I need some research help for an article on e-cigarettes and children

[MacTechVpr]

Read quite some time ago that the residual nic in a single analog filter is enough to result in morbidity for a child. Don't know what that concentration might amount to in mg. A starting point. Accordingly why I quit smoking in my home when my child was born many years back. Good luck.

p.s. Kept the kids and cats clear of the dieffenbachia too. But that risk has been greatly exaggerated as well.

 

[Down-Time]

This is a wonderful short-term investigation on vaping. Among other tests, they performed an air quality test within a sealed chamber, which had 2 people vaping inside it.

Very interesting.

 

[HazyShades]

Ugg! This is where I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall. I did not read the toxicology report. I did not read the autopsy report. I do not know what pre-existing conditions this child had. All I read was the most recent news article attributing the death to unflavored 100mg liquid nicotine with no tamper proof cap (even if there was a cap). This was a toddler, not an adult so the amount needed to kill them is less. As to the taste, toddlers are poisoned from eating cigarette butts, drinking cleaning fluid, swallowing hair relaxer, and sipping gasoline. All of which must taste worse that your bottle of Unicorn Piss e-juice. Kids, especially toddlers, put all kinds of crap in their mouths.

Politically we must assume that the reported cause of death is accurate until more information comes out. (If you have more information, please let me know). However, I will not wait until it comes out. I will give them that this tragedy is a direct cause of parental negligence and toxicity caused by unflavored industrial strength liquid nicotine. That said, there are 400+ infants that die each year as a direct cause from smoking. We are spending way too much time talking about this one tragedy. Since this child's death, 600 other infants have died from their parents smoking. Let's start talking about those deaths.

You didn't read the toxicology reports
or check the toddler's medical history..?
Gee Doc, aren't you failing to consider some variables there?
Ok, I got that you got that you should have.

I disagree that politically you must accept a news report as accurate.
Sensationalism runs rampant even in allegedly unbiased media.

As far as toddlers being poisoned from eating or drinking things
we might consider distasteful; Cigarette buts are kind of salty,
tobacco doesn't necessarily taste bitter. People chew tobacco, ingest snuff. I've eaten a .... or two as a child. LOL.

Cleaning fluid is sweet. I counseled elementary school children from the inner city
who were into {moderated} cleaning fluids to get high. These were children
9, 10, 11 years old who not only liked the high but enjoyed the taste and smell of the cleaning fluids and transmission oil they used to get high.
I'll grant you hair relaxer if it tastes anything like it smells
and gasoline.

While I don't doubt that hundreds, if the report is correct 400+, and 600 hundred more as you allege have died from their parents smoking
( in what way? 2nd hand smoking? Falling asleep in bed and burning down the house? Dad beat them up for stealing his pack of smokes?
Not being facetious, specify.) and this one child died allegedly from his parents negligence, I wonder how many children die each year from their parents negligence that has nothing to do with either smoking or vaping.
"Little Johnny was left in the hot car in Miami while his dentist father stopped in his office and forgot the child"
"Mom got distracted and baby decided to go in the gorilla's pen..."
"A {something} mom ran over to her dealer''s house to buy drugs
and forgot Joey was alone in the house and Joey ate her stash."

"Grandma took a nap and Liam ate his uncle's bipolar meds cause they look like M&M's"
"Dad backed over little Linda on her tricycle
'cause he was late for work and didn't use his rear view mirror."
"Petey fell in the pool and drowned while his aunt went to get some lemonade for him."...ETC.
Where I'm going is that if you think smoking or vaping alone have to be condemned or vindicated then you haven't looked at infant mortality rates which I assure you are way higher than what could be attributed,
AND yours isn't an unbiased study because you seem to have a preconceived hypothesis which you want to prove w/o first
checking all of the available data or performing experiments
which corroborate your conclusions.

Its like pseudo scientific esigesis, using news and hearsay to prove
what you set out to prove.

Respectfully,
Hazy

 

[Eskie]

NO, it's NOT the dose that makes the poison. When it comes to science, Public Health has VETO POWER!

Actually, I wish Public Health held the power, because then all this wouldn't be happening. This is decision making without the science to support it.

