"It only takes ONE bad chemical"

[zoiDman]

...

But, I also believe that there are those who are so attached to those flavors, that if they couldn't vape them, would probably go back to smoking. I think that would be worse than the risk that the vaped diketones represent -- at the very least, we have a really good idea of exactly how detrimental smoking can be, while the diketone risk is still quite up-in-the-air. I think those people have to make the same sort of rational decision, to continue with one potential risk, or return to an almost-certain risk.

...

I have Heard this Line of Thought before.

I just have No Idea what Percentage of People we are Talking About? If it is Actually True? And what the Actual Risk of someone Using High Levels of Diketones is?

I think No One Disagrees that Smoking is a Known Hazard. And I would Hate to See someone go back to Smoking for Any Reason.

But I would Also hate to see someone use High Levels of Diketones just because they Believe that that is the Only Flavor that will keep them vaping.

 

[Moonbogg]

I agree with this, but I'd add the question, "How rare is B.O. among vapers who've vaped a lot of diketones?".

I think a survey would have to be taken in an attempt to paint a picture of what, if anything, has happened. The word "diketones" should not be included in the survey, because that might create bias to those who are aware. But asking people what flavors they tend to vape, how much they vape and for how many years could be a good start, and then ask them how their lungs are doing. Shortness of breath? Did they have shortness of breath when they smoked? Did it improve after vaping? Did it return again after vaping for 5 years?
It wouldn't be an easy survey to take in an accurate and useful way. Its complicated at this point because most vapers only quit smoking a few years ago, and many vapers still smoke. Sorting all that out and pinning the blame for any symptom on any particular cause could be impossible at the moment. We might have to wait 10 more years before useful patterns are established that can tell more of the story. For now, awareness is the only possible defense.

 

[caramel]

I knew your jet pack would run out of fuel.

He's locked into a philosophical conundrum due to his "free market" faith and needs frequent time outs.

There are 2 kinds of such markets:

1) equal information market (i.e. all participants have access to all the information); this is the equivalent of "full disclosure" in labeling, aka listing every single substance. Including diketones of course. And all the research on them.

2) asymmetric information market (i.e. where some participants have access to information that others don't); this is the equivalent of selective labeling at seller's discretion, aka listing only the information convenient to the seller (including lies if deemed useful). You can make any labeling claim about diketones, regardless of their presence or not.

He wants 1) as a buyer and 2) as a seller.

Problem is that you can have only one rule / law for all.

Unless you're the king. But then, if it has a king, it's not a "free market".

 

[Kent C]

All you have to do is look at what happened with the anti vaxxers. They ran around talking trash about vaccinations and people started getting sick again. Public awareness and speaking out has started to correct that. That's what I'm doing.

I'll come back for this - I refueled

Here is a case where you're attempting to 'align' your actions with a situation where the people who were against vaccinations - something 'good' for people - just as ecigarettes are 'good' for smokers, and who said that a certain substance IN the vaccinations (as IN eliquid) were unsafe and therefore it should be removed or people should stop getting vaccinations. The analogy works against you not for you.

And I might point out that there are also ominous parallels between the personality types, their tactics, and politics - anti-business/big pharma and the same altruistic stuff that keep people stupid and dead or ill or in this case - back to smoking.

 

[Moonbogg]

I'll come back for this - I refueled

Here is a case where you're attempting to 'align' your actions with a situation where the people who were against vaccinations - something 'good' for people - just as ecigarettes are 'good' for smokers, and who said that a certain substance IN the vaccinations (as in IN eliquid) were unsafe and therefore it should be removed or people should stop getting vaccinations. The analogy works against you not for you.

And I might point out that there are also ominous parallels between the personality types, their tactics, and politics - anti-business/big pharma and the same altruistic stuff that keep people stupid and dead or ill or in this case - back to smoking.

I swear I read what you wrote slowly, and I did not understand your point. My only point was that a lack of information is bad for people. It can get people hurt because they aren't aware or they were told bad information. In our case, lack of information about diketones might get people hurt. Also in our case, bad information that says vaping is safe can also get people hurt. And be honest, we've been saying vaping is safe for years now.
This is where you say, "No, its safer". Yeah, I get that, but that's not the message going out. We pretend that saying "safER" is only a formality, when in reality it is far from a formality. Vaping is not a blanket term with regard to safety. Some vaping is relatively safe, while other kinds of vaping very well might destroy the lungs beyond repair.

