That's a good effort on your part with a couple of caviats. Do we know precisely what all the harmful chemicals of each are? Do we know without doubt that nicotine is harmless?
Who is behind the "95% Safer"..?
- Thread starter Cool_Breeze
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
That's a good effort on your part with a couple of caviats. Do we know precisely what all the harmful chemicals of each are? Do we know without doubt that nicotine is harmless?
The answer to your first question is: Maybe, maybe not. We won't know until we look for them. Which is why I said "current studies". We cannot predict what a future study may or may not find. We can only update our understanding and definitions as more data becomes available.
The answer to your second question is: No. Nicotine is not harmless, neither is caffeine, aspirin, or even vitamins. Too much of anything can be harmful. However the FDA has labeled nicotine "Generally Regarded As Safe" for LONG TERM use in nicotine replacement therapies.
Good questions BTW.
What would your definition of harmless be? Because unless you live in a biosphere in the middle of nowhere your exposed to several harmful effects.
No more condescending then what you said but I should have just ignored it. I lost patience with you.
This whole long post is a change of subject.
How is "I mean has anyone ever seen or even heard of a report claiming Toluene or Benzine in vapor?" not insinuating they don't exist?!?!
The sun was in your eyes.
The 5000 was in the abstract that you read. And you ignored the difference between 5000 and 1 before I posted the full text. You argued about the conditions later.
This is a waste of time.
Look, if you could produce even an ounce of science, then you would have known that adding better airflow causes better cooling and faster evaporation, which, in turn, causes even better cooling. In addition, faster wicking in the presence of the aforementioned faster evaporation causes the type of superior fluid dynamics across the coil's entire surface that, if the airflow characteristics are well optimized and well controlled, makes TC pale in comparison when it comes to preventing juice from overheating in an advanced coil build specifically designed to further enhance this same type of superior fluid dynamics, but you wouldn't know that because you're just too busy propelling anti-wattage TC propaganda.
I never said using TC was the only way to not overheat juice, I said TC was the only way to know for sure what temp you are vaping at. I have also said TC is the only way you can make sure you are vaping below the levels where formaldehyde BEGINS forming (still in minuscule quantities though) in 430F-450F depending on juice makeup which IS below the burnt tasting range. Can you tell me exactly what temp you are vaping at on your mech? Unless you have connected a thermocouple to your coil, you can't. I did also say that to produce these toxins in any SIGNIFICANT concentrations seems to require the juice to be over heated to the point it actually tastes burnt, thus had a built in deterrent. So if your vape is tasting good, then I agree you should be at least in relatively safe ranges.
Not everyone is going to vape DL on alien clapton framed staples with massive airflow. Lots of people MTL on small simple coils. I understand that more airflow cools a coil faster and that more juice flow also contributes to this. I can't say that x ml of air flow over a specific coil at certain watts will contribute exactly y cooling factor. I doubt you can either. Considering most people are barely willing to learn ohm's law, do you expect them all to now go learn thermo, aero, and fluid dynamics and their effects on the evaporation process too?
Last edited:
I’ve been meaning to get back to this on page 2 and have read it many times trying to understand it. Can you tell me what you meant by this statement?
I mean no one has died from a vape related illness. A couple of people have died due to explosions, one man died from injecting eliquid directly into his veins (ruled a suicide), one man drank really large quantities of both alcohol and vape juice and left a suicide note (ruled a suicide), etc. but no one has died from a disease caused by vaping. Now vaping is only about 12 years old and really only started taking off 6-8 years ago, so that could potentially change way down the road.
There are no such studies. You have right do not believe in "95%".
There are either no studies disproving these 95%.
Happens so I agree with these 95%, and I had read a lot of papers on vaping.
Coil legs can be much hotter and evaporate/burn some juice... Contact of a wick and a coil can be broken in places... TC measure only an average. Hotter spots can occur.
Wrong. Coil legs are cooler. Ever dry burn a coil so it glows? Which part is NOT glowing? The legs.
TC doesn't measure average anything, it measures total resistance. If any part of the coil is hotter due to dry wick, no contact with the wick, or even improper juice flow the total resistance is changed. While true that some parts could then be hotter, the wattage will still be reduced.
If you believe the science nicotine alone is very well studied and safe. It has to be to get FDA approval for NRT. It has to be relatively harmless to be sold OTC. The science has to be relatively true to have stayed OTC without any warnings added like has happened with Ibuprofen.
We know nicotine by itself is pretty safe, we know nicotine by itself is hardly addictive. That is the science.
Now the problem with FDA approval is the relatively. ANTZ are convinced smoking is the worst possible thing ever, even worse than death as exhibited in their thinking pills with the risk of suicide within days are relatively safer than smoking for 40 years and dying from it. So there's that but we've seen the results of nicotine use.
Why I have pegged this thread as trolling is every tool in the book of the ANTZ is being used. 95% is made by industry shills. The impossible qualification of "harmless". Demand for impossible proof that that would be condemned as cruel and unusual if it was provided. Even Glantz was quoted.
95% wasn't science where they killed babies raised to adulthood in a controlled environment with cigarettes and then it took 95% longer to kill them with vapor, it is an estimate. It is easy to make that estimate because we know what's in smoke and we know what's in vapor.
What you demand can't happen. Or in the least won't happen for generations of life long never smoking vapers to observe.
Of course I have objective data. Just about anyone who wasn't fast asleep during high school physics class can do the test because all it really takes is to look at the wicking characteristics of the coils in question; the faster the juice keeps flowing from the cotton wicks into the many tiny crevasses of an advanced coil build, the more cooling this juice flow delivers onto the coils in addition to the cooling being delivered by airflow, by evaporation, AND by the fact airflow increases the evaporation rate. During the inhale I can feel it on the vape if the juice flow is being held back, be it held back by the wicks starting to get a little bit dry or held back by the wicking characteristics of the coils I'm using, or both. As an example, the fact aliens coils wick juice faster compared to fused claptons has been long established. None of these important factors were looked at in the "experiment" that produced that graph you love to push.
The point you are missing is that the total resistance is not always representative of all the different temperatures that occur during the evaporation process. The logical way to prevent juice from degrading is simply to evaporate it before it stands a chance to degrade.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
