So you just missed the posts with the evidence that several flavouring are indeed carcinogenic? We all agree dosage is key and the dosages look smaller than things which already exist, but let's not deny that the risk is non-zero.
This will get you thinking. Trying to explain to a non somker about ecigs.
- Thread starter 8a31
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
So you just missed the posts with the evidence that several flavouring are indeed carcinogenic? We all agree dosage is key and the dosages look smaller than things which already exist, but let's not deny that the risk is non-zero.
Not at all. In fact, I gave the example of the FDA study with evidence that nicotine (just like flavourings, it seems) ALSO have some carcinogenics in it. And yet, NRT's with the same levels of carcinogenics as e-cigs were approved, not because the risk is 'zero', but because it is acceptable from an health perspective.
Much like carcinogenics in flavours, I believe... most people cannot grow their own food. When they eat what they must buy, they do so without thinking about the 'non-zero' risk... otherwise, they would have to stop eating at all. The same goes with the use of perfumes and cosmetics. People do not worry much, because they have realized that everything in life is 'non-zero' risk...! People can die in their beds. People have died in the shower, by slipping and breaking their necks. I won't stop showering because of that...
Why do those people react differently when it comes to flavours IN e-liquid?
Last edited:
Because the size of the non-zero isn't widely known. And because the activity which exposes them to the risk is seen as being of very limited benefit, if any at all.
The best thing that I do is get the highest quality flavorings I can. And then, I explain that.
I am finding that e-juice makers in the U.S. are concerned about possible FDA findings.
I am finding that e-juice makers in the U.S. are concerned about possible FDA findings.
Tell him to hold his breath when he goes into a public restroom. You know where those molecules cam from!!!!
This was just toooo good, lol!!
Being addicted to nicotine is the chief reason we are even having this conversation. Reducing the risk without having to go through the withdrawal all at once is the point of vaping. We could chew the gum or wear the patches and get off cigarettes ... maybe. 7% success rate quitting with nic lozenges isn't very promising, but the FDA would rather you do that.
Pharma is fighting the ecig for economic reasons. We eat into their product line quite effectively. The FDA is on their side and refuses to publish anything but suggestive reports for the ecig. We all know the difference, but the public had to rely on the sketchy evidence presented to them. That, and the output of an ecig looks like smoke. To them, we are vaping antifreeze and carcinogens and what's the benefit, anyway?
Big tobacco has seen the future and is releasing and marketing their own line of ecigs. Government also has a reason to favor them just for the tobacco settlement money.
Pharma is fighting the ecig for economic reasons. We eat into their product line quite effectively. The FDA is on their side and refuses to publish anything but suggestive reports for the ecig. We all know the difference, but the public had to rely on the sketchy evidence presented to them. That, and the output of an ecig looks like smoke. To them, we are vaping antifreeze and carcinogens and what's the benefit, anyway?
Big tobacco has seen the future and is releasing and marketing their own line of ecigs. Government also has a reason to favor them just for the tobacco settlement money.
Well, I beg to differ... just my 2 cents: the 'size' of the unknown must be the same as all the other stuff flavours have been used - way before the e-cig made it's appearance. It's not like flavours are something new, after all. Or at least, it was not the e-cig that created a widespread use of flavourings.
As for the second part: it may be seen as being of very limited benefit for THOSE people alone, who probably never smoked. For us, it has the very real health benefit of keeping us off cigarettes. It's all about perspective; about things one experiences in his own life.
I have some allergies. Sometimes, in a packed train in the morning, someone's perfume would make me start to sneeze - most times, when people seemed to have spilled an entire bottle all over them.
I cannot see the 'benefit' of using THAT much perfume. Many times, less would be better. But, unlike many people who oppose us, I would not ask that person to 'step away from me', because 'the smell offends me and is making me sick, and I do not know what's in that formula', and 'there's no need to wear so much perfume'... nor I am actively trying to ban the over-use of perfume in public.
