Positive News Article

[MalkinMania71]

Had to share this article. Granted, it is in a local small time newspaper, however it at least is a positive for the e-cig industry as far as I am concerned.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/gcm/o...cle_9000af38-69a4-56e5-b6db-e4684dea8b02.html

 

[zoiDman]

Had to share this article. Granted, it is in a local small time newspaper, however it at least is a positive for the e-cig industry as far as I am concerned.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/gcm/o...cle_9000af38-69a4-56e5-b6db-e4684dea8b02.html

If you found Mr. Stone's article to be Good, I would Highly suggest that you send him a note and let him know you liked it.

 

[MalkinMania71]

I have already done so.

 

[fraychek]

Well, yes and no. At least he calls out BT, which is a good thing.

 

[MalkinMania71]

I think that is what I liked the most is that he made it known who was losing money and who is making the e-cigs look unsafe.

 

[edyle]

I sent him a comment:

to nutritionalagn.
Just a small note that your article
http://www.heraldstandard.com/gcm/o...cle_9000af38-69a4-56e5-b6db-e4684dea8b02.html

mentions "liquid nicotine" in ecigarettes.
"Liquid nicotine" is mentioned 3 times.

Actually the amount of nicotine contained in the liquids used is more like 1% to 2%;
2% being "strong".

The bulk of the liquid is either glycerin or propylene glycol (or both)

===edit===

wow! and got a reply!
already!

Ron Stone

1:54 PM (9 minutes ago)

to me

Hmm.

Thanks.
I did notice sources varied on it.

 

[zoiDman]

I have already done so.

Good Deal.

Sometimes people Only comment when they Don't Like something someone writes.

 

[sonicdsl]

Moved to Media & General News from General vaping Discussion


The overall tone is fairly positive sort of neutral, but there are a number of factual errors, For example, a tablespoon of liquid nicotine wouldn't kill an adult, but would cause vomiting and distress. Also, the number of calls to Poison Control may have gone up, but that doesn't mean someone was truly poisoned.

 

[dragonpuff]

I found this article more offensive than anything else, and obviously written by someone who doesn't know much of anything about smoking, let alone vaping. Sure, he comes out gentle on e-cigs, but the rest of the article is filled with factual errors and anti-smoker bias.

I could write a rather lengthy post ripping it apart point by point, but it bothered me enough that I don't want to read it again.

All I will say is this: any time I hear the words "slow suicide" in reference to smoking, it makes my blood boil something fierce!

You don't know anything about smoking, and you obviously don't know anything about suicide because if you did, you wouldn't apply that term to smoking. So can it!

End rant.

 

[edyle]

Moved to Media & General News from General vaping Discussion


The overall tone is fairly positive, but there are a number of factual errors, For example, a tablespoon of liquid nicotine wouldn't kill an adult, but would cause vomiting and distress. Also, the number of calls to Poison Control may have gone up, but that doesn't mean someone was truly poisoned.

???
I do believe that is incorrect.

If the lethal dose is liquid nicotine is something like 10 mg/kg, then 1 gram of nicotine will kill; and a tablespoon will be a few grams.

Maybe you're using 'liquid nicotine' to mean liquid containing a small amount of nicotine, which would then be vague until you define how much nicotine.

 

[Kent C]

Moved to Media & General News from General Vaping Discussion


The overall tone is fairly positive, but there are a number of factual errors, For example, a tablespoon of liquid nicotine wouldn't kill an adult, but would cause vomiting and distress. Also, the number of calls to Poison Control may have gone up, but that doesn't mean someone was truly poisoned.

This is a good point. They don't classify calls by whether there were any 'incidents'. They most likely had some busy body type calls on 'MIO liquid' (for flavoring water). Don't mean any harm was done....

 

[dragonpuff]

???
I do believe that is incorrect.

If the lethal dose is liquid nicotine is something like 10 mg/kg, then 1 gram of nicotine will kill; and a tablespoon will be a few grams.

Maybe you're using 'liquid nicotine' to mean liquid containing a small amount of nicotine, which would then be vague until you define how much nicotine.

