Ran into one today.

[CMD-Ky]

Yes, a lack of knowledge does make me igornant; not ignorant of all things or geneerally ignorant but ignorant of that of which I am "lacking knowledge" as you say - unsophisticated or unaware, well maybe or maybe not. Knowledge or lack thereof regarding e-cigs is not generally definitive as to awareness or sophistication; indicative perhaps but hardly definitive. To the remainder of your point, I know that I always respond well to a good well intentioned lecture.
For me, I'll just ask the question and forget the precedent or subsequent lecture. If a question puts someone on the defensive then I don't see that person as worth my time or effort. You do as you see proper and that which is best for you.

Well I disagree. Asking them what is in the liquid I am vaping does nothing to help them understand that vaping is much better than smoking cigarettes. Whether they know or don't know what is actually in it.

Once I ask and they don't really know and then I explain to them what really is in the liquid I am trying to show them Up.

Just because they don't know what is in it does not make them ignorant. I bet you don't know a lot about a lot of things. Does that make you ignorant (Def of Ignorant. "lacking knowledge" (?) or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.)

That is not a way to start a conversation, pointing out their shortcomings or unawareness, where you want to change someones perspective on a subject.

That just puts them on the Defensive.

 

[CMD-Ky]

I once ate a carrot and later I was ill. Please don't eat carrots.

Eh a coworker is firmly set on believing that her e-cig caused a onset of pneumonia. PErsonally, I think she was chain vaping like a freight train, and the fact she tried it when it was new it probably was a 100% pg blend, plus the fact shes diabetic. Long story short I bet the blend didnt agree with her conditions and she agrivated it.

Now for me, I have had issues myself. Since sub ohming, I found it feels as if I have somethin in my throat, it hurts very little to take a deep breath and I'm coughing like crazy. Personally, I think I'm gettin too much juice in my lungs, so I either need to change technique (mouth hits and not lung hits) or bump the resistance up. But for the next few days, no vaping for me til it calms down (thankfully I dont smoke so I dont have a nicotine craving to sate ^^)

 

[CMD-Ky]

Have you read the study yourself? It appears to me to be a study or summary of studies. In it, I missed the on going study over years observing the effects of using these liquids as heated inhalants.

We all know that vaping is better for us than smoking. It may not be as safe as just inhaling plain old air, but it's far better than inhaling burning plant residue.

It bugs me when people comment that ecigs are worse than smoking, or they are just as bad, or they say "No one knows what's in those things". Excuse me, I've read several lab reports and I can tell you what's there. Sure, we don't know what long term inhalation of PG/VG and flavors will do, but there's virtually no carcinogenic component in ecig vapor.

I want to carry around a copy of the 5 year Drexel study that tested thousands of vapers and followed them through time. But, they wouldn't read it. It's easier to repeat what you hear on the news.

http://publichealth.drexel.edu/~/media/files/publichealth/ms08.pdf

 

[CMD-Ky]

I don't think we should even hint that the cheap cigalike ones are worse than smoking. How many people have those killed? None, I suspect. You can say that a few of them, a very few, have somehow exploded or started a fire - but cigarettes have still started far more fires. Even the cheapest, low end gas station e-cig is still far safer than cigarettes.

Data? Opinion?

I vape and have for some time. I quit cigarettes using the APV. I believe the vape is safer than smoking. However, I don't know that; I believe it; I hope it but I don't know it.

 

[CMD-Ky]

Up to now, my vaping has cost me ten times more than smoking (that is a slight exaggeration). When I sell all my rejected stuff and recoup some of my money I'll be in better financial shape.

I find it's nature of quit smoking. Ppl defend there's hobbit to the end. For some type of ppl i just do not bother and go down to the price. May be it is as bad as what you do, what is not true at all, but hell man, it cost me 10 times less, he-he, you will be surprised how much attention gets vaping in those cases.

 

[rurwin]

Data? Opinion?

I vape and have for some time. I quit cigarettes using the APV. I believe the vape is safer than smoking. However, I don't know that; I believe it; I hope it but I don't know it.

Data and trusted medical opinions.
There are so far no unflawed studies that have shown any long-term damage caused by vaping. There have been a few flawed ones. Meanwhile all independent medical advice is that vaping is at least 98% safer than cigarettes.

 

[CMD-Ky]

Then is it "settled science"?

Data and trusted medical opinions.
There are so far no unflawed studies that have shown any long-term damage caused by vaping. There have been a few flawed ones. Meanwhile all independent medical advice is that vaping is at least 98% safer than cigarettes.

 

[rurwin]

Then is it "settled science"?

That's a political term, not a scientific one. Newtonian physics was settled for several hundred years before Einstein upset it. Similarly, dicetyl was known to be safe before some folk making popcorn started to feel ill.

But with those provisos then, yes; inhaling PG and nicotine in the medium term (6 months of 24 hour exposure) have both been proven safe about seventy years ago. Enough studies have now been done to show vaping causes none of the harmful effects of smoking. Any harm arising from vaping will be new science exposing a previously unknown vector.

 

[CMD-Ky]

Where are these studies published? I have to see the methodology and replicated conclusions. I find "settled science" to be a term used to quell debate and thought but, as you say, it is a term used by politicians. Lord knows politicians want no thought or debate such thing create messes.

That's a political term, not a scientific one. Newtonian physics was settled for several hundred years before Einstein upset it. Similarly, dicetyl was known to be safe before some folk making popcorn started to feel ill.

But with those provisos then, yes; inhaling PG and nicotine in the medium term (6 months of 24 hour exposure) have both been proven safe about seventy years ago. Enough studies have now been done to show vaping causes none of the harmful effects of smoking. Any harm arising from vaping will be new science exposing a previously unknown vector.

 

[rurwin]

Where are these studies published? I have to see the methodology and replicated conclusions.

Most of them are here: The Ultimate List of E-Cig Studies: Are E-Cigs Actually Safe? *Updated 2/16/14 » onVaping

That's not exhaustive, but I think it is most of them.

I also need to see the full report before I give it any credence. Journalists don't get it right most of the time and even an abstract can be ambiguous. Pro e-cig studies tend to be available free of charge. Anti e-cig studies seem to be behind a pay-wall a lot of the time.

This one is interesting in itself and has pointers to many others: Comment on E-Cigarettes and Cardiovascular Risk: Beyond Science and Mysticism
including this important one that can be hard to find: How much nicotine kills a human? Tracing back the generally accepted lethal dose to dubious self-experiments in the nineteenth century - Springer

PS: Here's the link I didn't have at home. There's a fair overlap and not all links are to peer-reviewed papers, but it's worth having: E-cigarette studies, research and reports - the Ecig Alternative