Provaping verse Antivaping

[stols001]

You know, I would never have considered quality of life w/r/t vaping vs. smoking, for me starting out, it was a "Okay, let's not die of COPD situation." I sort of figured the romance of smoking would never wear off. That said, I feel a different sense of accomplishment when making my own ejuice, selecting mods and wanting to figure out what I can do. I wouldn't call it a hobby *exactly* but I do far more enjoy many aspects of vaping that I never would have considered.

Not to mention: Not going outside in the 115 degree heat to smoke a cigarette and having to stop everything I'm doing, smelling terrible, having my family worry about me, spending less money (I think it's about to even out ) Losing wrinkles, looking healthier, EATING (OMG, I cannot BELIEVE my appetite these days) and tasting food, not having my kid stress out over my wellbeing, our house not burning down again (well, that was husband's cigarette, ironically, but it was *really* stressful), not burning holes in my clothing, having a vast array of new things to try, getting back into crafting (to keep hands occupied), not supporting BT and the increasing prices they command, not constantly trying to find the cheapest tobacco, gosh, the list goes on, not being a bad example to the kiddos I work with, being able to exercise more happily and extensively, being able to breathe, not having used an inhaler in 3 weeks, not constantly wheezing, hearing DeAnna talk happily about converting her kiddo and friends to vaping, etc., etc., etc.

Okay, I think I've made my point. But, that is why communities here are helpful, it's an entirely different space than smoking. AND, I certainly didn't start smoking without assistance (my best friend in HS was perpetual bad news) and support, LOL, so I see this as the exact same thing.

All the things above are valuable to me *because* I started vaping only because I had *no idea* what else to do. I think if I'd *stuck* to that mindset, I would have lost sight of those valuable things above. So yes, we're all going to die, and however I die, even if it's vape related, the positives outweigh the negatives for me. I'd have to say given all possibilities, maybe vaping will kill me off slightly faster, it's certainly *possible*. But, I gave up on catastrophic thinking a LONG time ago and I'm glad I did. I used to worry about tidal waves, that gigantic mountain wherever that would fall into the sea, a gigantic volcanic explosion, dying in a tunnel, oh heck, you name it, I used to worry about it. But, one day (I think it was the tidal wave show) I was watching it, about to freak out, then I thought, "You know? I should worry about that IF and only WHEN it happens. I'mma gonna worry about that THEN." It really saved me some major mental energy, so I'm PROUD to present the things in my life that are *IMPROVED* thanks to vaping, and those things include more than health benefits, in many ways... Not to say research isn't important, but it can't rule my life beyond a certain point, which is if/when it's valuable information gathering, not some "Expert" going on about the tidal plume of vaping that will destroy us all....

TLR: I have stopped worrying about the methodology behind which I will die, I will leave my corpse behind for those who'd like to study it to *find out*. I will be busy elsewhere, either quitting vaping, while decomposing, or doing something *else*.

Anna

 

[zoiDman]

... I just want to be clear, i truly do not believe vaping will be found to be worse or as harmful as smoking, even long term. This is why i vape and why i have converted soo many of my daughters friends to vaping. But i do sometimes wonder about the long term effects that are unknown. ...

I Don't Think you are alone in this DeAnna.

I also believe that the Longer one vapes, the more questions about of potential Long Term Effects can seem more meaningful for some.

---

One thing I do find Unusual is how Many use a Double Standard when evaluating Studies and Study Conclusions.

By that I mean if a Study is published that says "e-Cigarettes" are Harmful because High Levels of __________ (fill in the blank) were found, people can be Quick to Pounce and point out that the Hardware / Voltages / Coil Temps / e-Liquid / etc. are not representative of what an Average Vaper using. And No Study Results, where only a select Hardware / Voltages / Coil Temps / e-Liquid / etc. are tested, can be applied to All "e-Cigarettes".

But when the Opposite occurs, and a Study says that "e-Cigarettes" are Not Harmful because of Low Levels of __________ (fill in the blank) were found, people Herald it as Validation that All "e-Cigarettes" are Not Harmful.

It almost seems that the Implied Results is More Important than the Validity and Applicability of the Study?

Maybe this is a product of Negative Studies being used against us in the Media? And the potential Impact on e-Cigarette Policy? Or maybe it is just Inherent to Human Nature?

I Can't help you with Many of your Questions. But I can ask you this...