Not even slightly. Remember most people who encounter it know jack. There haven't been large scale exposures to these flavours in vapor that they know of. Most large scale exposures to aerosolised flavouring happen to people who work with them, not bystanders who didn't choose it. People accept that industrial risk is different from involuntary exposure.
Yes, the benefit is for us not them, so all the costs should be on us not them. That's why they object to being exposed to the risk, a risk which their own lack of information makes significant. For them it's not a choice between being exposed to your cigarette smoke and your vapor. It's a choice between you vaping infront of them and you smoking somewhere else.
But you can see the social benefit of using SOME perfume. Or even if you can't most of the populous can. The benefit is to both the user in terms of social interaction and those who meet the user (perfumes, used properly, mask unpleasant smells of strangers).
Some people will listen to reason, some will not. I do not believe we should refrain from vaping in some places, or treat vaping like smoking, just to accomodate people who won't listen to reason.
As far as 'involuntary exposure'... outdoors, I will vape anywere. I do not honestly believe the carcinogenics coming from my liquid nicotine and my flavours will affect anyone, in the open - I believe those levels must be safe enough, because those products have been approved.
Indoors, I will vape with the owner's permission. Now, you may argue 'how about those people around you, indoors?' well, I think that even for smoking, the owner should be able to decide whether patrons could smoke inside or not. If some people do not like smoke/vapour, they can take their business elsewere. (One thing is a vegan avoiding stake houses and giving his business to vegan restaurants. Another thing, is demanding that ALL restaurants should be vegan, because of 'health concerns')
If the owner thinks he should allow smoking inside, so as to not 'mistreat' 80% of his (smoking) clients, he should be able to do so. So, you can easily see that's exactly my stance about vaping also.
If 'in front of them' means outside, so be it... no 'health concerns' here, maybe ideology only.
In front of them, inside, I let the owner decide. It's his business, and his bills to pay at the end of the month, after all.
I read recently that a great number of pubs is closing in Britain because of this smokers (and now vapers...) persecution: smokers stopped going there because they could not smoke, and non-smokers, that demanded for smoke-free establishments, never showed up. They demanded legislation over places that they did not go to anyway, and in the process, they ruined those places for everyone else. Let's not make the same mistake with vaping, shall we?
True. But you may have noticed that I wasn't referring to SOME perfume - which is good and has obvious benefits. And which would not usually trigger any allergies.
I was referring to perfume NOT 'used properly', but rather in a way that will not 'mask unpleasant smells of strangers', but instead create and unpleasant smell on it's own.
Hence, 'no benefit', and on top of that, a 'no benefit' that would make me sick. And yet, I never complained, unlike so many 'rightful zealots' out there
If I'm walking down an aisle at the supermarket and someone down the aisle emits a visible cloud of something..
I'll notice it.
After vaping for a month, I may recognize what it is.. assuming they are vaping.. but if they're not vaping.. I'll wonder if they're smoking.. and if they're not smoking.. now i would be very concerned about what orifice expelled the visible cloud.. I might turn around.
The point is.. I would notice a cloud.. and I would wonder what it is.
My reaction, after understanding what it is might be.. no biggie, ick, or euuu.
Seems to me the reaction is always to the visible effect of a cloud.
It's all about the visuals.
I'll notice it.
After vaping for a month, I may recognize what it is.. assuming they are vaping.. but if they're not vaping.. I'll wonder if they're smoking.. and if they're not smoking.. now i would be very concerned about what orifice expelled the visible cloud.. I might turn around.
The point is.. I would notice a cloud.. and I would wonder what it is.
My reaction, after understanding what it is might be.. no biggie, ick, or euuu.
Seems to me the reaction is always to the visible effect of a cloud.
It's all about the visuals.
So when do we, and how do we say it (risk is non-zero)?
And does it require special treatment just because it looks like smoking?