Also, I don't agree with people saying vaping is 95% safer than smoking. It could be that much safer, but by saying that, it really motivates people to vape hard with high watts, creamy liquids and 20+ mils per day and not have a care in the world. They think, based on press releases like that, that they are safe. They very well may end up with damaged lungs and that would be very, very sad indeed.

 

[Kent C]

There are 2 kinds of such markets:

1) equal information market (i.e. all participants have access to all the information);

2) asymmetric information market (i.e. where some participants have access to information that others don't);

Wrong again... There's only #1 - where people have the opportunity to use their minds and access all the information. But with your view - that becomes #2 (like about everything you have to say) where only gov't is trusted with the information provided to them by junk scientists who agree or just get paid, for finding the 'information' that gov't wants to put out - that way, "saving" the consumer from having to think for themselves - like the relationship between a parent and a child.

In a free market - everyone has an equal opportunity to access information, just like everyone would have an equal opportunity to get a job - vs. where your side always wants equality of 'result' rather than 'opportunity' and that take force to accomplish - forcing others to pay for those who don't care to find information or to get a job.

 

[Kent C]

I swear I read what you wrote slowly, and I did not understand your point.

Here, I'll simplify it for you. In the vaccine case you attempt to 'take the winning side' when in fact your statements here are those of others taking the losing side of the vaccine case. Substitute 'diacetyl' for 'thimerosal' and that may help you understand. Emphasis on 'may'.

And uh... you can quote me but don't misquote me: "This is where you say, "No, its safer". That's pure strawman...

I 'do' understand that you think that you're trying to help people. I just don't think what you consider has to be done or forced to be done by gov't, will do so.

 

[AndriaD]

I have Heard this Line of Thought before.

I just have No Idea what Percentage of People we are Talking About? If it is Actually True? And what the Actual Risk of someone Using High Levels of Diketones is?

I think No One Disagrees that Smoking is a Known Hazard. And I would Hate to See someone go back to Smoking for Any Reason.

But I would Also hate to see someone use High Levels of Diketones just because they Believe that that is the Only Flavor that will keep them Vaping.

I really can't say for sure about any of that, with regard to diketones, or people so attached to flavors that contain them. But, to use an example of myself -- I think it's probably true that vaping unflavored or HOF is safer, but for myself, I have to be *happy* with vaping, or I stand a real chance of returning to smoking.

What so far has made me happiest is my strawberry & cream, which is 31% flavor. It's probably a case of comatose tastebuds after 39 yrs of smoking, but everything I vaped before I made that highly-flavored juice, I really couldn't taste at all -- it was a pleasant smell, but not much taste at all. I keep vaping it, because it's just plain yummy. Without that extreme yumminess, I would not be so motivated to vape it, and therefore *might* be tempted to smoke. I don't want that temptation, nor even any risk of that temptation, so as long as I find that juice yummy, I'll continue to vape it, and hang the risk.

That risk, minus diketones because I made the effort to find flavors I like that don't contain diketones, is one of those "known unknowns" -- we have no way of knowing what dangers might arise, we just *suspect* that they *might* arise. If some danger becomes truly *known* about any of the flavors I've chosen, then I will have to re-evaluate, but unless/until that time of actual *knowledge* of danger, I'll keep vaping something that makes me happy enough to gladly abstain from smoking.

This same situation may pertain to those who vape flavors with diketones, is the reason I bring it up.

Andria

 

[Lessifer]

I swear I read what you wrote slowly, and I did not understand your point. My only point was that a lack of information is bad for people. It can get people hurt because they aren't aware or they were told bad information. In our case, lack of information about diketones might get people hurt. Also in our case, bad information that says vaping is safe can also get people hurt. And be honest, we've been saying vaping is safe for years now.
This is where you say, "No, its safer". Yeah, I get that, but that's not the message going out. We pretend that saying "safER" is only a formality, when in reality it is far from a formality. Vaping is not a blanket term with regard to safety. Some vaping is relatively safe, while other kinds of vaping very well might destroy the lungs beyond repair.

