The Diketone Debate: Which Position Do you Take?

[Jman8]

In this case here, to me at least, there is a clear distinction between a demand/command/order by the people (a 'people's mandate') vs. those same people literally asking for government intervention. I will use the case of nicotine again to illustrate this point: would most vapers be on board with saying that it should be mandatory for professional vendors that choose to work with nicotine to possess basic skills with diluting it -- like the ability to dilute from 100 mg/mL down to a target percentage -- before going into business? I am sure not all would agree, but I bet you'd still have a lot of vapers saying "hell yeah, that better be mandatory before trying to sell eliquid," and many would assume that it already is mandatory for a vendor to know how to properly dilute nicotine. Now, if they say it "better be," does that mean that they are going to call in the FDA if it ain't? That to me is being overly technical about semantics. I don't think that means those vapers would require a test of those vendors to pass before going into business, but they feel certain things have become non-negotiable from the places they will patronize. If they find out that vendor is not complying with certain rules the industry has set forth, they will take their dollars (re: enforcement) elsewhere. Some might still say, "well, then, you mean it would simply be a good idea to have those skills, not that you mean mandatory," to which I would say "no, I think it *should* be mandatory for professional eliquid mixers to have basic dilution skills with nicotine if they choose to work with it."

I agree, this (what you have written) is semantics. But the question still remains for those who chose #2, what happens if this is not done? If it is simply "I will spend my dollars elsewhere" then what I am getting at is blowing things out of proportion. I concede that. But the word 'mandatorily' within context of what vaping politics just went through this year (or even within last 4 months) seems like a word that is challenging to dismiss as purely semantical. If we take ANTZ out of the picture (bye bye ANTZ) and ask non-vaper / neutral observer who happens to be aware of FDA proposed regulations for eCig industry, I believe this observer would think that a decent portion of vapers favors regulations, for sake of safety of their products. To avoid that perception, it would take some technical maneuvering and explanation that amounts to 'we kinda sorta do want regulation' but not government regulation.

From what I get in reading this thread, and particularly with dialoguing with you here (and a small number of others) is that it is less "should be madatorily disclosed" and far closer to, "I'd like to have that sort of info, wherever possible."

But as we are in a thread with title that contains "debate" and getting technical on what type of chemical are we talking about (exactly) and how dangerous is it (really) and at what levels (precisely), then as one who is aware of FDA proposed regulations and still thinks #3 is most viable answer, I think it is prudent to explore what those who selected #2 believe when they are on board with "should be mandatorily disclosed." And to ask these same people, what do you think ought to happen, if anything, to any vendor who doesn't conform to your desire to disclose said information?

 

[Zelphie]

At this point I would say that I would like them to disclose and for no legal consequences come to those who don't comply. Some do disclose and I appreciate it greatly, and like to purchase from them but I still vape some diketones myself. Though, again it comes down to who you think it disclosing honestly or not.

But if/when further information develops in regard to health effects from any aspect of vaping( and I'm sure it will) and something is shown to be of a certain danger level that aligns with my personal breaking point, then I would agree that something "should" force them to comply with proven honest and thorough disclosure, or have consequences. I'm not sure what that criteria would be right now or what type of consequences. Though I know I wouldn't actually demand anything, I would simply stop vaping, let the matter die and uninvolved myself. How I answered was more of a statement reflecting my personal theoretical, not literal wishes. I would be happy to share my thoughts but I need to just see where things go. So, I do understand the wording and now understand where everyone is coming from, I think. For not seeing that I apologize.

But I have to agree, your not far off, as in theory if things were to get to a certain level I would become ANTZ I suppose, but I do not believe on acting on my personal wishes to force eliquid or equipment or whatever to comply with my standards, so I'm not sure if that qualifies or not, but if so we would just have not disagree. I don't care what others do one bit. I just wish, just a dream..

In reality what Id like to see is more disclosure from industry pressure alone, and it becoming the norm without having to remove eliquids from market that contain anything in particular for those who want it. I so wish to have a way to chose AND be able to trust it. That's a tall order I know..
I now have my urine steeping 8-o, it may just taste better than many eliquids I've tried. Eww

 

[Mr.Mann]

I agree, this (what you have written) is semantics. But the question still remains for those who chose #2, what happens if this is not done? If it is simply "I will spend my dollars elsewhere" then what I am getting at is blowing things out of proportion. I concede that. But the word 'mandatorily' within context of what vaping politics just went through this year (or even within last 4 months) seems like a word that is challenging to dismiss as purely semantical. If we take ANTZ out of the picture (bye bye ANTZ) and ask non-vaper / neutral observer who happens to be aware of FDA proposed regulations for eCig industry, I believe this observer would think that a decent portion of vapers favors regulations, for sake of safety of their products. To avoid that perception, it would take some technical maneuvering and explanation that amounts to 'we kinda sorta do want regulation' but not government regulation.

