This title just came across my fb wall. Thoughts?
- Thread starter atisa
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
My thoughts are a lot of what was in that article are true. What else is also true is that there have been no long term scientific studies of the harmful or benefitial effects of e-cigarettes. So anything pro or con at this time is up for debate.
What is known, and the article pointed this out as well, is there is no smoke produced with an e-cigarette. Smoke and the hundreds of other chemicals present are what causes cancer. By this alone, vaping can be considered to be "safer" from this perspective than smoking tobacco products.
I don't think anyone is saying that vaping is completely safe. But common sense says it is safer than the alternative of continuing to smoke tobacco, and has allegedly allowed more people to successfully quit smoking than the traditional methods used such as nicotine gum, patch, lozenges, prescription drugs, or hypnosis. I tried all of the above and e-cigarettes was the only way I was able to stop smoking.
As adults, we should have the freedom to choose whether to use e-cigarettes or not. My
.
What is known, and the article pointed this out as well, is there is no smoke produced with an e-cigarette. Smoke and the hundreds of other chemicals present are what causes cancer. By this alone, vaping can be considered to be "safer" from this perspective than smoking tobacco products.
I don't think anyone is saying that vaping is completely safe. But common sense says it is safer than the alternative of continuing to smoke tobacco, and has allegedly allowed more people to successfully quit smoking than the traditional methods used such as nicotine gum, patch, lozenges, prescription drugs, or hypnosis. I tried all of the above and e-cigarettes was the only way I was able to stop smoking.
As adults, we should have the freedom to choose whether to use e-cigarettes or not. My
.
Last edited:
Already unfollowed their page on my Facebook.
Sent from Mars using my Illudium Q-36 Space Modulator.
Sent from Mars using my Illudium Q-36 Space Modulator.
But why do that when they have amazing articles and real scientific facts? Yeah one article that points out that its not as safe as quitting all together but that doesn't mean you throw the entire site out
Aspire Nautilus
Innokin MPV2
I'm concerned with their credibility now as a result of this. Sure the same could be said for any news publisher, but a blog that reports only on science that we all know full well ignored science entirely with this post is unacceptable.
Sent from Mars using my Illudium Q-36 Space Modulator.
Sent from Mars using my Illudium Q-36 Space Modulator.
I am also a subscriber of this group on facebook and love the articles they post. I saw this a moment ago myself and of course, read the entire thing, and while I dislike what this is saying about vaping, I don't find it to be entirely untrue. It's true, there has not been any major studies or long term effects studies on the effects of vaping, but I think what this article is claiming to those outside the vaping community, IS the fact that there is not much info, but don't think it is a 100% harm free alternative. Yes, it is safer and better than smoking, but it is not 'good for you' and you would probably be better off not doing it at all if that was a choice, but definitely better than smoking. And just because you ignore information that you dislike, doesn't make it to be untrue or go away. Kinda like coming to terms with religion.
I felt like this was one of the more objective articles on the topic that I have read, and it did not feel "agenda driven" to me. I think we as vapers need to be prepared for the possibility that vaping may not be as safe as we once thought it was, which is not to say that it will kill us, but perhaps there are health risks involved that we were all previously unaware of, because vaping is still relatively new.
We, as a community should want to the know the whole truth regarding any possible health risks related to vaping, even if the truth is not as good as we once thought. I am all for objective reporting on any testing, and studies in relation to vaping, and its long term affects, both positive, and negative.
We, as a community should want to the know the whole truth regarding any possible health risks related to vaping, even if the truth is not as good as we once thought. I am all for objective reporting on any testing, and studies in relation to vaping, and its long term affects, both positive, and negative.
I never bought into the completely safe theory. I always thought of it as harm reduction.
Moderation is generally the key. It is with most things in life.
"s vaping is still fairly new, there just has not been enough time to do the necessary long-term studies regarding health risks."
There hasn't been.
Moderation is generally the key. It is with most things in life.
"s vaping is still fairly new, there just has not been enough time to do the necessary long-term studies regarding health risks."
There hasn't been.
Dr. Farsalinos debunked the Formaldehyde findings a while ago: Formaldehyde release in ecigarette vapor The New York Times story explained in detail
Not exactly he stopped at 4.8 volts to 10 watts because of dry wick. Maybe I am reading it wrong.
"I tried 10 watts with an EVIC battery in a Vivi Nova top-coil atomizer (for a clinical study i perfomed few months ago), and many vapers were unable to use it due to the dry puff phenomenon. Unfortunately, the researchers did not measure and could not provide any information about the resistance of the atomizers, thus it is unknown how much energy was delivered to the atomizer.In my opinion, this is crucial."
