e-cigarette Wikipedia article needs help

[Wallace_Frampton]

there is a group of ANTZ continually editing

I don't understand this. What/who is "ANTZ". I did a Google search and all I got was some cartoon movie. Is this an acronym for something ?

 

[retired1]

ANTZ - Anti Nicotine tobacco Zealot

 

[Tony16]

Like train2 said you can up the volts/watts with the proper equipment .
As far as what to call the devise. I've heard a lot of different terms:vape, vapor, APV(advanced personal vaporizer) to name a few.

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

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.

Do you have a link to any "credible source" that describes how JAMA did something to the Vapor Device that no normal User would ever do?

Also, regarding the relationship between applied heat and toxicity, do you (or anyone else) know if it's binary (either/or) or analog (varies incrementally along a scale)? Does toxicity gradually increase as heat is applied, or does it reach a particular threshold, from which point it goes from "non-toxic" to "toxic" with no middle ground? JAMA gives a wide range of toxicity, something like "8-fold to 600-fold", which I really didn't understand why a supposedly scientific journal was using outdated common-use language from the Victorian era. I would think that a relationship between the toxicity of "e-cigarettes" and "vaping devices" would be expressed as a percentage, i.e. "e-cigarettes are normally 0.001% as toxic as cigarettes, but when the e-liquid is deliberately overheated, the toxicity rises to be 10% to 100% as toxic as cigarettes

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

ANTZ - Anti Nicotine Tobacco Zealot

What qualities make a person an anti-nicotine tobacco zealot? Do they hate nicotine (vaping and tobacco)? Or are they someone that loves tobacco and hates vaping?

TBH, the second kind of person sounds fake, and made-up. Like they really don't exist. Maybe they are internet constructs, but I don't believe any real person, tobacco-smoking or otherwise, actually "loves" tobacco that they would care about other people using Vaping.

Can anyone show any evidence of a "ANTZ", whether they be real, obviously fake or something in between?

I smoked for over 20 years. I quit everything before Vaping became a "thing". Had Vaping been popular 10 years ago, I'd probably be vaping right now. I beat a nicotine addiction, but never not once did I ever "love" tobacco. I can't imagine any sane person would.

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

Like train2 said you can up the volts/watts with the proper equipment .
As far as what to call the devise. I've heard a lot of different terms:vape, vapor, APV(advanced personal vaporizer) to name a few.

Okay, so with specialized equipment you CAN "up the voltage/watts" (and therefore heat), but why would anyone want to? Is there some kind of benefit to having a hotter vapor? I assume there's a line that most people don't cross (from "hot enough" to "too hot"), but my question is if anyone every crosses that line (on purpose), and if so, why would they want to?

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

Why is a tobacco cigarette called an "analog"? Is it meant to imply that electronic cigarettes are "digital" and therefore "old style" cigarettes are "analog"?

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

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.

Do you have any names of Wikipedia Editors that might be interested in making the article on e-cigarettes as accurate and interesting as possible?

 

[Tony16]

I'm still a noob to vaping(3 months now) but higher volts will increase vapor production. The temperature of the vapor does not necessarily change unless you want it to, not sure if the actual coil temperature changes( I don't think it would) with proper wicking you keep the coil saturated and temp down, also with increased airflow keeps temp down also
Again I'm new to this,I may not have this exactly right.JMO.

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

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.

Could you give a few examples of "misinformation" and "lies" that I should be looking out for?

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

I'm still a noob to vaping(3 months now) but higher volts will increase vapor production. The temperature of the vapor does not necessarily change unless you want it to, not sure if the actual coil temperature changes( I don't think it would) with proper wicking you keep the coil saturated and temp down, also with increased airflow keeps temp down also
Again I'm new to this,I may not have this exactly right.JMO.

Thanks I appreciate any help. I don't understand what you mean by "vapor production". I'm thinking lungs have a finite capacity (lets say a gallon) and when you breath in vapor, you are breathing in 1 gallon of vapor. What difference in "production" does it make if the vapor is heated at 3.5 volts compared to 4.5 volts (or whatever watts difference a person would care to use)? It's still the same 1 gallon of vapor. If the temperature of the gallon of vapor that is inhaled isn't change (or that change is irrelevant to the person doing the vaping) then what's the purpose of increasing the voltage/watts? Is the vapor more dense with juice? More concentrated hit of nicotine?

 

[Lannie]

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?

