New studies find carcinogens in vg and pg at high temps, even in tootle puffers

[KenD]

I'm not suggesting that every study ordered and funded by an ANTZ organization is to be dismissed; just that it needs to be scrutinized critically.

All studies need to be scrutinised critically, that's how science works. There's a strong tendency among some here to categorically dismiss any studies with findings that they don't agree with, while uncritically cheering studies with findings they like. That's cherry picking, and does vaping no service. Also, it should be remembered that in order to be able to assess studies in depth expertise, or at least considerable schooling, is usually needed. Note: I'm not defending these studies per se, just pointing out that we (few of us at least) as laymen won't necessarily be able to make the correct judgments.

Sent from my K6000 Pro using Tapatalk

 

[Eskie]

Absolutely right. And I assure you that nobody here "sees him as the absolute authority on any- and everything vaping-related." Far from it. We are a skeptical and cynical bunch and we always argue--just in case.

When Dr. F decided to issue his, somewhat misguided, warning against dry burning coils because "you are basically destroying the bonds between the metal molecules," he met immediately with universal criticism from vapers; some polite, some not so polite. This is from an old thread, so quoting is disabled--click on the links to my favorite posts.

The end of microcoils?

The end of microcoils?

The end of microcoils?

The end of microcoils?

Those are the polite ones.

Sorry, @Lessifer I'm just feeling nostalgic.

Oh, I wasn't around then. That thread looked like fun!

 

[KenD]

And I assure you that nobody here "sees him as the absolute authority on any- and everything vaping-related."

Most of us don't, but there are those who do

Sent from my K6000 Pro using Tapatalk

 

[KenD]

No, they're right. It's the 5% we're quibbling over right now.

And that would of course depend on vaping styles etc. For some it might be 99% safer, for some perhaps only 90% (or even 85%, gasp!) safer In any case, I don't think that 95% is a very scientifically sound number. It's probably good enough as a general statement, but I doubt that very many scientists would stake their careers and reputations on "vaping is 95% safer than smoking" as any kind of exact authoritative claim.

Sent from my K6000 Pro using Tapatalk

 

[Katya]

All studies need to be scrutinised critically, that's how science works.

All studies are not alike. Studies initiated, sponsored and supervised by ANTZ are well known for being politically motivated, skewed, manipulated, biased and otherwise designed to prove their dogma that tobacco (and everything they deem to be a tobacco product) is bad--always, for everybody, in any form and shape, except for the FDA approved NRT products.

 

[Katya]

Oh, I wasn't around then. That thread looked like fun!

It was. It was so much fun that it had to be locked. Poor Dr. F.

 

[kates]

So is the rcp wrong to say vaping is 95% safer than smoking. ?

That was their assessment of risk given the research they had available at the time (Think the report was May 16 so the cut off for research reviewed would have been before that and allow for time to write/ publish) They will review I'm sure and the % will probably change as new research becomes available. However if you see vaping as harm reduction there is a fair bit of 'wiggle room'.

 

[awsum140]

I think I have figured out how to measure juice temp in an atty with a closed chamber and airdraw and everything. The Merlin RTA atty is built with such a spacious deck that I think I can sneak a tiny thermocouple up through the airhole and attach it to the coil, as well as another test with the probe in the middle of a Scottish roll wick. Anyway, I have ordered a couple of Merlins off of FT, and will try it. I already have the thermocouples.

Remember, you have to wear a starched white shirt with a heavily starched, short, collar, polka dot bow tie and glasses (whether you need them or not).

Seriously, this will be interesting and I'll be waiting, with baited vape, for the results. I wonder if you can get the temperature of the wick, near the coil, but on the surface of the wick. That may give an idea of the actual liquid temperatures. Easy for me to say since you're going to be doing the testing.

On another anecdotal note...Since this thread started I looked at my TC mods and lowered temperatures significantly. I was running them at 480F and I'm now down around 400F. I used to have a "nagging" cough but it has disappeared over the last few days. I can't help but wonder of that's a result of the lower temperature and, potentially, lowering/eliminating formadehyde from my vape.

 

[Mazinny]

All studies need to be scrutinised critically, that's how science works. There's a strong tendency among some here to categorically dismiss any studies with findings that they don't agree with, while uncritically cheering studies with findings they like. That's cherry picking, and does vaping no service.
Sent from my K6000 Pro using Tapatalk

Absolutely.

How many people cheering the RCP report could honestly say they know the basis of the 95% safer claim ? What study ( studies ) was it based on and what were the methodologies used ?

 

[Eskie]

All studies are not alike. Studies initiated, sponsored and supervised by ANTZ are well known for being politically motivated, skewed, manipulated, biased and otherwise designed to prove their dogma that tobacco (and everything they deem to be a tobacco product) is bad--always, for everybody, in any form and shape, except for the FDA approved NRT products.

Biased studies are certainly not new. Bias is a common problem is all branches of science, as few enjoy being proven wrong. That's how theories can continue to maintain legitimacy until a critical mass of conflicting data is produced that it becomes untenable to hold onto a flawed model. And it has nothing to do with outside, politically driven agendas. That's why stuff like Materials & Methods in an article are almost more important (well, sometimes they flat out are) than the results. If you cannot understand how a study or experiment is conducted, you cannot assess the results generated. Never mind Discussion and the worst, Conclusion.