 

[MacTechVpr]

Just thinkin' @Eskie, I think I understand your sentiments. But given the long trail of crumbs if not substantial evidence of the FDA's probable collusion with the tobacco industry to perpetuate smoking now flagrantly evident by their protectionism…why would we endeavor to further empower such a malevolent actor to protect the public health? Shouldn't we first insist Congress exhibit some responsibility towards the public by first ensuring in law some real public protections by limiting their authority explicitly?

It's the FDA which needs to be abolished, or properly regulated.

Good luck all.

 

[Eskie]

Just thinkin' @Eskie, I think I understand your sentiments. But given the long trail of crumbs if not substantial evidence of the FDA's probable collusion with the tobacco industry to perpetuate smoking now flagrantly evident by their protectionism…why would we endeavor to further empower such a malevolent actor to protect the public health? Shouldn't we first insist Congress exhibit some responsibility towards the public by first ensuring in law some real public protections by limiting their authority explicitly?

It's the FDA which needs to be abolished, or properly regulated.

Good luck all.

I certainly agree that BT had influence in the rules as they currently stand. But I actually fault Congress for legislating the FDA to regulate tobacco. The FDA's mission is to review, approve, and monitor drugs to assure safety and efficacy when used (I guess safe food prep falls in there too, but the USDA ends up doing most of those inspections). So how do you hand a substance like tobacco over to a regulator who is supposed to ensure products are safe? How can you possibly make combustible tobacco fit for public health?

You can't. And therein lies a big problem. If the regulatory atmosphere is geared to assuring safety and efficacy, how can they ever be comfortable regulating a substance known to cause disease and death? Add that to the fact they were forced to allow cigarettes, cigars, and pipe tobacco on the market, and how can an entire division of the FDA dedicated to tobacco regulation actually do something to justify their budget? Go after the low hanging fruit, i.e. vaping.

Now they have a mission! Save the kiddies from cute, flavorful liquids! Protect the public from vaporized vegetable glycerin floating around! Get those clearly dangerous devices that can blow up in your pocket or face out of the hands of an unsuspecting public!

Of course, there's also their wonderful Catch 22. Want to talk about smoking cessation? That's a drug and needs to be approved like any other cessation product like different forms of NRT or medications, with tons of paper and lots of clinical trials to show it actually reduces smoking. Forget smoking cessation and view it as a recreational activity? That's tobacco, so it has to be regulated under the Tobacco Control Act. Add BT and BP into the picture and what do you get? The Deeming regulations as published. It's the perfect storm of overregulation and lack of common sense.

 

[VNeil]

@HazyShades I for one would like to see you stop badgering the good doctor and let him get on with his thread. His explanations for his assumptions are quite valid and the only case you are making is that anyone outside the vape community should not dare come here looking for info. That isn't the message we need right now

 

[Max-83]

I don't wanna pick any sides or place myself in the flaming war cross sights but...from my experience one unfortunate by product of public forums is the tendency to become debating societies and venues for people to engage in mental/ verbal wrestling with the only clear cut goal being to win an argument.

 

[HazyShades]

@HazyShades I for one would like to see you stop badgering the good doctor and let him get on with his thread. His explanations for his assumptions are quite valid and the only case you are making is that anyone outside the vape community should not dare come here looking for info. That isn't the message we need right now

I for one would like to see somebody claiming to be a scientist actually use a scientific approach and consider all the variables.
From what I can see the doctor certainly seems motivated
to prove a point and I do not question his sincerity as you might see elsewhere in this thread.

I for one think you might consider looking up the definition of "badger"
because in my opinion to ask an alleged researcher to
examine all the facts before alleging with only a news story as
"proof " that a bottle of nicotine caused a child's death isn't science.
That sounds to me like the kind of UNSUBSTANTIATED accusation
that the FDA is making. That is neither science not fair unbiased reporting.
Last I heard this is a vaping forum and place for discussion.
Apparently because you seem to not understand the scientific
method... my asking the "Good doctor" whose credentials I've yet to see to indeed validate his conclusions rather than provide assumptions based on hearsay, is tantamount to "badgering".

