Hi all, new to this forum.
As most users, I'm switching to e-cig mainly as a concern for my health. This is the most important thing regarding smoking either analog or e-cig.
I've been smoking for 10 years. Managed to switch to e-cig two years ago. Having used a crappy eGo-C setup, my tank would leak all over the place, battery would hold for half a day. So one busy day, when I ran out of battery juice I went with analogs again. Now, I'm trying again with a better setup in mind.
I've been skimming the threads here on safety on various topics. I've seen different opinions, some founded, some not. I've seen some fear-mongering and some bashers. A lot of information presented on this section is hearsay, some good info and a general feeling that there is a large lack of good information on the general topic of e-cig safety.
Now, my issue is that all this has to be regulated somehow. Also, I don't fully agree that people that are involved in the industry should have a random health opinion. Not that they wouldn't present valid info, but it's kind of a conflict of interest. Yes, all those in the industry declare that they are pro-health etc etc, but let's not forget that they do it for the money, not for the greater good of human kind. Yes, maybe they get a kick out of doing something "right" but still, they are not happy when sales decrease. So that would cause them to intervene kicking and screaming "fear mongering!!!"
From my point of view, there's a moral requisite for those that are involved in the industry to have a signature of some sorts on their profile.
There should be more tests done, professionally. But that costs money. States are not yet interested in financing these tests, as they don't get a cut out of e-cig.
So first of all, I think it is important to accept that we are basically Guinea pigs. Could be ok in the end, could not be.
I've seen numerous people trying different setups, different materials for wicks, some have concerns about metal particles from the wires used. All valid concerns that should be answered by professionals.
I guess I think that the e-cig industry, with the big names making a lot of cash already from expensive gear should divert a part of the money to heavy well-made studies of all the concerns. It's their moral obligation.
But instead of that, most companies have disclaimers saying that they only make "hardware", they do only machining, they can't be bothered to answer health issues. They direct you to the companies that make the liquid etc.
Each and every one involved in the industry is responsible for the health of their buyers.
It's like guns and bullets. The gun company making the gun says their product is harmless on it's own. The bullet companies as well. But used together, it's dangerous.
I'm not saying it is dangerous, I'm just saying that we have little information.
Most claims of e-cig health satety come from statements like "there's been many that smoked e-cig for the past 5 years and they are ok". Well, that's not very reassuring, is it? We all read what other users share from their own experience.
Some say that they feel good, then you go an take a hit out of your pimped out vaporiser, and loving it. Then someone says he/she doesn't feel so good, sore lungs, itchy skin, mentions silica crystals and then you look at your beautiful vape tool and start to wonder wether you did more harm on the long run, you start doubting your choice. You hear someone stating something bad about material X wick and you switch to material Y to be safe. Then someone else states that Y did bad for him/her, and then you start taking chances on X back.
In my opinion that's a poor place to be, and that makes you a Guinea pig. Wether you like it or not. Wether you choose to accept or not what other say.
Is that a good thing? To do the work for the companies that are already making a nice buck on oils/machining metal? They just sit back and watch user's complaints and if many do criticise a material of sorts, they decide to do something and offer something else.
Shouldn't they be doing all the work? Making the tests for various materials, investing money in that so we can feel safe while doing this?
How many of you would accept if something bad would surface about vaping? After you've invested in hardware, after you got "hooked" on the feeling and joy of vaping?
How many of you would immediately consider quitting?
How many of you more would easily accept a pro-vaping point against a negative one?
How many of those making money from this would quit their business after learning that something bad is happening? They would be safe with that disclaimer they have. How many would be willing to reveal if they find out something nasty related to vaping? Would they be willing to shoot themselves in the foot? For the greater good?
Shouldn't we start forcing companies to do their job? Use a rating system of sorts that favours more the ones that invest more in health studies? That should be the first thing a company advertises on their webpage, the safety of the product with links to documents proving why it is so safe to be using their products. That would boost their sales for sure. And image!
And one last thing. Shouldn't the vaping community stop using comparisons with classical cigarettes when making health claims? I mean sure, it SEEMS more healthy. People using e-cig do give better reviews. But let's not forget that smokes have a long history, and it's pretty well understood as bad effects go. I guess the industry should put more accent on the effects of the e-cig on the human body, by itself, rather than stating over and over of how better it is rather than smoking. Sure, it's nice to one one arm than none at all, but it's best to have two arms!
TLDR: We are Guinea pigs, because companies making money on us don't do their job!
Excuse my long rant, but these are concerns and ideas that I have versus e-cig health research.