From what I get in reading this thread, and particularly with dialoguing with you here (and a small number of others) is that it is less "should be madatorily disclosed" and far closer to, "I'd like to have that sort of info, wherever possible."

But as we are in a thread with title that contains "debate" and getting technical on what type of chemical are we talking about (exactly) and how dangerous is it (really) and at what levels (precisely), then as one who is aware of FDA proposed regulations and still thinks #3 is most viable answer, I think it is prudent to explore what those who selected #2 believe when they are on board with "should be mandatorily disclosed." And to ask these same people, what do you think ought to happen, if anything, to any vendor who doesn't conform to your desire to disclose said information?

Game goes to Jman8. LOL. Well written, sir.

 

[Jman8]

At this point I would say that I would like them to disclose and for no legal consequences come to those who don't comply. Some do disclose and I appreciate it greatly, and like to purchase from them but I still vape some diketones myself. Though, again it comes down to who you think it disclosing honestly or not.

I take this last statement as very pertinent to the discussion. We already live in a vaping world where the industry, for the most part, let everyone know that their liquids were diacetyl-free. Then Dr. F. found that despite that claim, many samples that he tested contained diacetyl because his testing is more precise than what they are likely able to accomplish.

So, all those consumers who went about looking for "diacetyl-free" liquids were happy they were finally vaping that type of liquid, as the vendor chose to disclose that info. But it was mistaken. They weren't 'lied to' but at same time, they weren't getting factual information, or at least according to Dr. F.

Thus, a vendor now that says "our liquids are all diketone-free" ought to mean very little. But I'm sure some vapers will convince themselves that this is in fact true and possibly even urge fellow vapers to go this route as it is most righteous to go with these (type of) vendors.

Some consumers may feel even more righteous when they are sent email copy of lab report that verifies the vendor's claim of diketone-free. Yet, is it plausible that the lab report could be mistaken, or inaccurate? I would say yes. Not, IMO, highly likely, but plausible.

And so unless or until you are doing your own tests with own equipment, then I find it incredible to conclude that you are in fact vaping diketone-free liquid because your vendor or some third party told you so. I further find it hard to conclude that what you are vaping is inherently safer because scientists in 2014 thought diketones very bad, but what replaces them to give full flavor is hunky dory. These same scientists can be (rather easily) quoted as saying, "no one knows for sure" or "there's vast and complicated unknowns with what the long term effects will be."

Yet, with all that said, if you are one that would prefer right now to vape diketone-free liquids and are willing to give vendors/lab tests benefits of any doubts that what they are purporting is accurate, then I would encourage you to seek that sort of vendor out and vape all the diketone-free liquids that you can get your hands on. And enjoy it.

But to come back and tell me I ought to care as passionately as you do, when you aren't really relying on anything but faith, is a little hard to go along with.

 

[Mr.Mann]

I take this last statement as very pertinent to the discussion. We already live in a vaping world where the industry, for the most part, let everyone know that their liquids were diacetyl-free. Then Dr. F. found that despite that claim, many samples that he tested contained diacetyl because his testing is more precise than what they are likely able to accomplish.

So, all those consumers who went about looking for "diacetyl-free" liquids were happy they were finally vaping that type of liquid, as the vendor chose to disclose that info. But it was mistaken. They weren't 'lied to' but at same time, they weren't getting factual information, or at least according to Dr. F.

Thus, a vendor now that says "our liquids are all diketone-free" ought to mean very little. But I'm sure some vapers will convince themselves that this is in fact true and possibly even urge fellow vapers to go this route as it is most righteous to go with these (type of) vendors.

Some consumers may feel even more righteous when they are sent email copy of lab report that verifies the vendor's claim of diketone-free. Yet, is it plausible that the lab report could be mistaken, or inaccurate? I would say yes. Not, IMO, highly likely, but plausible.

