E-cigarettes 10 times more cancerstuff than analog says Japan researcher

[Anjaffm]

oh goodness... why is it that some people seem to be getting bored in "general threads" and get the urge to invade the "news" subforum with their... uhm... postings?
Of course, there is the pleasant side effect that their ... uhm.. postings.. and the replies push up the thread. So that more people have the chance to read the thorough debunking of the ANTZ lies. Every cloud has a silver lining *sweet smile*

 

[Kent C]

oh goodness... why is it that some people seem to be getting bored in "general threads" and get the urge to invade the "news" subforum with their... uhm... postings?

Hobby horses will travel.

 

[Tangaroav]

It seems you're really going out of your way to conflate "present" with "present at potentially harmful levels." Presence does not equal harm. Each time you take a breath of ambient room air you inhale things that would kill you in higher concentrations.

If you read the study you will find out that some of the e-liquids had 400 time the max. allowable content of diketones. Now, in my books that presence is a REAL risk. I would not recommend that e-liquid to a friend, that's for sure ! Would you ?

...and btw, that is way more than in conventional cigarette too.

 

[Tangaroav]

Find me a quote where Dr F. says there ought to be a mandate in place. Or one where he is saying consumers ought to take to task all vendors on this issue.

What he says is : ....'''' ...while the identification of a small but avoidable risk will alert the industry to resolve this issue permanently and effectively. '' ''

I think this statement is pretty clear, don't you ? Even more so the text I underlined, don't you think so ?

 

[DrMA]

oh goodness... why is it that some people seem to be getting bored in "general threads" and get the urge to invade the "news" subforum with their... uhm... postings?
Of course, there is the pleasant side effect that their ... uhm.. postings.. and the replies push up the thread. So that more people have the chance to read the thorough debunking of the ANTZ lies. Every cloud has a silver lining *sweet smile*

It's DC2's fault: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...i-dont-know-how-long-thread-will-survive.html

 

[Jman8]

What he says is : ....'''' ...while the identification of a small but avoidable risk will alert the industry to resolve this issue permanently and effectively. '' ''

I think this statement is pretty clear, don't you ? Even more so the text I underlined don't you think so ?

Dr. F. (et. al) identified a small, avoidable risk. Instead of telling everyone which companies were having this particular risk, he has chosen to alert the entire industry. Whether or not it is resolved because Dr. F. has pointed it out remains to be seen.

But I don't see where he would advocate it be a mandatory change within the industry.

 

[Kent C]

It's DC2's fault: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...i-dont-know-how-long-thread-will-survive.html

I blame Cass Sunstein.

 

[WhiteHighlights]

Hey!
Welcome to any and all new folks to this forum. I was a new once too. I don't comment often, but I've learned a lot, gotten angry, felt my blood pressure rise and will do what I can to make my voice heard (admittedly it's not much at this time). There are some very, loud voices here with strong opinions. I agree with some, not so much with others, but that's OK by me. I wouldn't expect anything less.

The best part - all of the exchanges make me think and want to learn more (and maybe become a bit more cynical). So welcome new travelers to M&G! Enjoy the journey.

 

[WattWick]

Seems like most threads in this section started out in General and managed to accumulate a couple pages worth of Sourcewars and bile before being moved here. It may not be so much about this section as it is about the kinds of hot potatos end up here

Then again, there has been some very obvious trolling going on lately. It only takes a couple of irrational contrarians to bring out the worst in any message board.

 

[Anjaffm]

It's DC2's fault: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...i-dont-know-how-long-thread-will-survive.html

aha! *makes cranky face and points finger at DC2*

But actually, the anti-vaping sentiment and nonsense-talk in the "news" started before that date. Looks to me as if some people are getting bored of spouting their anti-vaping stuff in "general threads" and are looking for new horizons. Like kids with boom boxes getting bored of playing their rap music loudly in their street and traipsing on into a nice neighborhood, in search of people who may find that noise slightly irritating.

