Your consumption level defines the risk - discussion with Dr. Farsalinos

Status
Not open for further replies.

Verb

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Apr 26, 2014
1,563
2,114
Eastern, PA, USA
What do you mean with wicking, chamber size, fresh air mixture, length of draw?

Folks who consume 20 plus ml of eliquid a day do not use the same technique and equipment as someone who consumes 3-4ml a day. If someone was using the same device and technique as a low volume vaper, but just hitting it all the time, there might be something to the extrapolation presented. The reality is, this is not the case. All things considered, in use, high volume vaping might be safer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lessifer

Lessifer

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 5, 2013
8,309
28,986
Sacramento, California
I'm curious, why is that ?

So long as opinions are not being presented as facts ( and i don't think any fair reader would think they were in this instance ), why should scientists not hypothesize, speculate, state opinions etc ... I for one am a lot more interested in the opinions of scientists ( especially those who have conducted and published numerous studies on the topic ) than those of random ECF posters ( no disrespect to ECF posters :) ). If anything wouldn't they have a stronger basis for their opinion than those who have much less data and knowledge ?
Perhaps that could have been clearer, though I think the point came across. Whenever a scientist or authority says anything, it will be construed by some as fact. Even if they state it as opinion. That's not necessarily the scientist's fault, but I can think of at least two previous occasions where this particular one has stated opinion as fact, but it might be a language barrier thing.

It's the same reason we dissect news articles and interviews about studies. The studies have the facts, the articles and interviews tend to contain, often unfounded, opinions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: skoony

rokyo87

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Jan 22, 2016
203
331
37
Folks who consume 20 plus ml of eliquid a day do not use the same technique and equipment as someone who consumes 3-4ml a day. If someone was using the same device and technique as a low volume vaper, but just hitting it all the time, there might be something to the extrapolation presented. The reality is, this is not the case. All things considered, in use, high volume vaping might be safer.

OK, what do you want to say is that. If you vape flavoured (let's say 10%) e-liquids on 0.2 Ohm dual coil RDTA @ 200Watts, hot vapour, 30ml/day, D2L, low NIC. That might be safer than vaping unflavoured e-liquids on 1.5 Ohm single coil RTA @ 10 Watts, warm to cold vapour, 5ml/day, M2L, higher NIC. Is that what you want to say? Really? How?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eskie

Lessifer

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 5, 2013
8,309
28,986
Sacramento, California
Consider wine tasting. If you drink 10 different glasses of wine, you consume a certain amount of alcohol and other things. However, if you taste 10 glasses, spitting most of it out, you're consuming much less.

I don't know if that's how it works with high volume dtl vaping, and I don't think anyone else does at this point either.
 

Mazinny

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 25, 2013
4,263
22,713
NY
Perhaps that could have been clearer, though I think the point came across. Whenever a scientist or authority says anything, it will be construed by some as fact. Even if they state it as opinion. That's not necessarily the scientist's fault, but I can think of at least two previous occasions where this particular one has stated opinion as fact, but it might be a language barrier thing.
I don't think lack of clarity was the issue. Your post was nothing if not clear. You are now giving a reason for your opinion ( same one KenD gave which i already responded to ), not clarifying it.
 

Mazinny

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 25, 2013
4,263
22,713
NY
While I'm no scientist, I'm a scholar in the humanities/social sciences and I know how easily anything said by an an expert can be used as absolute fact by those that don't know better. In fact, it's not uncommon for things said by an expert to be warped into something that has little resemblance to what was actually meant. For my part, I quickly learnt to be very, very careful when giving interviews. But, of course, a scientist/scholar should be allowed to hypothesize beyond the facts (a big part of the job I'd say, as facts say only so much).
Sent from my M7_PLUS using Tapatalk
I don't think we disagree on this.
In this particular case I've heard/read Farsalinos talk a lot about high wattage vaping with large liquid consumption being potentially dangerous, but none of his research (that I've seen at least) supports the belief. He simply hasn't done any research (or at least published the results of such research) dealing with the issue specifically. That makes it a guess. An educated guess, yes, but still a guess.

Sent from my M7_PLUS using Tapatalk
High wattage vaping and large liquid consumption are two separate issues, although they often accompany each other.