If you believe that e-Cigarette use is Harm Reduction, not Harm Elimination, as compared to Smoking, can the Same Thought be applied to the Different types of e-Cigarette use?

Or does ALL e-Cigarette use pose the Same potential Risk?

 

[listopencil]

By that I mean if a Study is published that says "e-Cigarettes" are Harmful because High Levels of __________ (fill in the blank) were found, people can be Quick to Pounce and point out that the Hardware / Voltages / Coil Temps / e-Liquid / etc. are not representative of what an Average Vaper using. And No Study Results, where only a select Hardware / Voltages / Coil Temps / e-Liquid / etc. are tested, can be applied to All "e-Cigarettes".

But when the Opposite occurs, and a Study says that "e-Cigarettes" are Not Harmful because of Low Levels of __________ (fill in the blank) were found, people Herald it as Validation that All "e-Cigarettes" are Not Harmful.

Well, speaking for myself only, I have done that in some cases because it's true. There was a study done years ago where a few really horrible quality liquids were vaporized on a circuit that was pushed up over 5 Volts. Not only did they use poor quality liquid that had been discontinued but they used it in a way that did not mimic the devices that they were trying to make look dangerous. They even noted that they had to push it past 5 Volts to get the toxins to appear in the vapor. Toxins which, by the way, were present because the liquid they used had been manufactured with poor quality control-and they went out of their way to find that liquid. So they purposely created a worst case scenario that did not reflect what an average vaper would go through. And that 'study' was pushed all over the place.

On the other hand if studies are done on liquids containing just VG/PG/nic and the juice is vaped within a representative range of temps/Watts/Volts/Ohms/Amps then I will pay more attention to the results and think of those results as a more realistic baseline.

 

[zoiDman]

Well, speaking for myself only, I have done that in some cases because it's true. There was a study done years ago where a few really horrible quality liquids were vaporized on a circuit that was pushed up over 5 Volts. Not only did they use poor quality liquid that had been discontinued but they used it in a way that did not mimic the devices that they were trying to make look dangerous. They even noted that they had to push it past 5 Volts to get the toxins to appear in the vapor. Toxins which, by the way, were present because the liquid they used had been manufactured with poor quality control-and they went out of their way to find that liquid. So they purposely created a worst case scenario that did not reflect what an average vaper would go through. And that 'study' was pushed all over the place.

On the other hand if studies are done on liquids containing just VG/PG/nic and the juice is vaped within a representative range of temps/Watts/Volts/Ohms/Amps then I will pay more attention to the results and think of those results as a more realistic baseline.

No Arguments that there have been some Studies done where Coil Temps in all likelihood Exceeded what a Vaper would keep hitting on. Some refer to those as "Dry Hit" studies.

 

[listopencil]

No Arguments that there have been some Studies done where Coil Temps in all likelihood Exceeded what a Vaper would keep hitting on. Some refer to those as "Dry Hit" studies.

I'm waiting on the study where they cut an extension cord, strip the wiring, wrap some asbestos on the bare wire, spray some oven cleaner on the asbestos, and then plug it in to a wall outlet. OMG! Vaporing iz dan-jruss y'all!

 

[Eskie]

If you believe that e-Cigarette use is Harm Reduction, not Harm Elimination, as compared to Smoking, can the Same Thought be applied to the Different types of e-Cigarette use?

Or does ALL e-Cigarette use pose the Same potential Risk?

While you can try to characterize e cig/tank-mods into classes rather than every single variation you could think up, it's clear potential risks do vary by e cigs used. It may turn out that a broad stroke across a class finds them all pretty much the same, the easier it will be to use, and if the user is concerned, select e cigs from that class. That information remains unknown, and given the rapid development of gear these days, what might be "third generation" gear may already be outdated information for someone buying stuff now.

 

[zoiDman]

While you can try to characterize e cig/tank-mods into classes rather than every single variation you could think up, it's clear potential risks do vary by e cigs used. ...

And the Same might be True when it comes to e-Liquid.

A Heavily Sweetened, 25% Flavored, high VG e-Liquid might present a Higher Potential Risk that a lightly sweetened 75% VG e-Liquid at 5% Flavoring and 2% Water.

Alle Dinge sind Gift, und nichts ist ohne Gift, allein die Dosis macht dass ein Ding kein Gift ist.

Most people look at 3rd Generation hardware and say that that you should Lower your Nicotine Level. Because 3rd Gen Hardware is better at Nicotine Delivery. And if you cut your Nicotine mg/ml in Half, but vape Twice as many ml's per day, nothing has changed.

