Is the whole scandal with da and ap overblown? Some numbers inside

[Jman8]

I'm not TRYING to win an argument. That's the whole point and why I haven't and dont' become "viscious". Its not a matter of desperation for me. That is something that has always bothered me about forums in general. The idea that people need the backing of the majority in a social setting. Doesn't make any sense to me. Being agreed with doesn't mean anything. History is filled with the opposite. The lone dissenting voices are squashed and made fun of. (alan turing for instance).

Even the people arguing against my opinion have said in the topics that I have not been viscious and that I have been polite. So I do take exception to having my posts characterized otherwise.

All I've ever said is that based on the limits I've seen, as well as thoughts from Dr. F. and Dr. Hubbs, I have concerns about vaping DA and AP, which don't even have to be in ejuice.

Like I said, it is my own personal decision to trust vape-friendly medical researchers (who are NOT anti-vaping, who are not ANTZ) because they have no financial incentive to their pronouncements........over politicians, vaping activists, and bottle fillers who are less able to be as objective for obvious reasons and who do not have medical/research training.

I can find other posts in your history that bring what you are saying here into question.

I think you are more respectful of "my own personal decision" as a position than others. But also hear you arguing, at times, that this is direction the industry needs to go in, and that you don't think you are alone in thinking this.

If some vendors want to eventually prove, with actual peer reviewed published studies, that I need not be concerned, then I will re-consider my decision NOT to vape AP and DA.

Where it stands now is that it has taken me over a year just to get test results from vendors, and then it seems like some of them turn out to be HUGE arguments about who did it, if they did it correctly, what the lab settings were, the dates it was done, and differences between their own labs and somebody else's labs, etc.

In other words, a ton of obsfucation.

I don't need it. I'm not here to protect anyone's brand or bash it either. All I want is straight numbers......not excuses about numbers.

Now, unfortunately, we not only have members attacking other members, but vendors attacking members here (basically, calling Steve an ANTZ).

It's really getting out of hand.

As a matter of fact, name calling and also calling ECF members, who are vapers, by names like ANTZ is probably not even allowed by ECF terms of membership. There were a number of posters who were famous for doing this, and they have since been discouraged from doing so by moderators.

As one who uses the ANTZ concept in posts, I feel called out, and yet, I would say when it comes to other members, I always try to be careful in addressing the rhetoric, not the persona, with the ANTZ label.

From my perspective, it is getting out of hand just how much ANTZ rhetoric is being expressed with regards to this issue. At times, it truly feels like ANTZ operatives (of the full blown variety) are planted here on ECF to harp on this issue, and to create division along lines of "some care about their health" while others "have zero concern for anything that is harmful."

Me, I don't know if there are ANTZ plants on the forum and kinda don't really care. I'd just assume address the rhetoric that is consistent with ANTZ ideology, which amounts to: vaping vendors need to all be reined in for producing / selling products that are inherently harmful to consumers, and therefore regulation is necessary. If this puts many vendors out of business, that is a good thing. Consumers (or fellow vapers) who disagree with this game plan need to be shamed, and treated like addicts who are not helping the cause of public health.

Speak in that sort of vein, and I may point that out as ANTZ rhetoric or "things an ANTZ might say." For to me, that is taking the argument to another level, and allowing things to get out of hand.

 

[Rossum]

What helps the ANTZ more, @Jman8? Wanting vendors to be transparent so we can shoot down their contention that "We don't know what's in it", or being an apologist for companies that have lied to us about what's in it?

 

[stevegmu]

What are they using as a substitute "magic" ?

Ingredients which bathtub brew juice makers don't have access to? Perhaps flavors which aren't sold at Walmart?

 

[Jman8]

There have also been a number of pharmacists and people with chemistry backgrounds who posted into those topics. Back in 2010, Bill Godshall called people concerned about chemicals in ejuice "chemophobes".
Ask your favorite suppliers to remove diacetyl from their e-liquids! | Page 34 | E-Cigarette Forum

I don't think Bill G. was calling people that term based simply on "concern."

His words exactly:

Seems like some folks have talked themselves and each other into hysteria on this thread.
Reminds of the FDA workshop on the risks and benefits of long nicotine use where one chemophobe (who is on an FDA tobacco products scientific advisory subcommittee) argued that nicotine gums and lozenges cannot be considered safe because they emit NNN, which has been found to be minor carcinogen when rats are given megadoses of it. Several others argued that nicotine cannot be considered safe for human consumption since nicotine has been found to increase the spread of certain cancers in rats (that already had those cancers) after they were given mega doses of nicotine.

