Yeah, exhale not inhale.....
"However, unlike smoking, e-cigarette use commonly involves nasal exhalation"
Ecigs May Affect Genes in Airways
- Thread starter Bob Chill
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Yeah, exhale not inhale.....
"However, unlike smoking, e-cigarette use commonly involves nasal exhalation"
When ever I'm on a tootie puffing kick I French inhale a fair amount with no problems. But to jam it up my nose? That's just wrong......
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
Luckily I have no problem with inhaling through or out the nose,mouth to lung,straight
to lung or any of that,just like when I smoked.
After almost three years smoke free the things that irritate my lungs,throat,nose
and,eyes the most are aftershave,deodorants and cologne. I didn't have those
issues when I smoked.
Regards
Mike
Can't say that I've ever tried vaping by shoving my provari up my nose. I inhale via my mouth, but I guess there's all sorts at Harvard….. (For myself, I feel the conclusions don't compare enough variables to take it as anything other than more junk).
That is completely irrational. For what reason would they spend money supposedly putting "thousands of toxic chemicals" in cigarettes? It proves you uncritically swallow (and regurgitate) anti-smoker propaganda.
No it isn't. As any "net" (natural extracted tobacco) vaper knows, harvests vary from year to year and can have a dramatic impact on flavor, just like grapes or coffee for example. The tobacco industry pumps in a bunch of chemicals to standardize the flavor, so that a Marlboro will always "taste" like a Marlboro.
The list of toxic chemicals is easy to find if you look for it online.
What's In Cigarette Smoke?
Cigarette smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, including 43 known cancer-causing (carcinogenic) compounds and 400 other toxins. These include nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide, as well as formaldehyde, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, and DDT.
What's In a Cigarette, 599 Ingredients in a Cigarette
What Chemicals Are In Cigarette Smoke?
A Disturbing List of Toxic Chemicals in Cigarettes
Check it out for yourself, unless you are in denial. BTW, I'm not anti-smoker, I'm anti-smoking. I've been there and done that for over 30 years, which is why I'm against it now.
Last edited:
In @CarolT 's defense most of those chemicals are in natural tobacco or
are created by the combustion process. They routinely stripped out most of
the nicotine and re-added it later in the process because as we all know as
vapers nicotine content can and does affect the taste.Precise control of the nicotine
content in conjunction with other processes is what makes a Marlboro a Marlboro
and not a Winston. And while everyone is looking for a reason to chop off our
heads lets make cigarettes even more addictive. Seems legit.
Regards
Mike
are created by the combustion process. They routinely stripped out most of
the nicotine and re-added it later in the process because as we all know as
vapers nicotine content can and does affect the taste.Precise control of the nicotine
content in conjunction with other processes is what makes a Marlboro a Marlboro
and not a Winston. And while everyone is looking for a reason to chop off our
heads lets make cigarettes even more addictive. Seems legit.
Regards
Mike
Agreed x100. I've never seen a breakdown of what is natural vs what is added. That would be quite useful data
Worth reading, imo:
Cigarette - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of additives in cigarettes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the list of 599 additives in cigarettes submitted to the United States Department of Health and Human Services in April 1994.
One significant issue is that while all these chemical compounds have been approved as additives to food, they were not tested by burning. Burning changes the properties of chemicals. More than 4,000 chemical compounds are created by burning a cigarette, 69 of which are carcinogenic.
---
It's not as some suppose - 4000 chemicals "added" to each cigarette. And the "599 additives" used aren't all used in each cigarette - most are flavorings just like in eliquid. And as such, only those flavors used will produce only a partial list of the "4000" when burned,*** not all 4000, depending on what flavors are used for a particular brand. It could be just 2 or 3 for one brand. And maybe no added carcinogens. Or maybe all 2 or 3.
"Various additives are combined into the shredded tobacco product mixtures, with humectants such as propylene glycol or glycerol", and don't have all the flavorings that can be added. "A perfume-like flavour/fragrance, called the "topping" or "toppings", which is most often formulated by flavor companies, is then blended into the tobacco mixture to improve the consistency in flavour and taste of the cigarettes associated with a certain brand name."
What is interesting, imo, is that HHS has approved all 599 additives and they evidently didn't demand that testing be done on burning of them which is something that will absolutely happen with cigarettes, and will not happen with ecigs except in high wattage and dry hit conditions - the last of which has been handled well by veteran vapers (and even newbie vapers) either by using Temp Control or just knowing (or finding out) how dry hits occur.
Yet the PMTA's that the vendors/manufacturers of ecigs will have to do, mandated to do, is show with testing, that such cases are not harmful to the vaper or the general population.
*** Peter Hajek:
"When a chicken is burned, the resulting black crisp will contain carcinogens but that does not mean that chicken are carcinogenic."
Last edited:
The reason I'm against smoking, as opposed to smokers, is what it did to me and those I love. I don't care about what's natural and what's not in cigarettes. Ebola is all-natural, that don't mean I want it. There's enough in those smokes that's not natural and that's plain toxic for me. I ended up with really serious health problems from smoking. They went away after I started vaping instead. I'm pro-smoker in that I want them to turn to vaping to quit smoking and save their health and their lives.
You can politicize this all you like, making an issue of "smoker's rights" but the health damage goes on and on, and people keep dying from it. Now we have the FDA and ANTZ making war on vaping because they "just don't know the risks" they say, while the risks of smoking have been well known for decades, and so has the death toll. So don't give me this bit about "smoker's rights, and being anti-smoker. That's just a straw-man argument and a lot of smoke. To accuse me of being anti-smokers is just support for suicide on the installment plan with your head buried in the sand.
If you want to keep smoking and politically co-opt vaping into that for support I'm not with you. Sorry. It's your call, your health, and your life, but let's not pretend that vaping is equal to smoking, or that smoking deserves the support of vapers, because it's just not so.
You can politicize this all you like, making an issue of "smoker's rights" but the health damage goes on and on, and people keep dying from it. Now we have the FDA and ANTZ making war on vaping because they "just don't know the risks" they say, while the risks of smoking have been well known for decades, and so has the death toll. So don't give me this bit about "smoker's rights, and being anti-smoker. That's just a straw-man argument and a lot of smoke. To accuse me of being anti-smokers is just support for suicide on the installment plan with your head buried in the sand.
If you want to keep smoking and politically co-opt vaping into that for support I'm not with you. Sorry. It's your call, your health, and your life, but let's not pretend that vaping is equal to smoking, or that smoking deserves the support of vapers, because it's just not so.
Last edited:
@Vaslovik your points are very valid.
I personally do not attach so much emotional baggage to the issue.
Did BT add more nicotine and process tobacco to make it even
more addictive and dangerous then when it wasn't done?
Did they do it deliberately? Does it mater? Wasn't cigarette
smoking considered just as dangerous prior to all this?
What's the qualitative difference between your going to die
from that from your going to die from that,maybe quicker?
I am certain that cigarette smoking at the population level
is harmful. I also believe the harm caused at the population
level has been exaggerated maybe grossly so. I also know
that this doesn't count for beans at an individual level.
We both have had issues and thankfully were around at a time
when vaping came along. I shudder to think if my time here was
set in an earlier time.
Regards
Mike
I personally do not attach so much emotional baggage to the issue.
Did BT add more nicotine and process tobacco to make it even
more addictive and dangerous then when it wasn't done?
Did they do it deliberately? Does it mater? Wasn't cigarette
smoking considered just as dangerous prior to all this?
What's the qualitative difference between your going to die
from that from your going to die from that,maybe quicker?
I am certain that cigarette smoking at the population level
is harmful. I also believe the harm caused at the population
level has been exaggerated maybe grossly so. I also know
that this doesn't count for beans at an individual level.
We both have had issues and thankfully were around at a time
when vaping came along. I shudder to think if my time here was
set in an earlier time.
Regards
Mike
Well Mike, I guess you didn't end up where I did with smoking. Emotional baggage? That's a nasty thing to say about it. I'm guessing you are on board with those seeking to link smoking with vaping politically. I see THAT as baggage where vaping is concerned and a shabby attempt to hitch your political cart to our horse and drag us down for your sake. I've seen that before and I've not just fallen off the turnip truck.
I saw this same political move attempted by NAMBLA in the early 90's when they tried to hitch-hike on the LGBT movement in San Francisco. It's the very same strategy, with the very same motivation. It failed then, it will fail now. People aren't as stupid as you might think.
