Hardware isn't the issue. Nicotine is. If you can't get nicotine, it doesn't matter how much hardware you have.
Right of entitlement?
- Thread starter NancyR
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Hardware isn't the issue. Nicotine is. If you can't get nicotine, it doesn't matter how much hardware you have.
I am trying to not disrespect your opinion, so why are you trying to disrespect me? I have gone to that site and I have clicked on the yellow banners at the top of the forum in regards to my CA rights being restricted. The banner implied that I won't be able to vape at all and then I go to the site and it says that they are just wanting to put us in the same class as smokers. Honestly I feel that some of it seems to be scare tactics just like the other side is doing. I don't like that feeling and it isn't giving me any reason to get passionate about the cause.
Again with the disrespect. Yes you are right, everybody in the government are complete idiots and I should only believe two doctors. Until I see an unbiased report by people that all sides can agree upon I will err on the side of caution.
If you read the various studies, including the one you sited, you will see that what little nicotine is released into the air is so miniscule to be virtually not existent and definitely not harmful to others. But then nicotine in even higher quantities is not harmful so it is a silly point, anyway.
Table 5. Comparison of the release of volatile organic compound for a number of selected compounds from three types of e-cigarettes A-C (one puff, 3 s) in a 10-l glass chamber using Tenax TA and DNPHCompound Concentration (μg/m³) Estimated mass per puff (μg/puff)a
A B C A B C
aThe conversion factors based on the sample volume, the sample flow, and the exponential decay of the concentration (see Equation 1).
bDNPH method.
1,2-Propanediol 53 000 175 000 64 000 1673 5525 2021
1,2,3-Propanetriol 326 477 161 10 15 5
3-Methylbutyl-3-methylbutanoate 3 35 10 0.1 1.1 0.3
Diacetin 2 1 1 0.06 0.03 0.03
Triacetin <1 <1 <1 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03
Nicotine 7 7 4 0.2 0.2 0.1
Formaldehydeb <2 <2 <2 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25
Acetaldehydeb <1 <1 <1 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13
Propanalb <1 <1 <1 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13
The nicotine seemed a little high to me. And if a baby (my sisters or whoevers) was in the room that I am vaping in I don't know if I would feel comfortable about that.
A B C A B C
aThe conversion factors based on the sample volume, the sample flow, and the exponential decay of the concentration (see Equation 1).
bDNPH method.
1,2-Propanediol 53 000 175 000 64 000 1673 5525 2021
1,2,3-Propanetriol 326 477 161 10 15 5
3-Methylbutyl-3-methylbutanoate 3 35 10 0.1 1.1 0.3
Diacetin 2 1 1 0.06 0.03 0.03
Triacetin <1 <1 <1 <0.03 <0.03 <0.03
Nicotine 7 7 4 0.2 0.2 0.1
Formaldehydeb <2 <2 <2 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25
Acetaldehydeb <1 <1 <1 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13
Propanalb <1 <1 <1 <0.13 <0.13 <0.13
The nicotine seemed a little high to me. And if a baby (my sisters or whoevers) was in the room that I am vaping in I don't know if I would feel comfortable about that.
Last edited:
"Best of" page with links:
Top 10 Studies on E-Cigs You Need to Know About
Ingredients to start with (this already limits how dangerous 2nd-hand vapor can be):
http://www.casaa.org/uploads/Are_Electronic_Cigarettes_Safe.pdf
What are E‐cigarettes and what do they contain?
E‐cigarettes are battery operated devices that vaporize a liquid solution consisting of ingredients generally regarded as safe for human consumption (89‐90% propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, water, flavoring) and a small amount of nicotine. (Laugesen, 2008)
Electronic cigarettes are a completely smokeless alternative to traditional cigarettes and are not marketed as a nicotine addiction treatment. (Cahn and Siegel, 2011)
Testing by the FDA found tobacco specific nitrosamines and tobacco specific impurities in the unvaporized liquid at very low levels, equivalent to the quantity found in FDA‐approved nicotine products. (USFDA 2009).
FDA testing detected a non-toxic amount of diethylene glycol (DEG) at 1% (approximately 0.01 g) in one of 18 cartridges tested. (USFDA 2009).