That type of attitude is one of the reasons
we have these FDA regulations. Poor science
that the FDA spinners and CDC propagandists can
use to pass ridiculous regulations, based on sensationalist stories based on lies and with no corroboration.

If you can't see that some of the good doctor's statements while claiming to be unbiased start of with a predisposed conclusion you aren't paying attention.

Moreover, I for one would prefer to be approached in a more civil manner than you have and by somebody who knows that asking questions, asking for clarification and evidence is not to badger.
Rather it is to be certain that an alleged physician isn't
using a supposed study, to my knowledge unauthorized by ECF,
as a gambit to obtain information with which to attack vaping.
Your false accusation that "the only case you are making is that anyone outside the vape community should not dare come here looking for info." is completely wrong.
Rather my case is that if someone was to come to ECF
from outside the vape "community" looking for info
here will find genuine information based on genuine unbiased research which takes into consideration REAL VERIFIED FACTS.

I also think that you need to have a vape and relax.
You can have the last word..I'll not waste my time
explaining the difference between real science
and playing doctor to you.

Regards....,

 

[HazyShades]

I don't wanna pick any sides or place myself in the flaming war cross sights but...from my experience one unfortunate by product of public forums is the tendency to become debating societies and venues for people to engage in mental/ verbal wrestling with the only clear cut goal being to win an argument.

Good point. But I'm not flaming and don't need to win anything.
But when I was in journalism we were taught to ask questions
and verify sources.
When several family member scientists do research they ask questions and verify their data. Guess it isn't cool to ask questions on this forum anymore..everyone seems exaggeratedly edgy and sensitive as if we were the enemy...

Regards,
Hazy.

PS..When people from outside the "vaping community" come
read this thread their manipulated opinion may well be
that nicotine is too dangerous to be legal.
Gee, maybe the FDA will soon require
a doctor's prescription to buy it. After all the news said it was so.

 

[VNeil]

I for one would like to see somebody claiming to be a scientist actually use a scientific approach and consider all the variables.
From what I can see the doctor certainly seems motivated
to prove a point and I do not question his sincerity as you might see elsewhere in this thread.

I for one think you might consider looking up the definition of "badger"
because in my opinion to ask an alleged researcher to
examine all the facts before alleging with only a news story as
"proof " that a bottle of nicotine caused a child's death.
That sounds to me like the kind of UNSUBSTANTIATED accusation
that the FDA is making. That is neithe science not fair unbiased reporting.
Last I heard this is a vaping forum and place for discussion.
Apparently because you seem to not understand the scientific
method... my asking the "Good doctor" whose credentials I've yet to see to indeed validate his conclusions rather than provide assumptions based on hearsay, is tantamount to "badgering".

That type of attitude is one of the reasons
we have these FDA regulations. Poor science
that the FDA spinners and CDC propagandists can
use to pass ridiculous regulations, based on sensationalist stories based on lies and with no corroboration.

If you can't see that some of the good doctor's statements while claiming to be unbiased start of with a predisposed conclusion you aren't paying attention.

Moreover, I for one would prefer to be approached in a more civil manner than you have and by somebody who knows that asking questions, asking for clarification and evidence is not to badger.
Rather it is to be certain that an alleged physician isn't
using a supposed study, to my knowledge unauthorized by ECF,
as a gambit to obtain information which which to attack vaping.
Your false accusation that "the only case you are making is that anyone outside the vape community should not dare come here looking for info." is completely wrong.
Rather my case is that if someone was to come to ECF
from outside the vape "community" looking for info
they will find genuine information based on genuine unbiased research which takes into consideration REAL VERIFIED FACTS.

I also think that you need to have a vape and relax.
You can have the last word..I'll not waste my time
explaining the difference between real science
and playing doctor to you.

Regards....,

The doctor wrote a hard hitting article, extremely favorable to vaping. In addition to accepting the solitary news account as it is, for better or worse, he accepted many statistics on both sides of the debate, all of which could be questioned indefinitely.

Although I personally question the specifics of that case, I fully understand why he accepts statistics like that in order to more coherently present THE BIG PICTURE.