The fundamental tenet of toxicology is "the dose makes the poison".

and

There are hundreds of different chemicals that chemophobes routinely call carcinogens, toxins, mutagens, etc. that a consumed in trace amounts via foods, drinks, drugs, cosmetics, appliances, automobiles, furniture, carpets, and other common household products.

Regardless, the best solution for assessing and reducing risks of excessive exposure to various constituents in e-cigarette products (and for ensuring quality control) is to urge the FDA to classify and regulate e-cigarettes as tobacco products under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, as that law requires tobacco manufacturers/importers to conduct laboratory tests and to routinely report levels of different consituents of their products to the FDA.

To me, the quotes are addressing zealotry, not "mere concern."

Was almost not going to include the 2nd paragraph in the 2nd quote, but I do as it helps remind me why I can't go along with everything that Bill G. says. It reminds me that back in 2010, Bill G. was saying it would be a very good thing for eCigs to be part of the Tobacco Act (as compared to being regulated as a drug).

 

[skoony]

What helps the ANTZ more, @Jman8? Wanting vendors to be transparent so we can shoot down their contention that "We don't know what's in it", or being an apologist for companies that have lied to us about what's in it?

it seems to me most if not all of the vendors were put into a untenable position from
the start. many just probably looked at the labels on their flavoring and thought
there was not of this or that in there,what ever this or that is.
SB was pestered for a long time before someone actually forked over
some cash to test their stuff.
this whole controversy was and is kept going by a small very vocal group
of vapors. it has never been nor is even now mainstream.
now that the vendors can see a lucrative niche market they are
starting there own testing. vaporsmurf and cloud air 9 are perfect
examples of how to use these issues and roll it into a marketing
gimmick.
as an aside i would like to give my opinion on so called 'transparency'.
bah-humbug !
its one of those concepts that looks good on paper but,cannot and
will not work in the real world.
i put it right up there to 'the customer is always right'.
more times than not they are just excuses for people to act like
horses behinds.

regards
mike

 

[Rossum]

it seems to me most if not all of the vendors were put into a untenable position from
the start. many just probably looked at the labels on their flavoring and thought
there was not of this or that in there,what ever this or that is.
SB was pestered for a long time before someone actually forked over
some cash to test their stuff.
this whole controversy was and is kept going by a small very vocal group
of vapors. it has never been nor is even now mainstream.
now that the vendors can see a lucrative niche market they are
starting there own testing. vaporsmurf and cloud air 9 are perfect
examples of how to use these issues and roll it into a marketing
gimmick.
as an aside i would like to give my opinion on so called 'transparency'.
bah-humbug !
its one of those concepts that looks good on paper but,cannot and
will not work in the real world.
i put it right up there to 'the customer is always right'.
more times than not they are just excuses for people to act like
horses behinds.

regards
mike

So you're OK with the ANTZ being right when they say, "We don't know what's in it"?

 

[sparkky1]

Ingredients which bathtub brew juice makers don't have access to? Perhaps flavors which aren't sold at Walmart?

So you have no "fact" MSDS nor toxicology reports stating other compounds "butyric acid" being used ?

 

[Jman8]

We all deserve the right to make an informed choice about what we inhale without being called names.

If one of the ways to make an informed choice is for consumers to do their own testing, and consumers resist this (for whatever reason) and instead insist the the entire industry do this, then that very much needs to be called out. It is irresponsible behavior by the consumer to insist that another do the work that the consumer could do.

To harp on it as something the entire industry needs to do is not really arguing for informed choice, particularly when their is great resistance to doing own testing.

Instead it is arguing that the market no longer deserves to be free, that vendors absolutely must be reined in (for selling harmful products to its consumer base) and is either directly stating or hinting at idea that (strict) regulations will lead to a market where consumers can then have informed choice. At times, this position will also state that if certain vendors go out of business because of this path, that is a very good thing for consumers.

IMO, the vaping community cannot speak loudly and strongly enough in resistance to that type of rhetoric.

 

[skoony]

So you're OK with the ANTZ being right when they say, "We don't know what's in it"?

we do know whats in it.
ingredients that are recognized as GRAS.
ingredients not known to cause harm in the form of
vaping.
just so you know my last comment was not directed
towards you. it was just a little side rant.
regards
mike

 

[Rossum]

we do know whats in it.
ingredients that are recognized as GRAS.

No sir. While DA and AP are GRAS for ingestion, they are generally recognized as being UNSAFE for INHALATION.