Also, I don't agree with people saying vaping is 95% safer than smoking. It could be that much safer, but by saying that, it really motivates people to vape hard with high watts, creamy liquids and 20+ mils per day and not have a care in the world. They think, based on press releases like that, that they are safe. They very well may end up with damaged lungs and that would be very, very sad indeed.

There you go making broad statements again, that are not necessarily truthful. If you want to be truthful, vaping as a whole is unknown. The 95% estimate is just that, an estimate, and doesn't refer specifically to health estimations. No type of vaping has been shown to be more or less harmful than another. There are theories, but no evidence.

Using generalities that sound true, but aren't, to justify regulations that sound like they would help, but won't. This all seems oddly familiar.

 

[caramel]

Wrong again... There's only #1 - where people have the opportunity to use their minds and access all the information. But with your view - that becomes #2 (like about everything you have to say) where only gov't is trusted with the information provided to them by junk scientists who agree or just get paid, for finding the 'information' that gov't wants to put out - that way, "saving" the consumer from having to think for themselves - like the relationship between a parent and a child.

In a free market - everyone has an equal opportunity to access information, just like everyone would have an equal opportunity to get a job - vs. where your side always wants equality of 'result' rather than 'opportunity' and that take force to accomplish - forcing others to pay for those who don't care to find information or to get a job.

And how exactly do you get "the opportunity" to access the information on what ingredients an ejuice vendor uses? Industrial espionage? Do you go all the way through the supply chain? Or maybe you analyze it down to the last atom at every purchase?

Was it "the government" withholding information on diacetyl contents in SB and other juices?

Or is it just the seller that was engaged in some form of fraud? Because that is what "asymmetrical information market" actually is. Glorified fraud. From "insider trading" to cheating on emission tests to adding junk to eliquid and swearing you don't.

 

[Moonbogg]

lol @ industrial espionage. That's the truth though. How is the average vaper supposed to have any idea that they are taking more of a risk than they think they are? How can they know what's in the juice and even if they knew, how are they expected to know what that means?
ECF members are not average vapers. The average vaper goes to a vape shop and samples juice and just buys what they like, or they vape the juices that their friends suggest because it tastes good and that's it. They have never heard of diketones. All they ever hear from their friends is that vaping is perfectly safe. They then load their Atlantis with a custard and plow through 10mils of it in a single after noon.
The opinions of vapers is so slanted, that if you even suggest that vaping might be dangerous, they shrug it off and pay no mind to it. That's most of the vapers I have encountered in my experience. Its just not a big deal to most vapers. They figure they have greatly reduced the harm to themselves by not smoking.
Maybe that's true, but then again, will they care that they don't have cancer if they discover one day that they can't breathe? Its not just an avoidable risk. Its an avoidable tragedy.

 

[nicnik]

The average vaper goes to a vape shop and samples juice and just buys what they like, or they vape the juices that their friends suggest because it tastes good and that's it. They have never heard of diketones.

I agree that it would be best for vapers to be informed about diketones, but there is still much unknown.

I lean toward being in favor of demanding it be disclosed on labels when present in high enough levels, even though that has the downside of people assuming that diketone-free is safer, when they see the disclosure. I want to know because I want to avoid diketones, but I don't want people to make that assumption. The wisest way to disclose it might take too many words to fit well on a label.

 

[caramel]

I agree that it would be best for vapers to be informed about diketones, but there is still much unknown.

I lean toward being in favor of demanding it be disclosed on labels when present in high enough levels, even though that has the downside of people assuming that diketone-free is safer, when they see the disclosure. I want to know because I want to avoid diketones, but I don't want people to make that assumption. The wisest way to disclose it might take too many words to fit well on a label.

If it doesn't fit on the label you can print a leaflet (like pharma does).

If it's questionable you disclose it (see food industry and artificial sweeteners - some of them haven't yet been definitively proved either safe or unsafe - "when in doubt list it").

You can omit it only if for the given application a person skilled in the matter can't point to any possible substantial adverse effect (i.e. something like 0.5% water in your ejuice).

