Was wondering that myself. Would like for them to believe that is most popular and then they cap it at that amount, not realizing that 1.2% is likely the most popular.
FDA FDA e-cig workshop starts 8AM (Eastern US time) on Dec 10, agenda stacked with staff from FDA and other federal agencies and many ANTZ
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Was wondering that myself. Would like for them to believe that is most popular and then they cap it at that amount, not realizing that 1.2% is likely the most popular.
This guy hasn't a clue. In order to access environmental impact, one has to take into account what it is, that at new product is replacing. I'd ask him what he would prefer. I have eGo batteries that have lasted me two years. Let's say I use four in those two years and a coil for each month. That's four batts and 96 coils in two years. I was a 3 pack a day smoker so these numbers will be over normal cigarette use but that's over 40,000 butts with filters. And who knows the amount of smoke with all it's ingredients - for 'eco-types' lots of carbon monoxide vs. vapors components.
The listing of PG, VG, flavorings and nicotine makes no sense at all since those are mostly consumed except the containers, which in my DIY case are reused.
IF the recent study that shows an 18% smoking cessation rate and if that is allowed to continue, see Bonnie Herzog, the rate of transfer from cigarettes to ecigs may be 'complete' in another 10 to 20 years. Then, with your 'forward leaning' views, access the difference between people smoking and vaping. How about reporting that - the reality of what is happening vs. the fear mongering based on flawed eco-idiocy.
The listing of PG, VG, flavorings and nicotine makes no sense at all since those are mostly consumed except the containers, which in my DIY case are reused.
IF the recent study that shows an 18% smoking cessation rate and if that is allowed to continue, see Bonnie Herzog, the rate of transfer from cigarettes to ecigs may be 'complete' in another 10 to 20 years. Then, with your 'forward leaning' views, access the difference between people smoking and vaping. How about reporting that - the reality of what is happening vs. the fear mongering based on flawed eco-idiocy.
I like the idea of rechargeable batteries being sent back to the vendor, but realize that won't work in all (perhaps most) cases. But in the last 3 years of my vaping, I've had about 10 batteries die on me. All 10 of those were sent back to the original vendor. Only time I've thrown a battery away is when I bought 3 to 4 disposables in my first month of vaping.
Cell phones, tablets, laptops, iPads, MP3 players, cordless drills, electric toothbrushes, flashlights, etc.....
The "environmental impact" nonsense is the latest addition to the "for the children" argument. Another specious, unverifiable claim based solely on Chang's own unsubstantiated speculation and alarmist opinion disguised to look as if it were evidence: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3995274/
I see it more as 'widening' interests - for those who care about the environment more than children - so as to hit all bases. I could speculate what other groups might be addressed, but I'll just leave that to imagination - to stay in line with what appears to be the intent of this workshop.
Why are they talking about lableing of medical devices here. The "deeming" reg is not proposing to treat e-cigs as medical devices.
It may be like the one guy stated: "Unfortunately, I don't know much about e-cigarettes."
On worn out batteries, mine go in the dead battery box at the local home depot. I just put them in a small zip lock bag and drop them when I go there.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 68
My connection went dead awhile ago, and I cannot reconnect. Perhaps the workshop is over now.
Doubt if we're missing any useful info, and the last 6 speakers on the agenda are all federal bureaucrats and regulators who know nothing about e-cigs or cigarettes.
Doubt if we're missing any useful info, and the last 6 speakers on the agenda are all federal bureaucrats and regulators who know nothing about e-cigs or cigarettes.
Last edited:
Thanks Bill and JustMe.... I think you're right - finished a bit early:
December 11, 2014
8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
I think close captioning might be done by computer algorithm as Youtube videos.
Yea! They dropped me. I don't take it personally. 
Scrambled to find my way back and only lost about two or three minutes. The .pdf on the entry page had alternate links. Who would have thought!
Hope this helps:
FDA8.mp3 Runs for 147:04 (FDA dropped connection at 147:04). Starts with Protective Packaging: General Packaging Considerations and concludes with Labeling Considerations for Battery Powered Devices.
FDA9.mp3 Runs for 4:43 (Reestablished connection). Resumes and ends with Labeling Considerations for Battery Powered Devices. This concludes day 2.
Boy am I glad that's over! After a long nap it's time to listen to more of it.
Scrambled to find my way back and only lost about two or three minutes. The .pdf on the entry page had alternate links. Who would have thought!
Hope this helps:
FDA8.mp3 Runs for 147:04 (FDA dropped connection at 147:04). Starts with Protective Packaging: General Packaging Considerations and concludes with Labeling Considerations for Battery Powered Devices.
FDA9.mp3 Runs for 4:43 (Reestablished connection). Resumes and ends with Labeling Considerations for Battery Powered Devices. This concludes day 2.
Boy am I glad that's over! After a long nap it's time to listen to more of it.
I'm considering putting it on disk and selling it as an insomnia remedy.
AND - thanks for the recordings!
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 68
Greg Conley gave the following presentation during the public comment period this morning..
