*sigh* here we go again
- Thread starter ctourtelot
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
It never ends
That's another article on that damn Prue Talbot "study". Look at this thread: Another awful Prue Talbot study for a bunch more...
The article makes me feel justified in building a stockpile of hardware and software.
But that aside ...
First of all, a PV doesn't SMOLDER and there is no smoke, period!
No second-of-all actually. That kind of statement speaks volumes toward the uninformed nature of such scribblings.
Why do some people feel driven to write about something as alien to them as sexy microbes are to me?
But that aside ...
This REALLY got my goat.
First of all, a PV doesn't SMOLDER and there is no smoke, period!
No second-of-all actually. That kind of statement speaks volumes toward the uninformed nature of such scribblings.
Why do some people feel driven to write about something as alien to them as sexy microbes are to me?
Last edited:
I'm wondering if she's talking about a light or ultra-light cigarette because, whether you agree with her findings or not, I don't think she would outright lie and make up smoldering when there clearly is none; something that would be that patently untrue would just bring immediate discredit to her, and UCR does not appreciate it when their faculty does stuff like that, so I suspect the harm reduction in this case refers to light, low tar cigarette.
@SimpleSins: You're correct. I read it wrong.
So, tell me ... how is it that slipstream smoke from low tar cigarettes is MORE harmful than slipstream smoke from full tar cigarettes?
Anyway, I stand corrected in that she was referring to cigarettes, not PVs.
Doesn't change the fact that she's a rabid anti, and her article is woefully uninformed.
So, tell me ... how is it that slipstream smoke from low tar cigarettes is MORE harmful than slipstream smoke from full tar cigarettes?
Anyway, I stand corrected in that she was referring to cigarettes, not PVs.
Doesn't change the fact that she's a rabid anti, and her article is woefully uninformed.
Talking about actual cig (with less nic) smoldering, not a PV.
Crap, I didn't read the whole thread before replying.
Shoot, If I was getting big checks from Phillip Morris, i'd probably say the same thing. Theres nothing in that article that is of severe importance? The worst thing they are saying is gonna happen is Sparky is gonna get into your attomizer and develop a nicotine addiction? Big whoop, we can just put him thru doggy rehab, its not a big deal. They can all frigg off! If they get to stupid and stop the them, I will just order them directly from China. Sure, you may get a package that gets confiscated from time to time, but you think they have the manpower to stop every last order.. No Way Jose!
Shoot, If I was getting big checks from Phillip Morris, i'd probably say the same thing. Theres nothing in that article that is of severe importance? The worst thing they are saying is gonna happen is Sparky is gonna get into your attomizer and develop a nicotine addiction? Big whoop, we can just put him thru doggy rehab, its not a big deal. They can all frigg off! If they get to stupid and stop the them, I will just order them directly from China. Sure, you may get a package that gets confiscated from time to time, but you think they have the manpower to stop every last order.. No Way Jose!
Did I miss something, the story is on e-cigs why would the author include this other information about cigarettes, too?
To the untrained it seems to flow right into the e-cig story blurring the line making e-cigs sound all the more bad.
Seems fishy that part to be in this article, or am I missing something?
If I'm right, I would say this is a confusion tactic: you add other relevant useless information to the story to dupe the reader into thinking more (in this case) negative thoughts about a subject than they would just given the the other bull.
She's telling the truth, but from a different subject, so she gets away with it to meet her target.
To the untrained it seems to flow right into the e-cig story blurring the line making e-cigs sound all the more bad.
Seems fishy that part to be in this article, or am I missing something?
If I'm right, I would say this is a confusion tactic: you add other relevant useless information to the story to dupe the reader into thinking more (in this case) negative thoughts about a subject than they would just given the the other bull.
She's telling the truth, but from a different subject, so she gets away with it to meet her target.
Here's the reply I posted:
What about the thousands of people who have successfully stopped using tobacco because of this invention? Dr. Talbot is blatantly wrong that there have been no scientific studies. Research has been done and the vapor was proven to be HARMLESS. I smoked for 36 years, and the day I started using my first e-cig kit was the day I unchained myself from Big
Tobacco. Four months later I can tell you that this is the only thing I have ever used that I AM POSITIVE will prevent me from going back to smoking tobacco. Please don't rely on this article for facts. There are online forums where you can read hundreds of success stories. CASAA | The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association has links to numerous studies that . Why would these people rather have us continue to smoke tobacco, which we know contains thousands of carcinogens? Who is paying for their research funding? If you love a smoker, please tell them to visit www.e-cigarette-forum.com.