 

[Kent C]

And how exactly do you get "the opportunity" to access the information on what ingredients an ejuice vendor uses?

How does everyone here get their info? I asked and asked for proof.

And to moonbeam - the 'average vapor' should have the sense to do the same (so you don't have to for them). But where's the caring attitude when you describe some, who do "not have a care in the world"? How do you help them?

I'll tell you... the vapers here make their wants and needs know - we drive the market to some extent and that information get to the vendors and the vendor will comply if they want to stay in business. That then - you're going to love this - trickles down to those 'average vapers,' who just like a guy going grocery shopping, benefits from the coupon clippers and true "shoppers". He benefits from the 'consumer reporter' types even though he may never know why.

Were it not for the monied audio/video-philes we would have had to wait a longer time for VHS, Beta ... tapes, cds, big screens, cable and satellite dishes just to name a few... big bucks at first but quality rises and prices dropped and 'everyone' benefitted. The market chose VHS over Beta - not the gov't or do-gooders.

 

[caramel]

How does everyone here get their info? .

They aren't getting it. And that's exactly the source of their frustration.

Thank you for underlining the key issue.

 

[Kent C]

They aren't getting it. And that's exactly the source of their frustration.

Even moonbeam gets the differentiation when he says 'average vapers' vs. those here who at least know about the issue and some have inquired and found out info on their own. Enough to make a decision anyway. If not, they should. They don't need someone to scare them back to smoking.

 

[caramel]

Even moonbeam gets the differentiation when he says 'average vapers' vs. those here who at least know about the issue and some have inquired and found out info on their own. Enough to make a decision anyway. If not, they should. They don't need someone to scare them back to smoking.

If you want to reffer to the "average vaper", then they probably get their "information" from a vaping shop clerk or website, misleading them with something on the lines of "it's 95% safer than smoking". Which, as Lessifer noted a few posts ago, is just a guesstimate. With the reality and correct answer being "no one really knows, you have to do your own research and take the risks". Own research which would require that the vape shop discloses ingredients. Which they don't want to do. And we came full circle.

 

[Kent C]

If you want to reffer to the "average vaper",

Just making a comment about what moonbogg said and implied. Again, your "orientation" that businesses are out to screw you, just doesn't play well for people who have the opposite experience. Most vape shops around here want to help people get off cigarettes and they do that almost hourly - it's a booming business right now around here anyway.

I'm going to take a 'time out' and let me assure you, it will benefit you more than it will me, as people then don't have to read your responses and make judgments accordingly.

 

[caramel]

Just making a comment about what moonbogg said and implied. Again, your "orientation" that businesses are out to screw you, just doesn't play well for people who have the opposite experience. Most vape shops around here want to help people get off cigarettes and they do that almost hourly - it's a booming business right now around here anyway.

I suggest also visiting some others forums with different rules regarding "negative reviews".

For example reddit - incidentaly today there's a very juicy pictorial of a mixing room. Look on the first page on the "hot" tab for video and pics of a certain lab "by disgruntled employee".

 

[Jman8]

Even if they disclose, I expect they will be without a full defense. There is precedent for severe lung damage where diketone inhalation occurred. Vendors added, on purpose, diketones to their liquid in order to boost sales, or they didn't remove them after testing. If they don't test or claim lack of knowledge, then its negligence and reckless endangerment. If they disclose, that's not a defense and they will lose a lawsuit when people get damaged lungs.
Saying, "I disclosed it" is to admit that you knew there was a specific, known risk of damage to customer's lungs and you sold it anyway.

How is this different than disclosing nicotine content, while knowing that nicotine contains a known risk of damage to cardiovascular system?

This is all a very cut and dry case of people putting profit over the safety and health of their customers. They justify it, deny the risk, claim its the customer's fault, blame it on the FDA for not regulating it, claiming its not illegal so they are allowed to do it, etc etc.

It is opposite of cut and dry case. We've had ample time to have at least one case, and thus far know of none. I don't deny that ANTZ will put forth someone that claims damage, but could just as easily see them do it with nicotine. Person in that case could claim they requested 6 mg, but lab tests show 6.2 mg, and they had adverse reaction, and yada yada yada, shouldn't there be regulation to get rid of this highly toxic substance from this product?