The major hazard from DEG occurs following the ingestion of relatively large single doses. The estimated lethal dose of DEG for humans is approximately 1 ml/kg. (Health Canada, 2010)
Multiple companies have had their products tested for diethylene glycol and none of the samples have turned up positive. (Siegel, 2011)
A puff of e‐cigarette mist delivers only 10% of the nicotine delivered by a similar puff of smoke from a conventional cigarette. (Laugesen, 2009) (Bullen, 2010)
E‐cigarette use mimics smoking; but, there is no combustion and the user inhales vapor, not smoke. (Cahn and Siegel, 2010)
2nd-hand vapor:
Is secondhand vapor from e‐cigarettes harmful?
E‐cigarette vapor was tested for over 50 cigarette smoke toxicants and none were found. (Laugesen 2009)
Lacking any active ingredient or any gaseous products of combustion, the PG mist or smoke is not harmful to
bystanders. (Laugesen, 2008)
Electronic cigarettes tested did not expose users to measurable levels of nicotine or carbon monoxide, although
both suppressed nicotine/tobacco abstinence symptom ratings. (Eissenberg, 2010)
Bullen, C., McRobbie, H., Thornley, S., Glover, M., Lin, R., & Laugesen, M. (2010). Effect of an electronic nicotine delivery device (e cigarette) on desire to smoke and withdrawal, user preferences and nicotine delivery: randomised cross‐over trial. Tobacco Control. 2010 Apr;19(2):98‐103. Effect of an electronic nicotine delivery device... [Tob Control. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI
Cahn, Z., & Siegel, M. (2010). Electronic cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy for tobacco control: A step forward or a repeat of past mistakes? Journal of Public Health Policy 32: 16‐31. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/centers-institutes/population- development/files/article.jphp.pdf
Consumer Advocates for Smoke‐free Alternatives Association (2011) CASAA Position Statement on Electronic Cigarettes. http://www.casaa.org/files/Casaa Position Statement.pdf
Garland, Kavanaugh, & Williams. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Case: 10‐5032 Document: 1281606 Filed: 12/07/2010. http://www.casaa.org/files/ct app opinion on injunction.pdf
Health Canada. (2010). Diethylene glycol; classification with respect to acute toxicity. Date Modified: 2010‐09‐21. http://www.hc‐sc.gc.ca/ewh‐semt/occup‐travail/whmis‐simdut/_substance/diethylene‐eng.php
Heavner, K., Dunworth, J., Bergen, P., Nissen ,C., & Phillips, CV. (2010) Electronic cigarettes (e‐cigarettes) as potential tobacco harm reduction products: Results of an online survey of e‐cigarette users. Tobacco
Harm Reduction 2010 Yearbook, Chapter 19. http://tobaccoharmreduction.org/thr2010yearbook.html Laugesen, M. (2008). Safety Report on the Ruyan® e‐cigarette Cartridge and Inhaled Aerosol. Health New Zealand.
http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30‐Oct‐08.pdf Laugesen, M. (2009). Ruyan® E‐cigarette Bench‐top tests. Poster 5‐11 at Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT)
Dublin, Updated 07 May, 2009. http://www.healthnz.co.nz/DublinEcigBenchtopHandout.pdf Leon, RJ. United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Order, Civil Case No. 09‐771 (RJL). Filed 01/14/2010.
http://www.casaa.org/files/SE‐vs‐FDA‐Ruling.pdf Siegel, M. Letter to Members of the Health Committee of the New York State Assembly regarding Assembly Bill A01468
(01/23/2011). http://www.casaa.org/files/MSietel‐NYA01468 letter.doc Trtchounian A., Williams M., & Talbot, P. (July 19, 2010) Conventional and electronic cigarettes (e‐ciagrettes) have different
smoking characteristics. Nicotine & Tobacco Research Advance Access. Doi:10.1093/ntr/ntq114 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (5/4//09). Final Report: Evaluation of e‐cigarettes.
