Sleazy propaganda re diacetyl in e-cigs

[caramel]

A statist justification to apply to all smokers when it is found to be a factor in only a few - schizophrenics. You could make a similar argument about those who so assert this while drinking martinis

How about sugars/fats/ etc? A prominent "force use" advocate was recently photographed featuring an oversized belly. Shall the government help him with a Soylent Green diet?

Or maybe he could demonstrate us the virtues of the "cold turkey" approach and surprize us next month with a regular belly?

 

[Kent C]

How about sugars/fats/ etc? A prominent "force use" advocate was recently photographed featuring an oversized belly. Shall the government help him with a Soylent Green diet?

Or maybe he could demonstrate us the virtues of the "cold turkey" approach and surprize us next month with a regular belly?

The gov't is already feeding him.

 

[caramel]

Obviously they're overdoing it.

 

[AndriaD]

A statist justification to apply to all smokers when it is found to be a factor in only a few - schizophrenics. You could make a similar argument about those who so assert this while drinking martinis

Excellent analogy. The vast majority of people can drink moderately without risking their reason or other aspects of mental health -- alcoholics obviously cannot, since their alcoholism will always prompt them to "have another" even when they've already had a half dozen, and an alcoholic can generally be counted on to make judgments, however faulty, about the mental health of others.

I think the entire decision re: diketones depends entirely on one's personal risk-aversion strategy and sensitivity, and how well one evaluates relative risk. I'd rather take a risk on something likely or even nearly certain to cause slight-to-moderate irritation, than on something that carries a VERY SLIM possibility of lethality, but that's my own personal evaluation of what risk I can tolerate and be comfortable with.

Andria

 

[ST Dog]

I think the entire decision re: diketones depends entirely on one's personal risk-aversion strategy and sensitivity, and how well one evaluates relative risk. I'd rather take a risk on something likely or even nearly certain to cause slight-to-moderate irritation, than on something that carries a VERY SLIM possibility of lethality, but that's my own personal evaluation of what risk I can tolerate and be comfortable with.

Relative risk and epidemiology is exactly what the book I mentioned earlier is about.

They take a small absolute risk and compare it with an other small absolute risk, and suddenly you see big relative risk that is blow all out of proportion due to the overall low absolute risk.

For some condition X, say group A has a risk of 0.02 and group B, that has a common activity C, has a risk of 0.09. Both are very small.
But relative to A, B has a 4.5 higher risk.

That then gets reported as participating in activity C is 4.5 times more likely to suffer from condition X.
And activity C is call a major factor in condition X, so lets ban the activity.

This is made even worse because activity C likely isn't the only difference in groups A and B.

I wonder what the relative risk of a lightening strike is between being in a house or in an open field on a sunny day?
I'd wager if that relative risk was handled like most health policy, we'd all be scared to go outside as I'm certain being outside is a major factor in being struck by lightening.

 

[AndriaD]

Relative risk and epidemiology is exactly what the book I mentioned earlier is about.

They take a small absolute risk and compare it with an other small absolute risk, and suddenly you see big relative risk that is blow all out of proportion due to the overall low absolute risk.

For some condition X, say group A has a risk of 0.02 and group B, that has a common activity C, has a risk of 0.09. Both are very small.
But relative to A, B has a 4.5 higher risk.

That then gets reported as participating in activity C is 4.5 times more likely to suffer from condition X.
And activity C is call a major factor in condition X, so lets ban the activity.

This is made even worse because activity C likely isn't the only difference in groups A and B.

I wonder what the relative risk of a lightening strike is between being in a house or in an open field on a sunny day?
I'd wager if that relative risk was handled like most health policy, we'd all be scared to go outside as I'm certain being outside is a major factor in being struck by lightening.

Which gets back to the wisdom of moms in general, because no one would want it thought that their mother didn't teach them to come in from the rain.

Andria

 

[Jman8]

now i am confused. i think perhaps the good doctor may
be more adept then we give him credit for.
a 1 in 1000 chance of harm over a 45 year exposure
translates to .022 percent chance per year.
those are damn good odds. i'm thinking if they
bite on this bone its proof they (the ANTZ) don't
understand even the basics of what they are trying
to do. i believe Doctor F may just be willing to concede
this point just to dump all the political garbage that
goes with it. it the future it can always be revisited
once the risks are better understood.
remember he isn't the one to make that call,they are.
there is a risk(potential for harm) so lets just avoid it
and move on. the doctor is right in assuming this risk
should be avoided considering the mind set of the
opponents.

mike

No strong disagreement, other than I would argue it is not so right to advocate for "should be avoided" given the nature of our opponent. Keep that opinion to yourself or be prepared to be touted by our opponents as aligned with their viewpoints, on vaping flavored eliquid. It does strike me as potentially harmful to the cause for legal, open market vaping, to state this during a time of pending regulations.