For example, we don't hear a whole lot of discussion about the risks associated with cosmetics, which also are not 'risk-free'. Or a little closer to the key ingredient, how about some of the nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) products, particularly the gums that aren't age-restricted and are openly sold to minors, and everyone over-the-counter?
How about the risks associated with caffeine - and how those are addressed with the public?
There are 100's of other examples of the devil is in the dosage products in the world.
So how do we not deny the risk is non-zero?
I'd like to build off this...
I like to ask if the person I'm talking with either, 1) smokes or did smoke, or 2) ever knew a smoker - possibly someone close to them (family)
Now the conversation a new orientation - away from "I" to them, and how it relates to their experience.
In the world of sales, this might be considered 'consultative' selling. Learn about the person and what they are looking for.
In our case, learn a little about the person along the way - not a barrage of questions, but a couple of key pieces that allows you to turn your sentences from "I" to "you might remember/relate/..." type of focus.
The sooner we recognize that typical person will turn up their internal hearing-aid as soon as what they hear become relevant to their personal world... sorta like the 'what's in it for me' thing.
Btw, I do not say that derogatorily, just a objective assessment and in a way, a good-thing.
I'm working on my 'elevator speech' (google it), and trying to refine a list of key points that facilitate engaging a listener.
Here's a few:
- What have you heard about these e-cig things? (gives them a chance to share their knowledge with you)
- Are you a smoker - know/knew a smoker (above)
- My 1-ine statement that I "quit 43 years smoking totally by accident"
This can be expanded on, or left as a stand-alone of personal experience / success - Lots of NEW scientific studies in the last 4 years, since the FDA's original statements of anti-freeze, etc
To avoid hi-jacking this thread, I'm going to start a new thread a little later this evening. (after I get my work done!)
That should be an interesting collaboration & experience sharing opportunity to kick around this weekend...
But seriously, is the cinnamon roll flavor I vape radically different than the artificial flavors used in the bakery in the shopping mall - which is being done intentionally to generate the aromas to entice people to come buy them?
People wander into and out these fields of artificial flavorings all their lives and never give it a second thought.
Why do vapers, particularly those who appear to have a hyper-sensitivity to what other people might think, worry incessantly.
Is there a whole lot of projecting of their own feelings out to the masses going on?
Or is it based on real world experience. If so, share the stories so we can all learn.
If not real world, it has to be hypothetical and based on your assumptions of what other people think.
Let me tell you, I have yet to discover the telepathic powers that so many vapors seem to think they have once they started vaping.
I can't wait to not have to actually TALK to people to know what they think!
Here's the corollary to this hypothetical risk of offending someone, or exposing them to a theoretical "risk": the proven fact that e-cigs / vaping has been the single factor in making me an ex-smoker.
In spite of that fact, the ANTZ want to strip away my right to use the HARMLESS TO THOSE AROUND ME product - all because of some hypothetical risk of some punk-kid maybe, could, possibly,pickup a e-cig.
I, and some countless number of other EX-SMOKERS TURNED VAPERS or EX-VAPERS are factual data points.
And no, these 1000's of 'stories are not just anecdotal - they are prime study data points / case study material. http://libguides.usc.edu/content.php?pid=83009&sid=818072
Who or what the _____ gives anyone the right to interfere with our choice to save our lives from a smoker's hell that brings no demonstrable harm to virtually anyone else in the entire known universe.
(Consult: The Doctor
What power made them GOD over us?
Factual or hypothetical risk... real world or nano/pico hyperbole and hypersensitivity to something / someone that only exists in someone's imagination or theory??
But what about the children? What about for the public good? For the betterment of society?
All the crap / propaganda we've been preached about for the past couple of decades?
They charge us more more more & more - SIN TAXES, because society frowns upon it. Higher insurance rates. But that's not enough - they tell us there is more burden and cost thrust upon our society because we'll never totally cover the expenses of our choice to smoke.