Good morning. My name is Gregory Conley and I am the President of the American Vaping Association, a nonprofit organization that advocates on behalf of small and medium-sized businesses in the vapor market. Thank you for having me today. Before I begin, I must say that as a longtime follower of the science on vapor products, I was disappointed in the level of scientific discourse displayed yesterday by numerous anti-harm reduction and anti-vaping presenters, as well as the inability of independent researchers who have published some of the most significant work on vapor products to give full presentations.
As an organization, we agree that continued research into vapor products is necessary. We encourage this research. However, as we saw in 2009 when the FDA misled the public on the hazards of the NRT-like levels of ‘nitrosamines’ found in e-cigarette cartridges -- a study that continues to be used to this day to justify harsh actions against vapor products -- such research becomes dangerous when it is spun to create the false perception of a material level of harm. The FDA’s misrepresentation was one of the first in the U.S., but it was not the last. Hype and conjecture surrounding e-cigarette toxicity has led us to a place where in 2013, 60% of the public thought vaping was less hazardous than smoking. This is down 25% from 2010, when 80% of the public accurately believed vaping was less hazardous. This lack of understanding is not because of a lack of regulation, but because of false claims made by those seeking harsh regulation.
Even worse, this research is hazardous from the onset when it is performed by researchers with no familiarity with the products or willingness to even speak to users to understand how the products work. Unlike with cigarette smoking, at the present time there is no generally acceptable standard for testing vaping products. So we find ourselves in a situation where researchers are presenting data on the toxicity of vapor that has been produced using unrealistic device settings that no vaper would actually use. When relying on evidence in such a new and fast developing field, the FDA should critically analyze each and every study and not just assume that passing “peer review” makes the study automatically valid.
Importantly, we do not encourage more research because we fear that vaping may be more hazardous than smoking. Instead, we want to find out the relative risks of different classes of products, and in the process we believe all players should keep in mind that the hazards of these products must be compared to cigarettes. This is what the primary stakeholders in this dialogue – smokers and vapers -- deserve, but instead they are being discouraged by a small group that is using falsely-alarming language.
The greatest danger is that excessive regulatory reaction to minute risks will compromise the appeal of vaping to smokers and we end up with more smoking than we would have had without such regulation.
Good morning. My name is Gregory Conley and I am the President of the American Vaping Association, a nonprofit organization that advocates on behalf of small and medium-sized businesses in the vapor market. Thank you for having me today. Before I begin, I must say that as a longtime follower of the science on vapor products, I was disappointed in the level of scientific discourse displayed yesterday by numerous anti-harm reduction and anti-vaping presenters, as well as the inability of independent researchers who have published some of the most significant work on vapor products to give full presentations.
As an organization, we agree that continued research into vapor products is necessary. We encourage this research. However, as we saw in 2009 when the FDA misled the public on the hazards of the NRT-like levels of ‘nitrosamines’ found in e-cigarette cartridges -- a study that continues to be used to this day to justify harsh actions against vapor products -- such research becomes dangerous when it is spun to create the false perception of a material level of harm. The FDA’s misrepresentation was one of the first in the U.S., but it was not the last. Hype and conjecture surrounding e-cigarette toxicity has led us to a place where in 2013, 60% of the public thought vaping was less hazardous than smoking. This is down 25% from 2010, when 80% of the public accurately believed vaping was less hazardous. This lack of understanding is not because of a lack of regulation, but because of false claims made by those seeking harsh regulation.
Even worse, this research is hazardous from the onset when it is performed by researchers with no familiarity with the products or willingness to even speak to users to understand how the products work. Unlike with cigarette smoking, at the present time there is no generally acceptable standard for testing vaping products. So we find ourselves in a situation where researchers are presenting data on the toxicity of vapor that has been produced using unrealistic device settings that no vaper would actually use. When relying on evidence in such a new and fast developing field, the FDA should critically analyze each and every study and not just assume that passing “peer review” makes the study automatically valid.
Importantly, we do not encourage more research because we fear that vaping may be more hazardous than smoking. Instead, we want to find out the relative risks of different classes of products, and in the process we believe all players should keep in mind that the hazards of these products must be compared to cigarettes. This is what the primary stakeholders in this dialogue – smokers and vapers -- deserve, but instead they are being discouraged by a small group that is using falsely-alarming language.
The greatest danger is that excessive regulatory reaction to minute risks will compromise the appeal of vaping to smokers and we end up with more smoking than we would have had without such regulation.
Wow! What an efficient use of the language. So many essential points packed into 5 paragraphs with great effect. Well done, Greg.
Thanks Bill!
Thanks Bill!
I think that is a lot of it, yes. These people are so used to living in their own echo chamber, and they have never in their life made a serious study or thought project of ethics or general American civics. Thus it does not even occur to distinguish between "how I want the world to be" and "how others wants the world to be", let alone ask "do I have a right to use force to make the world more like I want it in this particular case?"
And "public health" people literally do not understand the difference between describing the world and making normative pronouncements about the world. 99% of the people who go into research in that field (I am a rare exception) do so based on wanting to engineer the world, not to understand it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