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ScienceResearch/UCM173250.pdf
Polosa, R., Caponnetto,P., Russo, C., Leotta, C., Campagna, D., Successful smoking cessation with electronic cigarettes in smokers with a documented history of recurring relapses: a case series Journal of Medical Case Reports 2011, 5:585 doi:10.1186/1752-1947-5- 585 http://www.jmedicalcasereports.com/content/pdf/1752-1947-5-585.pdf
Andrea R. Vansickel, Caroline O. Cobb, Michael F. Weaver, and Thomas E. Eissenberg, A Clinical Laboratory Model for Evaluating the Acute Effects of Electronic Cigarettes: Nicotine Delivery Profile and Cardiovascular and Subjective Effects, http://www.casaa.org/files/Virgiania Commonwealth University Study.pdf
Riccardo Polosa, Pasquale Caponnetto, Jaymin B Morjaria, Gabriella Papale, Davide Campagna and Cristina Russo, Effect of an electronic nicotine delivery device (e-Cigarette) on smoking reduction and cessation: a prospective 6-month pilot study, BMC Public Health | Full text | Effect of an Electronic Nicotine Delivery Device (e-Cigarette) on Smoking Reduction and Cessation: A Prospective 6-Month Pilot Study
The FDA discredited ITSELF by giving out a press release that did not agree with the scientific results from the lab. Here are the links:
1. Stepanov I, Jensen J, Hatsukami D, Hecht SS. Tobacco-specific nitrosamines in new tobacco products. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2006; 8:309-313. (http://www.starscientific.com/404/stepanov tsna in.pdf)
2. Laugesen M. Safety Report on the Ruyan e-cigarette Cartridge and Inhaled Aerosol. Christchurch, New Zealand: Health New Zealand Ltd, 2008. (http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf
3. Wahlberg I. Tobacco-specific Nitrosamines in Unburnt New Zealand Tobaccos. Report to Health New Zealand Ltd. Swedish Match, 2004. (EndSmoking NZ - Proposed Snuff Regulations)
For more information, contact the Consumer Advocates for Smoke‐free Alternatives Association, CASAA - The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association
Although I agree with your admiration of these people, not even Bill or Dr. Siegle would agree that the reason we should trust them is because it is them.
They give an objective way to compare the studies to believe vs not believe, which can be applied a lot of other places besides vaping.
The studies that have credibility give the results WITH DETAILS AND CONTEXT.
The ones that are getting discredited have obvious things missing. Some don't tell sample size, some don't give brands or origins of the samples, some don't give quantities at all, MOST do not give a comparison or use scary words for commonplace things. Like saying "antifreeze" for propylene glycol, AKA stage smoke, which is ALSO sometimes still sprayed in airplanes and hospital operating rooms to make them safer, and which is in candy.
Almost NONE of the studies done by ANTZ give context, i.e. "we found carcinogens" rather than we found 2mg of carcinogens in the liquid and didn't even study the vapor, which is comparable to all the things we DO recommend and less that you'd get if you BBQ meat with insufficient marinade. Or maybe even with sufficient marinade.
I want Bill for President and Dr. Siegel to run the FDA, but that is a personal opinion and we can do better than that when people ask for proof.
I look at this fight completely different than you do. I use my experience, education and intelligence when judging who is speaking creditably on the subject. I have yet to find the "utopia" where a report is created that all sides find is agreeable and I'm seasoned enough to know I never will. And there will not be one on this issue, so you will be lucky enough to stay on the sidelines and not be concerned about the outcome.
I have read the reports by experts like Bill Godshaw and Dr Siegel (along with several others) and have communicated personally with several of them. I know that they fervently and honestly believe in what they do and in protecting the health and welfare of the general public. They are not biased but are honest. They do not take money from large corporations or special interests in order to remain above reproach. The same goes for CASAA which you dismissed as just using scare tactics.
Fortunately for those of us who vape and are concerned about our continued right to vape, there are few who take your position and instead are willing to do the work and research and support groups like CASAA who do really fight for our right to vape.
Last edited:
I believe that is for FIRST-hand vapor. Huge difference. I don't vape in small rooms with babies or my grandchildren, but I'll vape downwind from kids in an outdoor restaurant where I would not smoke. Also airports a few rows away from other people.
I agree with you and was not implying othewise. As I stated in another reply, I have read much from both of these experts as well as others and have read the major studies. When looking at their credentials, experience and the fact that they are not beholden to profit seeking companies combined with actually reading the studies themselves, it should not take some "utopia" study to convince the average person who to believe and trust.
