Did anyone read this thread?
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...int-detected-testing-atomizers-batteries.html
8-o
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...int-detected-testing-atomizers-batteries.html
8-o
Lead Paint---No.
- Thread starter StaceyM
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Stacey--I had those tests run to make sure there was no lead paint and there was none at all. So it does beg the question as to what is up with the scared face?
Sun
Sun
Lead is in fact scary--but I do not think you are going to find it on an e-cig. Between all the testing I had done and the pictures Leford sent back from China showing the kind of quaility control that goes on, the issue is really mute IMO.
Sun
Sun
Good to know.
I have a feeling I ...... you off for some reason.
I only meant to inquire about lead content. As I said, the thread you posted listed various brands, and my VK was not one of them. If it weren't for that thread, I honestly would not have suspected lead content at all. (Nor did I see Leafords studies either...I'm fairly new here) Not sure if the issue is really moot, but it seems to be tabu here...
...alas...Knowledge is power.
I have a feeling I ...... you off for some reason.
I only meant to inquire about lead content. As I said, the thread you posted listed various brands, and my VK was not one of them. If it weren't for that thread, I honestly would not have suspected lead content at all. (Nor did I see Leafords studies either...I'm fairly new here) Not sure if the issue is really moot, but it seems to be tabu here...
...alas...Knowledge is power.
Last edited:
Stacy--no one is upset with you. I can only speak to the ones I had tested. But that is not say that just because these models where not included, one should jump to any conclusions.
I just had never scene any testing done on this subject, and since I am in for the long haul, I decided to pony up and pay to rule this possiblity out.
Thanks,
Sun
I just had never scene any testing done on this subject, and since I am in for the long haul, I decided to pony up and pay to rule this possiblity out.
Thanks,
Sun
I don't think a discussion is taboo. I was glad to see you edited your subject line because it seemed a little alarmist, but it wasn't anything I objected to personally.
One does have to be a little careful, in my opinion, if they're not adding to the body of knowledge. There's a lot of "alarmism" out there, such as the "OMG! PG is used in antifreeze!!!" [leaving out, of course, that it's also in snow cones and asthma inhalers and cosmetics and just about everything else too].
I've always thought it would be an interesting marketing ploy to put something like "Now! With 1000% less toxins!" on a cereal box. Because mine had that statement, everyone would just naturally assume that my competitors must have at least 999% more toxin content - otherwise, why would I list it as a benefit?
One does have to be a little careful, in my opinion, if they're not adding to the body of knowledge. There's a lot of "alarmism" out there, such as the "OMG! PG is used in antifreeze!!!" [leaving out, of course, that it's also in snow cones and asthma inhalers and cosmetics and just about everything else too].
I've always thought it would be an interesting marketing ploy to put something like "Now! With 1000% less toxins!" on a cereal box. Because mine had that statement, everyone would just naturally assume that my competitors must have at least 999% more toxin content - otherwise, why would I list it as a benefit?
Actually, I didn't edit the post, Sun did.
I suppose I was hoping one of the V4L guys would see it and reply, and say that our PV's were for sure tested and don't have lead.
I'm starting to think an e-mail would have been better.
Tricky tricky emoticons.
I suppose I was hoping one of the V4L guys would see it and reply, and say that our PV's were for sure tested and don't have lead.
I'm starting to think an e-mail would have been better.
Tricky tricky emoticons.
Then Sun read the subject line the same way that I did.
There are a bazillion (<--- technical term) tests that _could_ be run. Unless there's some particular indicator, there probably isn't a compelling reason to spend the money. I believe that Sun's tests were around the time of the big lead scare.
We haven't started asking how much TSNAs, benzene, formaldehyde, pestisides, cadmium, radioactive isotopes of lead and polonium, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, ammonia, carbon monoxide, ... it contains. Why would we ask those questions? Because they are common elements in cigarette smoke.
It's hard to accept, but my gut tells me that it'd be hard for this to possibly be any worse, especially given the decades of study of PG use as an additive and even as an inhalant.
There are a bazillion (<--- technical term) tests that _could_ be run. Unless there's some particular indicator, there probably isn't a compelling reason to spend the money. I believe that Sun's tests were around the time of the big lead scare.
We haven't started asking how much TSNAs, benzene, formaldehyde, pestisides, cadmium, radioactive isotopes of lead and polonium, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, ammonia, carbon monoxide, ... it contains. Why would we ask those questions? Because they are common elements in cigarette smoke.
It's hard to accept, but my gut tells me that it'd be hard for this to possibly be any worse, especially given the decades of study of PG use as an additive and even as an inhalant.
Stacey you should PM Leaford he is in China doing QC right now and I am sure he would give you a full official response.
I actually posted a similar question which leaford answered for me not too long ago.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/vapor4life/55887-leaford-question.html
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/vapor4life/55887-leaford-question.html
For newbies perhaps who are curious, (and now maybe afraid to ask. lol)
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/vapor4life/55887-leaford-question.html
Thanks again Taryn!
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/vapor4life/55887-leaford-question.html
Thanks again Taryn!
- Status
Similar threads
