Sleazy propaganda re diacetyl in e-cigs
- Thread starter CarolT
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Small, craft oriented businesses in generally are having a great resurgence. Just look at Etsy, and local farmer's markets (where you can find homemade goods like jelly, bread, cheese, hummus, etc)
I don't disagree with that assessment at all, and only a fool would take you bet.
As I commented elsewhere, ISO9001 certification (a quality cert) means you have a repeatable process. It says nothing about the quality of the product produced.
Last edited:
I just started Rampant Antismoking by Vincent-Riccardo Di Pierri, PhD.
Looks to be a good read.
Michael J. McFadden's books are on my list too.
The shoddy science in the anti-smoking/anti-tobacco crusades is bleeding into other areas with frightening results.
Iso 9000 has nothing to do with process,quality,health,safety or any other thing.
it was and is a process to glean the hard earned knowledge of mechanics,tradesman,
technicians,repairmen, and other semi and non-semi professionals that they learned over a life time
of work to be repackaged and sold as how to's for any given field. you can see it in modern
hospitals. punch the symptoms in the computer and wa-la there's the problem. now you can eliinate
all those old folks and hire a bunch of monkeys at far less cost to do the job.
regards
mike
First, I meant 9001, my bad. That's used for the certification of companies.
9000 is the quality management systems specification.
But, the ISO family is just the latest of the standards that trace back to MIL-Q-9858 from 1959.
I've dealt with the ISO standards and other similar quality standards. They all have the same problems.
They setup a system that can be used to manage production and quality, but none of them are guaranties of a what most consider a high quality product. You can reliably and repeatedly make a crappy product under all of them.
It is not a HowTo for doing any particular product/service. It's very generic.
Perhaps if you actually read the standard you'd understand that.
i agree with you. my problem with anything ISO is that the same
companies that did the certifications were also in the same business
of providing consultation to improve processes,management and manufacturing.
if not directly,through another company they owned.
mike
Either way, my point was it doesn't guaranty a high quality product. It wasn't designed to, and per your observations may not even meet the intended results.
So it's meaningless in terms of insuring a good product or even a safe product.
I don't know if it is plausible, or even possible, to
1. guarantee high quality product (with emphasis on guarantee)
2. while keeping costs down, so consumers aren't always then paying premium pricing (i.e. for gourmet type vapes)
3. and while 1 and 2 are constantly under attack by ANTZ
4. especially if some of number 3 are 'scientists'
Philosophically speaking, I have high doubts about #1. I'm always interested in how that is being constructed.
Like for diacetyl (as an example among several that could be chosen for vaping), the guarantee might be found in none. But in all that I've seen so far, that is being argued for with a bias against diacetyl. While it is plausible that diacetyl could increase quality. But due to bias, we can't much tolerate discussions that would allow it in there. Thus, we are determining quality by attacking a known component. Similar to attacking vape quality because nicotine is present. Suggesting we can talk about quality vaping only once nicotine is removed. So, perhaps #3 ought to be amended, though I would do so reluctantly, to say 'under attack by ANTZ or vaping consumers.'
1. guarantee high quality product (with emphasis on guarantee)
2. while keeping costs down, so consumers aren't always then paying premium pricing (i.e. for gourmet type vapes)
3. and while 1 and 2 are constantly under attack by ANTZ
4. especially if some of number 3 are 'scientists'
Philosophically speaking, I have high doubts about #1. I'm always interested in how that is being constructed.
Like for diacetyl (as an example among several that could be chosen for vaping), the guarantee might be found in none. But in all that I've seen so far, that is being argued for with a bias against diacetyl. While it is plausible that diacetyl could increase quality. But due to bias, we can't much tolerate discussions that would allow it in there. Thus, we are determining quality by attacking a known component. Similar to attacking vape quality because nicotine is present. Suggesting we can talk about quality vaping only once nicotine is removed. So, perhaps #3 ought to be amended, though I would do so reluctantly, to say 'under attack by ANTZ or vaping consumers.'