And so unless or until you are doing your own tests with own equipment, then I find it incredible to conclude that you are in fact vaping diketone-free liquid because your vendor or some third party told you so. I further find it hard to conclude that what you are vaping is inherently safer because scientists in 2014 thought diketones very bad, but what replaces them to give full flavor is hunky dory. These same scientists can be (rather easily) quoted as saying, "no one knows for sure" or "there's vast and complicated unknowns with what the long term effects will be."

Yet, with all that said, if you are one that would prefer right now to vape diketone-free liquids and are willing to give vendors/lab tests benefits of any doubts that what they are purporting is accurate, then I would encourage you to seek that sort of vendor out and vape all the diketone-free liquids that you can get your hands on. And enjoy it.

But to come back and tell me I ought to care as passionately as you do, when you aren't really relying on anything but faith, is a little hard to go along with.

The problem I have with this argument is that from what I gather, essentially, you're saying that becasue we can't have 100% faith in any one thing, we can never draw any logical conclusions. A reasonable amount of certainty is fine. And DIY testing for diketones as a consumer is pretty much non-sense, so I don't think you actually meant that is the 'best' way.

Yes, vendors made claims that came back to be false, but that is different than stating what results were after having liquids and concentrates tested -- considering early on many vendors (and several have told me this) thought diacetyl was an ingredient that some liquid vendors were using, so they were like "no, we don't use diacetyl." Like it was ethyl maltol or something. LOL. Some were only concerned about DA and never knew that the concern was about diketones, so when their flavor suppliers told them they didn't use DA they were not even being lied to -- well, not exactly.

And I can't remember if you said you DIY or not, but once/if you do, you'd know that recognizing diketones can be easier when exposed to the flavor concentrates -- in many cases it's as easy as identifying artificial sweeteners. So I actually don't need testing so much as someone that may be using premade liquids (and I can now spot it pretty easily in those too). Recently I bought a Capella concentrate that was not publicly listed anywhere as having diketones, but I 'knew' it did by taste. I contacted Capella and asked them a simple yes or no question as to whether that flavor used diketones and they said "yes." Luckily it didn't make a whole lot of difference to me considering I can add it in at whatever percentage I want, but I felt good (not righteous) about being much wiser about recognizing those chems now -- but I still ultimately have to buy to know, and that part irks me a bit.

If I get sent test results and protocols, that is a much greater starting point than to have nothing at all. Will I feel "righteous?" Nah, but I will feel better than seeing a vendor say something like, "what good would a 3rd party test do? You can't trust anything, you know?!" And, for me, this has been about wanting to know with reasonable certainty before I buy so I can determine if I want to buy. [I got enough diketone-based vanillas/creams/desserts as is, so I would like to know if the next one is too, because if it is it'll likely be just like the other ones.] It's not even that I won't buy if I am told it does have 'trace' amounts (or even large amounts), but I want to know.

And sure, it's hard to know anything with 100% certainty, but I don't see it naive to consider the science becasue some of the science is relatively new -- and actually, the study of these chemicals ain't exactly new with regard to their effects on air pathways -- or at the very least, it ain't a product of 2014 as you made it seem.

Is there a lot more to be learned about all of this? Yes. But considering we aren't talking about VG/PG or even nic, this issue does not prevent the vape from happening.

 

[Jman8]

The problem I have with this argument is that from what I gather, essentially, you're saying that becasue we can't have 100% faith in any one thing, we can never draw any logical conclusions. A reasonable amount of certainty is fine. And DIY testing for diketones as a consumer is pretty much non-sense, so I don't think you actually meant that is the 'best' way.

I don't think I am essentially saying what you have me essentially saying. I agree that a reasonable amount of certainty is fine. I think as a matter of debate that reasonable certainty ought to be tested, just as the #3 option has been tested in this thread as a matter of debate.

3 of the polling options are personal (I know or I have little idea about the issues) and 2 of them are impersonal (vendors should do thus and so). If the other 2 impersonal options were made personal, I think there would be less debate. But this thread shows that not only do some vapers want more info, they want the entire industry to conform to what they feel is the proper path, which again, strikes me as ANTZ type rhetoric. Just cause you may want all vendors to get rid of diketones in your juice doesn't make you (full blown) ANTZ, but as a matter of debate or dialogue, it could lead others to testing that sort of thinking.