Vaping was invented as a way to get away from smoking and in so doing save your health and your life. So when you come back at me claiming that the harm from smoking is exaggerated your position is quite obvious. I don't care to see any more of your content because I know what my health was when I was smoking, because of smoking, and what it is now 3 years after I had my last cigarette, and here you come trying to minimize that, calling it "emotional baggage", and trying to justify smoking, POLITICALLY equating it with vaping. Sorry, I'm not buying it at all.
Best of luck to you.
Last edited:
@Vaslovik Wait one. I wasn't calling you out in any way.
I was explaining my position on the subject. Some others
may feel the same way or not. I most certainly was not accusing
you or your viewpoints of anything.
My beliefs are well founded if not universally popular. I am
61 years old. I lived through the pre-ban and anti smoking days
to the present and in between. Ashtrays at the end of the grocery
store aisle to endless debates about cloud bro's ambushing grandma
and the babies in the cereal aisle at Walmart. A 66% drop in smoking
rates since the 1960's that doesn't show a drop in the yearly death
rate of 450,000 a year is a clear indication somethings not right.
That rate has remained steady for 20 years. Smoking rates are still declining.
Does this make me right? No. Does this make me wrong? No.
It is what it is.
Regards
Mike
I was explaining my position on the subject. Some others
may feel the same way or not. I most certainly was not accusing
you or your viewpoints of anything.
My beliefs are well founded if not universally popular. I am
61 years old. I lived through the pre-ban and anti smoking days
to the present and in between. Ashtrays at the end of the grocery
store aisle to endless debates about cloud bro's ambushing grandma
and the babies in the cereal aisle at Walmart. A 66% drop in smoking
rates since the 1960's that doesn't show a drop in the yearly death
rate of 450,000 a year is a clear indication somethings not right.
That rate has remained steady for 20 years. Smoking rates are still declining.
Does this make me right? No. Does this make me wrong? No.
It is what it is.
Regards
Mike
I have a sneaky suspicion that every death of every former or current smoker by any natural cause, or perhaps due to certain illnesses, is tabulated as a smoking related death.@Vaslovik Wait one. I wasn't calling you out in any way.
I was explaining my position on the subject. Some others
may feel the same way or not. I most certainly was not accusing
you or your viewpoints of anything.
My beliefs are well founded if not universally popular. I am
61 years old. I lived through the pre-ban and anti smoking days
to the present and in between. Ashtrays at the end of the grocery
store aisle to endless debates about cloud bro's ambushing grandma
and the babies in the cereal aisle at Walmart. A 66% drop in smoking
rates since the 1960's that doesn't show a drop in the yearly death
rate of 450,000 a year is a clear indication somethings not right.
That rate has remained steady for 20 years. Smoking rates are still declining.
Does this make me right? No. Does this make me wrong? No.
It is what it is.
Regards
Mike
My mother died of a stroke in her 70s. She was a smoker at least up to a year or two before her death. I doubt if the attending physician put much thought into the cause of her stroke. I have no doubt he checked the "smoking related death" check box and called it a day.
The prolonged effects of decades of smoking can arrive at any time. I still fear them myself, yet I will not make political use of vaping and this forum for political support of continued smoking.
Last edited:
So do I. But that does not mean every smoker that has a stroke is a smoking related illness. Leading to the question of how those stats are put together. Like @skoony I try to take a dispassionate view toward these things, particularly in public speech. That does not mean I don't have strong feelings, I just try to keep it out of the discussion. My father died of lung cancer before his time. Plenty of emotion there, but no place for it in a discussion of statistical accuracy and possible related political motivations. Just my own style.
Can you link to the information you are citing? And was population growth taken into consideration? There are a lot more people alive today than ever before in recorded history so if smoking rates had remained steady and the population grows it still shows a growth in the smoking rate.A 66% drop in smoking
rates since the 1960's that doesn't show a drop in the yearly death
rate of 450,000 a year is a clear indication somethings not right.
That rate has remained steady for 20 years. Smoking rates are still declining.
Does this make me right? No. Does this make me wrong? No.
It is what it is.
Regards
Mike
- Status
Similar threads