But when a person Doubles their ml's/day, they are also Doubling the amount of Flavoring/Sweetener they are putting in their Lungs if the same Flavoring/Sweetener levels are used.

 

[DeAnna2112]

here is what i think, way too many people cling to research that supports vaping. Folks they are out to promote vaping in the brightest light. They are not looking for or reporting negative findings...unless they can not deny it..like diketones and high temps. The same is true with antivaping research. They are out to promote only negative findings. This is why i do not support either side. They both have an agenda. Neither side has convinced me that vaping is either harmful or harmless. For now i feel better, but i do not know if that will be true in the long term. It took many years for smoking to catch up with me. I was a smoker of 30yrs, i did not feel negative effects til around 15yrs of smoking. We are only seeing early research on diketones and high temps, i am not gullible to a point i don't see more coming. We are early uses, early test tube users. I feel better right now, but long term i don't know what research will find...we have already found some areas of concern. I just don't really feel they will find vaping more harmful or as harmful as smoking at this point in time. All i know is short term i feel better, so the catch has to be long term, if there is any issue to be found, it's gonna be a few years if longer before that can be determined for sure. I just find it amazing how people just cling to provaping research and donate how many dollars to it just so they can hear what they want to without any realization to the agenda. I watched the last fda hearings and saw casaa and if their representation is as good as it gets we are in trouble. I would never give them a dime of my money...what a joke. They acted like a bunch of kids who could not control themselves. I just shook my head. That's not what i wanna see, i want to see research and facts not temper tantrums just because......... they like vaping. They brought nothing to the table...nor did the antivaping side. Both sides are a joke and this is what we have to work with. So sad.

 

[DeAnna2112]

Again nobody is noting a con to provaping research, i find this interesting. Nothing is perfect in this world and that goes for provaping research as well. If you feel provaping research is perfect then say so.

 

[listopencil]

Again nobody is noting a con to provaping research, i find this interesting. Nothing is perfect in this world and that goes for provaping research as well. If you feel provaping research is perfect then say so.

There isn't pro-vaping or anti-vaping research. There are people who use data to make arguments against vaping and there are people who use data to make arguments in support of vaping. I am in favor of people using relevant data to make reasonable arguments. There isn't anything wrong with that. I am not in favor of people using irrelevant data to make unreasonable arguments. There isn't anything useful in that.

 

[Tonee N]

I'm anti-hot weather.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

 

[rokyo87]

here is what i think, way too many people cling to research that supports vaping. Folks they are out to promote vaping in the brightest light. They are not looking for or reporting negative findings...unless they can not deny it..like diketones and high temps. The same is true with antivaping research. They are out to promote only negative findings. This is why i do not support either side. They both have an agenda. Neither side has convinced me that vaping is either harmful or harmless. For now i feel better, but i do not know if that will be true in the long term. It took many years for smoking to catch up with me. I was a smoker of 30yrs, i did not feel negative effects til around 15yrs of smoking. We are only seeing early research on diketones and high temps, i am not gullible to a point i don't see more coming. We are early uses, early test tube users. I feel better right now, but long term i don't know what research will find...we have already found some areas of concern. I just don't really feel they will find vaping more harmful or as harmful as smoking at this point in time. All i know is short term i feel better, so the catch has to be long term, if there is any issue to be found, it's gonna be a few years if longer before that can be determined for sure. I just find it amazing how people just cling to provaping research and donate how many dollars to it just so they can hear what they want to without any realization to the agenda. I watched the last fda hearings and saw casaa and if their representation is as good as it gets we are in trouble. I would never give them a dime of my money...what a joke. They acted like a bunch of kids who could not control themselves. I just shook my head. That's not what i wanna see, i want to see research and facts not temper tantrums just because......... they like vaping. They brought nothing to the table...nor did the antivaping side. Both sides are a joke and this is what we have to work with. So sad.

Did you read any research from Konstantinos Farsalinos? He has many honest critics on vaping industry...

 

[Tonee N]

Honest critics? Isn't that a contradiction? [emoji4]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

 

[WillieB69]

I'm anti-hot weather.

I am anti cold weather.

We must now be sworn enemies!

 

[Tonee N]

You ARE???



(I couldn't resist - sorry, @Tonee N - all in fun)

View attachment 670183

Tada!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

 

[rokyo87]

Honest critics? Isn't that a contradiction? [emoji4]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

It is but you have Stanton Glantz kind of critics and Farsalinos kind of critics...