I'm very okay with a market where some, or even majority of vendors are choosing to go with diketone-free liquids. And okay with idea that some will not. But less okay with idea that "every vendor should mandatorily change their business" or "every vendor should get rid of diketones in their liquid, no matter what!" And hence the reason we may have a debate on this in the vaping community, cause I am 100% certain that I am not alone in taking issue with that sort of approach to the market.

 

[Mr.Mann]

I don't think I am essentially saying what you have me essentially saying. I agree that a reasonable amount of certainty is fine. I think as a matter of debate that reasonable certainty ought to be tested, just as the #3 option has been tested in this thread as a matter of debate.

3 of the polling options are personal (I know or I have little idea about the issues) and 2 of them are impersonal (vendors should do thus and so). If the other 2 impersonal options were made personal, I think there would be less debate. But this thread shows that not only do some vapers want more info, they want the entire industry to conform to what they feel is the proper path, which again, strikes me as ANTZ type rhetoric. Just cause you may want all vendors to get rid of diketones in your juice doesn't make you (full blown) ANTZ, but as a matter of debate or dialogue, it could lead others to testing that sort of thinking.

I'm very okay with a market where some, or even majority of vendors are choosing to go with diketone-free liquids. And okay with idea that some will not. But less okay with idea that "every vendor should mandatorily change their business" or "every vendor should get rid of diketones in their liquid, no matter what!" And hence the reason we may have a debate on this in the vaping community, cause I am 100% certain that I am not alone in taking issue with that sort of approach to the market.

You might not be alone in your thinking, but who is? I get the issues with the poll and I'd like to do something about that, but short of starting another one there's not much I can do except apologize for the lack of options. I've made that point too many times, and many people in this thread that have spoken have said their vote was only loosely based on what was offered.

.......

I just will never see pushing (y)our industry to do what you/we want is anything remotely close to "ANTZ." The vaping anti-vaper? Weird. In the beginning, many vapers decided that they wanted DA free liquids (even if it wasn't well understood) and they pushed for their vendors to address the issue. What resulted was that virtually all vendors made claims on their sites about their liquids being free of it. Now, that push has evolved, so I don't see why it is only now ANTZ behavior when before it was vapers making decisions about their own industry to their own industry -- and back then, the industry responded, even if it was done without much thought. The point I am making is that if we consider ourselves able to self-regulate, or even currently doing it, how can that be done without some demands from within?

 

[Zelphie]

In your quoted portion of my text I was merely acknowledging that is impossible to know for sure and that any vapor who is concerned cant actually rely on facts.This I've stated again and again, and yet again at the end of the same post you quoted in an attempt to illiterate the opposite. I'm the most cynical person in the world and am aware that the diketone replacements could be even worse, and that there are more diketones that are not even talked about or acknowledged by any vendor or any random Dr., let alone chemicals that could do very different damage. Why would I be hanging on the words of some Dr. when all he did was say the words that were known for years? I don't need "faith" to not be a diketone free vapor nor do I employ that in any area of my life. Please stop talking to me like I'm blatantly ......ed and quite new to this issue.. I'm very aware of the vapors who act as you've outlined, and it mystifies me. Wow.

But to come back and tell me I ought to care as passionately as you do, when you aren't really relying on anything but faith, is a little hard to go along with.

You wanted to know what I want done and what I think should happen if its no, I told you and explained my personal position. Telling you what I'm passionate about doesn't mean that you should be as well. From what I've said, that was your take away? Wow! I couldn't pay myself to want to tell you what you should be passionate about. I told you what you seem to ultimately wanted to know. And so what? Yet you seem to be the only zealot here, in the purest form.

Arguing with a zealot that reads like a sociopath makes little sense.

 

[Tangaroav]

Interesting results from this survey.

90% of the vapers that voted care about diketones, 85% want SOME action taken to protect themselves against diketones. 10% don't care and 5 % are undecided.

In this democracy, if this was election night the winner would have been declared long ago. Diketones is the looser.

So the next question is what actions should we take to assure that the winners are heard ?

 

[lidl_yogurt]

Even before the vendors there should be disclosure by the flavour manufacturers of the values and not only of diketones but also butyric acid which many flavours contain as it's not only used as a custard/butter note. Although after the break of the Diacetyl drama with the popcorn factory workers, we will never be as exposed to diacetyl as they were and there are not still reliable studies that prove that Acetoin and Acetylpropionyl are less harmful than Diacetyl and that even their newer replacer Butyric Acid is harmless than the previous 2.
Because of all that drama around the popcorn factory workers, all the brands started to take diacetyl by itself out of their recipes in 2009/2010, so yes, we are all "in the dark" still until some reliable studies that should even be promoted by us happen. To play the blame game is simple worthless and will not lead us nowhere.