I vape literally EVERYWHERE I GO. However, I keep people in mind when doing so. I only vape unflavored juice when out of the house so that there is NO odor at all. I always hold the vapor in my lungs longer to ensure there is less vapor production and if there is ANYONE near me I exhale into my shirt to make sure no vapor gets near anyone. When in restaurants I am REALLY strict on this. I make sure no kids are near me where they can see it and be influenced by possibly thinking it looked "cool".
People can vape where they please, for the most part, and will generally be accepted for it as long as they are respectful. Once you stop being respectful that's when you get asked to leave.
People can vape where they please, for the most part, and will generally be accepted for it as long as they are respectful. Once you stop being respectful that's when you get asked to leave.
So you are basically saying that I am not using experience, education, or intelligence? Your passion is admirable, but isn't your goal to gain membership in your cause? I hope that you are not a recruiter for their organization.
Believe it or not, I too read up on subjects in an unbiased manner and make my own decisions. Every organization has an agenda and will state facts that directly support their opinion. To believe otherwise is foolish. If you are telling me that you are 100% confident of blowing vapor directly into your child's mouth based on the studies of two doctors, then more power to you.
Having said that, I posted earlier about recent articles by Business Insider, Citi, and others that show continued growth within the industry. Citi has a pretty good track record on trends. If there is money to be made, then rest assured that vaping will continue (I am speaking for the US here, not other countries). Big tobacco is already involved (Lorillard owns Blu) and others will follow this trend. Big tobacco has a strong hold on the government.
Last edited:
This is what really gets me mad. In most major cities, the very air we breath daily contains MORE toxins than exhaled vapor, yet nothing is done to fix that. They have also been genetically modifying our food crops for nearly 20 years with as of yet not fully understood side-effects, yet vaping must be stopped without so much as adequate testing. Our water is also being polluted at an alarming rate while people cry about "global warming". The reality is without clean air, clean water, and healthy food supplies, it is not going to matter how warm the planet gets or how many people smoke, vape, drink alcohol or whatever...we are not going to make it.
I'm sceptical that that is the definition of second-hand vapor. Do you take a tube from the over-the-stove vent and blow that directly into your child's mouth? If not, does that mean nobody should cook in restaurants?
Actually, that is what is in the air after exhale. But thank you for being civil in you response. I feel the same way in regards to where I vape.
Does cooking food produce nicotine in the air? I'm not trying to be respectful, but I'm not clear what you are saying.
Aussiedog, I really do understand your mistrust and anxiety. When I began vaping a lot was going on with legislative issues and I really wasn't up to speed at all on a lot of things that concerned me: from big things like a potential all-out ban, health concerns and controversies and ongoing studies concerning those to all of the confusing (but much more fun) info about gear.
What I did was stay up at night reading hundreds of pages of back-story on the big things (there were some HUGE threads, and regular reporting on all aspects of what was going on) - that's just my nature, I read. That didn't position me to know what was going to happen - no one did, and no one does now - but it did give me a sense of what was valid and what wasn't and of the terrain on which the battle was and is being waged.
I CAN tell you that if it weren't for CASAA and others who have been holding ground for a long time out there, neither you nor I would likely be having this conversation. You have to figure out for yourself what's just scare tactics and what's not, and one of the functions of this forum is to provide you with with the ability to make an educated decision on that.
My thoughts after reading this thread:
Someone said earlier that if we in-fight we give ammunition to people and institutions who are interested in making it more difficult or impossible to use this remarkable product as an alternative to harmful cigarettes. I believe that's correct.
There are Republicans and Democrats, tea-party people and libertarians and liberals and progressives and centrists who tilt one way or another, and probably anarchists, and with these numbers, probably a ........ or two in here. And apolitical people, too.
People who naturally divide and quarrel, each certain that the other wants to take away whatever they hold dear. That's the political context.
But we all do hold vaping dear, and although we might have differences regarding if and how it should be regulated, and to what particular larger political issues the problem connects, we'd all like to protect some portion of our right to continue. Best if we do that without attacking and alienating one another.
Ah, hence the class of water? Interesting. Still missing comparisons to other things coming into the air in normal places, though.
Where is that from?
- Status
Similar threads