The problem is if an experiment is done outside your area of expertise, it's easy to get snowed by the methods used, and misplace the study in it's position of relative validity to other results previously found. That's why stuff like peer review matters, so you know folks in that particular sub-specialty looked and found valid test data. And even that's not always enough, as the reviewer's preconceived notions can influence the review and whatever additional clarification or experiment is required to be offered before publication. It's not a perfect system, but it is generally self policing, and the times it fails are typically a source of major headache and indigestion, never mind ruined careers.

What's really become a problem is how the media views the release of new information. Let's face it, journalists, even those with science skills, can still be wooed by a catchy story that will increase their exposure and their ratings. Exploding batteries? Great! Kids vaping behind the school? A scandal! And that's how "political science" is conducted and manipulated with great skill by publicists and talking heads to fill airtime.

 

[KenD]

All studies are not alike. Studies initiated, sponsored and supervised by ANTZ are well known for being politically motivated, skewed, manipulated, biased and otherwise designed to prove their dogma that tobacco (and everything they deem to be a tobacco product) is bad--always, for everybody, in any form and shape, except for the FDA approved NRT products.

True, but it's worrisome when only disliked studies are critically scrutinized. Understandable, but unfortunate.

Sent from my K6000 Pro using Tapatalk

 

[Katya]

So is the rcp wrong to say vaping is 95% safer than smoking. ?

No, they are not wrong. Whether it's 5 or 6 or 10% makes no difference to me.

And speaking of the devil, in my local paper today

Electronic cigarette myths should go up in smoke

The Royal College of Physicians, a respected British doctors’ group that helps establish national medical standards, concluded in a study published last year that the long-term health hazards of vaping are “unlikely to exceed 5 percent of the harm from tobacco smoke.” These results were similar to a 2013 study published in the peer-reviewed journal “Tobacco Control” that found that “the levels of potentially toxic compounds in e-cigarette vapor are nine- to 450-fold lower than those in the smoke from conventional cigarettes.”

And further:

In their zeal to punish the evil tobacco industry, many have thrown the baby out with the bathwater by ignoring scientific evidence, mislabeling e-cigarettes as dangerous tobacco products and stifling, and restricting access to, a technology that helps tens of thousands of people — perhaps more — safely and effectively quit smoking every year. After all, without a crisis — even an imagined one — how would politicians and government agencies justify their campaigns and taxpayer funding?

Bingo!

 

[kates]

Nicotine without smoke: Tobacco harm reduction
Study is here (sorry will need to copy/ paste, can't link on my phone)
Looks like it did it itself

 

[Katya]

True, but it's worrisome when only disliked studies are critically scrutinized.

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Seriously, I don't think that your statement is true. I'll leave it at that. We seem to be going in circles...

 

[zoiDman]

True, but it's worrisome when only disliked studies are critically scrutinized. Understandable, but unfortunate.

Sent from my K6000 Pro using Tapatalk

But isn't that how Many People view Studies?

If the Results validate their Beliefs or Emotional Biases, then it is a "Good" Study. Who cares about things like Protocols or who Funded the Study.

But if the Results run Counter to ones Beliefs or if the study Elicits Negative Emotions, then the Study is Called into Question. Or, perhaps, summarily Dismissed.

Throw in the Fact that some "Studies" are Not meant to advance a Science, but to Promote an Agenda, and many just gave up on Reading Studies they Don't Like.

 

[Katya]

Throw in the Fact that some "Studies" are Not meant to advance a Science, but to Promote an Agenda, and many just gave up on Reading Studies they Don't Like.

^What he said.

 

[KenD]

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Seriously, I don't think that your statement is true. I'll leave it at that. We seem to be going in circles...

I don't think we actually disagree, just debate nuances

Sent from my K6000 Pro using Tapatalk

 

[KenD]

But isn't that how Many People view Studies?

If the Results validate their Beliefs or Emotional Biases, then it is a "Good" Study. Who cares about things like Protocols or who Funded the Study.

But if the Results run Counter to ones Beliefs or if the study Elicits Negative Emotions, then the Study is Called into Question. Or, perhaps, summarily Dismissed.

Throw in the Fact that some "Studies" are Not meant to advance a Science, but to Promote an Agenda, and many just gave up on Reading Studies they Don't Like.

Indeed it is. However, as a scientist myself (well, scholar, in the Swedish language there isn't a distinction) it rubs me the wrong way. Not as badly as studies that are biased from the outset of course, that is simply inexcusable.

Sent from my K6000 Pro using Tapatalk

 

[440BB]

I just learned that the Tapioca plant also contains cyanide, in lethal dose if consumed raw. Apparently the cooking process renders it safe.

Am I the only one wondering what is the minimum temperature for raw Tapioca to be safe from cyanide poisoning?

I most likely won't vape it, but it does make one wonder...

 

[Katya]

I don't think we actually disagree, just debate nuances

Sent from my K6000 Pro using Tapatalk

I think we disagree on a deeper level. You, in your generosity and nobility of a scholar, assume that all studies are studies and should be treated with respect. I have no trust in our rabid ANTZ, their agenda, and their "studies." Zip, zilch, zero, nada.