IMPORTANT PLEASE REVIEW Regarding the future of VAPING
- Thread starter ChristianProgrammer
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
PS to my post #37
@ChristianProgrammer
I read Dr. F's study and I personally do not vape AP, DA, acetoins or butyric acid containing juices, as well as dyed juice.
Mountain Oaks vapor tests all their juices and provides lab reports, there are a few others, and you can also make your own juice, a good place to start reading about flavors and their contents is Linda over at Perfumers Apprentice. She has the low down on what has what in it.
There are actually a lot of vapers who are not vaping the avoidable risk stuff, it's just that they don't want to discuss it because it becomes a big flame topic (as this one probably will.........
)
everyone should do what they want though........I just don't believe in not sharing any and all information when and where I find it.
And, I don't CARE who puts it out.....if it makes sense or is true.
@ChristianProgrammer
I read Dr. F's study and I personally do not vape AP, DA, acetoins or butyric acid containing juices, as well as dyed juice.
Mountain Oaks vapor tests all their juices and provides lab reports, there are a few others, and you can also make your own juice, a good place to start reading about flavors and their contents is Linda over at Perfumers Apprentice. She has the low down on what has what in it.
There are actually a lot of vapers who are not vaping the avoidable risk stuff, it's just that they don't want to discuss it because it becomes a big flame topic (as this one probably will.........
)everyone should do what they want though........I just don't believe in not sharing any and all information when and where I find it.
And, I don't CARE who puts it out.....if it makes sense or is true.
by hit 4 It was burnig pretty bad. However i pulled off the top ring and cap covering the coil and the wick and coil are in bad shape. Therefore i cannot consider this a fair comparison. i will get to the local b&m this week and see if i can find a new ce4 or equivalent and repeat this so i can give more accurate results
Well, I this this pretty much shows how vaping, as in the study, probably isn't feasible... even new vapers would probably stop at that point...
As a point of comparison, check out Suck My Mod's YouTube post from a couple of days ago. In it, Matt vapes on a CE5 at various voltages, all the way up to 5.0. His reaction speaks volumes.
There are many other major issues in that study. The authors fail to realize that voltage levels provide no information about the thermal load of an e-cigarette device. It seems that both the researchers and the reviewers who approved the study for publication missed that energy should be expressed in watts. As a result, we do not know how many watts were applied to the atomizer. However, there is a way to approximate this, through the information provided about liquid consumption per puff. The authors report that 5mg of liquid were consumed at 3.3 volts. Based on measurements I have performed, such consumption is observed at about 6-7 watts at 4-second puffs. Thus, the atomizer resistance is probably 1.6-1.8 Ohms.
The deception of measuring formaldehyde in e-cigarette aerosol: the difference between laboratory measurements and true exposure
this is how he came up with that resistance. seems reasonable. in which case the wattage would be between 15.6 and 13.8 watts! in which case when i get a new clearomizer ill test at several different wattages. although i can tell you right now that clearomizer will burn immediately at 15.6 watts
The deception of measuring formaldehyde in e-cigarette aerosol: the difference between laboratory measurements and true exposure
this is how he came up with that resistance. seems reasonable. in which case the wattage would be between 15.6 and 13.8 watts! in which case when i get a new clearomizer ill test at several different wattages. although i can tell you right now that clearomizer will burn immediately at 15.6 watts
pbusardo posted about this a few days ago, Taste Your Juice | The Formaldehyde Fiasco Continues.
Not to single you out because only one or two posts come close to responding to the subject the OP brings up while the rest, like you, go of on a wild and completely unrelated formaldehyde tangent. What formaldehyde has to do with diacetyl and acetyl propionyl is beyond all logic. The OP is about diacetyl and acetyl propionyl and how many juice manufacturers still use it.
Long story short. Dr. Farsalinos himself is saying diacetyl and acetyl propionyl shouldn't be used because they are 100% avoidable toxins. Period.
As of today, there are juice manufacturers that do test their liquids, that do post their results, that have recalled juices that failed testing and any company that doesn't live up to that standard isn't worth dealing with.
/thread
Point taken but to be fair, the OP was about both the diacetyl/acetyl propionyl issue and the recent formaldehyde study:
To the OP, if you want to read up more on diacetyl/acetyl propionyl, there's already an extensive and up to date thread on the subject (which I spent the last week reading -- it's long but there's lots of good info), here: Flavors that may contain Diacetyl, are there really this many?
Last edited:
Having a little bit of experience with this: yes, science has some problems. The publish-or-perish culture to secure funding, the desire to be seen as high-impact for citations, and agendas (like with the recent formaldehyde results) are sadly real issues.
However, I'd like to point out that when eliquid companies tell their customers that their products don't have substances in them, and then they're tested and it's found that they do, that is hella valuable work and they should be commended.
Because ecigs are new, interesting and have potentially broad impacts across society ($funding$), we're going to see a lot more research coming our way. Some of it will be very solid and add to our understanding of what we're doing, and some of it will be exploitive. I's very, very important to differentiate the two, and applaud the former while we condemn the latter.
Last edited:
There was an article about this in the Sunday paper. I tend to have suspicions when studies say "may" and "could", especially when they use a very small amount of data that is made to get the results one is going for. You know an asteroid could hit the earth. It may happen within a bazillion years.
Edited the title of the thread.
Also, I am going to post this here: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...g-links-junk-science-other-rubbish-posts.html
In a few, after I gather links, I will be closing this thread with redirects to where ongoing discussions are already in place.
Adding link for the Formaldehyde issue: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ormaldehype-junk-study-released-jan-21-a.html
Also, I am going to post this here: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...g-links-junk-science-other-rubbish-posts.html
In a few, after I gather links, I will be closing this thread with redirects to where ongoing discussions are already in place.
Adding link for the Formaldehyde issue: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ormaldehype-junk-study-released-jan-21-a.html
The nice part about vaping (unlike smoking) is that when we find an aria of concern, there are ways to correct the problem.
Yes, "popcorn lung" is an aria of concern, but the solution to the problem is the same as it was with microwave popcorn.
Yes, "popcorn lung" is an aria of concern, but the solution to the problem is the same as it was with microwave popcorn.
- Status
Similar threads
