Would have to be wattage limited rather than voltage wouldn't it?
Voltage is a meaningless measure without knowing the resistance of the coil (which they failed to state in the paper, such was the high quality of the research).
It seems bizarre to me that so many posters on e-cig threads are so defensive of e-cigs as if they have a vested interest in claiiming they are pefectly safe and promoting their use, it is like watching what some call "Buyer's Stockholm Syndrome", or people who want to claim victimhood that they are some vulnerable minority group under attack, rather than as users of e-cigs a vested interest in e-cigs actually being safe or as safe as possilbe.
Talking the research that promoted this thread I do not see how say having the product voltage limited so the product does not produce the harmful chemicals would be a bad thing, afterall those cliaming to "debunk" the research claim no one uses the products at those higher voltages anyway.
To me the debunkers argument is like claiming an electric kettle does not need to have a automatic off in the event someone tries to use an empty electric kettle, because regardless of the adverse effects of doing so say a house fire, when people use a kettle they put water in it as they are trying to boil water not set their house on fire. So any criticism of the electic kettle with no safety cutoff is unfounded. When they should as users of the product want the product to be as safe as possible.
Good article Mark, but not surprising.
Opportunities and alternatives offered don't go down well with some advocates. You have to wonder what the benefit is for them.
Unfortunately the approach, in itself undermines any argument for vaping and supports the need to eradicate the addiction itself and suppliers opportunity to exploit that addiction.
It seems bizarre to me that so many posters on e-cig threads are so defensive of e-cigs as if they have a vested interest in claiiming they are pefectly safe and promoting their use, it is like watching what some call "Buyer's Stockholm Syndrome", or people who want to claim victimhood that they are some vulnerable minority group under attack, rather than as users of e-cigs a vested interest in e-cigs actually being safe or as safe as possilbe.
Talking the research that promoted this thread I do not see how say having the product voltage limited so the product does not produce the harmful chemicals would be a bad thing, afterall those cliaming to "debunk" the research claim no one uses the products at those higher voltages anyway.
To me the debunkers argument is like claiming an electric kettle does not need to have a automatic off in the event someone tries to use an empty electric kettle, because regardless of the adverse effects of doing so say a house fire, when people use a kettle they put water in it as they are trying to boil water not set their house on fire. So any criticism of the electic kettle with no safety cutoff is unfounded. When they should as users of the product want the product to be as safe as possible.
Fine but I don't think this was suggested by those doing the research; I don't think it has been discussed on here previously so I don't think any one has argued against (or for) such a measure.
My apologies if I missed it.
Lets not look for differences even before they happen eh?
It seems bizarre to me that so many posters on e-cig threads are so defensive of e-cigs as if they have a vested interest in claiiming they are pefectly safe and promoting their use, it is like watching what some call "Buyer's Stockholm Syndrome", or people who want to claim victimhood that they are some vulnerable minority group under attack, rather than as users of e-cigs a vested interest in e-cigs actually being safe or as safe as possilbe.
,,,.
That reads to me rather more like a personal opinion than an expert medical one. Actually it reads like an attack on a group of people rather than informed comment of any kind. Particularly ironic as the authors are complaining about people who have personalised the debate.
Stereotyping those we disagree with is never a convincing strategy.
Simon Glantz? Simon Chapman? Those guys are borderline extremist in their anti-e-cig sentiments. Deary me. Do you work for Pharma, Mark_Jones6?
And you describe Glantz as a 'medical expert', yet his qualifications are in engineering, and has not medical real qualifications whatsoever. Yet a few pages back you dismissed Clive Bates for not being medically qualified. Are they only experts when it suites you? Seems so.
That reads to me rather more like a personal opinion than an expert medical one. Actually it reads like an attack on a group of people rather than informed comment of any kind. Particularly ironic as the authors are complaining about people who have personalised the debate.
Stereotyping those we disagree with is never a convincing strategy.
Yes, the authors of that article are quite a nasty, venomous bunch. Especially Chapman.
To describe that bunch as 'medical experts' is an insult to the genuine medical community who seek to improve our lives - and don't lie through their teeth.
Mark_Jones credibility has just reached near zero.
Fine but I don't think this was suggested by those doing the research; I don't think it has been discussed on here previously so I don't think any one has argued against (or for) such a measure.
My apologies if I missed it.
Lets not look for differences even before they happen eh?
Tbf, it has been discussed within threads on this forum, and you have contributed to those discussions.
That reads to me rather more like a personal opinion than an expert medical one. Actually it reads like an attack on a group of people rather than informed comment of any kind. Particularly ironic as the authors are complaining about people who have personalised the debate.
Stereotyping those we disagree with is never a convincing strategy.
The quote you have used is not directed at any one group of people but at some posters on a thread. Many of whom do not exhibit the behaviour Mark discusses. Other posters do validate what may be a personal opinion, and we don't have to look too far to find a post suggesting vapers are being victimised either. IMHO of course.
Simon Glantz? Simon Chapman? Those guys are borderline extremist in their anti-e-cig sentiments. Deary me. Do you work for Pharma, Mark_Jones6?
And you describe Glantz as a 'medical expert', yet his qualifications are in engineering, and has not medical real qualifications whatsoever. Yet a few pages back you dismissed Clive Bates for not being medically qualified. Are they only experts when it suites you? Seems so.
Yes, the authors of that article are quite a nasty, venomous bunch. Especially Chapman.
To describe that bunch as 'medical experts' is an insult to the genuine medical community who seek to improve our lives - and don't lie through their teeth.
Mark_Jones credibility has just reached near zero.
There are vaping extremists and I'm sure that's are also anti vaping extremists. By no means are all the authors of this article extremists having produced much work in other areas. They are prepared and qualified to debate the vaping subject. Dont forget that this article was written and submitted to the Lancet (the medical journal considered one of the best of its kind world wide, read by and contributed to by actual medical professionals) in direct response to an earlier article claiming vapers and their opinions were being ignored.
Pro vapers attended the same debate the authors attended and contributed nothing except to later target those who did, in some sort of vicious hate campaign. A response to an earlier article pointing out the truth is quite a measured one in the circumstances.
And from this scenario, your concern is to critique the medical qualifications of the authors. Perhaps everyone can make the occasional mistake or error of judgement Turnbull. ;-)
Tbf, it has been discussed within threads on this forum, and you have contributed to those discussions.
,,,
Nope sorry I have no recollection of any debate about legislation to limit the power of PVs or e-cigs. If you are sure about this then you can cite the debate and my involvement.
Tbf, it has been discussed within threads on this forum, and you have contributed to those discussions.
The quote you have used is not directed at any one group of people but at some posters on a thread. Many of whom do not exhibit the behaviour Mark discusses. Other posters do validate what may be a personal opinion, and we don't have to look too far to find a post suggesting vapers are being victimised either. IMHO of course.
Can I just point out that the quote was not 'used' by me. The quote was 'used' by another poster to make a point I responded. BTW The operative term used was not some but 'so many posters on e-cig threads'. Very different from 'some'.
Fine but I don't think this was suggested by those doing the research; I don't think it has been discussed on here previously so I don't think any one has argued against (or for) such a measure.
My apologies if I missed it.
Lets not look for differences even before they happen eh?
Talking the research that promoted this thread I do not see how say having the product voltage limited so the product does not produce the harmful chemicals would be a bad thing, afterall those cliaming to "debunk" the research claim no one uses the products at those higher voltages anyway.
.
You don't remember discussing the equipment that determines voltage and strength?
Or are you responding to something that isn't relevant to the actual comment?
Pedancy, nitpicking, asking for repeated clarification on points already made is still IMO, a poor attempt at distracting from the issue without providing a good argument.
Though it is perhaps justification for some of the opinions others may have. ;-)
Pedancy, nitpicking, asking for repeated clarification on points already made is still IMO, a poor attempt at distracting from the issue without providing a good argument.
Though it is perhaps justification for some of the opinions others may have. ;-)
Ok no doubt I am making a very poor job of it so perhaps you could explain the reasons for carrying on vaping better than I can.
Loooks like the research will at some point be published in Oxford Reserach Nicotine and Tobacco journal. So hopefully we will find out what current they used.
The Journal has other research in it that has also measured the carbonyl compounds from vaping The findings appear to be of carbonyl compounds at or below the level of normal cigarettes. And carbonyl compounds were found at low current use.
All samples contained at least one carbonyl compound. Formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone, and butanal were found in most of the analyzed samples. Crotonaldehyde was detected in only one sample
Carbonyls may cause mouth and throat irritation.
Formaldehyde a human carcinogen
Acetaldehyde a possible carcinogenic to humans
Acetone a mucous membrane irritant that has been shown to induce damage on olfactory neuroepithelium
Even one of the authors is denying the truth of the original headline;
When I spoke to David Peyton, one of the study’s authors, he insisted that the study had been mischaracterized. All it was meant to do, he said, was compare the levels of formaldehyde in e-cigarettes versus cigarettes. “It is exceedingly frustrating to me that we are being associated with saying that e-cigarettes are more dangerous than cigarettes,” he added. “That is a fact not in evidence.” Well, maybe.
When I read him the tweet from the New England Journal of Medicine — “Authors project higher cancer risk than smoking” — he sounded horrified. “I didn’t see the tweet,” he said. “I regret that. That is not my opinion.”
Comments
Voltage is a meaningless measure without knowing the resistance of the coil (which they failed to state in the paper, such was the high quality of the research).
Good article Mark, but not surprising.
Opportunities and alternatives offered don't go down well with some advocates. You have to wonder what the benefit is for them.
Unfortunately the approach, in itself undermines any argument for vaping and supports the need to eradicate the addiction itself and suppliers opportunity to exploit that addiction.
Fine but I don't think this was suggested by those doing the research; I don't think it has been discussed on here previously so I don't think any one has argued against (or for) such a measure.
My apologies if I missed it.
Lets not look for differences even before they happen eh?
That reads to me rather more like a personal opinion than an expert medical one. Actually it reads like an attack on a group of people rather than informed comment of any kind. Particularly ironic as the authors are complaining about people who have personalised the debate.
Stereotyping those we disagree with is never a convincing strategy.
Simon Glantz? Simon Chapman? Those guys are borderline extremist in their anti-e-cig sentiments. Deary me. Do you work for Pharma, Mark_Jones6?
And you describe Glantz as a 'medical expert', yet his qualifications are in engineering, and has not medical real qualifications whatsoever. Yet a few pages back you dismissed Clive Bates for not being medically qualified. Are they only experts when it suites you? Seems so.
Yes, the authors of that article are quite a nasty, venomous bunch. Especially Chapman.
To describe that bunch as 'medical experts' is an insult to the genuine medical community who seek to improve our lives - and don't lie through their teeth.
Mark_Jones credibility has just reached near zero.
Tbf, it has been discussed within threads on this forum, and you have contributed to those discussions.
The quote you have used is not directed at any one group of people but at some posters on a thread. Many of whom do not exhibit the behaviour Mark discusses. Other posters do validate what may be a personal opinion, and we don't have to look too far to find a post suggesting vapers are being victimised either. IMHO of course.
There are vaping extremists and I'm sure that's are also anti vaping extremists. By no means are all the authors of this article extremists having produced much work in other areas. They are prepared and qualified to debate the vaping subject. Dont forget that this article was written and submitted to the Lancet (the medical journal considered one of the best of its kind world wide, read by and contributed to by actual medical professionals) in direct response to an earlier article claiming vapers and their opinions were being ignored.
Pro vapers attended the same debate the authors attended and contributed nothing except to later target those who did, in some sort of vicious hate campaign. A response to an earlier article pointing out the truth is quite a measured one in the circumstances.
And from this scenario, your concern is to critique the medical qualifications of the authors. Perhaps everyone can make the occasional mistake or error of judgement Turnbull. ;-)
Nope sorry I have no recollection of any debate about legislation to limit the power of PVs or e-cigs. If you are sure about this then you can cite the debate and my involvement.
Can I just point out that the quote was not 'used' by me. The quote was 'used' by another poster to make a point I responded. BTW The operative term used was not some but 'so many posters on e-cig threads'. Very different from 'some'.
Feel free to disagree.
The above was your response to this
You don't remember discussing the equipment that determines voltage and strength?
Or are you responding to something that isn't relevant to the actual comment?
I don't remember discussing having 'product voltage limited' or expressing an opinion on the matter.
I am more than happy to be shown to be wrong.
Though it is perhaps justification for some of the opinions others may have. ;-)
Ok no doubt I am making a very poor job of it so perhaps you could explain the reasons for carrying on vaping better than I can.
The Journal has other research in it that has also measured the carbonyl compounds from vaping The findings appear to be of carbonyl compounds at or below the level of normal cigarettes. And carbonyl compounds were found at low current use.
Carbonyl Compounds in Electronic Cigarette Vapors: Effects of Nicotine Solvent and Battery Output Voltage
http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/10/1319.full?sid=99c76ae3-4d07-430b-b617-7d8566e6b01f
All samples contained at least one carbonyl compound. Formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone, and butanal were found in most of the analyzed samples. Crotonaldehyde was detected in only one sample
Carbonyls may cause mouth and throat irritation.
Formaldehyde a human carcinogen
Acetaldehyde a possible carcinogenic to humans
Acetone a mucous membrane irritant that has been shown to induce damage on olfactory neuroepithelium
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/opinion/joe-nocera-is-vaping-worse-than-smoking.html?_r=1