 

[Thundernoggin]

If one of the ways to make an informed choice is for consumers to do their own testing, and consumers resist this (for whatever reason).........

Bottle of latest greatest e-juice $22
Testing at lab $150
Mod and tank $50
Grand total $222

Pack of cigarettes and lighter $10

Not so difficult to figure out.

 

[Jman8]

What helps the ANTZ more, @Jman8? Wanting vendors to be transparent so we can shoot down their contention that "We don't know what's in it", or being an apologist for companies that have lied to us about what's in it?

Depends how you go about both of these items.

If you personally want to know what's in it, and you are not willing to do own tests, then you personally ask your vendor to supply that. If that vendor does not, then you go to another vendor, rinse and repeat. If none will, then either you are going to second guess your own reasons for doing it, lessen your concern around this issue, or get out of the vaping market as a consumer. The 4th option is you'd join the crowd that thinks strict regulations on the industry are now absolutely necessary. I'd call that ANTZ rhetoric.

If being an apologist for companies (that have lied to us) means you will defend them no matter what, then this will help ANTZ game plan, but would take a fairly long time to see how it could (and only maybe) help ANTZ out. But if willing to be apologist for vaping vendors while willing to speak honestly and directly to what it is they have (or haven't done) based on your awareness, and then defend them as free market vendors doing the best they can with what's readily available to one and all, then I think this is by far the better way to go than to give into strict regulations cause you are just irresponsible enough to resist doing your own testing on something you say you care about, but in reality, you only care to pass the buck to someone else doing the actual work. Chances are very good, you'll also pass the blame when things don't work out so well for you based on such irresponsibility.

 

[Rossum]

Bottle of latest greatest e-juice $22
Testing at lab $150
Mod and tank $50
Grand total $222

Pack of cigarettes and lighter $10

Not getting lung cancer, COPD, or BO: Priceless.

 

[Jman8]

No sir. While DA and AP are GRAS for ingestion, they are generally recognized as being UNSAFE for INHALATION.

Care to back up the latter?

 

[Jman8]

Bottle of latest greatest e-juice $22
Testing at lab $150
Mod and tank $50
Grand total $222

Pack of cigarettes and lighter $10

Not so difficult to figure out.

The pack of cigarettes and lighter buyer is having exact same concerns as person willing spend $150 for testing at lab?

 

[skoony]

No sir. While DA and AP are GRAS for ingestion, they are generally recognized as being UNSAFE for INHALATION.

apparently to factory workers working with and
inhaling highly concentrated forms of DA and AP.
this outbreak occurred starting in the very late 1990's
and was pretty much over by the early 2000's aside
from two recent cases in Texas again in a factory
setting. other than in lung transplant patients it seems
to have disappeared.
judging by my own research there are not only researchers
digging into to this but, a lot of law firms looking for cases
of popcorn lung in order to offer their expert services
in aiding to bring a lawsuit. apparently neither one is
having any luck finding new cases.
regards
mike

 

[sparkky1]

we do know whats in it.
ingredients that are recognized as GRAS.
ingredients not known to cause harm in the form of
vaping.
just so you know my last comment was not directed
towards you. it was just a little side rant.
regards
mike

Not for long

If one of the ways to make an informed choice is for consumers to do their own testing, and consumers resist this (for whatever reason) and instead insist the the entire industry do this, then that very much needs to be called out. It is irresponsible behavior by the consumer to insist that another do the work that the consumer could do.

To harp on it as something the entire industry needs to do is not really arguing for informed choice, particularly when their is great resistance to doing own testing.

Instead it is arguing that the market no longer deserves to be free, that vendors absolutely must be reined in (for selling harmful products to its consumer base) and is either directly stating or hinting at idea that (strict) regulations will lead to a market where consumers can then have informed choice. At times, this position will also state that if certain vendors go out of business because of this path, that is a very good thing for consumers.

IMO, the vaping community cannot speak loudly and strongly enough in resistance to that type of rhetoric.

I agree to an extent, when the fair packaging and labeling act does mandate what will your juice bottle label say ? free of "no" chemicals known to have no harm for inhalation ?

 

[Rossum]

Care to back up the latter?

Start here:
CDC - Flavorings-Related Lung Disease - NIOSH Workplace Safety and Health Topic

 

[Jman8]

Start here:
CDC - Flavorings-Related Lung Disease - NIOSH Workplace Safety and Health Topic

Rather not. Shall we consider all things CDC says about vaping, or just cherry pick when it suits us?

 

[sparkky1]

Sorry mike, I didn't mean to add your quote in there .........