Sleazy propaganda re diacetyl in e-cigs
- Thread starter CarolT
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I observe this is not a problem since even you have no idea what are potentially dangerous ingredients in currently sold vape products. Thus, isn't really a problem for any other vaper, let alone most vapers. Instead, is the type of thing that sleazy propaganda is made of.
The topic was Diacetyl, which the extremists and those who don't care about their health think is harmless. I guess the extremists would consider Dr.F ANTS...
Well for starters, Im not part of a crowd.
Why you feel a need to talk about or to people like that is really only your problem.
I have posted here (and two or three others did as well), that I dont want to vape anything containing diacetyl (and other diketones), period.
I really didnt expect any discussion about that tbh, because last I checked I decide what I vape, and no one else. I dont allow the antz to decide what I vape and I sure as hell dont allow fellow vapers to decide what I vape.
Why that remark by some led to such an overdone and sometimes disrespectful reaction by you, is not something I can answer of course.
I note that the fact some people worry about diacetyl in their liquid is apparently reason for you to burst out in long speeches in which you accuse people of fear mongering and not acting becoming of a vaping enthusiast.
When I defend myself (and others) by stating youre partly involved in a none discussion (about who pays for the tests etc) because this is already solved, you state: So, if all this is true, I don't see what the issue would be from the diacetyl-free crowd. The choice to purchase items that avoid the risk already exists. What more could this crowd want that is within reason?
My answer to that is: part of the industry does the testing which means part of it doesnt.
In the end I believe the whole industry should disclose what is in their liquids so people can make informed decisions whether they buy a liquid and what is in it.
But I see no way you can force an industry, which has in the past not exactly shown great concern about this issue, apart from acting with your wallet. If enough people show this concern in their buying behaviour, it will eventually hopefully solve itself.
The problem is that with the current state of science, you cannot state that there is no danger.
One of the problems in this discussion (imo) is that people fail to distinguish between facts and ideas/ suspicions.
Let me try that here:
It’s a fact that people that work in popcorn factories and other factories where they work with substances containing diacetyl sometimes develop a rare lung disease where their lung tissue is destroyed and that that process is irreversible. However, they also develop other respiratory problems like airway obstruction, chronic cough and shortness of breath, and asthma and chronic bronchitis .
(Note: the same problems that are linked to cigarette smoking)
Fact: its been proven by a lot of research that it’s diacetyl (and other diketones) in the vape they inhale from flavour substances that is responsible for this.
Theory/ idea: there’s a lot of speculation that there is a major difference between smoking or vaping diacetyl.
It has been shown that when vaping the vape reaches deeper into your lungs than the smoke from smoking. Which causes further concerns since bronchiolitis obliterans is a deep lung disease.
On top of that (and this is also theory atm) the question arises whether or not the other respiratory problems people experience when smoking are also caused by diacetyl. This is of course very difficult to decide because there are so many other damaging substances in cigarette smoke.
Fact: there’s a lot we know about vaping and there’s a lot we don’t know. We know vape doesn’t contain tar and other carcinogen substances that are in cigarette smoke.
We don’t know exactly what happens when you inhale a lot of flavouring substances that are meant for eating and not for inhaling.
Fact: your lungs are not like your stomach.
Fact: we cannot say with 100% certainty inhaling diacetyl while vaping will damage your lungs.
Fact: we cannot say with 100% certainty inhaling diacetyl while vaping won’t harm your lungs.
The bottom line is that when you look at the above and the dangers of inhaling diacetyl, I think there is more than enough reason to not want to have any of it in your liquids.
People that inhale the vapor of flavouring substances and thus diacetyl etc, develop airway obstruction, chronic cough, shortness of breath, asthma, chronic bronchitis and bronchiolitis obliterans.
Why anyone would like to vape that is beyond me.
In the end, with the current state of science) it’s an avoidable risk that some people are willing to take and others don’t.
I seriously fail to see why that leads to such heated debate. Its your own life, youre own health and body. People can only make that decision for themselves and opinions on mbs wont really change that I think.
And...there you go again.
For the last time: I am posting my personal opinions (although I did just return from my weekly meeting of the anti diacetyl underground movement, where we discussed how to enhance our agenda to further assist the FDA and the Antz movement, but I dont see why thats a concern to you).
Second: it is NOT up to you to decide who is and who isn't acting "becoming of a vaping enthusiasts".
You really should ask yourself the question why you cannot discuss this issue in a normal, respectful tone/ manner.
You are not going to change people's opinions/ behaviour on a mb (usually) and the world doesnt end when some have different opinions than you.
When Dr. Farsalinos posted his last research campaign/ crowd funding idea to research matters regarding temperature and vaping, people reacted exactly like this: investigating anything concerning this issue would further help the Antz movement and is therefor bad.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-crowd-funded-dr-konstantinos-farsalinos.html
To this Farsalinos had to say:
"Now, i unerstand that some people prefer to not know about any risks or ways to make vaping safer. These people should just ignore my research. The others, who prefer to make informed decisions, should at least have a look. "
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...r-konstantinos-farsalinos-3.html#post14337068
Thank god others (including me) did contribute and Dr. Farsalinos did get the money together.
He is now publishing his first results which are actually positive for vaping.
You CANNOT tell people they should become deaf, dumb and blind about their health and vaping because the Antz are out to get us.
You cannot demand people should stop doing any research into the safety of vaping because it might help the Antz extremists.
Further research will hopefully make vaping safer for us all and thus enhance our position versus the Antz people.
Relax already, have a nice quiet afternoon with your favorite liquid/ vaper and stop finding enemies where there arent.
The question is why we need more restrictive regulations on e liquid than on cigarettes or coffee / popcorn additives. Since it's the same agency in charge, one would expect that once dyacetil has been identified as a risk, it would be treated equally regardless of the particular product where it occurs.
Being an ex-smoker that has been eventually exiled to a -30 Celsius "designated area" through the sliced salami technique, I am suspicious of any action that targets vaping specifically.
Being an ex-smoker that has been eventually exiled to a -30 Celsius "designated area" through the sliced salami technique, I am suspicious of any action that targets vaping specifically.
there is at minimum 100x times less diacetyl and
or diketones found in e-juice with the highest
concentration of these substances than in
cigarette smoke.
not one case of popcorn lung has ever been
attributed to smoking.
regards
mike
or diketones found in e-juice with the highest
concentration of these substances than in
cigarette smoke.
not one case of popcorn lung has ever been
attributed to smoking.
regards
mike
Last edited:
I agree with this part, but for the rest is the reason I mentioned the 'butter, eggs, fat' part in my reply. All of those had similar 'science' behind the 'danger' at the time. That no longer is the case. You can lay out all what you read about diketones and come to what appears to be a rational conclusion from the data that is made available... JUST as you could have read all the data about fats and come to the same conclusion by deduction. When you have a series of instances where science either by not having enough data, or where politics (or money) became part of the data, then you have to think inductively - There are similar cases made in the past that have not shown to be true, so can this be the case here? What is the motivation? Is it similar - attempting to push a certain philosophy - food groups as 'better' than others? Or just mistakes made by science? And also take into account 'dosage' where a 'poison' isn't always a poison, or where normal non-poisonous substance become poison by dosage. Or, as in the case of formaldehyde under regular vaping experience, is the amount more or less than breathing air, or drinking city water?
One standard that has been developed, esp. in the area of carcinogens (or co-carcinogens or what are called 'promoters' see:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...er-like-normal-cigarettes-3.html#post13782313 )
.... is that there is a 'no-threshold' policy. Which means that any amount of the key factors that are found present, automatically is considered a "carcinogen". When the ability to measure was only one millionth, then one millionth found was labeled a carcinogen. When the ability to measure to the billionths, then one billionth was the standard, even though the factors were not measureable earlier. Same with trillionth now and even less. So despite the fact that we know dosage can determine danger, the no threshold policy doesn't take that into account. One must ask oneself why that is? There can be many answers, but one that seems to be more and more common is that comes down to how politics (or a certain philosophy of control) enters into the 'data' that is no part of science. What that philosophy is, while pertinent, is no part of this discussion on this forum. You can PM me if you're interested. Otherwise, this is the last I'll have to say on the subject here.
I agree with this part, but for the rest is the reason I mentioned the 'butter, eggs, fat' part in my reply. All of those had similar 'science' behind the 'danger' at the time. That no longer is the case. You can lay out all what you read about diketones and come to what appears to be a rational conclusion from the data that is made available... JUST as you could have read all the data about fats and come to the same conclusion by deduction. When you have a series of instances where science either by not having enough data, or where politics (or money) became part of the data, then you have to think inductively - There are similar cases made in the past that have not shown to be true, so can this be the case here? What is the motivation? Is it similar - attempting to push a certain philosophy - food groups as 'better' than others? Or just mistakes made by science? And also take into account 'dosage' where a 'poison' isn't always a poison, or where normal non-poisonous substance become poison by dosage. Or, as in the case of formaldehyde under regular vaping experience, is the amount more or less than breathing air, or drinking city water?
One standard that has been developed, esp. in the area of carcinogens (or co-carcinogens or what are called 'promoters' see:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...er-like-normal-cigarettes-3.html#post13782313 )
.... is that there is a 'no-threshold' policy. Which means that any amount of the key factors that are found present, automatically is considered a "carcinogen". When the ability to measure was only one millionth, then one millionth found was labeled a carcinogen. When the ability to measure to the billionths, then one billionth was the standard, even though the factors were not measureable earlier. Same with trillionth now and even less. So despite the fact that we know dosage can determine danger, the no threshold policy doesn't take that into account. One must ask oneself why that is? There can be many answers, but one that seems to be more and more common is that comes down to how politics (or a certain philosophy of control) enters into the 'data' that is no part of science. What that philosophy is, while pertinent, is no part of this discussion on this forum. You can PM me if you're interested. Otherwise, this is the last I'll have to say on the subject here.
Automotive fuel vapors contain carcinogens. That is why I wear a space suit when fueling my vehicles. Perhaps the FDA will require it to save us all from the hidden dangers of unreported fuel vapors. More studies are needed. What about the children sitting in vehicles while being fueled? We must protect the children.
Sorry, there's not a specific group of people they can demonize, by doing that. The whole idea now is not to 'unite' communities, but to break them down into segments with differences - real or imagined. That way, they can't all get together and throw those in office, out. lol
Fuel, fuel pumps and gas stations are highly regulated. Plenty of studies have been done, hence regulation...
Inaccurate. In post #12 on this thread, your first, you went on diatribe saying
Lots of we statements in there. Yes, you made point about wanting to avoid this crap, but also made other points that contributed to the debate. Had you made only the point "I dont want to vape anything containing diacetyl (and other diketones), period" I believe you and I wouldn't be debating in this thread.
Because you have said more than what you are claiming is all you have said. My first, second, third and fourth posts AFTER your first post were not addressed to you. And then you quoted me in post #39 to initiate debate. Glad to rehash that post, if desired.
And I observe it is because they use "we statements" and talking about the industry as a whole as to why I generally get into such discussions.
I can think of a way to force the entire industry to comply to the diacetyl perceived problem. FDA has provided that way. And you are contributing to justification for why FDA regulations are righteous. You believe the whole industry should disclose. Thus, you are telling others (vape businesses) how to act within the market and not just leaving it up to your wallet.
Lemme know if you still don't get this cause I have no problem calling it out.
No, seriously Jman, I'm not talking about your liquids or what you should vape, but only how I wish to approach this with my wallet.
Ha, you were almost convincing before. Almost. But not quite.
Now. Not so able to stick to that point you claimed was all you were saying.
I fail to see why some vapers engage in fear mongering and willingly contribute to ANTZ speak.
Can you show anyone on any diacetyl thread anywhere who has claimed it to be harmless?
This sounds again like more sleazy propaganda, or the type of thing ANTZ might say.
I have read the other threads. Show me where someone has claimed it to be harmless. I believe you won't.
Is this argument about actual safety, or the illusion of safety? About actually knowing something, or about where to place one's 'trust in others' with regard to that safety?
Governmental organizations the world over are already operating on the assumption that vaping in it's entirety is unsafe. Asking for, (or allowing) them to step in and control even a small part of it is extremely unwise.
The juice market in particular will best evolve on it's own. Coalitions will rapidly develop along lines similar to the food industry, where there are options for everyone. Government intervention will stop that evolution in it's tracks. No options, no freedom of choice.
The juice market in particular will best evolve on it's own. Coalitions will rapidly develop along lines similar to the food industry, where there are options for everyone. Government intervention will stop that evolution in it's tracks. No options, no freedom of choice.
- Status
Similar threads
