The truth

[krobeson]

Not sure if you all have seen this but kudos to this guy!!!!

 

[Tracey1]

Brilliant. I'm surprised that Fox allowed it to air.

 

[AttyPops]

Well, as usual, the faux banter is a bit over the top, but the points for e-cigs were great.

IDK what the hell [some of] the Dems are doing with this stuff.
OHOT I hope none of them, on any side of the isle, hand it over to BT.

Glad to see that the harm reduction info keeps getting mainstreamed in media.

Boo! on CVS for banning e-cigs but not other alternate nic (I think that's what they said. If they banned all nic..including lozenges and gum and patches, I didn't get that from this.)

 

[rondasherrill]

I disagree with their "water vapor" comparison to fog, and their odd handling of e-cig explosions at the end, but overall a good watch.

 

[Robino1]

Moved to Media and General News from General vaping Discussion

Nice to see that there are more positive media stories coming out.

 

[TheJakeBailey]

This, and a couple of follow ups have been floating around for awhile. (While it is pro e-cig, or should I say anti democrat, really,) it's not any more accurate than the Antz propaganda. It's not fog, it's not steam, it's not water vapor. Never has been, never will be. To me, presenting it tht way, and with such...energy, looks as uneducated as saying that they cause cancer.

 

[Nate760]

I don't like living in a world where Fox News is the voice of reason and sanity. But I guess that's what we've come to.

 

[Nate760]

It's not fog, it's not steam, it's not water vapor. Never has been, never will be. To me, presenting it tht way, and with such...energy, looks as uneducated as saying that they cause cancer.

Yup. These types of statements aggravate me to no end. A worthy cause requires no hyperbole on its behalf.

 

[Kent C]

Ir's a Feb 2014 recording that was posted about 5 times here The positive stories from Fox vs. the "major news media" is about 8 to 1. Should be of no surprise to anyone who's paying attention. Gutfeld backed off his 'water vapor' comment in subsequent comments on ecigs. (he got some emails on that one).

Roly: 66% water vapor

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...9160-analysis-electronic-cigarette-vapor.html

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...e-these-who-needs-enemies-3.html#post13510556
post#23

 

[aikanae1]

I don't exactly see the Republican House holding hearings on ecigs. Abnormally quiet.
Citizen's United.

 

[DC2]

It's not fog, it's not steam, it's not water vapor. Never has been, never will be. To me, presenting it tht way, and with such...energy, looks as uneducated as saying that they cause cancer.

It is in fact glycol-based fog, if you look at it for what it really is....
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...905-vaping-myths-we-exhaling-water-vapor.html

 

[Kent C]

It is in fact glycol-based fog, if you look at it for what it really is....
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...905-vaping-myths-we-exhaling-water-vapor.html

The Burstyn study "peering through the mist" has this to say about exhaled vapor:

The cautions about propylene glycol and glycerin apply only to the exposure experienced by the vapers themselves. Exposure of bystanders to the listed ingredients, let alone the contaminants, does not warrant a concern as the exposure is likely to be orders of magnitude lower than exposure experienced by vapers. Further research employing realistic conditions could help quantify the quantity of exhaled aerosol and its behavior in the environment under realistic worst-case scenarios (i.e., not small sealed chambers), but this is not a priority since the exposure experienced by bystanders is clearly very low compared to the exposure of vapers, and thus there is no reason to expect it would have any health effects.

And:

It has been suggested that propylene glycol is very rapidly absorbed during inhalation [4,6] making the calculation under worst case scenario of all propylene glycol becoming available for inhalation credible.

-----

And this points to the assimilation that occurs in one's lungs as well as the desiccant aspect of PG and VG where a displacement occurs resulting in what some studies have said to be "mostly" (or Roly's 66%) water vapor (for exhaled vapor). And I expect that displacement is also the reason why certain studies have said that the amount of nicotine in second hand vapor is unable to be measured with instruments that measure to "< 0.001" (in the 'Clearstream study' by Dr. F). Amount of PG measured " < 0.01" .... same study. Again, this is for second-hand vapor not mainstream vapor.

As I've said before (and it will vary from vaper to vaper) but IF such a displacement didn't take place either via mucus membranes in the mouth/throat or in the lungs, with the nicotine, then we'd still be smoking And... the reason nicotine can't be measured in true real life type second hand vapor, rather than with smoking machines that only approximate mainstream vapor - that which the vaper experiences, not what bystanders may experience, which is, by these studies, no effects whatsoever as far as the nicotine and PG is concerned.

It's possible that some flavoring can be detected, but in my experience even that is relatively a small percentage of flavors - RY4, coffee, and a few others - vs. almost any other smell that is rendered by humans, whether garlic breath, body odor, cigarettes, perfumes, etc. - iow, out of those, ecig vapor is the very least and contains no appreciable level of contaminants and sometimes no measurable level of them.

http://publichealth.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/publichealth/ms08.pdf
http://clearstream.flavourart.it/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CSA_ItaEng.pdf

 

[k2zs]

Gary Gutfield is a huge proponent of e-cigs. That's probably the 10th time I've seen him go off on a tangent about vapeing. Media needs more like him with the guts to speak out from platforms with such exposure.