 

[listopencil]

I'm anti-hot weather.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

I am anti cold weather.

We must now be sworn enemies!

 

[rokyo87]

here is what i think, way too many people cling to research that supports vaping. Folks they are out to promote vaping in the brightest light. They are not looking for or reporting negative findings...unless they can not deny it..like diketones and high temps. The same is true with antivaping research. They are out to promote only negative findings. This is why i do not support either side. They both have an agenda. Neither side has convinced me that vaping is either harmful or harmless. For now i feel better, but i do not know if that will be true in the long term. It took many years for smoking to catch up with me. I was a smoker of 30yrs, i did not feel negative effects til around 15yrs of smoking. We are only seeing early research on diketones and high temps, i am not gullible to a point i don't see more coming. We are early uses, early test tube users. I feel better right now, but long term i don't know what research will find...we have already found some areas of concern. I just don't really feel they will find vaping more harmful or as harmful as smoking at this point in time. All i know is short term i feel better, so the catch has to be long term, if there is any issue to be found, it's gonna be a few years if longer before that can be determined for sure. I just find it amazing how people just cling to provaping research and donate how many dollars to it just so they can hear what they want to without any realization to the agenda. I watched the last fda hearings and saw casaa and if their representation is as good as it gets we are in trouble. I would never give them a dime of my money...what a joke. They acted like a bunch of kids who could not control themselves. I just shook my head. That's not what i wanna see, i want to see research and facts not temper tantrums just because......... they like vaping. They brought nothing to the table...nor did the antivaping side. Both sides are a joke and this is what we have to work with. So sad.

And @DeAnna2112 what do you think or say about statement from RCP concerning long-term health effects from e-cigarettes:

• E-cigarettes and long-term harm - the possibility of some harm from long-term e-cigarette use cannot be dismissed due to inhalation of the ingredients other than nicotine, but is likely to be very small, and substantially smaller than that arising from tobacco smoking. With appropriate product standards to minimise exposure to the other ingredients, it should be possible to reduce risks of physical health still further. Although it is not possible to estimate the long-term health risks associated with e-cigarettes precisely, the available data suggest that they are unlikely to exceed 5% of those associated with smoked tobacco products, and may well be substantially lower than this figure.

Do you trust this group of doctors from UK?

 

[Ca Ike]

here is what i think, way too many people cling to research that supports vaping. Folks they are out to promote vaping in the brightest light. They are not looking for or reporting negative findings...unless they can not deny it..like diketones and high temps. The same is true with antivaping research. They are out to promote only negative findings. This is why i do not support either side. They both have an agenda. Neither side has convinced me that vaping is either harmful or harmless. For now i feel better, but i do not know if that will be true in the long term. It took many years for smoking to catch up with me. I was a smoker of 30yrs, i did not feel negative effects til around 15yrs of smoking. We are only seeing early research on diketones and high temps, i am not gullible to a point i don't see more coming. We are early uses, early test tube users. I feel better right now, but long term i don't know what research will find...we have already found some areas of concern. I just don't really feel they will find vaping more harmful or as harmful as smoking at this point in time. All i know is short term i feel better, so the catch has to be long term, if there is any issue to be found, it's gonna be a few years if longer before that can be determined for sure. I just find it amazing how people just cling to provaping research and donate how many dollars to it just so they can hear what they want to without any realization to the agenda. I watched the last fda hearings and saw casaa and if their representation is as good as it gets we are in trouble. I would never give them a dime of my money...what a joke. They acted like a bunch of kids who could not control themselves. I just shook my head. That's not what i wanna see, i want to see research and facts not temper tantrums just because......... they like vaping. They brought nothing to the table...nor did the antivaping side. Both sides are a joke and this is what we have to work with. So sad.

You really need to substantiate your agenda claims. Most of us that have been around for a few years already know what the anti crowds agenda is and it started long before vaping existed. It has used smoking, drinking and pretty much all other potential vices to further their agenda which is control over your life and how you live it.

You also need to substantiate your pro-vaping research claim as there has been no pro-vaping research per se. The only questionable one is the study done by Evolve and that can't be fully claimed as pro vaping since they just redid an earlier research study using newer gear.

Honestly, all I see here is a bunch of nonsensical rambling with no real substance or direction and signs of a lack of detailed knowledge on the subject.

 

[Tonee N]

Infiltrate, divide, and conquer.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk