e-cigarette Wikipedia article needs help

[Wallace_Frampton]

so when does the wiki page editing start?
mike

Right now:

Electronic cigarette - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) is a battery-powered vaporizer that simulates the feeling of smoking, but without the tobacco combustion.[1] The user automatically activates the e-cigarette by taking a puff;[2]other devices turn on by pressing a button manually.[3] They are often cylindrical, with many variations.[4] Their use is commonly called vaping.[5] Some e-cigarettes look like traditional cigarettes, but others do not.[6] There are disposable and reusable versions.[7] Instead of cigarette smoke, the user inhales anaerosol, commonly called vapor.[8] E-cigarettes typically have a heating element that atomizes a liquid solution known as e-liquid.[9] E-liquids usually contain propylene glycol, glycerin, water, nicotine, andflavorings.[10] E-liquids are also sold without propylene glycol, without nicotine, or without flavors.[11][12][13]

The benefits and health risks of electronic cigarettes are uncertain.[7][14] There is no evidence they are better than regulated medication for quitting smoking,[14] but there is tentative evidence of benefit as asmoking cessation aid.[13] Their usefulness in tobacco harm reduction is unclear,[15] but in an effort todecrease tobacco related death and disease, they have a potential to be part of the strategy.[16] Their safety risk is like that of smokeless tobacco.[17] US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved products, such as nicotine inhalers, are probably safer than e-cigarettes.[15] Limited evidence suggests e-cigarettes are safer than tobacco,[18] but high voltage (5.0 V) e-cigarettes may generateformaldehyde agents at a greater level than smoking, which was determined to be a lifetime cancer risk of about 5 to 15 times greater than long-term smoking.[10]

Non-smokers who use them risk nicotine addiction.[19] There is no evidence e-cigarettes are regularly used by those who have never smoked.[20] E-cigarette use may delay or deter quitting smoking.[4] E-cigarettes create vapor that consists of ultrafine particles.[4] The vapor contains similar chemicals to the e-liquid, together with tiny amounts of toxicants and heavy metals.[4][20] Exactly what comprises the vapor varies across and within manufacturers.[8] E-cigarette vapor contains fewer toxic substances than cigarette smoke,[4] and is probably less harmful to users and bystanders.[4][20] No serious adverse effects from e-cigarettes have been reported in trials.[13] Less serious adverse effects include throat and mouth inflammation, vomiting, nausea, and cough.[4] The long-term effects of e-cigarette use are unknown.[2][21]

Since their introduction to the market in 2004, global usage has risen.[22] As of 2012, up to 10% of American high school students had used them at least once, and around 3.4% of American adults as of 2011.[23] In the UK user numbers have increased from 700,000 in 2012 to 2.1 million in 2013. About 60% of UK users are smokers and most others are ex-smokers.[24] Most e-cigarette users still smoke traditional cigarettes.[4] Most peoples' reason for using e-cigarettes is related to quitting, but a considerable proportion use them recreationally.[2] The modern e-cigarette arose from a 2003 invention by Hon Lik in China[25] and as of 2014 most devices are made there.[4] Because of the potential relationship with tobacco laws and medical drug policies, electronic cigarette legislation is being debated in many countries.[26][27] TheEuropean Parliament passed regulations in February 2014 standardizing liquids and personal vaporizers, listing ingredients, and child-proofing liquid containers.[28] The US FDA published proposed regulations in April 2014 with some similar measures.[29] Manufacturers have increased advertising, using marketing techniques like those used to sell cigarettes in the 1950s and 1960s.[4] As of 2014 there were 466 brands with sale of around $7 billion.[30][31]

So here's "the thing" right here. What we're all talking about. I need to spend the next several days going back through this thread and clicking all those links and reading all those references in order to get up to speed on topic of Vaping, etc... so I figured I would drop the actual text of the Article's Lede (as it currently is) into this thread and let people start giving it some consideration in the concrete (vs. the theoretical) sense.

What things are bad and what things are good?

What is in there that should stay, what should be modified and what should be thrown out of the a) Lede, b) article completely?

What is "junk science", has been "debunked"?

If you define the Lede as "The introductory passage to an article that should inform the Reader and invite them to continue reading the entire Article." (as I do) how can the Lede (this 4 paragraphs) be improved to better achieve that goal, with particular emphasis on the word "invite". My personal mission the reason why I choose to do this project, is to make the article as "inviting" as possible. As an Editor, I am never going to acquire the expertise of any topic to be willing to trade punches and stand toe-to-toe with experienced Wikipedia Editors that may be editing articles that are actually in their (career) field. Not going to win an argument with a doctor on the health effects of nicotine. Not going to even try.

However, I CAN make that doctor acknowledge the fact that 99% of the population do not operate has his/her "level" and so his advanced-level awareness should not be in the 1st 4 paragraphs of this (or any other) article.

So anyways, this is my mission. To provide a high-quality, accurate, unbiased, and inviting introduction to the topic of "e-cigarettes".

Other thoughts:

Given that Vaping Devices are probably going to be used to deliver more than just nicotine (medicine and probably illegal substances at some point), I think it is a mistake to over-emphasize these devices, and the activity of "vaping" too closely with cigarettes, tobacco use and smoking. Some connection is unavoidable, but IMO there should be a nod of acknowledgment, a "touch gloves" moment where the article makes light reference to smoking and then from that part treats the topic of Vaping, Vaporizers, and the culture surrounding them both with the "standalone" level of respect it deserves.

While it may be true that this could be construed as "bias" (as Wikipedia defines it), it is also true that it could be considered to be equally biased to "advocate" (for political reasons) in favor of a false and artificial relationship between vaping and smoking, vaping devices and cigarettes. The two arguments off-set each other. So, it is my position that arguing in favor of creating as large a separation between vaping and smoking is NOT "bias", it's just honestly presenting the truth in the best manner possible, as over-emphasis on the commonalities between vaping and smoking serve no constructive purpose, but instead confuse the two and fosters an environment of hostility.

Which, in the larger sense, to those concerned about the agenda of larger, unseen, global, "Big Tobacco" (Pharma, Charity, State, etc...) creating an environment where helpful, well-intentioned people spend their time fighting over inconsequential details instead of presenting high-quality information to interested readers, serves the evil purposes of these larger entities without them having to lift a finger or spend a dime.

Which, as I think of it, goes towards my misgivings with regard to the use of "ANZT" as it demonizes two groups and consolidates them. People are are "anti-nicotine" and people who are "anti-tobacco" are both grouped into the same demonized category, yet from the pro-vaping perspective, being "anti-tobacco" is a GOOD thing. Makes no sense to me to be anti-tobacco, and take up vaping, and then demonize people who are anti-tobacco in the same category as people who are merely, simply "anti-nicotine". I think, in terms of Vaping Advocacy, that it's a critical error to do this. A significant percentage of the Anti-Tobacco people are natural allies to the Vaping advocates. Why put effort into turning allies into enemies? Seems stupid to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyways, that's the bit. We've seen a lot of talk about the article, the editors, the organization, who "they" are and the things "they" do, etc... and now here's the article itself, submitted for your consideration and criticism.

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

So I haven't read anything anyone posted in this thread, only because I went to the Wikipedia article to (pretty easily) see that the article is semi-protected.

This means that, unless you're a Wikipedia Editor (someone who is relatively prolific with editing Wikipedia articles) you simply won't be able to edit the page. It's understandable, really, since all the potential conflicting information that could be put on the page. The rules are pretty gosh-darn strict.

Most of my point in this thread was to make the point that allowing uninformed and uneducated people, possibly with personal or corporate-influenced political agendas, to just show up and start editing the article willy-nilly was a bad thing, and that the best way to improve the article is to create a group of people off-site (off-Wikipedia) and work together to present an improved version of the article and then after a period of discussion and debate, vote in favor of the article and them implement it as the old (bad) article's replacement.

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

Don't take this personally but if other users click on this thread and do what you did and just skip to the end and read what you have written then the same problem that readers of the wikipedia page have will occur with this thread. It would be better if you read through this thread.

It's a common thing to do. Sometimes there are good reasons, such as a limited amount of time and yet the User feels their point is compelling enough to post without having read the entire thread. At least he telegraphed his lack of awareness. Many people do not, and then get held responsible for knowing things that they do not, and then saying things that indicate that they don't know them. Point: Telling people you haven't read the entire thread gives you permission to say whatever you want, as the context of those comments has been given, i.e. "I'm saying this out of ignorance...."

 

[Pushbutton]

You've summarized my concerns and questions perfectly. I asked this earlier in the thread; whether or not the toxicity of vaping is more "analog" or more "digital":




Current State of This Question: "Does toxicity rise gradually as temperature rises gradually, or is it a hard "OFF" until a certain temperature is reached, and then it's "ON"?"

Obviously all of this goes back to the fundamental question of "How Safe is Vaping?". Will the User/Vaper be aware of the toxic nature of the vapor/gas (which? in a "dry hit"?) they are inhaling, or is/can it be toxic when the Vaping Device is NOT in a "dry hit" condition? Is it possible that a User/Vaper will be inhaling vapor that is toxic without knowing it?

The study that claims that Vaping can be equally toxic as cigarette smoking makes no effort to differentiate between the artificially created laboratory conditions and real-life circumstances.

To get a satisfactory answer to this question you'd likely have to contact a researcher. As a layman i believe it is both analog and digital in a way that below 285°C formaldehyde is a non issue (even if there may be trace amounts), with the amount being produced increasing with rising temperature past that point. Note that most vapers will likely vape between 180-250C.

I assure you that anyone who does get a dry-hit will know so. As mentioned it is as bad or worse tasting than lighting a cigarette on the wrong end.
For illustration, here is a video of youtube reviewer deliberately overheating a small atomizer in the way that was used for a study that pointed out high levels of formaldehyde in vapor.

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

The issue was that the information was being contested so much. For that reason it's considered controversial, and many people (both pro-ecig and anti-ecig) were likely putting up information without factual evidence. Among other things, there are still a lot of "question marks", and while the article is poorly formulated now, I think as the history develops there will be more people who will add useful, relevant, factual information.

It's essentially the same reason that the Hitler article is protected. Too many people are too ingrained in their own beliefs and aren't writing factual/appropriate information. Some people are likely just putting their opinion pieces up there. The way Wikipedia articles are formulated is very specific, and for all the flack that Wikipedia gets, they're easily one of the most factually-accurate and (most importantly) frequently updated encyclopedias available.

It's a good idea to talk about what it takes to be a Wikipedia Editor:

1) A computer.

For most articles, anyone can edit without even having an account. For some articles you also have to have a Wikipedia account, which is no more difficult than joining a forum. Email address, Username, password, confirmation email and you are DONE.

I don't know about whether or not the e-cigarette article is "protected", but I do know that an ongoing dispute between two editors has resulted in the article being "Sanctioned", which as I understand it means that the penalties for Editor's misbehavior have increased, as well as the level of Administrative supervision. In practical terms I don't think it means much as far as having the ability to edit, but if one breaks rules, offens people, violates policy, makes mistakes during the course of that "editing" what used to be ignored might get you a warning, and what used to get you a warning might now get you banned in some way.

Means little to nothing to me, as I intend to work on this article 100% in accordance with all the rules, policies, etc... I intend to "win" the right, legal, moral, ethical, open and honest way, so I have (and we have) nothing to hide, and nothing to worry about.

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

To get a satisfactory answer to this question you'd likely have to contact a researcher.

