New study: vaping no more toxic than breathing air
- Thread starter DrMA
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
that simply is not true.
if it was explain the results of this study.
now if they did this study and found both smoking and
vaping were identical,then buried it,you might have a point.
this is what some call killing the messenger and ignoring the message.
regards
mike
that simply is not true.
if it was explain the results of this study.
now if they did this study and found both smoking and
vaping were identical,then buried it,you might have a point.
this is what some call killing the messenger and ignoring the message.
regards
mike
Who is to say this Studies (or any Study) wasn't done Many Times using Different Protocols until a Favorable Result was Found?
who is to say it was?
i'll admit they must have known the result just not the degree
separating the result.
i think the study stands on its own merit.
the important part as some one mentioned is
they used healthy normal cells. not the genetically
modified ones that some researchers will claim
with a straight face,will mutate if you think bad
thoughts about them.
regards
mike
There is a term " curve fitting " in research...... Having a premise, or outcome if you will and finding the data to support it .
If you understand the very basics of science, you can identify if the methodology is sound.
To understand the hypothesis and the experimentation (protocols) may take more advanced knowledge, but even then, most scientific reports spell everything out or, in and of themselves, are not very good methodology.
This notion that scientists and scientific practice is beyond laypeople's understanding would, in essence, be anti-science. If it were beyond average person's understanding and scope, it would be akin to a cult.
More to the point of subtext in this thread is why would unqualified scientific journalists claim dangers of eCigs via mass publication, but same journalists would not massively publicize harmlessness of eCigs when a scientific report concludes as much?
The answer to that isn't so much a knock on science, but does explain the cult like status that science has obtained.
Yeah... And this kinda Gets back to the Funding Source. And if any of the Authors have any Financial Conflicts with the Funder.
Any Study has to Stand on its Own Merit.
And people should be Asking how reflective was the "Smoking" simulation to Real World Smoking. And how reflective was the e-Cigarette simulation was to Real World vaping.
Then, How Much can this Study Conclude about ALL e-Cigarette/e-Liquid use?
Did it Represent the Wide Range of Wattages and Milliliter Dosages that Vapers Use? And what Inferences can be made about Other non-tested e-Liquids that have Dis-Similar Chemical Makeups (Flavorings, Sweeteners, Colorants) to the e-Liquids(s) that were Tested in the Study?
It sounds to me, from what they termed "aggressive" attempts, that they tried as hard as they could to make vaping cause some harm... and vaping just refused to do it, no matter how "aggressively" they attempted.
Andria
I just Don't Know how aggressive they Were or Weren't.
And Unless someone was Involved in the Study on a Very Intimate Level, I don't think Anyone Does.
The Main Thing to me is What can be Taken Away from a Study Like This?
Did this Study just Tell me that Five Pawns e-Liquids are Good to Go?
Or that Every e-Liquid Tested is Going to see the Same Results as the One(s) that the Authors used?
Can a Sub-Ohmer Hitting at 150 Watts take something from this Study?
How about Me and my Subtank at 18 Watts?
i believe the methods simulating smoking and vaping were a lot
more rigorous than found in the real world. i think that in and
of its self is good.that just means real world results would be
to lesser degree but,with the same comparable result.
vaping would still come out better.
the study may not be inclusive for all juices and devices but,
its a starting point for speculation and future comparison.
knowing how they did the study a person with skills could
come up with some very realistic hypotheses.
wattage doesn't even enter the picture.
its heat.as heat rises the residual water just vaporizes faster
atomizing the base liquid equaling more volume of vapor
over a fixed time.when liquid runs out or the water content
is to low you get a dry hit scenario which we all agree is bad.
i agree this experiment should be duplicated with something
like a fuhatten to get a top end result that should give a
reference and have two points to plot a decent chart.
regards
mike
The hypothesis doesn't matter if the science is sound.
The protocols matter a lot though, and there should be a section that discusses them.
And there should also be a section that discusses potential flaws in the methodology.
And why those flaws existed, and how they attempted to control for those flaws.
And finally, there should be a section that discusses how the results may or may not relate to the real world.
I learned all that when I did my Honors Thesis in college.
The sections mentioned above took up far more space and time than did the actual results and analysis.
Any "study" that doesn't have those things is garbage.
And any "study" that doesn't do those things with an unbiased approach is also garbage.
There are too many studies regarding vaping that are garbage.
And I refuse to see it as a lack of knowledge with respect to how to go about doing a study.
But it does certainly help to be trained in order to peer through the mist.
Last edited:
Do you think any individual scientific study to date has answered all of these questions? Do you think any future individual study ought to answer all of these questions (and more)?
i believe the methods simulating smoking and vaping were a lot
more rigorous than found in the real world. i think that in and
of its self is good.that just means real world results would be
to lesser degree but,with the same comparable result.
vaping would still come out better.
the study may not be inclusive for all juices and devices but,
its a starting point for speculation and future comparison.
knowing how they did the study a person with skills could
come up with some very realistic hypotheses.
wattage doesn't even enter the picture.
its heat.as heat rises the residual water just vaporizes faster
atomizing the base liquid equaling more volume of vapor
over a fixed time.when liquid runs out or the water content
is to low you get a dry hit scenario which we all agree is bad.
i agree this experiment should be duplicated with something
like a fuhatten to get a top end result that should give a
reference and have two points to plot a decent chart.
regards
mike
Whereas I do Agree that it is Heat that is Important. Heat is hard to Quantify for Non-TC using Vapers.
So when speaking on Averages, I feel Comfortable saying that those who use High Wattages stand a Greater Chance of Hitting at Wire Temperatures above 400F than those who Vape at Low Wattages. On Average.
Last edited:
but water vaporizes starting at about 180 F. optimum vapor production occurs around 196-8 F.
the water vaporizes and disperses the juice long before its near 400 F. a lot of heat is lost
by being converted to the force vaporizing the water. a pot of boiling water at sea level
will always be 212 F.
regards
mike
but water vaporizes starting at about 180 F. optimum vapor production occurs around 196-8 F.
the water vaporizes and disperses the juice long before its near 400 F. a lot of heat is lost
by being converted to the force vaporizing the water. a pot of boiling water at sea level
will always be 212 F.
regards
mike
That's all good Mike.
But wire Temperatures Can Exceed 212F. If it Couldn't, then there Wouldn't be much Need for TC Mods now would there?
Why don't you do a Little Research on VG Thermal Breakdown. Or what happens to say Sucralose as the Temperature exceeds about 310 F.
That's all good Zoid.
But why don't you do a little more research on what science is, and what it is not.
Are you aware that there is ways to find this out? Or is this your first inquiry on the subject?
It might explain much if it is first inquiry.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