One can still publish their findings and assess risk without needing to say "should be avoided."

 

[ST Dog]

Which gets back to the wisdom of moms in general, because no one would want it thought that their mother didn't teach them to come in from the rain.

Note, I said sunny day, nothing about rain.

 

[Kent C]

No strong disagreement, other than I would argue it is not so right to advocate for "should be avoided" given the nature of our opponent. Keep that opinion to yourself or be prepared to be touted by our opponents as aligned with their viewpoints, on vaping flavored eLiquid. It does strike me as potentially harmful to the cause for legal, open market vaping, to state this during a time of pending regulations.

One can still publish their findings and assess risk without needing to say "should be avoided."

There's a difference in a personal suggestion to avoid what can be avoided and forcing regulation by gov't. Iow, the difference between 'should' and 'must'. That said, publishing findings for all to see, is best - then others can decide for themselves. If the evidence is clear, then the 'should' or 'should not' will be clear.

 

[Jman8]

There's a difference in a personal suggestion to avoid what can be avoided and forcing regulation by gov't. Iow, the difference between 'should' and 'must'.

I still don't grasp this difference in wording that you point out. Dr. F. could just as well have said, "must be avoided" and meant exactly the same thing. If it is only personal suggestion, it would've come off the same. If Dr. F. were part of a scientific body seeking to rein in the industry, then words would carry equal weight as I understand both terms.

And if it is personal suggestion, then just say, "I would suggest this be avoided by industry." Might not be seen as forceful, but that's the point I'm harping on.

That said, publishing findings for all to see, is best - then others can decide for themselves. If the evidence is clear, then the 'should' or 'should not' will be clear.

Not sure I agree here, and given the lack of long term studies on inhaling the alternative, I do not see the evidence as clear. Also, if going to publish findings, but not be completely forthright on which ones crossed the line and which ones didn't, then it does lead to what we have now where some consumers argue that all of them must now comply with the righteous position of "should be avoided."

 

[philoshop]

It's become quite apparent over these last 41 pages that the"'diacetyl issue" has in fact divided the vaping community to a certain degree. Regardless of how that wedge was started I can only imagine the antis and the naysayers grinning from ear to ear as they prepare to pound it deeper.
It's important to remember that there is no longer any such thing as 'a little government regulation'. The government wants control over vaping so that they can either kill it or make a bunch of money from it, whichever they decide is better for them. Allowing them to 'help' in any way on this issue will end badly for those who truly want to decide for themselves.

 

[AndriaD]

No strong disagreement, other than I would argue it is not so right to advocate for "should be avoided" given the nature of our opponent. Keep that opinion to yourself or be prepared to be touted by our opponents as aligned with their viewpoints, on vaping flavored eLiquid. It does strike me as potentially harmful to the cause for legal, open market vaping, to state this during a time of pending regulations.

One can still publish their findings and assess risk without needing to say "should be avoided."

Excellent point. I would never tell anyone that they "should" avoid diketones and their ilk -- I say only that *I* avoid them, and why I do, even though the risk of hazard is so slim-to-unknown. Not everyone has to be so paranoid of their lungs as asthmatics and COPD sufferers.

However, if I *am* speaking to someone who already suffers some reduction/restriction of their airways, I'd probably recommend avoidance, and those who struggle with this problem usually understand why it's a good idea; being unable to breathe is terrifying, but it's a theoretical construct to anyone who's never felt it; those familiar with the sensation are nearly always willing to do anything to prevent recurrence. Even if the worst-case scenario of lung destruction is so rare, reduction of lung capacity is no theoretical construct to those with asthma/COPD.

Andria

 

[Kent C]

I still don't grasp this difference in wording that you point out.

"Should" is a suggestion. "Must" is force - as in gov't regulation. As in, you must pay your taxes. You must make labels for your products. You're eliquid must be diketone-free.

 

[Jman8]

"Should" is a suggestion. "Must" is force - as in gov't regulation. As in, you must pay your taxes. You must make labels for your products. You're eliquid must be diketone-free.

Well now with the italics, I get how it works. (rolls eyes)

Might want to check any dictionary definition on "should" because most (to really all) of what I have ever seen does not equal "suggestion." The only exception to this is when it is phrased as, "should you go to the store today, could you pick up some milk?" To which one might reply. "Must I go to the store?" And to which the response could be, "you should."

 

[Kent C]

Well now with the italics, I get how it works. (rolls eyes)

Might want to check any dictionary definition on "should" because most (to really all) of what I have ever seen does not equal "suggestion." The only exception to this is when it is phrased as, "should you go to the store today, could you pick up some milk?" To which one might reply. "Must I go to the store?" And to which the response could be, "you should."

Your out of context "examples" have no bearing on when someone says 'you should do something' vs. 'you must do something'.