You dare to question his credentials yet he is one of the <1% here that posted his full name (via his linked article). Can you spell disruptive? Do you care to publish your full name so we can determine your credentials?

And I am convinced your continuing ever more lengthy diatribes here are purely disruptive. You made your point long ago, it is far past the time to agree to disagree and let him get onto his intended subject matter.

I will not respond further to you since any further discussion will only serve your apparent attempt to disrupt and derail the thread...

 

[Eskie]

Here are some hard figures:

Pain medications are the single most frequent cause of pediatric fatalities reported to Poison Control. That's a skewed picture, because carbon monoxide deaths are under-reported. The table below shows poisoning fatalities in children younger than 6 years reported to US Poison Control from 2010 through 2014.

source: Poison Statistics National Data 2014

There are also figures broken down by year, age, and substance. The above is simply a summary. You can find the following for each year as a pdf for download, titled "2014 (xxxx) Annual Report of the American Association of PoisonControl Centers’ National Poison Data System (NPDS): 32nd Annual Report"

The summary table above is for the period 2010-2014.

Of course, if you want to put that into some perspective, here are the major causes of poisonings among children, regardless of severity:
Cosmetics and personal care products lead the list of the most common substances implicated in pediatric exposures (children younger than 6 years, NPDS, 2014). Cleaning substances and pain medications follow. These exposures are nearly always unintentional.

Anyone up for demanding cosmetics and cleaning supplies be banned to protect the kids?

 

[VNeil]

Anyone up for demanding cosmetics and cleaning supplies be banned to protect the kids?

Aside from banning, why no cry for childproof caps? None, zero, of my store bought cleaning supply containers have childproof caps.

 

[Eskie]

Aside from banning, why no cry for childproof caps? None, zero, of my store bought cleaning supply containers have childproof caps.

That would seem kinda obvious, right? Although in fairness, my liquid dishwasher detergent and my Drano do have childproof caps on them. Kids still find a way to get into them anyway. Even though I no longer have kids running around here other than me, I still store those types of supplies in upper cabinets, and not just under the sink if there's no childproof cap. All I need is someone visiting and brings their kid along and have them get at stuff they shouldn't.

I'm all for common sense safeguards for children (and adults for that matter) but you need to look at relative risks before yelling "Fire!".

 

[VNeil]

@mpol, your article on teen vaping is a good, factual, hard hitting article. I wish there were more like you taking an objective view of things here.

Regarding your comments on flavoring, you mention that adults "have a preference for flavors". I would like to go much further, partly based on my own anecdotal experience, but backed up with many comments I've seen over the years here by other vapers.

I started vaping 2 years ago this week. About 2 months later, per my sig, I smoked my last cig. When I started vaping I walked into a vape shop and got set up with an open system Evod/CE4 grade clearomizer and a couple Ego batteries. For juice I "demanded" the closest thing to what I was accustomed to- some sort of tobacco flavor. And I think when many or most people first start vaping they also typically try to reproduce the flavoring they are used to - tobacco. And I think this is one of many reasons why cigalikes made by BT and found next to the cigarette display in stores are typically tobacco or menthol flavored. Simply because they are marketed at current smokers, they are not very effective, and most people using them are at best dual users. If they do actually quit, or otherwise find their way to more advanced vaping products, then things might change, but they will have left their BT made cigalikes behind...

By the time I fully quit two months after starting I had gravitated toward fruit flavors. As my quitting attempt evolved, my psychological outlook also evolved. Rather than try to emulate a cigarette and it's flavoring, I evolved to where I wanted to divorce myself as much as possible from smoking tobacco.

To this day, I absolutely refuse to vape tobacco flavored eLiquid. Although I've been 100% DIY for the past 18 months I own no tobacco flavors. I am so dead set against tobacco flavors that I will not make it for my friends, for example, simply because I don't want to vape it and I Would have to vape it to test it. I associate vaping with fruit and bakery flavors, not tobacco flavors. And I think this is a good healthy outlook - for me, as well as many other vapers.

I have nothing at all against those that continue to vape tobacco flavors. Whatever works is fine by me. But I believe there are large numbers of "advanced vapers" (i.e. mostly longer term successful quitters) that feel the same as I do.

