From the New York Times Room For Debate series: The Ambiguous Allure of the E-Cig
The Ambiguous Allure of the E-Cig - New York Times
- Thread starter Frankenmizer
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Nice article Thank you for posting. I even like the comments some are a little condescending but they are not bashing.
http ://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/08/20/the-ambiguous-allure-of-the-e-cig/flavored-e-cigs-will-appeal-to-young-people << yeah... that one not so much (Link broken on purpose)...
really? You go from Nicotine to ......? Well... that escalated quickly!
really? You go from Nicotine to ......? Well... that escalated quickly!
ya got trouble, folks
right here in river city
trouble with a capital T and that rhymes with P and that stands for pool
From The Music Man, 1957, by Meredith Wilson
I wish the people giving opinions would do some research. I have seen the statement "Traces of Antifreeze" in numerous places. People, it is not car antifreeze. Propylene glycol is an accepted food safe antifreeze. I used it for years in the fresh water lines in my motor home. You can buy it at Walmart, Home Depot, and any auto parts store. Google it.
I find it interesting that the New York Times, got 6 "Debaters"... and broke them down:
2 - Pro ecig
2 - Strongly Anti-eCig
2 - Moderately Anti-eCig
2 - Pro ecig
2 - Strongly Anti-eCig
2 - Moderately Anti-eCig
I'm taking it as a sign of progress! Maybe they're hoping that if they give ecigs a voice, we vapers won't inundate them with rebuttal comments.... heh heh
The antifreeze comments are not in regards to propylene glycol, they are in regards to diethylene glycol found in the FDA study.
Here is a post by Vocalek that explains the whole thing really well...
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...s-e-cigarettes-why-economist.html#post9846149
Lots of crappy opinion, but front page NYT OP and a big spread is as big as it gets in journalistic MSM, whatever you think of the Times. Everyone needs to weigh in in the comments - they're very widely read. That they acknowledge serious debate is a good thing in itself for us.
I copied this from the NYT comments.... It was Kevin from Canada. I wish I had the source as it is good ammunition.
Nicotine does not restrict blood vessels. At least not in any way that is known to be harmful. This is a myth created by ad agency half truths exaggerated well beyond anything you could remotely consider reasonable. "Endothelial dysfunction" as it is known is simply put your body's normal regulation of blood flow and heart rate. Nitric oxide [NO] was considered toxic for decades until it was discovered that it is produced by your body, as a trigger in the same process. When you eat something your blood flow has to change in order for digestion to occur and the nutrients from the meal, to be added to your blood.. The restriction you are using to scare people happens numerous times every day regardless of nicotine, smoking or anything else. Without those restrictions you would die without question, and it won't take 50 years to develop. Walking from an air conditioned room into the heat of summer or the reverse in the winter has the same effect. It is the reason your mom told you not to go swimming after eating lunch. Blood content adjustment takes time. As does the regulation of core body temperature require the pressure, be adjusted to suit the situation.
Nicotine does not restrict blood vessels. At least not in any way that is known to be harmful. This is a myth created by ad agency half truths exaggerated well beyond anything you could remotely consider reasonable. "Endothelial dysfunction" as it is known is simply put your body's normal regulation of blood flow and heart rate. Nitric oxide [NO] was considered toxic for decades until it was discovered that it is produced by your body, as a trigger in the same process. When you eat something your blood flow has to change in order for digestion to occur and the nutrients from the meal, to be added to your blood.. The restriction you are using to scare people happens numerous times every day regardless of nicotine, smoking or anything else. Without those restrictions you would die without question, and it won't take 50 years to develop. Walking from an air conditioned room into the heat of summer or the reverse in the winter has the same effect. It is the reason your mom told you not to go swimming after eating lunch. Blood content adjustment takes time. As does the regulation of core body temperature require the pressure, be adjusted to suit the situation.
Excellent comment, gayhalo; thanks for posting! And thank you, Kevin from Canada. I hope you are, or will be, a member of ECF. 
The origin of the "antifreeze" myth was a 2009 press release by the FDA that stated they tested 18 samples and found carcinogens and toxins "including diethylene glycol, a chemical used in antifreeze."
True, DEG was once used in all types of antifreeze, but makers of car antifreeze switched to PG because it is non-toxic. DEG was killing pets who lapped up the sweet-tasting antifreeze that leaked onto the driveway or garage floor.
Today, DEG is only used in industrial applications.
BTW, the quantity of DEG found (1%) is not a toxic quantity. (However the FDA had recently lowered the permissible limit of DEG in products for human consumption to 0.1%). Also, the FDA left out the fact that the "carcinogens" they found (Tobacco-specific Nitrosamines) are found in FDA-approved nicotine patches and gum, in roughly equivalent quantities. So if the patch and nicotine gum don't cause cancer, it seems logical that the TSNAs in some e-cigarette liquids won't cause cancer either.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