What about the thousands of people who have successfully stopped using tobacco because of this invention? Dr. Talbot is blatantly wrong that there have been no scientific studies. Research has been done and the vapor was proven to be HARMLESS. I smoked for 36 years, and the day I started using my first e-cig kit was the day I unchained myself from Big
Tobacco. Four months later I can tell you that this is the only thing I have ever used that I AM POSITIVE will prevent me from going back to smoking tobacco. Please don't rely on this article for facts. There are online forums where you can read hundreds of success stories. CASAA | The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association has links to numerous studies that . Why would these people rather have us continue to smoke tobacco, which we know contains thousands of carcinogens? Who is paying for their research funding? If you love a smoker, please tell them to visit www.e-cigarette-forum.com.
I posted this comment
That last paragraph is very irresponsible journalism; one has to read closely to realize that it is not e cigarettes that were found to be more toxic than traditional cigarettes; it is intentionally misleading. Including that paragraph inclined me to disregard any credibility you have as a reporter. Using studies on a totally different product to bolster your claims really shows your bias.
That last paragraph is very irresponsible journalism; one has to read closely to realize that it is not e cigarettes that were found to be more toxic than traditional cigarettes; it is intentionally misleading. Including that paragraph inclined me to disregard any credibility you have as a reporter. Using studies on a totally different product to bolster your claims really shows your bias.
I couldn't figure out how the heck to register.....I get SO mad.
These are sold to those over 18. Really? Leaking? Come on....better come up with something better then that. What about Cigarettes?
There is nothing concrete in this article at all. It's all about the labeling?
The useless gum, patches, Chantix (which can cause suicidal thoughts...but that's okay?). You'd rather have us with lung cancer or emphysema because a cartridge might leak if you over fill it? What if I step on the highest rung of a ladder? Leave cigarettes laying around where a child or animal could get at them.
I'm buying none of this. Propaganda is all it is.
These are sold to those over 18. Really? Leaking? Come on....better come up with something better then that. What about Cigarettes?
There is nothing concrete in this article at all. It's all about the labeling?
The useless gum, patches, Chantix (which can cause suicidal thoughts...but that's okay?). You'd rather have us with lung cancer or emphysema because a cartridge might leak if you over fill it? What if I step on the highest rung of a ladder? Leave cigarettes laying around where a child or animal could get at them.
I'm buying none of this. Propaganda is all it is.
Skinny, it's your typical smoke nazi journalistic approach to commentary, nothing more.
Great post Brewlady but I didn't see the comments. I'll have to take a second look.
The author of the article switched topics in the final paragraph from e-cigarettes to "reduced harm cigarettes" with no clear segway and for no apparent reason. I would guess the reasons to be the typical ones though;to confuse the reader who is uneducated about the e-cig and try to scare them away from them or to give the antis who are looking for a reason to hate them another bit of misinformation to use and put out there. Many members of the public still believe that an e-cigarette does produce smoke. To me this article serves no purpose other than to continue to lie, misdirect, and mislead them.
There is definitely a mixing of pv and analog stuff in the article - a sly attempt to confuse people. I will be interested in seeing how drastically and quickly the so called studies will be made positive when Phillip M and other big tobacco companies come to market with their over-priced-made-in-taiwan-hunk-o-junk pvs. I'm sure they will make it all proprietary, offer free stuff, and stick people with vape of the month crap, and charge high prices for extra pieces-parts. I'm sure they will slip some crack extract into their juice to ensure addiction to ther products! Oh, the fun that will all be! LOL
Last edited:
Interesting ingredient information on the Philip Morris website:
By providing ingredients information, we have tried to strike a reasonable balance between providing detailed information about our ingredients and protecting our proprietary brand recipes, including trade secret ingredients, from disclosure to competitors.
