How do I get the nicotine kick?

[TropicalBob]

Mamba, I have major qualms about what we're doing. I've expressed them over and over in previous posts. We could wax Biblical about e-smoking: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.

That's us!

We are human guinea pigs for something not even well-tested in lab rats. I'm not talking about nicotine here, but propylene glycol, tobacco oil extracts and flavorings used in something we vaporize and inhale.

Its promise, however, is great. It's here now. I seem symptom-free. And while I don't know a great deal about the long-term consequneces of e-smoking, we all now know a great deal about the consequences of cigarette smoking.

 

[trog100]

a link to the e-cig site..

https://e-cig.com/shopping/shopcontent.asp?type=certifications

whether it means much i dont know.. does anything the chinese say mean much.. ????.. but at least they say it..

trog

ps.. as for is it safe or should we be doing it.. the immediate cessation of my nasty and increasingly worryiing cough was enough for me.. i am 100% certain i should be doing it at least as an alternative to my tobacco smoking.. stopping was never on the cards for me.. i never would have

 

[Nazareth]

i am 100% certain i should be doing it at least as an alternative to my tobacco smoking.. stopping was never on the cards for me.. i never would have

But could it be causign somethign much more severe? Soem silent cancer growing unawares in us that we don't have the slightest clue about? I too was gettign hte worrying cough, and havign trouble bringing up lung gunk, and I too have seen a dramatic decrease in this since beign able to cut down on regular ciggs thanks ot esmoking, but that doesn't mean I am 100% better off using hte product, as it may be causign somethign equally as deadly that just won't manifest itself for a number of years to come-

I'm not saying htat the devices and vapor will do htis, but we just don't know yet- Yep- We breathe a bit easier, don't cough up lubng gunk, and soem report more energy, but hte jury is still in recess o nthe issue

Mamabe- I had read that before too- but thte performers really have no medical studies to bakc hteir claims up- Some performers simply are allergic to the stuff and won't have life-threatening effects probably liek htey would if exposed to second hand smoke- they just have simpel allergies- most performers who are exposed to hte stuff repeatedly have no reaction. I don;'t equate allergic reactiosn with unsafe claims- they are overblowing hteir claims

 

[MacFan]

TB and MacFan, I understand that it's probably safer than ciggies. So far as my question: How are the carcinogens removed? it sounds like that is too complicated for homebrewing - my interpretation of your replies.

Bob, you also said, essentially, that all our carts/liquids still contain tobacco carcinogens except Ruyan, as far as we know - do I understand that correctly? Doesn't this mean that the whole industry, except Ruyan products directly from Ruyan, is based on a lie, that we are only taking in nicotine and PG? And I've been repeating a lie to my family and friends? And propagating it here on the board to smokers who want to be off tobacco carcinogens? That matters to me a great deal.

MacFan, are you going to have your liquid tested (and disclose the results)? If you addressed this elsewhere, my apologies, and feel free to reply with a link. I've missed lots of threads.

Jamie,
Sorry it took me so long to get back to the thread. Your question is valid to say the least, and I think the best way I can answer it is to say that nobody know for an absolute certainty that there are no carcinogens in just about anything we consume.
So, I think we need to do the next best thing; which is to conduct our due diligence (in my case, I had our Johnson Creek samples checked by a chemical analysis firm for nicotine and safety) and most of all, use common sense. I know these sounds overly simplistic for such a serious subject, but I just believe that you do the absolute maximum you know how to do, and that's it.
I really don't think there's anybody on these forums who believes that hot-smoking is less dangerous than e-smoking. Thus, we're at least on the right track...

 

[jamie]

Thank you for responding MacFan, I appreciate it. My comments aren't just personal to you or about your products, but my opinion regarding all eliquids and manufacturers. I use juice and am happy to have more options.

Agree with your comment about carcinogens, but not as applied to this industry. The industry standard for tobacco related products is measurement of tobacco-specific nitrosamines. I think such measurement and disclosure is a minimum, reasonable expectation.

Beyond TSNs, many on the forum have called for eliquid ingredient disclosures. I still agree with that request.