EXACTLY. It reminds me of the cyclamate "studies" that were done when I was a young 'un, and we later found out that mice (or rats) had been injected with the equivalent of FIFTY GALLONS of cyclamate sweetened drink per day for 50 years. I don't actually remember how many years it was equivalent to, but it was a physically unattainable thing. Well, of COURSE they developed tumors on their livers. Then cyclamates were banned because they had been PROVEN to cause cancer in mice. I'm guessing Big Sugar was behind that one. There are a lot of "studies" that are done this way, just to further one side's agenda. In this case it's (I presume) Big Tobacco who you'll find is behind the funding for these so-called "studies." They don't want people to quit smoking, therefore they have to make them afraid of vaping. Patches and gum work for very few people, but vaping works for MOST, and therefore is a real threat to their existence.

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.

I'm only a beginner in the whole vaping thing (2 months), but it allowed me to quit a 42 year heavy smoking addiction in one day. ONE DAY. I haven't had a single cigarette since I got my vaporizer (that's what some people around here call them, or just "vape devices"). But I've spent most of the last two and a half months reading this forum, learning about the equipment and techniques, and I cannot recall a single person ever saying they wanted to inhale the smoke from a burning (as in blackened or ON FIRE) wick. Quite the opposite - people are looking for flavor, and the only way to get flavor from e-liquids is by NOT overheating said liquid. When it's overheated it has a nasty burned taste, and if you burn the wick, OMG, it's indescribable. So, no, no vaper in their right mind would use any vape device intentionally at those kinds of temperatures. They did that in the "study" so they could show there are harmful toxins being emitted under "certain" circumstances. Used as they're designed to be used, none of those toxins seem to appear.

Although I myself am not familiar with the specifics on this, I've read that the liquids (with the exception of the flavor portion, which is food grade and presumably safe) are the same things that are used in nebulizers and inhalers for asthmatics. We hear all the time that "there's ANTIFREEZE in e-liquid," but it's propylene glycol, and just try to find a children's cough syrup that doesn't contain THAT. Or ice cream. Or a whole LOT of food and cosmetic items. Where are the people screaming about "antifreeze in children's cough syrup?" Oh, those poor little children... Or "OMG, don't eat ice cream, there's ANTIFREEZE in it!" You see how silly it can get?

Sheesh, I'm starting to get all worked up over this now! LOL! AND, I'm rambling. I applaud you, Wallace, for trying to do what you're trying to do, but I fear it's a losing battle. You will not outmaneuver Big Tobacco. And anyway, like others have said, Wikipedia is not a good source of "truth." Whenever someone tries to give me proof of something by citing a Wiki article, I just laugh and walk away. I trust Wikipedia about as much as I trust the AMA.

~Lannie

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

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.

I don't know who "Stanton Glanz" is, and it seems that you think the point you are making is obvious, unfortunately I don't understand it. Is there some "cloud" of bias that hangs over JAMA?

 

[Tony16]

Thanks I appreciate any help. I don't understand what you mean by "vapor production". I'm thinking lungs have a finite capacity (lets say a gallon) and when you breath in vapor, you are breathing in 1 gallon of vapor. What difference in "production" does it make if the vapor is heated at 3.5 volts compared to 4.5 volts (or whatever watts difference a person would care to use)? It's still the same 1 gallon of vapor. If the temperature of the gallon of vapor that is inhaled isn't change (or that change is irrelevant to the person doing the vaping) then what's the purpose of increasing the voltage/watts? Is the vapor more dense with juice? More concentrated hit of nicotine?

Don't know about lung capacity, but I don't think you FILL you lungs with those little pen style vapes. But with bigger battery mod you can get more vapor with each hit. More flavor and bigger "clouds". Also when smoking cigarettes your lungs felt more full and more vapor feels more satisfying to some people.

 

[edyle]

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.

1: " 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"."

The technical, unbiased description would me: micro fog machine.
It's a fog machine but very small.
When you make a very small fog machine about 4 inches long and quarter inch in diameter so that it looks and seems to be a cigarette, you get the common description "e-cigarette".

2: " 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"

CASAA.



3: 'nocitine delivery device"
vaping has and is helping people by the millions to get away from the smoke and tar contained in cigarettes; hence the devices have become associated with cigarette.
Also, these smokers continue to use nicotine in their devices because they were accustomed to nicotine. But nicotine is not peculiar or necessary for the operation of the devices; glycerine and propylene glycol are more to do with the devices than nicotine. glycerine and propylene glycol are what are used in fog machines.

 

[Rabbit Slayer]

faster than the "reliable sources" can keep up.