I sent an email to the point of contact for that research asking the question and have yet to receive a response. He made an immediate response when asked if he was the POC (he said "Yes"), but after I asked the question, I haven't heard back from him and it's been 3 days. I think there's a reason why he was "on it" when he didn't know the question and "not responding" when he found out what I wanted to know. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now. It may be that he's getting ready to publish some kind of official clarification to that study. Primary point is to make certain that people do not use that study to try to prove that normal operation of a Vaping Device presents and elevated risk of cancer, etc... as the language seems to indicate. Also to make certain that Editors do not (deliberately or accidentally) use that language out of context and try to make it sound like normal vaping has an equivalent risk for cancer as cigarette smoking.

I assume several things.

Doctors aren't stupid. If a doctor does research on vaping and then fails to differentiate between "normal vaping" and using a vaping device in a way that no person would ever do, there are only two ways to explain the lack of differentiation, and they are:

1) Stupidity, and
2) Dishonesty

And given that "doctors aren't stupid", that (according to Sherlock Holmes) leaves "2) Dishonesty". They may not be stupid, but they are fully capable of being dishonest. So, in terms of priority, where does "flaming the dishonest doctor pimping junk science and pretending that it means something that it does not" fall on my "Prioritized List of Things To Do"? A: Somewhere down there at #20 or so. Someone else can take the lead on this, if they really think it needs to be dealt with now.

 

[stevegmu]

The link for cloud chasing is hilarious... I joke about professionals and sanctioned events, world tours, and such, but apparently there really are 'professionals,' a sanctioning/regulating body and even groupies called cloud gazers...

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

As I understand it, there are some paid Wikipedia Editors, Administrators, "researchers" etc... I have no idea about this whole area. I think some work for Wikipedia, and some do not. I am certain that all are required to make a public declaration of their "paid" (and also "biased", whether or not they are paid) status. It's a big deal to Wikipedia.

Today while tooling around on Wikipedia I happened upon another Editor that is considered a "Paid" Editor. Reading his "Talk" page, I get the general impression that companies/corporations pay him to do what would be called "online reputation management". He says something like he "fixes" articles where companies are recently promoted or criticized and they are "poorly sourced" or something similar to that characterization. On the chance that someone here might be interested in the idea that some Editors are paid, they might also appreciate seeing for themselves one one actually looks like.

Dug around in his "Bio" area, looking for evidence of Big Tobacco and other lobbyists and and found none. One thing I'd like to do is compile a list of all known Wikipedia Editors with an obvious anti-Vaping bias, so that their contributions and sources can be scrutinized.

EDIT***
On re-read I discovered I forgot to paste a link to the paid Editor's "Talk" page.

User:CorporateM - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

---> Learn About Electronic Cigarettes

Reading this link now.

 

[gandymarsh]

I use Wikipedia to find info on people, from the present or past, that are of interest to me.

To use it as an information reference for anything controversial seems silly to me. I think answering this poll would be far more effective in furthering our cause. The American Cancer Society posed the question "How did you quit smoking" of Facebook. | E-Cigarette Forum

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

Reading this link now.

Electronic Cigarette FAQS

What about all of the news reports that e-cigarettes contain toxic chemicals and metals?

The reports that there are studies that show potential health risks due to e-cigarette use are premature. In spite of what has been reported, the studies done to date have not only been largely inconclusive, but have actually found that the levels of contaminants detected in e-cigarette liquid and vapor are so low that it is highly doubtful they would even pose a health risk. Most certainly, they are thousands of times less of a risk than continuing to smoke. The fact is, the mere "detection" of a chemical does not mean that a product is hazardous. Every day we harmlessly consume and breathe in chemicals that would be toxic at much higher levels. It is disingenuous for public health organizations that disapprove of e-cigarettes to point to the trace levels found in e-cigarette studies as conclusive evidence of a potential health risk.

