• Need help from former MFS (MyFreedomSmokes) customers

    Has any found a supplier or company that has tobacco e-juice like or very similar to MFS Turbosmog, Tall Paul, or Red Luck?

    View thread

PART 4 - The Official MyVapeJuice Family Room (Crazy Chit Chat Thread - Live LAUGH Love and Vape

Status
Not open for further replies.

oldbikeguy

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
    Is vaping Worse


    Continue reading the main story

    So I suppose you heard about the latest e-cigarette study, the one that said that the vapors e-cigarette users inhale contain multiple forms of formaldehyde. It was much in the news last week, after its authors, five scientists from Portland State University, published a peer-reviewed letter outlining their findings in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine.

    “Before You Vape: High Levels of Formaldehyde Hidden in E-Cigs,” said the headline at NBC.com. “Can You Guess What Cancer-Causing Agent Researchers Just Found in Electronic Cigarettes?” asked The Motley Fool. “E-Cigarettes Not Safer Than Ordinary Cigarettes,” claimed the online publication Tech Times. The New England Journal of Medicine chimed in with a tweet of its own: “Chemical analysis of e-cigs’ vapor show high levels of formaldehyde,” it read. “Authors project higher cancer risk than smoking.”
    Joe Nocera
    Business, regulation, Wall Street, the N.C.A.A. and guns.

    Don’t Blame Nafta JAN 23
    A Detainee’s Diary JAN 19
    The Keystone XL Illusion JAN 16
    Playing College Moneyball JAN 12
    Riddle of the Pyramids: What Is Herbalife? JAN 9

    See More »

    The study focused on a device known as a premium vaporizer that heats a flavored liquid containing nicotine. The heat causes the liquid to turn into vapor, which the user inhales. Most of these devices also allow the user to control the voltage. These devices have become increasingly popular as a way to ingest nicotine without smoking.

    In the study, the Portland State scientists ran the device at both a low voltage and a high voltage. At the low voltage, they did not detect formaldehyde. But at the high voltage, they found some. Formaldehyde is, indeed, a known carcinogen, which also exists, among hundreds of other toxic chemicals and dozens of cancer-causing agents, in combustible cigarettes. The authors concluded that someone who was a heavy user of a vaporizer at the high voltage was five to 15 times more likely to get cancer than a longtime smoker. Or so they seemed to say.

    There is not much doubt that studies like this have an impact on the public perception of e-cigarettes. Even though cigarettes result in 480,000 American deaths each year — and even though it is the tobacco, not the nicotine, that kills them — many in the public health community treat e-cigarettes as every bit as evil. Every dollop of news suggesting that vaping is bad for your health, much of which has been overblown, is irrationally embraced by anti-tobacco activists. One result is that, whereas 84 percent of current smokers thought e-cigarettes were safer than ordinary cigarettes in 2010, that number had dropped to 65 percent by 2013.

    Worse, close to a third of the people who had abandoned e-cigarettes and returned to smoking did so because they were worried about the health effects of vaping, according to a study published last year in the journal Nicotine & Tobacco Research.

    The Portland State study fits right into this dynamic. It is, on the one hand, factually true that vaping at an extremely high voltage will cause formaldehyde-releasing agents to develop.

    But this conclusion is highly misleading. People don’t vape at a high voltage because it causes a horrible taste — “a burning taste that occurs from overheating the liquid,” wrote Konstantinos Farsalinos, a Greek scientist and vaping expert, in an email to me. Farsalinos has done human studies of vaping and discovered that above a certain voltage — lower than the high voltage test on the Portland State study — people simply couldn’t inhale; the taste was unbearable.
    Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story
    Continue reading the main story

    Indeed, the study actually conveys good news. When used at normal voltage, vaping does not produce formaldehyde! “Rather than scaring people about the dangers of vaping and alarming them to the ‘fact’ that vaping raises their cancer risk above that of smoking, we should instead be regulating the voltage and temperature conditions of electronic cigarettes so that the problem of formaldehyde contamination is completely avoided,” wrote Michael Siegel, a professor of public health at Boston University, on his blog. But given the way the Portland State authors characterized their research, it’s no surprise that headline writers took away a different message.
    Continue reading the main story
    Recent Comments
    Steve Milloy
    3 minutes ago

    Formaldehyde link with cancer is junk science. Decades of epidemiologic studies all produce correlations on both sides of zero. Any...
    Ian
    3 minutes ago

    Thank you for writing this thoughtful & intelligent op-ed piece. Hopefully the well-reasoned discourse of this article helps diffuse the...
    Keefer
    3 minutes ago

    When you're dry firing the coil, its not being tested properly. The highest I vape is 4.1-4.3 and the coil is capable of going to 5.1...

    See All Comments
    Write a comment

    When I spoke to David Peyton, one of the study’s authors, he insisted that the study had been mischaracterized. All it was meant to do, he said, was compare the levels of formaldehyde in e-cigarettes versus cigarettes. “It is exceedingly frustrating to me that we are being associated with saying that e-cigarettes are more dangerous than cigarettes,” he added. “That is a fact not in evidence.” Well, maybe.

    When I read him the tweet from the New England Journal of Medicine — “Authors project higher cancer risk than smoking” — he sounded horrified. “I didn’t see the tweet,” he said. “I regret that. That is not my opinion.”

    “There is a lot we don’t yet know about e-cigarettes,” said Peyton toward the end of our conversation. He is right about that; e-cigarettes are still so new that they need to be studied carefully. And he and his co-authors are planning further studies. Perhaps the next time, they will produce something that doesn’t serve mainly as a scare tactic to keep smokers away from e-cigarettes.
     

    oldbikeguy

    ECF Guru
    ECF Veteran
    Verified Member

    DoomiteAsh

    Vaping Master
    ECF Veteran
    Jul 16, 2014
    5,278
    25,638
    Amarillo, TX
    Morning y'all, hope everyone is having a great Tuesday and staying safe N warm if you're in the Northeast!

    I got a couple of cute pictures from my dad a couple days ago, thought I'd share 'em here. Chimp lady, I think you'll like this first one:

    4438995f8146e21712128082277b6108.jpg


    Here's sort of an all-purpose pic.

    7d717b6eeb135ef4e7d738248b61b367.jpg


    Sent from Doomite Central!
     

    oldbikeguy

    ECF Guru
    ECF Veteran
    Verified Member
    Super busy at work already. Oh and I have on shorts today. :)

    I hate how much the news misconstrued a study that could actually be valuable in us knowing what limits we can safely vape at.

    Yeah I would like too know what they call high voltage the NEC defines high voltage as anything over 600 volts.
     

    Maxedout

    ECF Guru
    ECF Veteran
    Verified Member
    Jan 8, 2012
    52,895
    165,975
    Arizona
    I also saw there was news in the Mini PV market... Pioneer4You has released a v2 limited edition ( 9,999 pcs ) of the iPV Mini. The original is a 30w device... this one is 70w and uses the YiHi 330V2C chipset. It'll now go down to 0.2Ω ( and up to 3.0Ω ) and the pages I've looked at, the spec's show 5w-70w but the voltage range is 3.6v-8.5v instead of 3.0v-8.0v that the v1 has. This looks like will only come in two colors, or at least that is all they currently show... silver similar to the original and an all black version ( buttons and all ) each also have a different dare I say fancier looking logo on the side instead of the stock P4U logo.

    P4U-IPV70BK-3.jpg



    ... BTW... mine should be here about Friday ( just ordered it a little bit ago ) :D

    I couldn't find it? PM me a link please.
     

    rdsok

    ECF Guru
    ECF Veteran
    Verified Member
    Mar 17, 2012
    16,213
    72,525
    Norman, Ok
    I couldn't find it? PM me a link please.

    You have :mail:


    BTW... I didn't think about this last night when I was ordering... that vendor is in NY .... so shipping on it will likely get delayed. :(


    My order from Yimmie made it to the P.O. on Monday just fine... only it doesn't show leaving there... so it may end up being delayed as well. The extract being delayed isn't going to be a big deal unless the winter storms last a really long time... I had just mixed up another 120ml and have enough for another 60ml that I haven't mixed yet... so I should be ok for a week or twelve... :D

    I also ordered up a couple of Sony RT4 batteries... I have a couple of the eFest 35a ( burst ) that I use in my 30w ZNA clone... but I wouldn't trust them much further than that. So I got the Sony's which I do trust to not sag an let me down. I should have picked up a couple more AW 18500's while I was at it but wasn't thinking clearly then... the one's I've got now are getting close to 3 years old and one will sag immediately when I fire it in the ZNA clone.
     

    rdsok

    ECF Guru
    ECF Veteran
    Verified Member
    Mar 17, 2012
    16,213
    72,525
    Norman, Ok
    Thank you Redsok!
    I really like it! Now what do I want the IPV Mini 2 or the ZNA clone?

    Yes please... :D

    But I'll play the game if we can go off of the AFAIK stuff...

    As long as the ZNA clone is in 18500 mode... it wins ( for me ) hands down in the looks department understanding that I haven't physically seen the iPV Mini yet and that can make a difference. On the otherhand, in 18650 mode ( to compare them with the same battery spec )... the ZNA looks a bit funny with the 18650 tube on it.

    In 18500 mode the ZNA clone is about 157g... in 18650 mode about 160g. I believe the original iPV Mini is 150g ( all empty of batteries ).

    The A-Mod ( aka Wotofo ) ZNA 30w requires two clicks to fire after it goes to sleep. The original iPV Mini didn't need the "wake up" click, I'm uncertain about this version although I suspect it won't need it also.

    The original iPV Mini 30w could step down the output voltage using PWM mode down to 3.0v equivalant with 5w being the lowest output... the A-Mod ZNA clones I'm aware of can not step down and the lowest output is 7w. The newer iPV Mini v2's lowest voltage is 3.6v and 5w, uncertain if it has a PWM stepdown or a true DC step down if the battery is over 3.6v or not.

    I think the ZNA is about 1/2" taller in 18650 mode but about the same if it's in it's 18500 mode.

    I find the ZNA slightly too narrow from my palm to my fingers ( depth ) but not by much... the iPV Mini will be about 10mm deeper in that direction.

    The iPV Mini v1 has 5 memory locations which look like a handy feature... uncertain about the v2... the ZNA has none.


    I'll know a lot more after I receive the iPV Mini v2 ( obviously eh ) and the shinyitis of it has worn off a little so I can be more objective.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Users who are viewing this thread