He does state this though.
"I am certain that, due to better liquid resupply to the resistance and wick, the results will be much more favorable."
Hey everybody, I started a thread about this a while ago under media.
Anybody wanna merge?
Anybody wanna merge?
Hey everybody, I started a thread about this a while ago under media.
Anybody wanna merge?
I didn't see yours when I posted this. Please feel free to merge it.
I didn't see yours when I posted this. Please feel free to merge it.
I do not have the authority to do that
the threads seem to have gone in slightly different directions so I'll leave it to the mods to decide. I posted my thread in the media section, here it is if you wanna have a look:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo.../587551-ifls-writes-article-about-e-cigs.html
I have very strong opinions on this article because I am familiar with the main study they were referencing (i.e. I disagree with them...).
Anytime someone starts using "it doesn't mean it is safe" - there is an agenda. Otherwise why don't they mention or question the level of risk?
"It doesn't mean it is safe" could include sleeping, taking a shower, getting up in the morning, crossing the street, flying in airplanes, driving or riding in a car, or being around pressed wood products, carpet, cleaning products, or air fresheners - just a few of the thousands of potentially "does not mean it isn't safe" situations and things around us on a daily basis.
There is nothing guaranteed to be 100% safe - in everything we do, we either find ways to minimize risk or we should be - vapor devices are no different, they, as do most things in life, have some level of inherent risk.
I would hope all who vape would feel the same way.
That is precisely how the media works. They never tell lies but they don't have to tell the truth either and they can ask any questions they like in whatever way they like. In my fifty-three years, I've seen a dozen or two mass-media articles where I had detailed knowledge of the story myself. Of those, three were fair and accurate, including one on e-cigs.
Trick 1: If you need to tell lies, do so in open-ended questions that you never answer.
Example: Are electronic cigarettes more dangerous than smoking?
Trick 2: Give equal or more space to the people who support your position, no matter if they are in the vast minority.
Trick 3: When giving space to people who do not support you, chose people with less status than the ones who support you and choose quotes that make them look bad or incompetent or admits the truth of your position. Unless these people are schooled in talking to reporters, they will always say some sound-bite that you can use against them.
Example: Interview with a vaper "nicotine is my high" -- he said it, it's true, but it makes it sound like an illegal drug.
Trick 4: You don't need to come to a conclusion; the reader will come to their own. If you write one then it will have to be true and that would be damaging to your position. Instead, report a mass of factoids without context and, preferably, without a binding narrative.
Example: 750 Britons were admitted to hospital in 1999 after having an accident with household sponges.
Trick 5: On TV and, to a lesser extent, Radio, you should take the chance to use visuals and background sound that will be seen by the viewer as confirming your position.
Example: Go to a vape-meet, take lots of footage of people with big beards blowing huge clouds. Overlay that footage with incoherent sound-bites from them.
There are probably many more, but I need to go to work.
Not many activities are 100% safe. Is vaping safer than breathing when we have a smog alert? I'm not even sure that smoking might be safer than breathing when we have a smog alert! Having said that, I think most of us know there could be some danger from vaping. Like most others, based on how I feel, vaping is much better for me than smoking. Ideal? No. But, at least for me, an acceptable risk.
Keep in mind that few states are as anti-smoking than California. Smoking is banned in many places, even the beach. It's called an e-cigarette therefore, if it's a cigarette of any kind, in CA, it's BAD.
Keep in mind that few states are as anti-smoking than California. Smoking is banned in many places, even the beach. It's called an e-cigarette therefore, if it's a cigarette of any kind, in CA, it's BAD.
You can "f-ing love science" or you can understand science, apparently not both.
The article is misleading on two levels. First, they are lying by omission. There is no mention whatsoever about the preponderance of the scientific evidence showing ecigs to basically be safe when used normally. There is also no context provided to compare to smoking. There is no known disease caused by or exacerbated by vaping, as far as any science has shown, and the risk profile compared to smoking is very favorable.
Second, they are lying by commission by only including negative articles, and only ones that tangentially relate to their point. The voltage article is based on a study that ran wicks dry to get those readings. The particle size article makes the false assertion that particle size causes risk per se.
Second, they are lying by commission by only including negative articles, and only ones that tangentially relate to their point. The voltage article is based on a study that ran wicks dry to get those readings. The particle size article makes the false assertion that particle size causes risk per se.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