Some brands already have some info on it:
FW for example disclosures the exact values of A and AP they use on their flavours on their website:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/dgcbcda45ghrkad/AACOwhaFQUX41lau0gt2FCO2a/FW Ingredient List.pdf?dl=0

TPA/TFA states that info in ranges. With a lot of them being like >=1 and <10% that's quite a big range there, obviously they don't want to disclosure exact values fearing their recipe would be "stolen" with that info on 2/3 molecules...

Capella has the V2's which they state to not have A and AP (will surely use BA because it's impossible to reproduce any custardy/buttery note for some flavours without it)
FA is known to use BA.

Still, what's values are safe? What values can be considered harmful? There are a lof of chemicals in the air that we are exposed on an daily basis that are simple of trace amounts to create us some damage. To conclude, without further and more conclusive studies we are all just at our own risk and choice.

My2c,
lidl_yogurt

 

[Jman8]

I just will never see pushing (y)our industry to do what you/we want is anything remotely close to "ANTZ." The vaping anti-vaper? Weird. In the beginning, many vapers decided that they wanted DA free liquids (even if it wasn't well understood) and they pushed for their vendors to address the issue. What resulted was that virtually all vendors made claims on their sites about their liquids being free of it. Now, that push has evolved, so I don't see why it is only now ANTZ behavior when before it was vapers making decisions about their own industry to their own industry -- and back then, the industry responded, even if it was done without much thought. The point I am making is that if we consider ourselves able to self-regulate, or even currently doing it, how can that be done without some demands from within?

By spending your money on the type of product that you say you want (foremost). And by perhaps writing to / talking with vendors that you truly like (what they have to offer) and letting them know this, and that if they carried diketone-free liquids, you would frequent their business and buy those products. Now, let's say a vendor did this in response to a customer letter. But same vendor also offered liquids that weren't diketone free. I honestly believe majority of vapers (like 95% or more) would appreciate this and have zero issue with it. But, I do think there is a number of vapers who would say I simply cannot buy your diketone-free liquids as long as you are in business of willingly selling diketone-laced liquids, and I intend on letting everyone know they shouldn't buy from you, plus notifying my congress person and contacting the press about what I consider horrible and unethical business practices. Perhaps I paint a picture of a bogeyman that doesn't exist, and yet, I think that type of vaper has already posted in this thread. In most cases, I think a vendor will go with all diketone-free liquids and not bother with a dual line. But also in this same reality, it would be kinda tough (not impossible) for consumers to know for sure. Thus, they may get/vape diketone-laced liquids, think they are not, and feel happy or confident with their consumer choice. Plus, there is question I have that I still haven't found answer for that indicates that what replaces diketones in flavoring and achieves full flavor is automatically safer. I feel it is assumed it can't be as bad as inhaling diketones and that until we know otherwise (perhaps 10 to 30 years from now) that this is best course of action to take. But couple those 2 items together, and I have a tough time understanding why be overly concerned with this issue. Add in there the likelihood that person has already inhaled this either as a vaper or very likely as a smoker, or even possibly as human on this planet, and I feel the concern seems incredibly hyped up, like what ANTZ would do in any number of its articles on vaping and 'the harms / dangers of using eCigs.'

But most importantly, within basic context of this discussion, best option is to spend your money on type of product you want. Just as you may not be 100% ever certain that it is diketone-free, you also are not likely to get 100% exactly what you want, all the time, from a vendor. But if you let your dollars speak for your interests, the market will respond accordingly.

 

[Jman8]

From what I've said, that was your take away?

Nope. That comment I made was not directed at you. The first part of that post was, but the "you" I spoke of was a more general you or perhaps another poster in this thread that I feel has gone in that direction.