Dr. Igor Burstyn, of Drexel University, reviewed all of the available chemistry on e-cigarette vapor and liquid and found that the levels reported — even in those studies that were hyped as showing there is a danger — are well below the level that is of concern. His report was peer-reviewed and published January 2014 on Bio Med Central's Public Health Journal: "Peering through the mist: systematic review of what the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tells us about health risks"


In 2011, The FDA issued a statement regarding the approved smoking cessation drug Chantix, which has been linked to over 500 deaths, suicidal tendencies and heart attacks. The FDA stated that "the drug’s benefits outweigh the risks." E-cigarettes have been on the market nearly as long as Chantix, without reports of significant adverse reactions or deaths. Studies have shown that while chemicals have been detected, they are too low to pose any significant health risks and are certainly far less exposure than found in cigarette smoke. It is clear to anyone who reviews the more than 60 available studies on e-cigarette liquids and vapor that the benefits of e-cigarettes also "far outweigh the risks."

Particulate metals and organic compounds from electronic and tobacco-containing cigarettes: comparison of emission rates and secondhand exposure
-
Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts
(RSC Publishing)

Overall, with the exception of Ni, Zn, and Ag, the consumption of e-cigarettes resulted in a remarkable decrease in secondhand exposure to all metals and organic compounds. Implementing quality control protocols on the manufacture of e-cigarettes would further minimize the emission of metals from these devices and improve their safety and associated health effects.

Can anyone help me to get a full copy of this study/paper thing, claiming that there are toxic metals in e-vapor? I want to know where the Nickel, Zinc and Silver is coming from. I suspect it's not from the base, the nicotine or the flavoring; not from the e-liquid at all. Even when sent into an abnormal condition and running too hot and burning the e-liquid, I don't think the vaping device is going to somehow transmutate carbon-based compounds into metal. So then where is the metal coming from. My instinct is that when the heating element is overheated, the metal of the Personal Vaporizer breaks down/degrages/oxidizes/whatever the correct word is. So now I have to wonder what those "scientists" did that that Vaporizer to make it's internal metals disintegrate.

Here's another thing to think about:

E-cigarette smoke found to contain toxic metals | USC News

However, despite the lack of harmful organic material and a decrease in the majority of toxic metals emissions, e-cigarette smoke contains the toxic element chromium, absent from traditional cigarettes, as well as nickel at levels four times higher than normal cigarettes. In addition, several other toxic metals such as lead and zinc were also found in secondhand e-cigarette smoke, though in concentrations lower than for normal cigarettes.

"e-cigarette smoke".

Note how easily those two words go together. Latent Semantics has to do with the relationship between words and how likely they are to occur in close proximity to each other, both in real life and also as outputs in Google searches. Both meanings are relevant to my point here. When the human ear of the informed Vaper reads "e-cigarette" they think "Personal Vaping Device" and when they read "smoke" they either think "vapor", or they are annoyed at yet another example of how vaping is subtly maligned in the the media. When the "human ear" of the average, non-vaping person reads this, they "learn" that Vaping Devices produce SMOKE. Toxic smoke, with metals and toxins and cancer risks and danger, just like cigarettes.

This is a perfect example of what I was referring to earlier; the natural consequences of continuing to allow, facilitate or force and artificial relationship between vaping devices and cigarettes. People will naturally assume that they are the same, particularly when they are told by the University of Southern California that Vaping devices produce "smoke". And then, back to the JAMA study with Maciej Goniewicz failing to mention that they jacked the Personal Vaping device to the point that it actually DID produce "smoke", no one questions or wonders about it, because "everyone" knows that Vaping Devices produce SMOKE. Toxic smoke. Toxic smoke that causes cancer. DANGER! You should use a safer alternative, such as the 21 mg Nicoderm Patch ($45), as advocated by the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.

Here's what they think a cigarette smoker that wants to try Vaping should encounter:

Should Health Canada approve the use of e-cigarettes with nicotine, it should then have a regulatory framework that includes approval of products on a case by case basis, and development of labelling requirements. Restrict access by only allowing via prescription at the outset.

So then I think about Maciej Goniewicz, who overvolted his personal vaporizer and fed a continuous stream of toxic "dry hits" into a chromatic spectrum analyzer thingie (that little machine in the corner that goes PING!), then stood back expecting to be congratulated for discovering that routing the exhaust into the passenger compartment of a car will cause carbon monoxide poisoning (but didn't bother to tell people what they would have to do in order to kill themselves). That's someone else's job. PING!

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

I use Wikipedia to find info on people, from the present or past, that are of interest to me.

To use it as an information reference for anything controversial seems silly to me. I think answering this poll would be far more effective in furthering our cause. The American Cancer Society posed the question "How did you quit smoking" of Facebook. | E-Cigarette Forum

So you'd rather wander around the internet looking at your own primary sources, each with their own particular bias, rather than 1st read an article that has as it's primary mission the objective of establishing some balance? No one claims Wikipedia is perfectly balanced, but who's less biased? Wikipedia or "The Blaze"? Wikipedia or "Mother Jones"? The notion starts-out with the idea that "Wikipedia" is bad, with the implication that "something else" is better. My question is, what it that "something else" that provides a level of openness and accountability for whatever bias someone would like to allege. I can "fix" almost any Wikipedia article I want. And it might even last for more than 5 or 10 minutes. But no average reader fixes CNN, ever.

I'll take a look at this poll, next...

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

To get a satisfactory answer to this question you'd likely have to contact a researcher. As a layman i believe it is both analog and digital in a way that below 285°C formaldehyde is a non issue (even if there may be trace amounts), with the amount being produced increasing with rising temperature past that point. Note that most vapers will likely vape between 180-250C.

On about the 3rd re-read, I just now caught this. Think you should recheck your numbers. 285°C equals 545°F. Or maybe they are accurate and I should think about them? What happens to propylene glycol at 545 degrees? I wonder if there are any studies that isolate the base from the flavoring from the nicotine in order to determine where whatever toxins are in there come from. If toxicity rises gradually, I'm going to have to rethink everything I think I know right now.

 

[gandymarsh]

So you'd rather wander around the internet looking at your own primary sources, each with their own particular bias, rather than 1st read an article that has as it's primary mission the objective of establishing some balance? No one claims Wikipedia is perfectly balanced, but who's less biased? Wikipedia or "The Blaze"? Wikipedia or "Mother Jones"? The notion starts-out with the idea that "Wikipedia" is bad, with the implication that "something else" is better. My question is, what it that "something else" that provides a level of openness and accountability for whatever bias someone would like to allege. I can "fix" almost any Wikipedia article I want. And it might even last for more than 5 or 10 minutes. But no average reader fixes CNN, ever.

I'll take a look at this poll, next...

When I was looking for info about vaping, I didn't look at Wikipedia or wander around the internet to find out whether there were safety concerns. My own knowledge of tobacco and the thousands of chemicals that are native to tobacco or added to enhance the addictive effects was enough to convince me that vaping has to be less harmful than smoking. My goal was to quit using tobacco. If I had learned anything that was sufficient to convince that it was more harmful or almost as harmful, I would've reconsidered my decision to use vaping as an alternative to smoking. To date I have not read anything that's even slightly frightening about vaping.

My point was that Wikipedia has been called out many times for not being vigilant when an article is being unfairly influenced by people with an agenda. So I don't go there to learn about controversial subjects.

I doubt that the FDA uses Wikipedia either but they might care what the ACS believes about the subject. Then again they might not because what they are proposing seems to be more about protecting special interests than protecting public health.