Seems like most threads in this section started out in General and managed to accumulate a couple pages worth of Sourcewars and bile before being moved here. It may not be so much about this section as it is about the kinds of hot potatos end up here
.

Some yes. Some no. I have recently found some nice, informative, interesting threads disturbed by.. yes, precisely this:

Then again, there has been some very obvious trolling going on lately.

Ah well, I for my part will just put in some earplugs to drown out the noise. I find loud rap music exceedingly tedious. And I have no intention of listening - or reacting - to it.

 

[BigEgo]

Find me a quote where Dr F. says there ought to be a mandate in place. Or one where he is saying consumers ought to take to task all vendors on this issue.

He has made it pretty clear he thinks diketones should be removed from e-liquid and has said that's it's relatively easy to do. I think I've seen him use the term "avoidable risk" numerous times.

I said if a scientist on our side is advocating for mandatory disclosure, they are doing the work of ANTZ.

So you think vendors should be able to put whatever they want into e-liquid without any oversight or recourse? Sorry, but that will do nothing but make the FDA come down harder and faster. We've already got some vendors putting sleeping aides in their eliquid, and others adding legalized pot substitutes. Where does it end?

I'm yet to see Dr. F. or Dr. K. suggest this, so I don't think they are doing the work of ANTZ. Instead, they are advocating customers avoid these type of flavors and suggesting vendors eliminate the hazard as it is an avoidable risk.

How are we going to "avoid" these liquids when A) the list of vendors is still secret and B) around 70% of all vendors have these chemicals in their juice lines? It seems kind of impossible for any of us to avoid anything. Short of DIY, we are at the mercy of the vendors "doing the right thing" and considering how much money is on the line, I don't think most of them will do anything unless they are forced to by law or by public exposure.

Cool. But when you advocate as such, you cease the role of being pure scientist. And so, I would ask, within context of this discussion what Dr. F (or Dr. K.) thinks ought to happen to vendors (or flavoring suppliers) who do not follow their guidance? I'm thinking they wouldn't suggest intervention by some third party to mandate such actions be complied with.

Dr. F contacted all the vendors who tested positive, told them about it and agreed not to go public so that they will have time to fix it. From my understanding he told them there will be a future followup and if the issue is still there, he will eventually go public. At least that's my understanding (I could be wrong about the ultimatum part). But eventually, he is going to have to release a list to the public if these vendors remain apathetic to the issue. I would bet 90% of these vendors have done nothing. Again, why should they? It takes money and they aren't going to spend money and/or rework their flavor lines. So, as you can see, regulation from the government is going to be our only option unless these vendors get their .... together.

 

[Jman8]

He has made it pretty clear he thinks diketones should be removed from e-liquid and has said that's it's relatively easy to do.

And I'm just asking for that quote and the context in which he said it. I recognize he has said "avoidable risk" but this is different from advocating that every vendor mandatorily remove this from their product line. I don't think Dr. F. has gone that far or would care to go that far. But there are scientists around who for sure will, or have.

So you think vendors should be able to put whatever they want into e-liquid without any oversight or recourse?

Nope, and don't believe I've implied otherwise.

How are we going to "avoid" these liquids when A) the list of vendors is still secret and B) around 70% of all vendors have these chemicals in their juice lines?

I believe the answer to this is to realize certain flavors are more likely to be culprits of 'problematic liquids' than others, and so the advice is to avoid those flavors altogether.

I think the sane response is that if you are truly concerned, you would avoid vaping altogether, just as you were told previously to avoid smoking altogether.

Me, I'm not overly concerned on these things and am a dual user.

Dr. F contacted all the vendors who tested positive, told them about it and agreed not to go public so that they will have time to fix it. From my understanding he told them there will be a future followup and if the issue is still there, he will eventually go public. At least that's my understanding (I could be wrong about the ultimatum part). But eventually, he is going to have to release a list to the public if these vendors remain apathetic to the issue. I would bet 90% of these vendors have done nothing. Again, why should they? It takes money and they aren't going to spend money and/or rework their flavor lines. So, as you can see, regulation from the government is going to be our only option unless these vendors get their .... together.

