Hey guys!
- Thread starter Ryan Owen
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- vaping vaping &help!!!!!
- Status
Can’t read it because the link is just a pic, so I am unable to have an opinion. Welcome to the fourm though 
Welcome Ryan. Use the search engine, there is likely already a thread where the article has been posted and discussed. Or post your thoughts and questions here for discussion.
Hi and welcome,
It's okay. About what I would expect from a website operating on a commission basis. (MIG and Halo are a bit over represented)
Did you have any questions or concerns after reading the article?
Cheers
I
Attachments
Last edited:
Welcome to ECF, Ryan Owen.
I consider nicotine to be not any more addictive than breathing or caffeine. In fact, I consider nicotine to be WAY LESS addictive than breathing..
I am not one of the 'we'. I know nicotine doesn't cause cancer, and therefore I don't consider it to be a carcinogen.
I consider nicotine to be not any more addictive than breathing or caffeine. In fact, I consider nicotine to be WAY LESS addictive than breathing..
Here's the article the Op tried to post:
Vaping vs Smoking - Vaping Daily
I found the article to be unbiased and informative, keeping in mind it was written for a vaping website.
Any part of the article you'd like to discuss?
Vaping vs Smoking - Vaping Daily
I found the article to be unbiased and informative, keeping in mind it was written for a vaping website.
Any part of the article you'd like to discuss?
Overall, a pretty Balanced Article.
But I was Surprised to see UCSF and Slantz referenced as a source of "information".
"The University of California San Francisco’s Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education has identified nine chemicals in the vapor from e-cigarettes that are on California’s list of carcinogens and reproductive toxins. Not all of these chemicals are found in all vape juice. It should also be noted that this warning is meant to bring awareness to some of the potential dangers and not to actively discourage users from vaping. Simply put, it shows that there are still studies needed to determine exactly how safe vaping is compared to cigarettes."
Vaping vs. Smoking – Choosing the Lesser of Two Evils?
I think the statement below which was in the Comment section shows the Disparity between what Slantz pawns off as Science, and the Reality of Fear Based Propaganda.
Results: We found that the e-cigarette vapours contained some toxic substances. The levels of the toxicants were 9–450 times lower than in cigarette smoke and were, in many cases, comparable with trace amounts found in the reference product.
Conclusions: Our findings are consistent with the idea that substituting tobacco cigarettes with e-cigarettes may substantially reduce exposure to selected tobacco-specific toxicants. E-cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy among smokers unwilling to quit, warrants further study.
9 chemicals identified so far in e-cig vapor that are on the California Prop 65 list of carcinogens and reproductive toxins | Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education
But I was Surprised to see UCSF and Slantz referenced as a source of "information".
"The University of California San Francisco’s Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education has identified nine chemicals in the vapor from e-cigarettes that are on California’s list of carcinogens and reproductive toxins. Not all of these chemicals are found in all vape juice. It should also be noted that this warning is meant to bring awareness to some of the potential dangers and not to actively discourage users from vaping. Simply put, it shows that there are still studies needed to determine exactly how safe vaping is compared to cigarettes."
Vaping vs. Smoking – Choosing the Lesser of Two Evils?
I think the statement below which was in the Comment section shows the Disparity between what Slantz pawns off as Science, and the Reality of Fear Based Propaganda.
Results: We found that the e-cigarette vapours contained some toxic substances. The levels of the toxicants were 9–450 times lower than in cigarette smoke and were, in many cases, comparable with trace amounts found in the reference product.
Conclusions: Our findings are consistent with the idea that substituting tobacco cigarettes with e-cigarettes may substantially reduce exposure to selected tobacco-specific toxicants. E-cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy among smokers unwilling to quit, warrants further study.
9 chemicals identified so far in e-cig vapor that are on the California Prop 65 list of carcinogens and reproductive toxins | Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education
Welcome and glad you joined.
The article is better than most with regards to the truth as I see it. Below is a faster read though:
VapeWild Test Results
For the some of the good news:
American Cancer Society Position Statement on Electronic Cigarettes
E-cigs 'definitely' safer than smoking
Vaping is the reason for massive decline in UK smoking
Government legalises e-cigarettes in effort to make New Zealand smokefree by 2025
New CDC Study: E Cig Vapor Does Not Contain Harmful Levels of Toxins ---New CDC Study, Vapor Contains No Toxic Chem
For the bad part of the article, the AMA:
Appendix: Definitions* “Tobacco product” means:
"It is important to note that this definition would include e-cigarettes, even if they do not contain nicotine. Thus, subsection (b) refers to “any electronic device that delivers nicotine or other substances” ".
How can any group of academics obfuscate folks with two very different compounds under one label and give credence* to it as tobacco? It's akin to saying any compound containing oxygen and carbon might be classified as a Tobacco product.
- Status
Similar threads