 

[catlady60]

Which, as I think of it, goes towards my misgivings with regard to the use of "ANZT" as it demonizes two groups and consolidates them. People are are "anti-nicotine" and people who are "anti-tobacco" are both grouped into the same demonized category, yet from the pro-vaping perspective, being "anti-tobacco" is a GOOD thing. Makes no sense to me to be anti-tobacco, and take up vaping, and then demonize people who are anti-tobacco in the same category as people who are merely, simply "anti-nicotine". I think, in terms of Vaping Advocacy, that it's a critical error to do this. A significant percentage of the Anti-Tobacco people are natural allies to the Vaping advocates. Why put effort into turning allies into enemies? Seems stupid to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.

That's how come I prefer to use the term ANTs (Anti-Nicotine Tyrants) to describe vaping prohibitionists. They hate nicotine, even apart from tobacco, and they think they can browbeat us into quitting vaping, turning from anti-smoking to turning the public against smokers and now vapers.

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

That's how come I prefer to use the term ANTs (Anti-Nicotine Tyrants) to describe vaping prohibitionists. They hate nicotine, even apart from tobacco, and they think they can browbeat us into quitting vaping, turning from anti-smoking to turning the public against smokers and now vapers.

I think the concerns regarding nicotine are valid. I've read crazy posts calling nicotine a "food", and the heart of the tobacco lobby's denial was centered on whether or not nicotine is addictive, and also a denial in general that the word "addiction" has any meaning at all. And who knows, maybe they are right. Nicotine is commonly found in food, it's healthful, nutritious, and a necessary part of anyone's diet, and that whole "......." thing is overblown hype; anyone can quit anything if they just want to badly enough.

For the rest of us 99% (who may be wrong), we don't want to read the Wikipedia Article and have it tell us that children should be introduced to cigarettes and chewing tobacco early, as you know how important it is for a child's development in their early years. They could paint fresh fruit with caramel-flavored e-liquid base and serve them in school lunch cafeteria's and call them "Carmel NicApples". Sort of like ""McDonalds", only it's "NicDonalds? Instead of golden arches there could be a couple of healthy crossed cigarettes in the corporate logo, and the official Food and Drug Administration Seal of Good Health.

So even within the movement, it's necessary to look each other in the eye and tell each other the truth. Nicotine IS bad. The question is how bad is it, and how bad is the nicotine in Vaporizers compared to the nicotine in cigarettes? Personally, at this point of my "development" in learning about vaping, vaping culture, the research, etc... I wonder if it might be more effective to baldly call these people for what they really are, and for what the natural results of their anti-vaping sociological and political beliefs will be. These people are "Pro-Cancer". It's what they are. It's the best way to describe them in terms of the values that make up the strongest reason to create a "pro vaping" movement and it effectively demonizes those who most need to be demonized, as their policies do in fact make them demons. What other word best describes a "charity" that claims to try to help people with heart and long diseases, while calling for the regulation of vaping products so that they are more difficult to get than cigarettes. While fat, white-collar big-wigs make 6-figure salaries working for charities that claim to try to help people with cancer on the one hand, while actually acting to increase the number of people that get it on the other, average "grass-roots" people are self-diagnosing and self-treating themselves with a cheaper, more effective and more medically sound alternative than the entirety of the medical establishment is capable, or willing to deliver.

They're "Pro-Cancer". You can call them "PC" and add a few Statist, pro-government, obedient drone connotations to the phrase while you are at it, because it's not all that far from the truth. The government is ALSO Pro-Cancer, because it makes money as the Tobacco Industry makes money (due to some huge settlement or other). The fact that they will eventually lose all those profits due to socialized medicine and having to pay for the high-dollar treatments caused by tobacco poisoning is ignored.

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

When I was looking for info about vaping, I didn't look at Wikipedia or wander around the internet to find out whether there were safety concerns. My own knowledge of tobacco and the thousands of chemicals that are native to tobacco or added to enhance the addictive effects was enough to convince me that vaping has to be less harmful than smoking. My goal was to quit using tobacco. If I had learned anything that was sufficient to convince that it was more harmful or almost as harmful, I would've reconsidered my decision to use vaping as an alternative to smoking. To date I have not read anything that's even slightly frightening about vaping.