 

[TropicalBob]

Jamie: Dr. Laugesen's second interim report reveals the TSNAs of Ruyan liquids. And I have copied reports of TSNA tests for cigarettes, moist and dry snus, and Stonewall. Among tobacco items, Stonewell is safest with an extremely low level of TSNAs; Wise portion snus is next; then Oliver Twist Tropical tobacco pieces. All are far lower than cigarettes (commerical or RYO), dip or moist snus.

But the kicker is that most TSNA measurements are reported as so many parts per million. When Dr. Laugesen did his tests, the results were so low that he expressed them as parts per billion. Inhaling e-vapor is a thousand times safer than inhaling a cigarette, according to his figures. E-smoking is far less hazardous than any other alternative to smoking tobacco.

I'm comfortable with that, from a carcinogenic point of view. Now we await only his final report on volatile organic compounds, and the impact, if it can be measured, of repeated inhalation of propylene glycol.

 

[TheEmperorOfIceCream]

Hi Bob

If Mac's vegetable glycerin versions of the juice stand up from a vapour and flavour point of view, would you consider abandoning PG-based liquid, given the longer track record of inhaled VG? (think I know the answer here, what I'm really asking is how much of the qualitative experience would you be prepared to sacrifice in favour of a safer but perhaps less 'real' substitute?)

Emp

 

[values84]

Hi Bob

If Mac's vegetable glycerin versions of the juice stand up from a vapour and flavour point of view, would you consider abandoning PG-based liquid, given the longer track record of inhaled VG? (think I know the answer here, what I'm really asking is how much of the qualitative experience would you be prepared to sacrifice in favour of a safer but perhaps less 'real' substitute?)

Emp

well i myself would at lest ck it out
oops see they have a non pg option on there website. gatta have it, gatta have it
bye

 

[jamie]

the kicker is that most TSNA measurements are reported as so many parts per million. When Dr. Laugesen did his tests, the results were so low that he expressed them as parts per billion. Inhaling e-vapor is a thousand times safer than inhaling a cigarette, according to his figures. E-smoking is far less hazardous than any other alternative to smoking tobacco.

Mostly I think that's true, so I'm now an esmoker. Good point about the million vs. billion - that's substantial!

Still, we can't take measurements from one product and apply them to another. If Dr. Laugesen does his tests on Johnson Creek then we can apply his results to Johnson Creek and not before. Same with all the manufacturers.

Right now we're stretching it oftentimes given the lack of disclosure, ingredient lists, and testing across the board save Ruyan. Well, I know you know this, it's been discussed and more than once.

If Mac's vegetable glycerin versions of the juice....

Is that verified somewhere? I saw Mac's announcement here in two threads and went to the website also - all I see is PG and Not PG, not validation of VG...

 

[TropicalBob]

I don't know what Macfan is using in place of PG. And we've never really had an explanation of why PG was chosen by liquid makers in the first place. I think most people assumed cost was a basis, along with the generally good track record of PG for all types of applications. I didn't react to PG, and haven't reacted to my VG use either. So it's a tossup to me.

Course, Jamie is right about testing. That's why I always specify Ruyan. Only Ruyan is doing clinical trials and reporting the results.

Here's what I'd like: Lab testing certification on the bottle of liquid; an expiration or "best used by" date; a complete list of all ingredients on a box the bottle comes in; a recommendation to refrigerate the liquid; sealed plastic, never glass, vials (and they'll need to be childproof); a warning of PG side effects and any other side effects of any ingredient in the mix.

I don't think they I'd get many takers if I bet that everything I just mentioned will be required by the U.S. government if these things stand any chance at all of continuing to be sold in the future.

Some of you might have seen on the Dutch forum that an ad hit TV and that was the beginning of trouble. The anti's hadn't noticed e-cigs until then. Now they're under fire. The same will happen here as soon as they're noticed.

 

[jamie]

Mac responded about the non-PG formula: What is in the Non-PG?

 

[dnakr]

And here:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...525-johnson-creek-smoke-juice-now-live-5.html

 

[blueshakes]

Whatever happen to the apple nicotine extraction method. Did it work?

 

[blueshakes]

Don't leave me hanging. I need to know if the apple extraction experiment worked.