And that all suggests that beyond a mere "preference" for fruit/bakery/candy flavorings, these flavorings are a critical ingredient in the success rate of a significant portion of those that attempt to quit smoking.

It should also be noted that the reason most vapers vape flavored juices is simply that unflavored are virtually unattainable in the form of commercial ready to vape juice. I never had access to unflavored eLiquid until I started DIY. So any media hype or gov't sponsored propaganda about the preponderance of "flavors" is quite specious.

 

[VNeil]

That would seem kinda obvious, right? Although in fairness, my liquid dishwasher detergent and my Drano do have childproof caps on them. Kids still find a way to get into them anyway. Even though I no longer have kids running around here other than me, I still store those types of supplies in upper cabinets, and not just under the sink if there's no childproof cap. All I need is someone visiting and brings their kid along and have them get at stuff they shouldn't.

I'm all for common sense safeguards for children (and adults for that matter) but you need to look at relative risks before yelling "Fire!".

And if I may be allowed 1/10th the hyperbole of the ANTZ vape-haters, I want to remind everyone that the bleach in your house is the primary ingredient in a Weapon Of Mass Destruction. Killed or blinded millions in WW1. There are international agreements prohibiting the use of that product in warfare yet it sits in your cabinet without even a childproof cap.

 

[daviedog]

WW1,, Germany used Mustard Gas against English & French troops.
No match for TNT developed by Alfred Nobel..

 

[bigdancehawk]

Read quite some time ago that the residual nic in a single analog filter is enough to result in morbidity for a child. Don't know what that concentration might amount to in mg. A starting point. Accordingly why I quit smoking in my home when my child was born many years back. Good luck.

p.s. Kept the kids and cats clear of the dieffenbachia too. But that risk has been greatly exaggerated as well.

I believe one cigarette contain from 8 - 20 milligrams nicotine, with the average being 12. That's nowhere near enough to kill anybody.

 

[MacTechVpr]

Aww thank goodness bdh…or I'd be in a lot of trouble I'm an all day, all night vaper.

Seriously tho, I can see it getting a kid sick. Not justifying the idiots with this. Just acknowledging the validity of the question.

Thanks for the comeback. Did think it was a bit less than that.

Good luck all.

 

[MacTechVpr]

I certainly agree that BT had influence in the rules as they currently stand. But I actually fault Congress for legislating the FDA to regulate tobacco. The FDA's mission is to review, approve, and monitor drugs to assure safety and efficacy when used (I guess safe food prep falls in there too, but the USDA ends up doing most of those inspections). So how do you hand a substance like tobacco over to a regulator who is supposed to ensure products are safe? How can you possibly make combustible tobacco fit for public health?

You can't. And therein lies a big problem. If the regulatory atmosphere is geared to assuring safety and efficacy, how can they ever be comfortable regulating a substance known to cause disease and death? Add that to the fact they were forced to allow cigarettes, cigars, and pipe tobacco on the market, and how can an entire division of the FDA dedicated to tobacco regulation actually do something to justify their budget? Go after the low hanging fruit, i.e. vaping.

Now they have a mission! Save the kiddies from cute, flavorful liquids! Protect the public from vaporized vegetable glycerin floating around! Get those clearly dangerous devices that can blow up in your pocket or face out of the hands of an unsuspecting public!

Of course, there's also their wonderful Catch 22. Want to talk about smoking cessation? That's a drug and needs to be approved like any other cessation product like different forms of NRT or medications, with tons of paper and lots of clinical trials to show it actually reduces smoking. Forget smoking cessation and view it as a recreational activity? That's tobacco, so it has to be regulated under the Tobacco Control Act. Add BT and BP into the picture and what do you get? The Deeming regulations as published. It's the perfect storm of overregulation and lack of common sense.

I think you and I, shoot, most of us mostly agree. But it's hard to tell in text at times whether we're justifying regulation or encouraging it. I for the record have no problem with a lawfully empowered FDA overseeing external standards, as they have with flavoring makers for example. But we'll have FDA's like mushrooms running roughshod over all of us if we legalize as Congress does by lookin' the other way. Remove the latter and constrain the kids.

Good luck.