Should communicates a suggestion. Must communicates an order

Difference Between Should and Must | Difference Between | Should vs Must

“Should” is used to denote recommendations, advice..."

“Must” is used to talk about an obligation or a necessity. It is used when people are compelled to do something."

Examples:
I can't believe the extent you must go to make yourself right.
You should refrain from rolling your eyes at someone when it is you that is wrong on an issue.

I should just put you back on ignore.

 

[ST Dog]

Well now with the italics, I get how it works. (rolls eyes)

Might want to check any dictionary definition on "should" because most (to really all) of what I have ever seen does not equal "suggestion." The only exception to this is when it is phrased as, "should you go to the store today, could you pick up some milk?" To which one might reply. "Must I go to the store?" And to which the response could be, "you should."

In the memos/responses I write on a daily basis at work, "should" is considered a suggestion/preference.
"Must" and "shall" are required actions.

From dictionary.com

Usage note
Should has, as its most common meaning in modern English, the sense ought as in I should go to the graduation, but I don't see how I can. However, the older sense of the subjunctive of shall is often used with I or we to indicate a more polite form than would: I should like to go, but I can't. In much speech and writing, should has been replaced by would in contexts of this kind, but it remains in formal English when a conditional subjunctive is used: should he choose to remain, he would be granted asylum

 

[Jman8]

Should communicates a suggestion. Must communicates an order

Difference Between Should and Must | Difference Between | Should vs Must

“Should” is used to denote recommendations, advice..."

“Must” is used to talk about an obligation or a necessity. It is used when people are compelled to do something."

My computer's dictionary:

Look up on should: used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness
Look up on must: be obliged to; should

If I type in "definition of should" in google, every dictionary on page 1 (i.e. all top hits) have the word obligation in there.
If I type in "definition of must" in google, the ones that provide synonyms say "should" is synonymous to "must."

If one truly wants to make a suggestion on a stated course of action, one goes with "could" or "may" or better yet, "I suggest."

Dr. F. could have gone with, "The noted risks of using of diacetyl could be avoided by industry." I would see this as more aligned with science, and more authoritative. Leading to little dispute. "Should be avoided" is disputable and is the language of antis. I see this routinely from our adversaries.

Dr. F. is not in a position to communicate an order. It is as if you are arguing that because Dr. F. didn't say, "I order the industry to avoid diacetyl" then his wording is only to be taken as a suggestion. While also ignoring all the disputes that have arisen since whereby fellow posters quote his wording (of should be avoided) and then either imply or state that 'according to science' (on our side) this is absolutely the correct approach going forward.

"Should be avoided" sets him up as stating his opinion, and not adhering to scientific fact. Hence making the point less credible and the type of thing that one who wishes to be politically correct would state.

 

[AndriaD]

My computer's dictionary:

Look up on should: used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness
Look up on must: be obliged to; should

If I type in "definition of should" in google, every dictionary on page 1 (i.e. all top hits) have the word obligation in there.
If I type in "definition of must" in google, the ones that provide synonyms say "should" is synonymous to "must."

If one truly wants to make a suggestion on a stated course of action, one goes with "could" or "may" or better yet, "I suggest."

Dr. F. could have gone with, "The noted risks of using of diacetyl could be avoided by industry." I would see this as more aligned with science, and more authoritative. Leading to little dispute. "Should be avoided" is disputable and is the language of antis. I see this routinely from our adversaries.

Dr. F. is not in a position to communicate an order. It is as if you are arguing that because Dr. F. didn't say, "I order the industry to avoid diacetyl" then his wording is only to be taken as a suggestion. While also ignoring all the disputes that have arisen since whereby fellow posters quote his wording (of should be avoided) and then either imply or state that 'according to science' (on our side) this is absolutely the correct approach going forward.

"Should be avoided" sets him up as stating his opinion, and not adhering to scientific fact. Hence making the point less credible and the type of thing that one who wishes to be politically correct would state.

Up till now, I was leaning toward the definition of should being a suggestion, but you have persuaded me. You're absolutely right; the 'should' in his construction does lead to all this hooraw -- here we are, after all. And how many of us responded well to the "suggestion" of "You should quit smoking"? My usual response was "you should mind your own business," even when it was my doctor making the "suggestion"; everyone else got something a bit less polite.

It's one of those "weasel words," I think; it conveys the *idea* of must, without actually coming right out and saying it plainly.

English can be so weird.

Andria

 

[caramel]

The legalese word for something being mandatory is "shall".

 

[Kent C]

My computer's dictionary:

Look up on should: used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness
Look up on must: be obliged to; should

You're picking and choosing your definitions. Sure, they are similar according to use, which is why I posted the 'should vs. must' link to show what difference there actually is. That site says:

"Both “should” and “must” are similar in meaning except that “must” is a much stronger word as compared to “should.”"

"Similar" is not "the same as".

I'm done here. Continue with your "dissertations".