I stopped reading there, reliable source, wiki?!? Everyone and their mother can edit that site

 

[edyle]

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.

1: If you deliberately overheat the coil in a fog machine, you will burn/cook stuff instead of vaporizing it.

2: No there is no reason an actual user would want to cook/burn his eliquid/coil; on the contrary, avoiding a 'dry hit' is something a new vaper soon learns to do, like being carefull not to accidently light the wrong end of a cigarette.

3: People do adjust voltage to adjust to taste. Nowadays there are higher powered coils you can use/purchase, or wrap yourself, and they may run at a higher voltage.

 

[Tony16]

Also on another note about wattage, usually higher watts goes along with different size coils. Larger gauge wire and wire length need more power to get up to same temp as smaller wire at low power, but larger the coil more surface area more vapor more flavor.
This all goes with proper equipment for higher power devises

 

[retired1]

Rather than having everyone regurgitate what is common knowledge here, you should do some reading.

The ECF Library | E-Cigarette Forum

Legislation News | E-Cigarette Forum

FDA Regulations | E-Cigarette Forum

CASAA | E-Cigarette Forum

Media and General News | E-Cigarette Forum

Health, Safety and Vaping | E-Cigarette Forum

Tobacco Harm Reduction | E-Cigarette Forum

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

Although I myself am not familiar with the specifics on this, I've read that the liquids (with the exception of the flavor portion, which is food grade and presumably safe) are the same things that are used in nebulizers and inhalers for asthmatics. We hear all the time that "there's ANTIFREEZE in e-liquid," but it's propylene glycol, and just try to find a children's cough syrup that doesn't contain THAT. Or ice cream. Or a whole LOT of food and cosmetic items. Where are the people screaming about "antifreeze in children's cough syrup?" Oh, those poor little children... Or "OMG, don't eat ice cream, there's ANTIFREEZE in it!" You see how silly it can get?

Sheesh, I'm starting to get all worked up over this now! LOL! AND, I'm rambling. I applaud you, Wallace, for trying to do what you're trying to do, but I fear it's a losing battle. You will not outmaneuver Big Tobacco. And anyway, like others have said, Wikipedia is not a good source of "truth." Whenever someone tries to give me proof of something by citing a Wiki article, I just laugh and walk away. I trust Wikipedia about as much as I trust the AMA.

~Lannie

Wikipedia is people, and the problems you describe are caused by people and the only solution can come from people. One thing that I have noticed with regard to the relationship between Wikipedia and it's Readers is that there is not, and there should be, some kind of organized "intermediary" layer between the people doing the editing and the average layperson that reads the articles (and never edits). Online forums (like this one) could serve as a MAJOR "Check and Balance" against the types of (for lack of a better word I'll call them "abuses") that take place. (But really, I bet most of these "bad things" are well-intentioned mistakes by well-meaning people that would not do what they do if they knew better.)

The idea here is that a community finds, creates, designates or whatever a Wikipedia Editor and instead of trying to make a planet-full of anonymous Wikipedia Editor accountable for the things they do to articles that are of interest and concern to the online community (in this case, forum, but it doesn't have to be just forums), instead these communities have one or more editors working for THEM, in order to influence these articles in the direction they (the community, or online forum) think they should go.

Meaning that, when it's time to call "bull....", it's not just one disconnected Wikipedia Editor calling bull...., and being the proverbial one-legged man in an ...-kicking contest, it's a well-informed Wikipedia Editor with an entire community of interested and informed members, not only holding him accountable, but through him (or her) holding the entire body of Editors working on a particular article for the edits that they make, the sources that they use, the bias (and ignorance) that affects their edits, etc...

Hope that point comes out clear. I have a mental diagram in my mind right now that I'd like to create at some point in order to make this point.

Anyways, back to the e-cigarette article, I want to mention that at this point my "posture" on the JAMA study is that it has absolutely nothing to do with e-cigarettes and the level of safety of vaping, in fact it's about the hazards of modifying vaping hardware and how determined some people might be to get cancer by trying to breath foul-tasting vapor, and for no off-setting positive or benefit.

Finally to the point about the safety of Propylene Glycol (and the other one, whose name I forget), I think the inhaler nebulizer comparison is a very good one, but eating these chemicals is not, so any other safe and effective examples of these chemicals being atomized/vaporized/aerosolized and delivered to the lungs would be useful to me, in case I need to make an argument that all these concerns about "breathing these chemicals" are groundless and probably politically motivated.