I've said this before and I'll hit it again. Some people are "representative samples" of average people, while others are not. You are not, and neither was I, as we both understood that if you subtract all the harmful toxins from cigarettes and leave only the nicotine, Vaping is automatically, logically going to be safe than smoking and it needs no "research" or government approval for the obvious nature to be known to anyone with half a brain.

The flaw in that statement is that most people don't have not even half a brain. And if they (for example) are an insurance company being asked to pay for their client's Vaping products as it's a "smoking cessation aid" and the Wikipedia article says that Vaping has toxic metals in it, then what do you think the insurance carrier is going to say when they are asked to cover the cost of someone's vaping? "Wikipedia says it has dangerous metals and other toxins." and there will be a little "17" citation number next to the statement the insurance company uses, which references to an over-baked study published by a crooked researcher working for Pfizer. 99% of the people do not read the citation. Of those that do, 99% of them do not "dig" into the study to actually figure out what it means, and of those that do THAT, 99% of them give up before they actually can reasonably conclude, or even prove, that the researcher was crooked, and that the study was over-baked. People that operate at this level of awareness are very, very rare, and the 1st thing they do is assume they are "normal". You aren't. No one here really is, when it comes to the topic of Vaping.

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

Just found this when looking for "metals":

PLOS ONE: Metal and Silicate Particles Including Nanoparticles Are Present in Electronic Cigarette Cartomizer Fluid and Aerosol

Metal and Silicate Particles Including Nanoparticles Are Present in Electronic Cigarette Cartomizer Fluid and Aerosol

 

[Wallace_Frampton]

Just want to let people know I'm still "on mission". Two things to mention:

1) I've figured out that the source of the heavy metal toxins are from the degrading metal of the heating elements in these vaping devices. The author of the study failed to mention this and left the question open as to what the source of the heavy metal contamination was. At first my skeptical, conspiratorial instinct was that there was some attempt at using the idea to scare people away from Vaping, but after having a good, in-depth conversation with a chemical engineer this evening, I've decide that there's something a little more "common sense" going on.

I've mentioned several times my awareness that vaping devices are not necessarily going to only be used to deliver nicotine. Asthma medication and other drugs are possible. So, tonight's chemist tells me that the medical industry already has vaporizing devices that operate in the exact same way, only they use heating elements that are wrapped/encased in a ceramic material, thereby isolating the vaporized gases from the hot metal (probably nickel and cadmium, or similar metals used in heating elements).

Meaning, in short, that the problem of the metal toxins in the vapor is solved by upgrading the heating elements.

"OH LOOK! Another way to MOD!" And capitalism takes over.

So, here's your problem, and your solution. Demand vaping devices with manufactured with heating elements that are encased in ceramic. Not only does the vapor lose the heavy metal toxins, but the heating elements will last much longer, as the primary reason why heating elements fail (think of your toaster here) is that the hot metal reacts with oxygen and it degrades, burns, oxidizes, etc... until it electronically "opens" and stops working. So the secondary benefit to this upgrade to the heating element is that they will last much longer, as the ceramic "seals" the metal and prevents it from being oxidized.

2) The reason why the researcher withheld ALL the information, my theory anyways, is that they want to publish (part of) "the scary truth" until Pfizer, etc... have their own medically approved, insurance plan paid-for vaping devices available to their patients.

They don't want people to self-diagnose and self-treat their smoking addiction for less than $100, they want to elevate smoking to a medical condition that can only be "cured" for thousands of dollars and lots of highly paid medical professionals.

 

[KentA]

Many of us are building our own coils, "heating elements", & swap them out pretty regularly. It's kind of a hobby & much more economical. It allow us to tweak our rigs far beyond the limited options offered by industry.

I don't think we could wrap our own with a ceramic coated wire.

I think you are right in that Pfizer, etc... are looking for a problem only they can solve.