As most users, I'm switching to e-cig mainly as a concern for my health. This is the most important thing regarding smoking either analog or e-cig.
I've been smoking for 10 years. Managed to switch to e-cig two years ago. Having used a crappy eGo-C setup, my tank would leak all over the place, battery would hold for half a day. So one busy day, when I ran out of battery juice I went with analogs again. Now, I'm trying again with a better setup in mind.
I've been skimming the threads here on safety on various topics. I've seen different opinions, some founded, some not. I've seen some fear-mongering and some bashers. A lot of information presented on this section is hearsay, some good info and a general feeling that there is a large lack of good information on the general topic of e-cig safety.
Now, my issue is that all this has to be regulated somehow. Also, I don't fully agree that people that are involved in the industry should have a random health opinion. Not that they wouldn't present valid info, but it's kind of a conflict of interest. Yes, all those in the industry declare that they are pro-health etc etc, but let's not forget that they do it for the money, not for the greater good of human kind. Yes, maybe they get a kick out of doing something "right" but still, they are not happy when sales decrease. So that would cause them to intervene kicking and screaming "fear mongering!!!"
From my point of view, there's a moral requisite for those that are involved in the industry to have a signature of some sorts on their profile.
There should be more tests done, professionally. But that costs money. States are not yet interested in financing these tests, as they don't get a cut out of e-cig.
So first of all, I think it is important to accept that we are basically Guinea pigs. Could be ok in the end, could not be.
I've seen numerous people trying different setups, different materials for wicks, some have concerns about metal particles from the wires used. All valid concerns that should be answered by professionals.
I guess I think that the e-cig industry, with the big names making a lot of cash already from expensive gear should divert a part of the money to heavy well-made studies of all the concerns. It's their moral obligation.
But instead of that, most companies have disclaimers saying that they only make "hardware", they do only machining, they can't be bothered to answer health issues. They direct you to the companies that make the liquid etc.
Each and every one involved in the industry is responsible for the health of their buyers.
It's like guns and bullets. The gun company making the gun says their product is harmless on it's own. The bullet companies as well. But used together, it's dangerous.
I'm not saying it is dangerous, I'm just saying that we have little information.
Most claims of e-cig health satety come from statements like "there's been many that smoked e-cig for the past 5 years and they are ok". Well, that's not very reassuring, is it? We all read what other users share from their own experience.
Some say that they feel good, then you go an take a hit out of your pimped out vaporiser, and loving it. Then someone says he/she doesn't feel so good, sore lungs, itchy skin, mentions silica crystals and then you look at your beautiful vape tool and start to wonder wether you did more harm on the long run, you start doubting your choice. You hear someone stating something bad about material X wick and you switch to material Y to be safe. Then someone else states that Y did bad for him/her, and then you start taking chances on X back.
In my opinion that's a poor place to be, and that makes you a Guinea pig. Wether you like it or not. Wether you choose to accept or not what other say.
Is that a good thing? To do the work for the companies that are already making a nice buck on oils/machining metal? They just sit back and watch user's complaints and if many do criticise a material of sorts, they decide to do something and offer something else.
Shouldn't they be doing all the work? Making the tests for various materials, investing money in that so we can feel safe while doing this?
How many of you would accept if something bad would surface about vaping? After you've invested in hardware, after you got "hooked" on the feeling and joy of vaping?
How many of you would immediately consider quitting?
How many of you more would easily accept a pro-vaping point against a negative one?
How many of those making money from this would quit their business after learning that something bad is happening? They would be safe with that disclaimer they have. How many would be willing to reveal if they find out something nasty related to vaping? Would they be willing to shoot themselves in the foot? For the greater good?
Shouldn't we start forcing companies to do their job? Use a rating system of sorts that favours more the ones that invest more in health studies? That should be the first thing a company advertises on their webpage, the safety of the product with links to documents proving why it is so safe to be using their products. That would boost their sales for sure. And image!
And one last thing. Shouldn't the vaping community stop using comparisons with classical cigarettes when making health claims? I mean sure, it SEEMS more healthy. People using e-cig do give better reviews. But let's not forget that smokes have a long history, and it's pretty well understood as bad effects go. I guess the industry should put more accent on the effects of the e-cig on the human body, by itself, rather than stating over and over of how better it is rather than smoking. Sure, it's nice to one one arm than none at all, but it's best to have two arms!
TLDR: We are Guinea pigs, because companies making money on us don't do their job!
Excuse my long rant, but these are concerns and ideas that I have versus e-cig health research.
