and your other posts in this thread), shows that you don't have even the most basic knowledge about vaping. You need to do a lot of research before even thinking about editing the Wikipedia article.
Fog machines are not new.
What is new is the high powered lithium batteries.
These batteries have made it feasible to manufacture very small fog machines, fashioned to look and/or feel like cigarettes.
There's a big market out there of cigarette smokers who would be only too happy to have an alternative.
The really big story is the impact on the lives of decades long smokers like myself who long ago give up on trying to quit.
Now I don't have dirty ashtrays, and my clothes and fingers don't smell of old stale tobacco. I could kiss my wife now! (Ok I'm not married but if!)
What is new is the high powered lithium batteries.
These batteries have made it feasible to manufacture very small fog machines, fashioned to look and/or feel like cigarettes.
There's a big market out there of cigarette smokers who would be only too happy to have an alternative.
The really big story is the impact on the lives of decades long smokers like myself who long ago give up on trying to quit.
Now I don't have dirty ashtrays, and my clothes and fingers don't smell of old stale tobacco. I could kiss my wife now! (Ok I'm not married but if!)
Well thanks I appreciate the big picture of what a fog machine looks like, but I still don't understand the point you were making when you mentioned it.
And I understand now the "upper limit" of power, voltage, wattage, heat, etc... if it gets too hot the vapor tastes bad, gets too hot and becomes carcinogenic.
Again, back to a previous question. Does anyone know if, as the "heat" (power, voltage, wattage, etc...) increases does the vapor become more carcinogenic in an "analog" fashion, or is it digital/binary/"either/or" where it's "not carcinogenic" until it "is carcinogenic". I need to know this in order to fully debunk the purpose to which the JAMA study is being used. I can't debunk the study itself, but I can argue that what they proved and what they claimed to prove are two different things, and that Wikipedia cannot use that study to say that Vaping causes cancer. I'm going to call this the "Is the Cancer Risk Analog or Digital" question from now on.
And finally, what happens at the low-end of the (power, voltage, wattage, temperature) spectrum. What motivates a Vaper to increase his Vaping Device's voltage from however it came from the manufacturer. What is the quality of the Vapor at the low end of the heat/power/wattage spectrum, and why would a Vapor not like it this way?
I'm not thinking about editing the Wikipedia article, I'm learning enough about Vaping so that I can help write an effective Lede in Wikipedia's "e-cigarette" Article. It says the purpose of an Electronic Nicotine Delivery System is to "simulate the feeling of smoking", as if there is no way that a person that never smoked would ever take-up Vaping. When I read that, I knew there were serious problems with the article, and TBH I haven't read 75% of that article. Right now all I care about is the Lede.
Please see a previous post about my thoughts on the e-cigarette Lede and Wikipedia Lede's in general. Thanks for the links; I'll be reading through those as well as all the others.
Last edited:
Thanks I appreciate two things. 1) That Vaping Devices really are sometimes called "fog machines" and 2) that advances in battery technology have allowed Vaping Device manufacturers to make smaller Vaping Devices. I've also noticed how advances in battery technology has increased the power of (my favorite is DeWalt) screwguns.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