In this section of the website, you will find composite lists of tobacco and flavor ingredients as well as non-tobacco ingredients in all of Philip Morris USA's brands sold in the U.S. You will also find a brand list which identifies ingredients that are either commonly known or added to tobacco at levels of 0.1% or more of the weight of the tobacco rod (the column of tobacco in each cigarette) for our cigarettes sold in the U.S.
The ingredients in the Tobacco Ingredients by Brand list are identified in descending order by weight.
Tobacco
Water
Sugars (Sucrose and/or Invert Sugar and/or High Fructose Corn Syrup)
Glycerol
Propylene Glycol
Menthol
Licorice Extract
Diammonium Phosphate
Ammonium Hydroxide
Cocoa and Cocoa Products
Carob Bean and Extract
Natural and Artificial Flavors
How much tar and nicotine? They aren't telling:
Historically, Philip Morris USA submitted to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) information regarding certain cigarette design features and cigarette tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide smoke yields determined according to a standardized test method - the Cambridge Filter Method.
In March 1966, the FTC announced that it would permit statements of tar and nicotine yields if such statements were based on the results of a standardized test method - the Cambridge Filter Method. Three years later, the FTC proposed a trade regulation rule requiring the disclosure of tar and nicotine yields in cigarette advertisements. PM USA, along with other cigarette manufacturers, responded by agreeing to disclose average tar and nicotine yields as measured by the Cambridge Filter Method in cigarette advertising - and continued to do so for nearly 40 years.
On November 26, 2008, however, the FTC rescinded its 1966 guidance. In support of its decision, the FTC stated that, "there is now a consensus among the public health and scientific communities that the Cambridge Filter Method is sufficiently flawed that statements of tar and nicotine yields as measured by that method are not likely to help consumers make informed decisions." Read the FTC's Rescission of Guidance. As a result of the FTC's rescission of guidance, PM USA has removed tar and nicotine yields, as measured by the Cambridge Filter Method, from this website and its advertising and other consumer communications. In addition, public health authorities have concluded that machine test methods are not an accurate way of determining the amount of tar or nicotine a smoker may inhale.
By providing ingredients information, we have tried to strike a reasonable balance between providing detailed information about our ingredients and protecting our proprietary brand recipes, including trade secret ingredients, from disclosure to competitors.
In this section of the website, you will find composite lists of tobacco and flavor ingredients as well as non-tobacco ingredients in all of Philip Morris USA's brands sold in the U.S. You will also find a brand list which identifies ingredients that are either commonly known or added to tobacco at levels of 0.1% or more of the weight of the tobacco rod (the column of tobacco in each cigarette) for our cigarettes sold in the U.S.
The ingredients in the Tobacco Ingredients by Brand list are identified in descending order by weight.
Tobacco
Water
Sugars (Sucrose and/or Invert Sugar and/or High Fructose Corn Syrup)
Glycerol
Propylene Glycol
Menthol
Licorice Extract
Diammonium Phosphate
Ammonium Hydroxide
Cocoa and Cocoa Products
Carob Bean and Extract
Natural and Artificial Flavors
How much tar and nicotine? They aren't telling:
Historically, Philip Morris USA submitted to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) information regarding certain cigarette design features and cigarette tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide smoke yields determined according to a standardized test method - the Cambridge Filter Method.
In March 1966, the FTC announced that it would permit statements of tar and nicotine yields if such statements were based on the results of a standardized test method - the Cambridge Filter Method. Three years later, the FTC proposed a trade regulation rule requiring the disclosure of tar and nicotine yields in cigarette advertisements. PM USA, along with other cigarette manufacturers, responded by agreeing to disclose average tar and nicotine yields as measured by the Cambridge Filter Method in cigarette advertising - and continued to do so for nearly 40 years.
On November 26, 2008, however, the FTC rescinded its 1966 guidance. In support of its decision, the FTC stated that, "there is now a consensus among the public health and scientific communities that the Cambridge Filter Method is sufficiently flawed that statements of tar and nicotine yields as measured by that method are not likely to help consumers make informed decisions." Read the FTC's Rescission of Guidance. As a result of the FTC's rescission of guidance, PM USA has removed tar and nicotine yields, as measured by the Cambridge Filter Method, from this website and its advertising and other consumer communications. In addition, public health authorities have concluded that machine test methods are not an accurate way of determining the amount of tar or nicotine a smoker may inhale.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