 

[Mr.Mann]

By spending your money on the type of product that you say you want (foremost). And by perhaps writing to / talking with vendors that you truly like (what they have to offer) and letting them know this, and that if they carried diketone-free liquids, you would frequent their business and buy those products. Now, let's say a vendor did this in response to a customer letter. But same vendor also offered liquids that weren't diketone free. I honestly believe majority of vapers (like 95% or more) would appreciate this and have zero issue with it. But, I do think there is a number of vapers who would say I simply cannot buy your diketone-free liquids as long as you are in business of willingly selling diketone-laced liquids, and I intend on letting everyone know they shouldn't buy from you, plus notifying my congress person and contacting the press about what I consider horrible and unethical business practices. Perhaps I paint a picture of a bogeyman that doesn't exist, and yet, I think that type of vaper has already posted in this thread. In most cases, I think a vendor will go with all diketone-free liquids and not bother with a dual line. But also in this same reality, it would be kinda tough (not impossible) for consumers to know for sure. Thus, they may get/vape diketone-laced liquids, think they are not, and feel happy or confident with their consumer choice. Plus, there is question I have that I still haven't found answer for that indicates that what replaces diketones in flavoring and achieves full flavor is automatically safer. I feel it is assumed it can't be as bad as inhaling diketones and that until we know otherwise (perhaps 10 to 30 years from now) that this is best course of action to take. But couple those 2 items together, and I have a tough time understanding why be overly concerned with this issue. Add in there the likelihood that person has already inhaled this either as a vaper or very likely as a smoker, or even possibly as human on this planet, and I feel the concern seems incredibly hyped up, like what ANTZ would do in any number of its articles on vaping and 'the harms / dangers of using eCigs.'

But most importantly, within basic context of this discussion, best option is to spend your money on type of product you want. Just as you may not be 100% ever certain that it is diketone-free, you also are not likely to get 100% exactly what you want, all the time, from a vendor. But if you let your dollars speak for your interests, the market will respond accordingly.

I've said it on another forum (and here too, I think), but one of the problems that many vapers are not willing to face is many will vehemently say they don't want any part of diketones, but are on a quest to find the exact same notes, but diketone-free. As in, I want a diketone tasting, non-diketone containing liquid. And that's one of the saddest parts in this, to me at least, that all too often people don't realize that the same thing they want to avoid is the same thing they long for. That makes for a painful conflict. It's almost like wanting desperately to eat fried food while being against the usage of fat in its preparation.

And to be clear, I am not saying that a tasty vape has to have those notes -- no, I am not saying that at all -- but you'll kinda drive yourself crazy trying to replace them with something just like them that ain't them.

So while I do use diketone-based concentrates in very small percentages (frequently adding it at under 1% for concentrates that blatantly have it, and sometimes much more diluted than that), I do have to stress that vaping out of a cloud-producing RDA at high temps is night and day vs. how vaping devices began. So I can't say it's a fair example when we say things like, people have been vaping this stuff for years and very little has been reported as problematic with regards to health. We can really only a attribute a few years (maybe slightly more) to the usage of these type of cloud-blowing, liquid devouring devices. I know for a fact that early on and as late as early this year I vaped premade liquids that had/have diektones, but that was also during a time when I vaped about a mL a day (and often less) with my trusty 510 atties. Since I began frequently using these high-powered devices capable of blowing through my previous weekly allotment in one puff, I have to say that kind of vaping with heavy diketone-based liquids makes me feel like .

 

[Racehorse]

IThat makes for a painful conflict. It's almost like wanting desperately to eat fried food while being against the usage of fat in its preparation.

Interestingly, this mirrors, in words, almost exactly the kind of conflict researchers find when they ask people "why" they engage in unprotected sex.

Which apparently is quite prevalent despite the known risks are "avoidable".

The researchers were examining the cognitions underlying these types of decisions, despite there being other options available to the subjects.


I can't sum up an entire study, but suffice to say there was quite a lot of risk dismissal strategy going on...

 

[Jman8]

So while I do use diketone-based concentrates in very small percentages (frequently adding it at under 1% for concentrates that blatantly have it, and sometimes much more diluted than that), I do have to stress that vaping out of a cloud-producing RDA at high temps is night and day vs. how vaping devices began. So I can't say it's a fair example when we say things like, people have been vaping this stuff for years and very little has been reported as problematic with regards to health. We can really only a attribute a few years (maybe slightly more) to the usage of these type of cloud-blowing, liquid devouring devices. I know for a fact that early on and as late as early this year I vaped premade liquids that had/have diektones, but that was also during a time when I vaped about a mL a day (and often less) with my trusty 510 atties. Since I began frequently using these high-powered devices capable of blowing through my previous weekly allotment in one puff, I have to say that kind of vaping with heavy diketone-based liquids makes me feel like .