There is a lot of misinformation going around about the lethal dose of nicotine. Many who are writing about e-liquid cite a long-known "fact" about how much nicotine is required to be lethal, but this information is based on a very old study done in the 19th century that is extremely flawed. The dose you state appears to be based on that study. New studies are showing the lethal dose is at least 4 times higher, although most authors who are trying to make vaping look bad will still cite the old, flawed study.

Also, as I and others stated earlier, this article is chock full of factual errors. I wouldn't believe anything that author says unless it's backed up with another, credible source. It would be awfully nice if writers of articles took the time to actually do background research on what they're writing, but unfortunately, that is not the world we live in...

 

[zoiDman]

There is a lot of misinformation going around about the lethal dose of nicotine. Many who are writing about e-liquid cite a long-known "fact" about how much nicotine is required to be lethal, but this information is based on a very old study done in the 19th century that is extremely flawed. The dose you state appears to be based on that study. New studies are showing the lethal dose is at least 4 times higher, although most authors who are trying to make vaping look bad will still cite the old, flawed study.

...

It is Hard to get an Actual Lethal Dosage for Nicotine in Humans. Because getting Volunteers for a Clinical Trial is Tough.

 

[Kent C]

There is a lot of misinformation going around about the lethal dose of nicotine. Many who are writing about e-liquid cite a long-known "fact" about how much nicotine is required to be lethal, but this information is based on a very old study done in the 19th century that is extremely flawed. The dose you state appears to be based on that study. New studies are showing the lethal dose is at least 4 times higher, although most authors who are trying to make vaping look bad will still cite the old, flawed study.

Also, as I and others stated earlier, this article is chock full of factual errors. I wouldn't believe anything that author says unless it's backed up with another, credible source. It would be awfully nice if writers of articles took the time to actually do background research on what they're writing, but unfortunately, that is not the world we live in...

The article and his writing is screwed up. He's talking eliquid, then with some reference to it, makes the nicotine comment from a third hand source. What level of nic in the teaspoon is anyone's guess but even if it's eliquid then one would have to know the nic level - which isn't mentioned and the 'child's age' would help as well. The best advice is to ignore the whole piece. Some of the points he's attempting to make has been made in a much better and understandable way by many others. Most of the article focuses on the negative. The only positive point for him is that the ecig "potentially" doesn't seem to have the effects of second hand smoke!

He starts out with "A good friend of mine recently asked me to do a little research into the electronic nicotine vaporizer that has gained viral popularity since the “e-cig” hit the US market in 2007." He did very little.

He ends with "As with any health-related topic, people are encouraged to do their own research. Start a web search of your own on the topic, and let us know what you find." ... which is what he should have advised his friend above, since he didn't do any.

 

[Nate760]

1. Even if you were to ingest a theoretically lethal dose of nicotine, it's highly unlikely that death would actually result, since your body would waste no time in violently regurgitating it.

2. As has already been pointed out, there's no correlation whatsoever between the number of calls placed to poison control hotlines and the number of actual poisonings, much less poisoning events so severe they result in injury and/or hospitalization. Public health agencies are constantly telling parents they should call poison control if they think there's the slightest possibility their child may have consumed something toxic. As a result, well over 90% of such calls are purely precautionary and do not result in any medical intervention.

 

[dragonpuff]

1. Even if you were to ingest a theoretically lethal dose of nicotine, it's highly unlikely that death would actually result, since your body would waste no time in violently regurgitating it.

2. As has already been pointed out, there's no correlation whatsoever between the number of calls placed to poison control hotlines and the number of actual poisonings, much less poisoning events so severe they result in injury and/or hospitalization. Public health agencies are constantly telling parents they should call poison control if they think there's the slightest possibility their child may have consumed something toxic. As a result, well over 90% of such calls are purely precautionary and do not result in any medical intervention.

Agreed. The number of calls to poison control is often cited, whereas a more accurate statistic would be the number of deaths and/or severe illnesses resulting from e-liquid ingestion. The current total count is zero.