Inhaling a large amount of vapor increases your exposure to whatever toxins and carcinogens may be in the vapor ( however small ). Just common sense really. If you vape 3 ml a day and exposed to say x amount of formaldehyde, then it only takes simple math to conclude that if you consume 21 ml a day, you are now exposed to 7x of formadehyde per day. Assuming all other variables are constant ( temperature of the vapor, airflow , liquid flow, vaping style etc... ), obviously.

Higher wattage in and of itself may not be an issue, except it often results in higher vapor temperature ( again assuming all other variables remain constant ), which has been demonstrated to increase the production of some toxins.

High temperatures effect the molecular composition of the vapor, and the amount of consumption effects the amount of exposure to different body organs ( again, assuming other variables remain constant) . There's no proof that this increases relative risk( or by what amount ), but i don't think it's an unreasonable conclusion to surmise that it may.
 

rokyo87

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Jan 22, 2016
203
331
37
Consider wine tasting. If you drink 10 different glasses of wine, you consume a certain amount of alcohol and other things. However, if you taste 10 glasses, spitting most of it out, you're consuming much less.

I don't know if that's how it works with high volume dtl vaping, and I don't think anyone else does at this point either.

Lessifer your analogy is quite wrong. Why? Because D2L is not just tasting it's consuming just like M2L. With D2L vaping you are drawing vapour directly into your lungs to full capacity and then exhale, with M2L you first draw a vapour into your mouths and then into your lungs and then exhale. Both processes lasts about 5 second but with D2L you have a vapour in your lungs most of the process time but with M2L you don't. Quantity of vapour in your lungs is higher with D2L vaping. In which case do your body absorbs more vapour?
 

Mazinny

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 25, 2013
4,263
22,713
NY
I am referring to this graph:

We have D2L vapers who vape 30ml/day low NIC, high flavoured e-liquids (30%) @ 100W (0.2 – 0.8 Ohm) and we have M2L vapers who vape 5ml/day higher NIC, unflavoured e-liquids @ 8W – 12W (above 1 Ohm) ....
Curious, what graph are you referring to ? IT didn't show in your op.
 

SteveS45

Moved On
ECF Veteran
Jan 27, 2016
8,177
16,842
63
Long Island, New York
Lessifer your analogy is quite wrong. Why? Because D2L is not just tasting it's consuming just like M2L. With D2L vaping you are drawing vapour directly into your lungs to full capacity and then exhale, with M2L you first draw a vapour into your mouths and then into your lungs and then exhale. Both processes lasts about 5 second but with D2L you have a vapour in your lungs most of the process time but with M2L you don't. Quantity of vapour in your lungs is higher with D2L vaping. In which case do your body absorbs more vapour?

Please explain how you can D2L vape without vapor passing through your mouth?
 
Last edited:

Lessifer

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 5, 2013
8,309
28,986
Sacramento, California
Lessifer your analogy is quite wrong. Why? Because D2L is not just tasting it's consuming just like M2L. With D2L vaping you are drawing vapour directly into your lungs to full capacity and then exhale, with M2L you first draw a vapour into your mouths and then into your lungs and then exhale. Both processes lasts about 5 second but with D2L you have a vapour in your lungs most of the process time but with M2L you don't. Quantity of vapour in your lungs is higher with D2L vaping. In which case do your body absorbs more vapour?
There are way more variables than that. If you mtl and commonly "stealth" vape, meaning you don't exhale a noticeable cloud, you're likely absorbing most of what you inhale. If you dtl and you exhale a giant cloud, you're obviously not absorbing all that you inhale. I don't know how much actual absorbing happens in either case, and neither do you.
 

Racehorse

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 12, 2012
11,230
28,254
USA midwest
learning to recognize and avoid such things is part of becoming a semi-mature adult.

Maybe you can explain to us how one "learns" about things we are putting in our bodies, absent tests results, labelling, studies, etc.

and also how this has anything whatsoever to do with "maturity" :lol:
 

Lessifer

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 5, 2013
8,309
28,986
Sacramento, California
I don't think lack of clarity was the issue. Your post was nothing if not clear. You are now giving a reason for your opinion ( same one KenD gave which i already responded to ), not clarifying it.
This thread itself is a prime example of what I'm talking about. It's fairly clear to me that dr. F was expressing opinions, and didn't have published data to back them up, which I agree he is free to do. Then, the op turns that into "consumption level defines the risk" as if this was stated fact.
 

