MN Vapers obtained Poison control stats cited in MN legislative session.

[Sikko]

Poison Control Calls - The Real Facts | Minnesota Vapers AdvocacyMinnesota Vapers Advocacy

While technically what the testifiers said is true, it appears that nicotine "exposures" were 2.5 time more likely to happen with tobacco than electronic cigarettes.

When something is new, there is always going to be a period of "uptick" as the more likely you find something in the community, the more often it can cause a problem.

Just another example of the scare tactics from the TC folks. I've heard the poison control stats quite a bit this legislative session, I know it was raised here in Utah as well. They don't appear to want to show the actual data in most cases.

 

[AgentAnia]

MN appears to have taken a page from the Kentucky Poison Control Center playbook.

Anyone witnessing this tactic being used should be quick to rebut with the fact that "calls to PCCs" does NOT equal poisoning, or anything else either. (A call may be something as innocuous as "I've just started using an e-cigarette. What's the best way to keep it out of my child's hands?" or "I just spilled a few drops of e-liquid on my hand. Should I be worried?")

Without information on how many calls were deemed worthy of followup, how many required medical attention, how many were considered life-threatening, etc., the figures are meaningless. And specific to ecigs, any statistics should be compared w/ the figures for tobacco and for NRTs.

This is where you can find usable statistics: National Poison Data System

The National Poison Data System (NPDS) is the only comprehensive poisoning exposure surveillance database in the United States. Maintained by the American Association of Poison Control Centers, NPDS contains information from the human poison exposure case phone calls taken by all 55 poison centers across the country.

 

[VapieDan]

Poison Control Calls - The Real Facts | Minnesota Vapers AdvocacyMinnesota Vapers Advocacy

While technically what the testifiers said is true, it appears that nicotine "exposures" were 2.5 time more likely to happen with tobacco than electronic cigarettes.

When something is new, there is always going to be a period of "uptick" as the more likely you find something in the community, the more often it can cause a problem.

Just another example of the scare tactics from the TC folks. I've heard the poison control stats quite a bit this legislative session, I know it was raised here in Utah as well. They don't appear to want to show the actual data in most cases.

It appears we are hearing more an more positive evidence to the lack of risk with the electronic cigarette. The problem is will the legislators pay any attention or just go merrily on they way for the purpose of taxation?

 

[Sikko]

MN appears to have taken a page from the Kentucky Poison Control Center playbook.

Anyone witnessing this tactic being used should be quick to rebut with the fact that "calls to PCCs" does NOT equal poisoning, or anything else either. (A call may be something as innocuous as "I've just started using an e-cigarette. What's the best way to keep it out of my child's hands?" or "I just spilled a few drops of e-liquid on my hand. Should I be worried?")

Without information on how many calls were deemed worthy of followup, how many required medical attention, how many were considered life-threatening, etc., the figures are meaningless. And specific to ecigs, any statistics should be compared w/ the figures for tobacco and for NRTs.

This is where you can find usable statistics: National Poison Data System

I believe it's more a concerted effort by the ANZ. Groups like the ALA and ACS have the ear of many legislators. The message is too consistent to be attributed to anything else.

The problem with the National poison data system is that the most current annual exports are from 2012. The information that the public health people are quoting is newer.

I've tried to find more current reports from individual poison control center websites but their websites don't generally have anything about nicotine poisonings at all, let alone ejuice.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

[Bill Godshall]

The Minnesota Health Dept is falsely claiming that even touching an e-cig (or a tobacco product) is a "toxic exposure".

And yet, none of these many so-called "toxic exposure" calls to the Poison Control was actually a case of "toxic exposure" to nicotine or tobacco. But nobody should be surprised, since there has NEVER been a confirmed human death from excessive nicotine exposure.

 

[CabinetGuyScott]

This very form of lying has been shredded a few times.

Here is Dr. F's treatment: Misleading statements in the press about nicotine poisonings from e-cigarettes

I'm looking now for Carl Phillips', and I think another was offered by Clive Bates, but those links aren't where I remember putting them )

Here is Brad Rodu's out of Kentucky: Poisoning Public Health Issues: Chapter 2

 

[twgbonehead]

Their disclaimer:

HRPC manages the calls and they are reported in the National Poison
Data System if someone has been exposed to a product (whether by ingestion, inhalation, ocular or dermal route) it
is coded as an exposure, and considered a toxic exposure

Which, technically means if a 2-year-old looks at an e-cigarette it's considered a toxic exposure.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

Don't forget our own Vocalek's post on nic poisoning:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/media-general-news/490883-shockingly-bad-local-article-7.html#post11304013

The studies she cites looked at 27 years of poison control reports, 2 possible nic deaths both involving additional drugs.