The biggest problem with diacetyl (and other diketones) is that it's perfectly fine to EAT. It's only in the inhalation of large quantities of it, that one might run into trouble of the lung-destruction variety. Does vaping ejuice with a small amount of it qualify as "large quantities"? I don't know, but it seems to me that if it's in something that you vape all day, every day, it could possibly qualify -- and the potential risk is so immense and so dreadful, it just seems a great deal wiser to me to try and avoid it entirely. And yes, there are a lot of qualifiers in that sentence -- "could possibly", "potential", "try" -- most people are not comfortable with that amount of uncertainty, they want black and white -- much like the debate over the deadliness of cigarette smoking -- and that sort of uncertainty is exactly what makes this such a hot-button issue, but as I said, the potential risk IS so horrible, I'd rather avoid it if at all possible. Best to just not go there, and find out for myself that yes, diacetyl destroyed my lungs and now I'm on a waiting list for a lung that may never arrive...
Andria
Snipped portions of your post (before and after this quote) to make the point that this could just as easily apply to nicotine.
Or PG.
Or VG.
Or so on and so forth.
It seems a great deal wiser to try and avoid vaping entirely.
Said the attacker not truly concerned with quality.
If you have some free time, grab the PDF of Rampant Antismoking Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger and read the introduction and first 2 full chapters with the discussion of scientific method, epidemiology, and meta-studies.
Then maybe skip to chapter 5 at first so you don't get bogged down too much in the smoking aspects and miss the big picture points.
Are you familiar with what popcorn lung does?
As for me, I'd rather have cancer.
Having said that, I still vape flavored liquids.
Although I only vape about 1ml per day at the most...
And I try not to inhale into my lungs ALL the time...
And I AM using unflavored more and more often with each passing day.
Vaping by itself is unlikely to destroy my lungs. Irritate them, yes, probably, definitely sometimes, but none of the "basic" chemicals has shown the slightest indication that it could DESTROY lungs.
There is a whole world and lifetime of difference between irritate and destroy.
Andria
Everything I vape is between 25% and 35% flavoring -- but I make sure to purchase flavors that don't contain diketones. For this and other reasons, I very seldom buy any pre-made ejuice.
Andria
Without checking - seems that there are no cases of popcorn lung with smokers where cigarettes have multiples of diketones than any flavors in eliquid. So any mention of popcorn lung with the ANTZ is well... blowing smoke
My lungs (feeling of upper respiratory) feel much better than before, but of course the comparison is to smoking not for someone who never smoked, then vaped. My guess on the latter would be 'no difference' since as far as diacetyl and formaldehyde goes, it's along the same lines of breathing air (including the whiffs of food, coffee, other stuff).... and if you take into account the benefits of nicotine - it's better than just air.
one must also understand the demographics of popcorn lung.
taking the whole of the food processing industry in consideration.
bakeries,candy makers,dried mix(hamburger helper,cake) cookies, anything and
everything diacetyl is used in who is most likely to get it.
so far some makers of microwave popcorn,most recently a workers at a
coffee roasting plant,one non-industry worker(consumed a large amount
of micro wave popcorn allegedly),one on this forum and,a worker at a
plant that made flavorings. the total compared to the to the amount of
the risk group is extremely small. barely above the non-risk groups
whom don't appear to get popcorn lung at all.
so what is the risk to us? probably none.cigarette smoke at the vary least
contains 100x more diacetyl than the highest concentration found in e-juice.
smoking has never been diagnosed to cause popcorn lung.
if it had it would have been noted by now. even though autopsies are
not performed after every death,enough are done nation wide for
any relationship to have been noted and promoted by the ANTZ.
remember there is always going to be a very small percent of the population
that will have a acute sensitivity to something. add up all the possibilities
you would probably looking at 20-30 % of the population as a whole.
if thats true we had better start issuing the bubble suit's tomorrow.
mike
Diacetyl (a diketone) is the connection to popcorn lung, which you mentioned, so what gives you pause?
Flavorings in general, although my concern level is not yet all that high.
Ok.... there may be other 'unknowns' in other flavoring, but my guess is that the push to lower flavoring percentages (by Kurt .. and others) was to lessen the possible affect of the diketones that they suspect to be in many flavorings. A suspicion I do not share, btw. But thanks for the explanation.
- Status
Similar threads