To me, all pertinent info to the debate.

If I'm vaping less than 3 ml a day, or even at 1 ml a day as you noted, then what's the risk? Would seem according to Dr. F. that this is not in any danger zone. Whereas, person that is clearly at 5 ml a day or more could be more at risk, and in danger zone. But would we want entire industry to change because some vapers (and really a large amount, but arguably a minority segment) go through lots of juice in a day?

When smoker changed over from PAD smoking to whatever they would land on for comfortable daily vaping amount, was there this notion that now I'm engaging in a habit that has zero risks? Or that it should have zero risks? If so, why wouldn't cold turkey be squarely added to the larger discussion and talk of "avoidable risk?" I mean, if we are going to hammer away on "avoidable risk" but completely dismiss cold turkey, then aren't we being disingenuous?

And I come back to idea that there are zero things on the planet that are harmless / risk-free. In the off-chance that someone, somewhere can come up with one to 5 things that are virtually risk free, I would then contend that 99.9999999999% of all other things are risky, containing a degree of harm that may or may not affect all individuals. We aren't living in a world where diketones and maybe 3 other things contain a degree of harm and therefore avoidable risk applies. But really the opposite is in play, where diketone is one of billions (or trillions) of items that have a degree of harm associated with them. Water being one of those things that has known risks of harm associated with it. Person vaping 2 ml a day is akin to person drinking 8 cups of water a day or less. But person that is otherwise comfortable vaping 15 ml of juice a day, that just so happens to have diketones, is akin to person that thinks drinking a gallon of water in 60 minutes is 'healthy' or more healthy than having 3 cups of soda over any given day.

With all that said, I'm still okay if the industry changes to deliver quality products to those with different devices and different vaping desires. Just not up for it being mandatory or restrictive (no matter what!). I think if there is market for diketone-free liquids, there will be some manufacturers who see the financial reasons for going there and happy to serve that segment, plus doing well for themselves.

 

[Arnie H]

I put in my vote, as close to my thinking as possible. Saw this thread mentioned on the Bull City website. Kudos to them for doing it BTW. Could cost them business.

I don't have time to read like I want to, I'm not on forums like I used to be, but seems the voters have spoken, However as the OP mentioned, its hard to avoid because these are in so many flavorings. Kudos to TFA for disclosing what they are "willing" to disclose. The best option, I believe, for those who are concerned is to reduce or limit exposure as much as possible if you can. Long term exposure to high levels would likely be necessary for any issues to arise, but I am no doctor or scientist. Companies should disclose as much info as they can on the ingredients of any flavoring or eliquid, without giving away "so called" trade secrets.

 

[uab9253]

I don't like what little I know about them and I avoid the flavors on TFA that contain them and appreciate that they disclose that fact. I DIY my sweet flavors and buy my "tobacco" flavors, which is really on Tennesee Cured from Johnson Creek. I can't find anything on their website that says anything about what is in their flavorings that they use, but they do tout their ISO:9001 manufacturing cert....

The sweet flavors I use are pretty much fruit or mint flavored, so I don't have a need for the creamy/milky factor that flavors that do contain the ingredient, into my mixes.

 

[ST Dog]

buy my "tobacco" flavors, which is really on Tennesee Cured from Johnson Creek.

Is it an artificial flavor or is it a tobacco extract?

they do tout their ISO:9001 manufacturing cert....

ISO 9001 is about process, quality control, not the product. All it tells you is they have the process to be consistent.
An ISO 9001 facility can consistently produce a bad product.

 

[Mr.Mann]

Just realized today that it's been several weeks (well over a month) since I contacted The Vapor Bar to ask them for information regarding their testing, but they never got back to me (either by phone or email).

 

[Tangaroav]

As this guy on The Click Bang show reported, reading through this and other threads concerning diketones is often a bunch of addicts finding illogical reasons to defend a known poison as they are protecting their habit at all cost. ''It tastes good'', ''I love my custard'', ''I only use a bit'', ''dont limit my freedom'', ''it is not as bad as cigarette'', ''it is not proven'', ''only happens in popcorn factories'' .... and a whole lot more excuses to keep a dangerous ingredients in e-liquids.

Sorry to say but imo, diketones in e-liquids WILL disappear. Either the industry will do it or the FDA will force it. There are NO reasons for allowing vendors to sell a dangerous substance to consumers when it is NOT needed and is easily replaced.