We have made a NEW CHOICE - one that divorces us from the evils that society has so reviled us for using for so long, but that's not good enough... it's not following their rules so they want to dictatorially and through coercive legislation strip us of our rights in pursuit of a healthier choice, that is of no proven or demonstrable physical harm to 99+% of the population that we could conceivable encounter
And how about if someone might give a _____ about someone other than themselves:
The reality is that there are 600,000 lives (at the conservative end of the estimates & based on WHO's own numbers!) that could be saved each & every single year.
Showing the math: WHO asserts annual smoking deaths = 6,000,000 - the *lowest* clinically documented quit rate of 10%. And other studies are showing up to 78% (Penn State) and *higher*. Shocking numbers of lives saved if you substitute the higher quit rate findings - as high as 4++ million / year at an 80% quit rate!
Expand one's research & education with the cavalcade of experts presenting at the E-Cigarette SUmmit, November 2013, available in the ECF InfoZone (just for starters)
That's what the benefit is to them - unless they are selfish little people who want the sky to always be falling and love being the little victim, to be pitied, or able to wield power over us ignorant masses.
Btw, just who are these self-anointed? (Here's someone with an idea who they are
You, me and every vaper who has ever existed has benefited from being able to redefine, or terminate our dependence on tobacco cigarettes. Now add in all of those around you, especially those actually might love you enough to care, are beneficiaries too.
All of this is at risk because of all the histrionics about some theoretical "risk".
There are hundreds and hundreds of links to the growing body of scientific knowledge that establishes with the highest of confidence that vaping is 99+% safer for me than tobacco cigarettes, and even more so for those around me.
Now is the time for the hypersensitive to put up anything that demonstrates the clear & present danger (homage to Tom Clancey) and real world level risks of vaping.
No more theories - lets see the links.
Last edited:
I've started to notice the ... aroma ... of a smoker when I run across them inside a store. You can detect it from yards away once your olfactory gland has recovered and begun to sense the subtleties of everyday life. I smell flowers and trees and dirt when I walk out of the house. I can understand how someone who has never smoked could hate smoking. It's embarrassing to know that I used to smell like smoke!
Vaping OTOH, isn't usually a bad odor, although my wife who quit smoking using a prescription can sometimes sense an odor that smells off to her. It's usually associated with just a few juices and I try to avoid them (or her when I vape them). They are generally tobacco flavors. I've found that If I blow a huge cloud, let it hang in the air, and walk over into it and inhale, I can sense the smell. Just vaping, I don't smell it. Go figure.
I get looks once in a while from people in a store who see me vape. I generally think that it's them trying to figure out what the heck I'm doing with that thing. I have yet to have someone walk up and say anything derogatory. When they walk over, it's usually because they want to know if it works, was I able to quit smoking, where I bought it, and where can they get one for their brother in law who can't quit smoking.
Vaping OTOH, isn't usually a bad odor, although my wife who quit smoking using a prescription can sometimes sense an odor that smells off to her. It's usually associated with just a few juices and I try to avoid them (or her when I vape them). They are generally tobacco flavors. I've found that If I blow a huge cloud, let it hang in the air, and walk over into it and inhale, I can sense the smell. Just vaping, I don't smell it. Go figure.
I get looks once in a while from people in a store who see me vape. I generally think that it's them trying to figure out what the heck I'm doing with that thing. I have yet to have someone walk up and say anything derogatory. When they walk over, it's usually because they want to know if it works, was I able to quit smoking, where I bought it, and where can they get one for their brother in law who can't quit smoking.
Last edited:
This. This is exactly what I was trying to say before.
Inside a packed train, some random lady has bathed herself in perfume. Note SOME perfume (which would have obvious benefits), but a 'whole bottle' of the damn thing. The powerful fragrance will bother other people just as much as she had NOT used any perfume at all. (So, what she's done amouts to 'no benefit' at all, quite the contrary - for herself and others around her, who cannot move away). Sometimes, that would trigger allergies on me, so her choice (of abusing perfume; she could have used a little less) was actually making me sick. And yet, to tell that lady something about it would be considered rude, inappropriate and uncalled for, because I would be messing with her "freedom" of choice: to abuse perfume, to the point of it becoming disturbing.
Now, on to the 'carcinogenic flavours/fragances' (Yep, DIY's ALSO buy some fragrances form the Perfumist's Apprentice...)
If I dared to speak to the lady, using as an argument that 'those flavours/fragrances are carcinogenic to a little degree', I would be a laughing-stock. People would see me as an 'health nut-job', because I would be exceedingly worried about something that makes part of our everyday lives. Maybe they would mock me, asking me if I don't bathe, wear after-shave, if I do not eat, because 'you know, those flavours you worry about are in food, too...'
Worst of all: what do you thing those people's reaction would be, if they took a look at my vaporizer sitting in my shirt pocket?? Can you guess?? The offended lady would feel she had the right to say "How on Earth can you be so worried about 'carcinogenics' in MY perfume, when you do not refrain yourself from using THAT thing? That liquid of yours ALSO has 'carcinogenics' in it, does it not???"
Why then, should I be worried about 'carcinogenic' flavours, when vaping outside, or inside with permission? Outside, there's no lingering vapour. Inside, people are at least one table away (not packed, as in the train)... and if that is still not enough for some 'health nut-case', the the owner, who game permission, can easily move me, or the other person, to another table. (Again, not possible in a packed train).
So:
i) A lady wears way too much perfume, with no real 'benefit' from it, in a place where I cannot move, and I do not have the "right" to worry about 'carcinogenics', because those are ALSO in my e-liquid;
ii) But, outside, out in the open, or inside but sitting away from other people, I "should" not use my PV, which has obvious health benefits, because other people might be worried, or get sick, from MY liquid's 'carcinogenics'. In fact, those uninformed people (and some vapers too, of all people!) have all the "right" to voice their concerns* about those 'carcinogenics', despite the fact that those same 'carcinogenics' are also in THEIR food, THEIR cosmetics, THEIR perfumes (which they frequently abuse) and THEIR food...!
* Sometimes, in the most obnoxious way. I was shocked by reading some of the most mis-informed comments in some online papers, concerning the new e-cigarette bans in open places like beaches and parks: "They can use their new cancer-sticks at home" (It's an ALTERNATIVE to cancer sticks, "I do not want those clouds in my face!" (No-one is going to vape 'in your face'), "I hate smoking and seeing people smoking" (It's not smoking. It's called 'vaping', bacause it's vapour...)
One of the reason why, those of us who advocate vaping openly in public but respectfully, see the benefit in exposing the uninformed (respectfully) to vaping and being well prepared and willing to educate them. Most of the media, except for one national news organization, provides nothing but negative reporting on vaping. Thousands of us have provided only positive impressions of how vaping is not smoking and is safe and unobtrusive to be around. And that does not happen by acting like vaping is the same as smoking.
Grass-roots efforts are always more effective in the long run in educating the masses.
Probably safer.
Peppermint, chlorine dioxide, alcohol, SD Alcohol 38B; Isobutane; Glycerin; Flavor; Water; Sodium Saccharin ....
and then mouthwashes, oh boy.
hello toothpaste | hello mouthwash | hello breath spray | oral care
The active ingredients listed on Listerine bottles are essential oils menthol 0.042%, thymol 0.064%, methyl salicylate 0.06%, and eucalyptol 0.092%. In combination all have an antiseptic effect and there is some thought that methyl salicylate may have an anti inflammatory effect as well[citation needed]. Ethanol, which is toxic to bacteria at concentrations of 40%, is present in concentrations of 21.6% in the flavored product and 26.9% in the original gold Listerine Antiseptic[citation needed]. At this concentration, the ethanol serves to dissolve the active ingredients.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
