never happens on any of my calls bud. even put it my cell phone with a bit of doo-hickery. free or cheap mobile calls world-wide, rarely any trouble. its the future of telecommunications and dont the industry just do everything they can to avoid it.
New report who
- Thread starter Ludo
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
never happens on any of my calls bud. even put it my cell phone with a bit of doo-hickery. free or cheap mobile calls world-wide, rarely any trouble. its the future of telecommunications and dont the industry just do everything they can to avoid it.
Happens to me quite often, depending on what country I call. I am not particularly against VOIP (I run an Asterisk server at home.)
There is an inherent problem with all VOIP systems in that they are packet switched rather than circuit switched. This means that with the regular phone network, if there isn't sufficient bandwidth it tells you "congested in this area" or similar and fails to complete the call. Once it's through, it effectively has guaranteed bandwidth. With VOIP, there is no such guarantee. Having said that, VOIP calls usually work quite well for me.
Skype has its own peculiar problem, though. Until IPv6 actually gets used, it will continue to get worse. It uses a peer-to-peer system, in which people's computers become 'supernodes' similar to how kazaa etc. worked for "old-fashioned peer-to-peer piracy". It can only do this if there is a public IP address for that machine, which is becoming increasingly rare as loads of people install NATted routers. The few who still actually have a public IP address may find they are getting their machines banged pretty hard merely by having skype running.
Oh, and it likes to open up port 80, which can make people who use webservers go bald trying to work out what's wrong. </rant>
Of course, ymmv. I would imagine that making calls from eg. California would work just about all the time, since everywhere has high capacity links to there. Hehe.. Bit off-topic.
contact information, including email address for WHO person mentioned above
Ms Gemma Vestal
Legal Officer/Scientist, Framework Convention on tobacco Control
tobacco Free Initiative
World Health Organization
Avenue Appia 20
CH – 1211
Geneva 27
Switzerland
Tel. No.: (41 22) 791 4705
Fax No.: (41 22) 791 4832
E-mail: vestalg@who.int
A whole bunch of other contact information for policy makers and the like in the Southern Pacific region too for the Aussies and New Zealanders here:
http://www.wpro.who.int/NR/rdonlyres/5C98B7B3-5BD9-4E7B-A412-1C694EB9FD86/0/ListofParticipants.pdf
Ms Gemma Vestal
Legal Officer/Scientist, Framework Convention on tobacco Control
tobacco Free Initiative
World Health Organization
Avenue Appia 20
CH – 1211
Geneva 27
Switzerland
Tel. No.: (41 22) 791 4705
Fax No.: (41 22) 791 4832
E-mail: vestalg@who.int
A whole bunch of other contact information for policy makers and the like in the Southern Pacific region too for the Aussies and New Zealanders here:
http://www.wpro.who.int/NR/rdonlyres/5C98B7B3-5BD9-4E7B-A412-1C694EB9FD86/0/ListofParticipants.pdf
Last edited:
WHO began its conference today, with discussions of electronic cigarettes. But, from a press release on the WHO site, it appears it might be more than a year before a conclusion is reached. Vape 'em if you got 'em!
Thanks a lot !! very interesting... so 1 more year of legal e-cig... hopefully !
What's up with menthol
"quitting seems to be much more difficult for smokers of menthol-flavored cigarettes" Menthol cigarette - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Just a guess.
No, it's worse. The US is already ready to ban all flavored cigarettes (and little cigars). The single exception would be menthol. Why? Well, it seems Kool and Newport are favored by black smokers. It's a huge market and Big Tobacco lobbied to exclude menthol if the ax falls on flavors.
Radical right-wing radio commentator Rush Limbaugh to the rescue: He suggested not banning menthol might be a way to assure a higher death rate for blacks. Say what? A conspiracy by rich white guys? OMG. The ... hit the fan. We certainly don't want to single out blacks to die from terrible tobacco-related diseases. Death by tobacco must be an equal-opportunity executioner.
So there you have it. That's how menthol came to be exempt and why WHO will study the issue. Thanks to political correctness, you can bet that menthol will join the ranks of banned flavors and substances in cigarettes. Expect WHO to recommend it no longer be allowed in tobacco products.
And, no, I'm not making this up!
Radical right-wing radio commentator Rush Limbaugh to the rescue: He suggested not banning menthol might be a way to assure a higher death rate for blacks. Say what? A conspiracy by rich white guys? OMG. The ... hit the fan. We certainly don't want to single out blacks to die from terrible tobacco-related diseases. Death by tobacco must be an equal-opportunity executioner.
So there you have it. That's how menthol came to be exempt and why WHO will study the issue. Thanks to political correctness, you can bet that menthol will join the ranks of banned flavors and substances in cigarettes. Expect WHO to recommend it no longer be allowed in tobacco products.
And, no, I'm not making this up!
2010? are you serious? How can it take that long to make a report?
There is a considered statement from WHO on their current position here - WHO - Marketers of electronic cigarettes should halt unproved therapy claims - *E-Cigtest, the ultimate electronic cigarettes review site and forum* Le site de la cigarette électronique
Their definition is - nicotine delivery system and health product.
These points seem particularly important to me:
... products including the electronic cigarette cannot be supported unless they meet national regulatory criteria for efficacy, safety and quality of a new public health product.
... scientifically rigorous, peer-reviewed studies to substantiate claims for the electronic cigarette as an effective smoking cessation aid. In this respect, WHO does not equate a manufacturers undocumented claims of safety or toxicity to peer-review by a science based committee.
... the generation of theoretically adequate safety data by one manufacture is not tantamount to validation of all electronic nicotine delivery devices.
... WHO is not aware of any set of data that establishes the safety of nicotine and/or propylene glycol (in addition to other constituents of the product which are present to confer the claimed cigarette mimicking sensory characteristics) when heated and delivered to the lung. WHO is not convinced of the precise nature and amount of the constituents of the emissions.
... WHO is concerned about the variety and lack of uniformity of these products. [I wonder what the significance of that statement is]
... WHO does not discount the possibility that the electronic cigarette could eventually be regarded as a useful smoking cessation aid. That said, rigorous pharmacokinetic studies, safety and efficacy trials, and review and approval by national authorities which regulate NRTs must be conducted.
... the burden is on product sponsors to satisfy regulatory agencies and to ensure public health institutions that their products are safe (and effective if such claims are made) - not on WHO or regulatory agencies to prove all aspects of potential harm when there is a plausible basis for harm.
... substantiation of smoking cessation and other health claims would include rigorous pharmacokinetic studies, safety and efficacy trials, and review and approval by major drug regulatory authorities of the following types data and studies: (1) the complete listing of ingredients in electronic cigarettes, (2) the effect on smoking cessation of these products compared to NRT and placebo, and (3) adverse effects caused by these products.
... WHO urges its Member States to require manufacturers to provide adequate scientific data in accordance to the criteria set by national regulatory bodies.
... WHO TobReg also recommends that claims for safety relative to cigarettes, health benefits, or claims such as effectiveness as smoking cessation aids or as cigarette substitutes be prohibited until such claims are substantiated with data accepted by scientific organizations and approved by regulatory agencies.
... WHO TobReg strongly recommended that these class of products not be exempted from clean air laws that restriction restrict cigarette smoke exposure (see WHO FCTC, Article 8) until adequate evidence is provided to assure the regulatory authority that use of the product will not expose people to toxic emissions. [How would this effect us? Will we be unable to vape in no smoking areas?]
... Research is needed on the delivery and absorption of nicotine in relation to these devices, both acutely and chronically, in order for regulators to establish the dosage and formulation for regulatory approval.
... This class of products should be regulated as nicotine delivery systems and must meet the scientific, efficacy and safety criteria established by regulatory authorities prior to sale and marketing.
Their definition is - nicotine delivery system and health product.
These points seem particularly important to me:
... products including the electronic cigarette cannot be supported unless they meet national regulatory criteria for efficacy, safety and quality of a new public health product.
... scientifically rigorous, peer-reviewed studies to substantiate claims for the electronic cigarette as an effective smoking cessation aid. In this respect, WHO does not equate a manufacturers undocumented claims of safety or toxicity to peer-review by a science based committee.
... the generation of theoretically adequate safety data by one manufacture is not tantamount to validation of all electronic nicotine delivery devices.
... WHO is not aware of any set of data that establishes the safety of nicotine and/or propylene glycol (in addition to other constituents of the product which are present to confer the claimed cigarette mimicking sensory characteristics) when heated and delivered to the lung. WHO is not convinced of the precise nature and amount of the constituents of the emissions.
... WHO is concerned about the variety and lack of uniformity of these products. [I wonder what the significance of that statement is]
... WHO does not discount the possibility that the electronic cigarette could eventually be regarded as a useful smoking cessation aid. That said, rigorous pharmacokinetic studies, safety and efficacy trials, and review and approval by national authorities which regulate NRTs must be conducted.
... the burden is on product sponsors to satisfy regulatory agencies and to ensure public health institutions that their products are safe (and effective if such claims are made) - not on WHO or regulatory agencies to prove all aspects of potential harm when there is a plausible basis for harm.
... substantiation of smoking cessation and other health claims would include rigorous pharmacokinetic studies, safety and efficacy trials, and review and approval by major drug regulatory authorities of the following types data and studies: (1) the complete listing of ingredients in electronic cigarettes, (2) the effect on smoking cessation of these products compared to NRT and placebo, and (3) adverse effects caused by these products.
... WHO urges its Member States to require manufacturers to provide adequate scientific data in accordance to the criteria set by national regulatory bodies.
... WHO TobReg also recommends that claims for safety relative to cigarettes, health benefits, or claims such as effectiveness as smoking cessation aids or as cigarette substitutes be prohibited until such claims are substantiated with data accepted by scientific organizations and approved by regulatory agencies.
... WHO TobReg strongly recommended that these class of products not be exempted from clean air laws that restriction restrict cigarette smoke exposure (see WHO FCTC, Article 8) until adequate evidence is provided to assure the regulatory authority that use of the product will not expose people to toxic emissions. [How would this effect us? Will we be unable to vape in no smoking areas?]
... Research is needed on the delivery and absorption of nicotine in relation to these devices, both acutely and chronically, in order for regulators to establish the dosage and formulation for regulatory approval.
... This class of products should be regulated as nicotine delivery systems and must meet the scientific, efficacy and safety criteria established by regulatory authorities prior to sale and marketing.
Thanks for finding and posting that, Kate. The summary points you itemized accurately reflect the worst fears we've had. None can be refuted, regretfully.
Your advocacy on behalf e-smoking can only help, but WHO has shown the magnitude of your chore.
Hercules would drop the rock, at this point.
Your advocacy on behalf e-smoking can only help, but WHO has shown the magnitude of your chore.
Hercules would drop the rock, at this point.
Thanks TBob but it wasn't me who did the work, it was Alain at ecigtest, I just crossposted.
I know what you mean that it's a mammoth task but one day these things will be approved, they are too good to not succeed in the long term. It's a question of how long 'long term' turns out to be. I hope I'm around to see the day.
I know what you mean that it's a mammoth task but one day these things will be approved, they are too good to not succeed in the long term. It's a question of how long 'long term' turns out to be. I hope I'm around to see the day.
Me, too. I do think if a ban is enacted prior to regulatory approvals, it would take years to be legalized -- likely as a pharmaceutical product, if it returns at all.
Of all the things I've tried, the e-cig is the best for habit and addiction. Mostly habit, but I'm sure I'm addicted to it as much as I was to cigarettes. I would try to keep the ones I own now going, but you just know if the mass market is denied sellers, there would soon be no replacement atomizers.
Tough times, ahead. In more ways than one.
Of all the things I've tried, the e-cig is the best for habit and addiction. Mostly habit, but I'm sure I'm addicted to it as much as I was to cigarettes. I would try to keep the ones I own now going, but you just know if the mass market is denied sellers, there would soon be no replacement atomizers.
Tough times, ahead. In more ways than one.
So we need to learn to build our own atomizers. Fast. And in an easy-as-possible way, with step-by-step instructions - so it can be built for own use by the average user... Just in case this scenario does unfold further (and btw offering these devices or liquid to any authorities ourselves while presenting it as NRT or cessation-product is NOT going to help to slow down that scenario one little bit, imo).
no study needed. One of the dirty little secrets is that when they took the lead out of gasoline they replaced it with benzene, which causes leukemia. Used to know a fellow that worked at a refinery in Texas and he died from leukemia caused by benzene poisoning. He sued and won. Of course, the lawsuit didnt help him any but at least his widow got some compensation.
- Status
Similar threads