Disagree, strongly, about "our only option."

If Dr. F. goes the route that you are saying, I would emphatically state that he is not acting as a scientist by going that route. Up to him, and many thought he should've gone public with vendors in the first round. Some disagree with this. I think there is argument both ways. I wish he had gone public with it, but also realize why he did not, and it is what it is.

 

[Tangaroav]

And I'm just asking for that quote and the context in which he said it. I recognize he has said "avoidable risk" but this is different from advocating that every vendor mandatorily remove this from their product line. I don't think Dr. F. has gone that far or would care to go that far. But there are scientists around who for sure will, or have.

Here is, ( again), the exact quote of Dr. F. '' while the identification of a small but avoidable risk will alert the industry to resolve this issue permanently and effectively. ''

But then, why bother, you consider him an Antz.

I think the sane response is that if you are truly concerned, you would avoid vaping altogether, just as you were told previously to avoid smoking altogether.

Me, I'm not overly concerned on these things and am a dual user.

IMO, That explains why you think second hand smoke is not dangerous and why you don't mind vaping diketones . As you can see 85% of the vapers that voted on the diketone debate do care.

 

[Jman8]

Here is, ( again), the exact quote of Dr. F. '' while the identification of a small but avoidable risk will alert the industry to resolve this issue permanently and effectively. ''

And again, this quote isn't a) providing context and b) saying that Dr. F. thinks a mandatory change in the industry is needed. It is really a statement of hope.

As you can see 85% of the vapers that voted on the diketone debate do care.

And I specified in that thread that I care as well, but I care in a way that doesn't have my approach to the vaping market appear as aligned with the ANTZ approach to the vaping market.

 

[DrMA]

check out the retraction recently posted at the end of the article.

* An earlier version of this article stated that Japanese research had found that e-cigarettes contain 10 times more carcinogens than tobacco cigarettes. While the research did find high levels of formaldehyde in one brand of electronic cigarette, we would like to clarify that not all e-cigarettes contain 10 times more carcinogens than tobacco cigarettes. The study supports existing evidence that e-cigarettes are much less dangerous than tobacco products.

 

[Papa_Lazarou]

check out the retraction recently posted at the end of the article.

Can't wait for all the media outlets to jump on this and recant their hyperbole

The complete stranger who came up to me on the street last week to let me know about the 10x thing needs to know.

 

[Kent C]

Can't wait for all the media outlets to jump on this and recant their hyperbole

The complete stranger who came up to me on the street last week to let me know about the 10x thing needs to know.

I brought it up at Thanksgiving to an extended family dinner and almost all had heard of it/read about it and none were taken in by it from my earlier discussions and education about what was going on with ANTZ, gov't etc. I was proud of them. None are vapers or smokers - to my knowledge (although a few former smokers).

 

[Jman8]

Funny how journalism can get by with hyped up headlines, but the retraction is usually a footnote.

Seems akin to a bait and switch game.

I'd possibly favor a law that says retractions have to be treated as headlines in your publication/broadcast for 3 consecutive days after you discover the retraction is warranted.

 

[Papa_Lazarou]

Funny how journalism can get by with hyped up headlines, but the retraction is usually a footnote.

Seems akin to a bait and switch game.

I'd possibly favor a law that says retractions have to be treated as headlines in your publication/broadcast for 3 consecutive days after you discover the retraction is warranted.

Heh - proportional harm/reduction, then. Crazy talk. Why, next you'll be yammering on about proportional harm regulation for them there e-cigs.

 

[bigdancehawk]

This headline, although retracted, is still being spread all over the world. My sister-in-law, a clinical psychologist practicing in Philly, just forwarded an e-mail to me which she received from her friend in Poland. His email went out to over 100 of his contacts. They'll forward it to their contacts, and so on.