Mazinny

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 25, 2013
4,263
22,713
NY
This thread itself is a prime example of what I'm talking about. It's fairly clear to me that dr. F was expressing opinions, and didn't have published data to back them up, which I agree he is free to do. Then, the op turns that into "consumption level defines the risk" as if this was stated fact.
Ok then ... I was obviously not commenting on the explanation which you hadn't posted yet. My objection was only to the sentence which i quoted ( which you are seemingly taking back, so we're good on that account ). The rest of your original post was your opinion on his opinion, which you are clearly entitled to as well, but i have no comment on.

As far as the DTL vs. MTL angle that the op seems to be emphasizing, i have no opinion, nor really an interest in.
 

Verb

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Apr 26, 2014
1,563
2,114
Eastern, PA, USA
OK, what do you want to say is that. If you vape flavoured (let's say 10%) e-liquids on 0.2 Ohm dual coil RDTA @ 200Watts, hot vapour, 30ml/day, D2L, low NIC. That might be safer than vaping unflavoured e-liquids on 1.5 Ohm single coil RTA @ 10 Watts, warm to cold vapour, 5ml/day, M2L, higher NIC. Is that what you want to say? Really? How?

I didn't say that, even a little.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MMW

Lessifer

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 5, 2013
8,309
28,986
Sacramento, California
Ok then ... I was obviously not commenting on the explanation which you hadn't posted yet. My objection was only to the sentence which i quoted ( which you are seemingly taking back, so we're good on that account ). The rest of your original post was your opinion on his opinion, which you are clearly entitled to as well, but i have no comment on.

As far as the DTL vs. MTL angle that the op seems to be emphasizing, i have no opinion, nor really an interest in.
In many cases it is the interviewer/journalist/audience who does not clearly delineate fact from opinion. In a perfect world, the audience would fully comprehend the difference. In the world we live in, headlines become "facts." We don't give Glantz a free pass when his opinions get stated as facts, that should apply to all scientists.
 

Mazinny

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 25, 2013
4,263
22,713
NY
In many cases it is the interviewer/journalist/audience who does not clearly delineate fact from opinion. In a perfect world, the audience would fully comprehend the difference. In the world we live in, headlines become "facts." We don't give Glantz a free pass when his opinions get stated as facts, that should apply to all scientists.
If someone states a scientists' opinion as fact, it's on them, not the scientist, and clearly not a reason for the scientist to not state his opinions, hypothesize, surmise etc... Glantz ( or anyone else ) should not be held responsible if his opinions are being stated as facts by others ( although he should make it clear it's an opinion if questioned ). If he himself ( or Farsalinos or anyone else ) is pushing their own opinion as fact, then obviously he should be held accountable.

Your post which i quoted did not comment on anything the op did or said, it commented on the scientists right to express opinions, which i objected to. That's all.
 
Last edited:

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,974
San Diego
Where did the 3 to 4 ml is average come from? Until a 'baseline' can be established, we'll never know what excessive is.
From polls like this I would assume...
How much eliquid do you use?
How Much Liquid Do You Use Per Day?

Back before competitive vaping was a thing.
And there was no "clouds bro" crap.

For anyone vaping to avoid smoking, raise the nicotine level and vape less.
Lowering the nicotine and vaping more is NOT a good idea.

This is a no-brainer.

For anyone vaping for any reason other than to avoid smoking...
I don't care what you do, as long as what you do doesn't ruin it for those trying to avoid smoking...

THE END


EDIT: My apologies.

When I was talking about avoiding smoking I was referring to people who are vaping because of a need for nicotine. But I also recognize that there are LOTS of people who need other things from vaping (besides nicotine) to avoid smoking. Like more vaper, or more flavor, or increased convenience, or ease of use, or more throat hit, or less throat hit, or lots and lots of hand-to-mouth.

So yeah, if you need more of (whatever) in order to avoid smoking...
Do it.

But still, the less vapor the better.
Well, probably the less flavoring the better.

But yeah.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread