No, that was our Prime Minister, in a pigs mouth.
Hoi, what sounds like MI6 black helicopt
2168 posts • joined 26 Jun 2007
No, that was our Prime Minister, in a pigs mouth.
Hoi, what sounds like MI6 black helicopt
Jesus fuck, that's me having nightmares tonight.
And not just because I'm scottish, and that piece of food isn't deep fried.
Well, when they ban everything but cigalikes in the US, they'll sell shitty e-cigs, I'd imagine.
Because PMI and their ilk will be the only ones able to afford to take devices to market - none of the indies will be able to afford to go through the (lit tobacco oriented) testing process, estimated at >$1m per device, or per liquid (which includes differing nicotine strengths - so one flavour in four strengths, circa $4m).
Most independent liquid producers have ten flavours in four strengths.
Do the math.
I think a lot of it is context awareness. IE I work in an office with glass walls on one side open to the rest of the staff, with four other people. The office is big enough where I can have a couple of draws on my (small, mouth to lung) device without fogging the room up or annoying anyone. To the extent where they'll occasionally ask me to puff around a bit of it to mask the smell of a hot lunch we've ordered in, etc.
Now, if I were to be using my monster rebuildable tank in here, one lung hit would cause one hell of a cloud, and a few would probably fog the room up noticably.
So twice a day, I give myself a break from my monitor, pop out to the car park and fog that up instead for a few minutes.
Generally speaking, most of these issues can be sorted with a 'vape with consideration' sign at the front door of a building, with explicit exemptions for some areas; I don't vape in our colo space at all, for example.
Nothing too complicated about it, it's all about common sense.
Also, point of interest, the tobacco industry has only a partial foothold in the vaping market (crappy cigalikes etc) - and they're obsessed with expensive to run closed systems. Almost every device you see people using on the street will be from an independent manufacturer, who have no ties to the Tobacco industry whatsoever.
Smoking is already considered normal.
And has never been 'un-normal'.
There is absolutely no evidence of a gateway effect (which is what the normalisation argument always points to), there never has been; the only gateway the evidence shows - and population level data is good evidence - is of a gateway for smokers, away from smoking.
"Use of the devices is confined to current and ex-smokers and use amongst never smokers remains negligible and has not changed since 2012. Over time the proportion of current electronic cigarette users who smoke tobacco has fallen and the proportion who are ex-smokers has risen (figure 1)."
" In March 2013 an additional survey of children aged 11 to 18 was conducted, the ASH Smokefree Youth survey. This has been repeated annually since then. For use among children please see the ASH factsheet. In summary the ASH Smokefree Youth Survey shows that regular use of electronic cigarettes amongst children and young people is rare and is confined almost entirely to those who currently or have previously smoked"
You can have your 'concerns' and 'worries', I'll stick with actual evidence using data relevant to the population, by an organisation that is tacitly (and in the past has been openly) anti-vaping, because even the don't agree with your assessment of the situation.
"Today they'd love vaping to be allowed everywhere, including No Smoking areas, because it makes it harder to spot anyone smoking tobacco"
That would be because it's not tobacco, and it's not smoking. This is fairly straightforward stuff.
"try distinguishing a vaper from a smoker on CCTV. "
You look for hte one who's always leaving a trail of smoke behind them. That's the thing with lit tobacco - it doesn't go out between puffs.
That, and you know, cigarettes don't have a fist sized, brightly coloured battery pack attached to them...
"Besides, who knows what's in the vaping goo? Of course, they'd never flavour it with anything addictive or something that research showed created a craving for tobacco, would they?"
The people doing serious research into harm from vaping, and who can't find any notable harm, even to the end user, and strong evidence of a lack of harm (or barely any interaction) to bystanders.
And all your arguments? Half truths and outright lies pushed by none other than the public health bodies who are repeatedly told that their facts are out of date, being taken out of context, or flat out lies.
What industry does that remind you of...?
The health benefits are likely from removal of harm.
Going from not being able to climb three flights of stairs without wheezing like a broken pair of bellows (smokers), to being able to do it twice in ten minutes without really caring (vaping, likely this IQOS thing too), is a health benefit, I'd argue...
Pretty sure dry 'herb' burners have been a thing for a couple of years now; IQOS is simply a big tobacco manufacturers attempt at it, using pre-packaged tobacco 'nubs' - functionally, they do the same thing.
Bit like Vype e-cigs and regular vaping devices; The vype is based around slightly older tech, arguably more simpler and more stable, better suited to be 'certified' by public health than the bleeding edge stuff that most vapers use.
Big tobacco vape devices, for example, haven't embraced temperature control as yet.
Addiction without harm is not really a problem. Look at coffee - most people get seriously grumpy if they don't get their morning sup, but most people woudln't consider that a moral dilemma because caffiene is generally agreed to Not Be A Problem from a health standpoint. This device doesn't produce actual smoke, which is what does >90% of the damage of smoking, natch.
You can argue financial harm, but people who move from smoking to a heat not burn product like IQOS were already in financial harm anyway, and the price of entry is a bit high for people to start on these (£45, £8 for 20 'refill' sticks).
I'm not as up on the IQOS as I am on vaping, hence there being a lot of 'should' in this post ;-)
It's not impossible, frankly - although I'd be interestedin seeing a year quitrate; most quitrates are based on 30 days, I'm not sure what PMIs data is.
Bear in mind I'd also wager that rate isn't Smoke cigs > use IQOS > stop everything. It'll be smoke cigs > use IQOS. if IQOS is legitmately some 90% safer, then you're getting 90% of the benefits of quitting, without the <5% quit rate that quitting has.
If you have 70% of people getting 90% harm reduction, that's a massive, staggering improvement over <5% of people getting 100% harm reduction from a public health standpoint.
For my brother, for example, it might be useful - he's never seen the appeal of normal vape products, so these heat-not-burn ones, which still taste of baccy (something vapes just can't do Because Physics, might be relevant to him.
I'll post something longer in here tonight, methinks.
"A continuous loop of jingle bell rock will make them repent"
Not if they've worked in retail over Christmas it won't. They'll be immune.
Steven "worked at PC world for presumed sins in a past life. Over Christmas" R
We're talking about GUI vs command line, etc, but yesterday I had to use Powershell to get replication to work in a HyperV platform because the GUI wouldn't find the correct certificate for HTTPS authentication.
At least on Linux servers, you don't get a shock when the GUI doesn't work properly, because you don't expect to be using a gui full stop.
It also doesn't try to reboot itself once every couple of weeks unless you perform some low level registry hacks....although I believe they (eventually) hotfixed that.
Have an upvote for hiding 'embrace, extend, extinguish' in there.
Which turns your post from a piece of apparent well meaning simpering, to something rather more dripping in sarcasm.
Honestly, I had similar qualms about the Nexus 4 (who's battery might as well be glued in - it's not exactly a quick swap job), but went for the plunge not long after launch anyway.
I've only replaced it in the last few weeks after the touchscreen went a bit flaky. So the better part of four years.
After the first few weeks, I simply stopped thinking about the battery; if you are worried about running out of charge halfway through the day, USB power banks are cheap and portable and arguably safer than having a soft-wall LiPo cell in your backpack/pocket etc.
Replaced it with a Hauwei P9 Lite because I'm cheap as all fuck, and it's not a bad thing itself, although I really, really miss the 'plain jane' android interface; the hauwei one is 'ok' but it's not as straightforward. Why can't I swipe down with two fingers to get to the system shortcuts, damnit?
Anyway, enough rambling.
It seemed broken on google DNS, but was OK on a machine that used OpenDNS; and as I recall they do a lot of caching (hence being useful recently in the recent big DNS related snafu thing that I didn't quite catch because I was busy doing Other Things).
Curious, but as others have noted, DNS is both easy and hard.
....been made to work properly yet?
I mean, at all - it's why my home box is still on 15.10, because I do occasionally like to play some modern games <insert jokes about relative modernity here - but stuff like Serious Sam 3 etc>
Genuine question, like.
Drive it sideways straight into a lamp-post - old school boost control (IE nothing then everything), 300lb/ft, skinny tyres - an 'entertaining' mix I hear....
Tenuous link, but a mates son has just bought a Turbo Technics XR4i and I am staggeringly jealous of it.
Absolutely not relation to Apple, but I just wanted to let you all know that hairy, turbo'd non-cossie Sierras are still available.
"Does UK have child-proof liquid nicotine containers yet?"
I've been at this over four years and never seen any container that wasn't child proof. Ever.
And as you're clearly no toxicologist, here's what you have to remember.
The Dose Makes The Poison.
As others have pointed out, water toxicity is a thing that will flat out fucking kill you (Leah Betts anyone? No, ecstasy didn't kill her, drinking too much water while using it did).
""29141 calls during that study period to poison control centers" [between 2012-2015 USA e-cigs]"
Calls to poison centres aren't poisonings - they're people worried about poisonings, which includes people who simply don't understand that you'd practically have to bathe in e-liquid for it to have any marked effect on you. Also, the numbers have dropped steadily since.
I could explain this point by point, but Clive Bates does a better job of it, including putting those numbers into context. They're fucking tiny compared to cosmetics, painkillers, and pretty much anything that's recorded.
Here's a good comparator: Laundry pods vs ecigs.
The difference being, laundry pods regularly kill. E-liquids? I've only heard of a couple of cases where they were suspected as being part of it (and no, nicotine base doesn't count as that's actually a rare, DIY only thing in the market - and even then, that's only one case, mixed with fuckton of vodka...) - the concentration of nicotine in e-liquids is so low that their danger is mild (vomiting occurs quickly, well before any chance of hitting the LD50 - which would take litres for anyone bigger than a child) and because almost all liquids are sold in child proof bottles, those young/small enough to be at risk rarely get exposed.
And yes, given that the number of vapers is in the tens of millions worldwide, a few thousand calls to poison centres and only handful of confirmed poisonings is rare.
0% liquids are common for people who really like cloud chasing - hammering a 0.1ohm dripper with fused claptons for an hour at a time, with pretty much any nicotine content, is a rapid way to get a niccy rush.
There are also plenty of people out there who have tailed down their nicotine to nought, but still enjoy the sensation of vaping/smoking, and don't want to feel that they're beholden to nicotine.
It's bloody handy for testing liquids too - go into a good vape shop with a dripper, and just try different flavours - again, you end up tapping away for a while, so you avoid having to deal with/manage nicotine levels.
As for weed, I hear dry burners are the way forward - again, it's harm reduction (not elimination) so you'll likely still be exposed to some nasties, but far less than from having a pipe/bong/joint.
I've not bothered with weed for ages though so I'm a bit out of touch. CBD liquids are a thing (and legal), THC less so (doesn't mix in with the PG/VG very well).
Sigh, reply to myself because i meant cigarettes and rolling tobacco, not (just) 'tobacco' Dur.
Not that I'm having a bad week or owt....
"If you really don't think nicotine is addictive prove it, take up vaping 10mg juice for a year & then see how easy you find it to go without?"
Er, I vaped 18mg for three years, then accidentally bought six bottles of 6mg (the lowest strength that flavour was available in) - that is considered a big drop in a mouth to lung device.
I didn't notice until I went to buy more a few weeks later, and the vendor asked me why I wanted 18mg when I had just filled up from the last of my 6mg bottle.
I'd genuinely not noticed.
Now, I'll grant you that I found a series of devices that suited me quite well, along with a few flavours that suited me quite well - and that appears to be utterly key - I was more into the flavour than the nicotine by that point.
I'm not saying it's not addictive - but it gets treated like full on demonic possession, when to be blunt, there just isn't any real evidence that nicotine, without tobacco smoke attached to it, has any serious addictive qualities. Might it reinforce habitual behaviour? Sure. But as I noted, most vapers tend to taper down over the course of a few months (as they tend to view lower nicotine as a good thing - and why not?) which doesn't fit the 'as addictive as heroin' tagline.
But more recently, I've been out of work and not been able to afford premium liquids as I normally do. Mate of mine supplied me with some of his 70/30 liquid at 0 nic, which I thickened up to more like 90/10 using straight VG - which is dirt cheap. I didn't have any nic about, so I gritted my teeth and waited to see how I got on.
Honestly, it was fine - I find the physical sensation of thick clouds going in my lungs to be as satisfying as the nicotine, honestly. I know what you mean about the dry mouth and whatnot; I've had that sort of thing when I've gone out with flat batteries, and not been able to have a puff for a few hours - never to a horrible extent, but it was there. I am a firm believer, however, that there is far more to the smoking/vaping habit than just nicotine, which is my wider point.
I think your experience/problems may have stemmed from using older devices (I've used 'em too - been at this for over four years now) which weren't very good at delivering nicotine, and at the initial stages of switching that's pretty important, but I'm quite confident as you get used to it, it's less relevant. Modern stuff is markedly better; even basic starter kits today perform better than the finest tanks of two years ago.
However, I do find that nicotine adds a bit of bite to flavours, so I use 6mg in 50/50 in my mouth to lung tank - the ciggy replacement, as it were - and 3mg in the bigger tanks, the fun tanks.
I've moving house this month so I'll be skint again - I may well see if my mate has any old mixes he's not wanting, thicken 'em up, and go zero nic again for a bit; as I'm working again (unlike my last zero nic experience) I might find it plays out differently, perhaps?
But certainly, if I had to go zero nic for Reason X (IE 100ml bottles of liquid will be zero nic from May 2017 onwards - will I be arsed to add nicotine to it?) it's not something that fusses me from a personal level. Annoying, yes. Does it give me The Fear, like the idea of spending a whole day without a cigarette used to?
Never mind not even close, it's not even in the same ballpark. Hell, it's on a different continent.
All of the above with the usual caveats of anecdote, not everyone is the same etc - but I've seen enough research on nicotine and on addiction in general to be pretty comfortable in my viewpoint.
The problem isn't whether nicotine is addictive per se - although I agree with you on the 'sliding scale of addiction' that nicotine is likely closer to 'helps maintain a habit' rather than something like heroin or crack which is 'demonic possession' level addiction (as nicotine is often described) and a lot of the more recent evidence and thinking would suggest it's part of the problem, not the whole problem and it's role in the process of habit forming is likely overstated and that in e-cigarettes, any addictive properties are substantially lower than that of lit tobacco and slightly higher than nicotine gum which in and of itself, is not considered to be addiction forming in never smokers when tested.
The issue I have is the language being used - addiction is always used in a pejorative term; when people in public health talk about addicts, they aren't talking about people as if they are people.
As for decent data on the safety of nicotine without smoke? We have it, on nicotine patches and gum. Concensus? Really not an issue. To the extent that you can buy it over the counter without prescription. Delivery method is a bit slower, but from a 'harm to health' standpoint that's not massively relevant as far as I know; the delivery method only affects the neurological response, rather than the physiological response - I am not a doctor though, so feel free to not quote me.
The issue is one of moralistic crusading more than anything else these days - which is pretty fucking pathetic when you think about it.
There's very good evidence that e-cigs
A: Just aren't that harmful
B: Don't hinder smoking cessation and (from RCTs) either slightly improves the chances or (anecdotally - hundreds of them that I know of) seriously enables quitting lit tobacco. Aside, anyone quoting Glantz's metastudies can happily go here to find out why it's bunkum; he's just released another one using the same broken methodology which has been torn to shreds by almost everyone in the TC community, seemingly to counter the Cochrane report that this article cites.
C: Are a consumer product on the free market with plenty of variance so that consumers can find a device/liquid they like - which further increases chances of getting off the fags
D: Hasn't cost the public purse a penny.
Yet the more boorish members of the public health community just aren't happy, even though lit tobacco is a well known killer on a catastrophic scale - not just in terms of cancers, but house fires, social castigation (smoking bans, lack of housing that accepts smokers), financially (to the user....) etc.
You think they'd be jumping for joy that something just popped up out of nowhere, with, to all evidence, zero detectable harm to non-smokers, harm reversal to smokers (with limited likely harm long term from the materials science known), and they haven't had to do a thing - not lift a finger.
But no, can't have people enjoying themselves doing something that looks like smoking. That's morally wrong!
When The Usual Voices in Public Health just admit that their crusade against tobacco harm reduction is nothing more than puritanical, moralistic grandstanding then maybe we'll start to get somewhere.
But that'll never happen as long as figures like Glantz and Chapman - two figures who did great work back in the day - learn to admit that they're just plain fucking wrong on this one, and stop influencing the likes of the FDA and the Australian government into defacto banning all devices before 2007 (USA) and trying to prevent Australia from allowing lifting of the ban on sales of nicotine (it's a controlled poison, charges for selling it are same as for dealing heroin, in Australia).
Can you tell I've been involved in the politics of this for a while now and have become really rather bitter and cynical about it ? ;-)
I quite like a bit of nicotine. It does me no harm, and it harms no-one else around me.
What about all those people who go batshit if they can't get a coffee in the morning?
See how silly that argument sounds now?
If you push vapers into the smoking areas, they are far more likely to keep dual using, or go back to smoking (especially when thanks to irresponsible journalism, most people think vaping is more dangerous than smoking - peer pressure etc).
If you allow vapers to (with consideration) vape at the bar or in the office, that's a significant advantage over smoking, with no side effects to anyone around them (other than manners based things like not fogging the room out - again, consideration) then there is a far greater chance of getting them off the staggeringly dangerous lit tobacco and onto something that while not benign, is basically about as risky as having a latte with your lunch.
It's very interesting how the debate about tobacco harm reduction has moved away from 'smoke for the nicotine, die for the tar' to a purely moral - and that is all it is, raw puritanism - crusade against perceived addiction. I'd go as far as to say it's very telling, actually.
So while we wait for those long term studies, how many smokers do you think should die from smoking related diseases, the risks of which they could have seriously reduced by switching to vapour tech?
Because when we get down to brass tacks, there's plenty of evidence - good evidence - that vaping is about as close to 'safe enough' as we can expect from any inhalation based nicotine delivery system (which is a popular thing that will never, ever go away) to make it a no brainer for a smoker to switch.
They have already decided that the benefits they get from smoking outweigh the well known risks - so if you massively reduce the risks, then that's an increase in the benefit.
All the enjoyment, none of the death (to the best of our current knowledge).
At this stage, with what we know about the relative risk, talking about long term testing as a reason to restrict access or to discourage peope from using these devices is utter sophistry; people are dying now from lit tobacco use.
So far, other than extreme outliers (PG allergy, battery issues) no-one who uses these devices as directed has reported a serious reaction or problem from them, period.
Are there possible long term risks from vaping? Of course there will likely be - probably an increase in COPD likelyhood and other airway issues over the long term.
But it'll be significantly less than from smoking, because smoking is unique in it's ability to destroy the body.
And as people will always 'smoke' in some form or another - it's been part of human culture for millenia - why restrict access to the safest method yet found of doing so based on what, when it comes down to it, is nothing more than mealy mouthed handwringing?
No doubt the implication is that the tobacco companies still make money out of it.
But I can assure you, it's far less than they make out of tobacco itself....
Back in the 60's and 70s, access to this research by the public and non-academic experts was tricky and inconvenient - so blowing them apart with common sense or questioning and repeating the methodology was hard.
These days, we have Pubmed commons and various open access journals, and the tobacco industry is under closer scrutiny than it ever has been - everyone is looking for them to lie again.
The irony is, it's actually the anti-harmreduction crowd who are pushing out the most junk - poor methodology, clear conflict of interest. And thankfully, we can now see the research as soon as it's published, and openly question it's merits, methodology, etc.
That simply wasn't possible 40 years ago.
Because it's not 40 years ago.
Tom, he's probably citing the Sun headline from a few weeks ago that 'vaping is as bad for you as fags', based on nothing more than that it stiffens the aortic arteries temporarily.
However, what they didn't report:
Arortic stiffening is temporary and goes back to normal within minutes - that is, it's an 'acute' effect.
It takes 30mins of vaping to get same effect as one cigarette (5 mins of smoking)
No cardiologist worth their salt would ever make claims about aortic stiffening being a prognosis for heart disease - it's not a marker for it. At all.
Other things that cause exactly the same type and level of response: Coffee, jogging, having a tommy-tank, someone coming up behind you and going BOO. But you don't see people saying that going jogging or tugging one out will give you heart disease.
Here is a comprehensive deconstruction and demolition of the Sun article from the former executive director of ASH.
It's a good job it's not combusting in this application then, or getting to the temps where acrolein is generated in any meaningful (or even detectable, in most cases) measures, eh?
(and at the temperatures where it is generated, it tastes utterly foul, immediately causing usage cessation - it's called a dry hit, and anyone who uses these devices knows it. Smoking machines, oddly, do not)
Lots of water definitely helps.
If you like a harsh throat hit (IE if you sidestream/carb rollups etc) then look at liquids that have a slight menthol/cooling edge. It gives a bit more 'snatch' at the back of the throat and can help get through the first week.
With regards to nicotine strength, I have a different guide.
You can get mouth to lung tanks (tight draw very much like a ciggy) and direct lung tanks (very open draw, like a bong).
10 a day - 6-12mg
20 a day - 12-18mg
>30 a day - 24mg if you can get it (it'll start disappearing soon)
That's in a mouth to lung tank with a tight draw.
With a bigger tank for direct lung, just halve those numbers; you'll get the nicotine by volume of vapour.
As for nicotine content, I've found that at a low level, it can affect flavour, but it depends on the flavour profile itself. It makes custards and creams taste a bit more complex to me, but gets in the way of fruity flavours.
Just get through the first few weeks on something basic, then experiment if you like it. There's plenty of choice and loads of different devices, none of which are hugely expensive if you get a capable enough power unit; a good tank isn't much more than £30 and coils are under £5 each and last a couple of weeks at a time.
By the time you start needing more than 50-60w for a tank, you'll probably know what you're looking for anyway ;-)
Innoken TC100, SteamCrave Aromamizer Supreme, 2x 3.5mm SS316L 24g coils installed vertically
Show evidence of notable addiction to nicotine in humans without other tobacco smoke compounds involved (as they aren't involved in vaping). You know, the sort of evidence where there's a measurable behavioural response.
No, really. There just isn't any - partially due to their being no appetite for researching it, and partially because until recently, getting nicotine recreationally without smoke being involved (bar Snus) was basically just not on the radar.
Fact remains that the only time you see evidence of anything approaching addiction in relation to nicotine is when tobacco smoke is involved.
The very fact that the vast majority of users of these devices start off at 24/18/12mg nicotine, and tend to scale down to 3/6mg by choice without any problems should suggest that nicotine, in and of itself, just isn't all that addictive. Otherwise, it'd go the other way - people would start at 12/18 and go up to 24/36. The act of vaping itself may be 'addictive' or habitual (the feeling of vapour filling the lungs etc can be like biting nails or cracking knuckles) but the nicotine component of the habit is, charitably, questionable.
Addiction is a complex, often pejorative term; and smoking was never considered an addiction until the late 80s, and it was based on some very dubious evidence:
Fact is, eve if we do say it's addictive - addiction isn't a problem if it doesn't negatively impact the user or their peers. It's just a self-reinforcing habit. And we have little evidence to support even that, when tobacco smoke isn't involved.
Stevie, I'd suggest you have a look at accident statistics and see how many are frontal and side impacts, and how many involve the central underside of the car getting extensively damaged.
The fact that you can only find two fires out of all the Teslas on the road (especially given the huge publicity any major Tesla crash gets) suggests that it's really not a major problem. How many others would have had fires if the batteries were in the boot or underbonnet area, where the vast majority of impacts occur? It's not a massive stretch of reality to suggest 'rather a lot more'.
The Tesla battery pack is surrounded by chassis rails in the (beefy) sills, and the crumple zones in the front and rear, with a titanium skid pan underneath (a result of one of the fires, actually) - something you won't find under most petrol cars, I might add.
It's about as safe as it can be made while still having headline grabbing performance and a range comparable with a similarly performing petrol car, in short - and generally safer than most petrol powered passenger cars thanks to not having a massive lump of metal in the front that's difficult to build crumple zones around.
You can never have an entirely safe car, regardless of energy source because that energy source will always have to be very high capacity and will always be a volatile problem in an accident.
So you mitigate the risk as best you can; by having the power cells away from the areas most regularly damaged in the vast majority of all accidents - the front and rear and the extremities of the sides of the car - you mitigate the risk for vast majority of all accidents. You can't stop physics if you go sideways into a tree at highway speeds - nothing can - but at that stage, your chances of survivability are going to be slim no matter what the power source - and if your out cold from physical shock and the car starts burning, whether it's LiPo or petrol/oil/ATF that's burning, you're pretty fucked regardless.
If you put the energy source in the boot or under the bonnet, you are exposing them to the danger zones in the vast majority of accidents, be they low or high speed - and significantly increasing the chances of unnecessary fatalities due to an out of control LiPo fire in significantly 'smaller' incidents. But LiPo is the best we've got for now, and I doubt we'll ever have a battery source with that much power that isn't a bit 'interesting' when destroyed.
It's not risk removal, it's risk mitigation. Your plan of having batteries in the boot or underbonnet area significantly increases risk in all situations except those where there is a (very rare, statistically) serious underbody strike hard enough to literally rip through the floorpan. Teslas plan mitigates risk for the vast majority of situations where someone bashes you from the front, behind, or t-bones you.
That's why I pulled you up on that point - other manufacturers are putting their batteries in the boot or the seats or wherever because they are working with existing floorpans that don't have space for it in the chassis, not because it's inherently better.
High enough where you're not going to be walking away (or ever again) at best, I'd wager; safety tech has come along way, but airbags, safety cells, crumple zones, petrol diesel or battery powered....
...beyond a certain point, physics will always win.
Edit: Oh, and for clarity:
Even petrol cars usually have the petrol tank inside the crumple zones for this exact reason.
I meant 'inside the area protected by the crumple zones', of course, but I'd hope that was clear from the context. On my car, the tank is below the rear seats, for example - which sounds crazy, but if you think about it, if an impact is so hard it warps the chassis badly and far enough in to damage the fuel tank, then we return to my original comment above - you're probably going to be dead from the impact long before the fire gets you.
"if they are in the trunk/boot or under he hood/bonnet there is a reasonable expectation that the batteries will be better protected in a crash"
You mean when they are in the crumple zones? the parts designed to be utterly destroyed in a crash to prevent impact from travelling to and encroaching into the passenger compartment?
"The Tesla's innovative layout poses some special concerns."
You mean having the batteries well inside the crumple zones, in the area of the car specifically designed to avoid having to absorb the impact from an accident, because it also happens to be where the occupants are?
Just to be clear, car safety these days involves sacrificing everything ahead of the A pillar and behind the C-pillar (that is, the front and rear screens) so that the passenger area has less force to deal with, and thus the passengers have less force applied to them.
Putting the batteries in the bonnet or boot areas, the areas most likely to be utterly gibbed during an accident, is a crazy idea. Even petrol cars usually have the petrol tank inside the crumple zones for this exact reason.
Ah yes, that does all make more sense, people - upvotes FOR ALL!
"The electric car company announced the release of a new 100kWh battery that it claims will accelerate its highest-end Model S car from 0-60 in just 2.5 seconds and 0-100 in 2.7 seconds."
Um, I'm pretty sure that's bordering on worlds-fastest-strictly-speaking-street-legal-but-really-a-drag-car fast (IE Bob Lutzs stuff, or Red Victor), not production car fast. I'm not even sure where that number came from.
Come on Kieran, which numbers did you transpose in the copy? ;-)
Two old Amiga 500s with the RAM expansion pack and 50mb HDDs - that should suffice to keep the content playing for the three people in NK with internet.
Steven "Obvious Joke" R.
That won't stop me making Netburst jokes.
Not that I can think of a good one right now.
"Ford, best known for playing CSO Jack Stanfield in the 2006 cyber-thriller Firewall,"
Yeah, I laughed at the context-sensitive nature of that.
sadly rather a lot appear to have been poorly, and amateurishly, prepped by the BMA and ASH - the arguments against e-cigs in the house were very much of the 'oh we just don't know' and 'think of the children' line that are typical for those organisations.
The fact that most of them didn't seem to even understand what they were saying was quite telling. Tripping over words, reading every single word off the page rather than freewheeling, etc.
I'm very much of the opinion that those of us on the side of harm reduction and common sense have scared the living shit out of the antis - they're worried. Hence the poor lobbying efforts.
Curiously, you can get CBD liquid (that is, cannibinoid, not THC liquids - so strictly speaking, not illegal as it's not psychotropic/doesn't make you high etc) which are good for anti-inflammatory use and can have (what appears to be) a psychosomatic calming effect.
I threw my back out at the weekend, and much as thought I'm sure walking it off will sort it by midweek (feels like it's just a muscle strain) the concept of having a bottle of the vapable anti-imflammatory kicking about is quite a nice one.
I've not looked at it in much detail though. I think I might investigate.
No-one with an IQ greater than 36 uses e-cigs for getting high - trying to get the THC in there from the oil just kills the wicks..er, I mean, it doesn't work ;-)
There are far better pieces of equipment for that, namely dry cannabis 'heat not burn' devices, that are, unsurprisingly, less harmful to use than smoking a big fat camberwell carrot, because there's no combustion going on.
It's an interesting market, for sure.
Cynic is correct. It's more likely that he used to smoke, or that in the experimentation phase, he'll mess with vaping, get bored of it, and never move on to smoking.
Population levels studies - all of them - show that this appears to be the case. As vaping goes up among youth, smoking goes down. Full stop.
But only if you get lots of tattoos and a backwards baseball cap, right?
Steven "owns more than a few >200w devices" R
"Is that e-liquids with nicotine, or without?
I ask because if nicotine is there to help you quit nicotine, and not just the leaf burning business, then people are getting into "medical claim" territory."
Quite emphatically, no.
Just containing nicotine is not enough to be a medical claim. You have to specifically claim that your product will help you get off smoking.
No reputable vendor or device maker makes that claim specifically because they do not want to go through the medicinalisation route because it's expensive, restricts the products usefulness and won't sell.
No-one - and I mean no-one - is interested in a medical e-cig. We're all quite happy with our consumer goods that - as a handy byproduct - allow us to significantly reduce our cig intake, even down to zero.
You know, unless you want to claim that we should force all gyms to go through MHRA registration as phsyio outlets because they 'medically' make people lose weight....
"This is nonsense. They certainly are not life saving devices. At best they are devices with no impact on health but with the strong potential for causing harm."
As they are used almost exclusively by smokers and ex smokers, they are actually removing harm that was being caused.
That is literally the exact opposite of what you propose.
Yeah, things are a bit different now with immediate publication and publicity, and informed members of the public and academia who can tear into shit research and show it for what it is.
Pubmed Commons, for example, allows comments. This is an excellent move. Now every time a hack links to this study, or has linked to it in the past, Clive Bates excellent critique of this paper is on show for all to see, for example.
Academia is not 'open' as yet, but it's a damned site more open than it's ever been. It's much, much harder to hide bad research now.
Steady on now...!
Ralph, almost every vape shop you see will supply liquids manufactured either in the US or UK, with batching numbers, that trace back to specific manufacturing runs, that have very clear lists of ingredients, all of them USP grade for the bases, and all of the flavourings should be food grade (and any that are found within the community to be a bit 'dodgy' are immediately pilloried) to guarantee at least a bare standard of safety, as most food grade flavourings are tested to ensure they dont break down to something unpleasant when heated up to around 250 deg, which when you throw in airflow over the atomiser, is similar to what you see in an e-cig.
These are mostly made in clean rooms certified to various ISO standards, and the big white label manufacturers are seriously stepping up their game these days and going for higher and higher standards - because with these devices, safety sells.
Obviously, a home mixer (significantly cheaper than pre-bought if you have a knack for it, and still significantly safer than smoking) will have their own standards; as long as they aren't selling them to uninformed participants, then it's no worse than someone growing their own vegetables, tobacco or weed, because that's their problem; and it's extremely unlikely they'll be using shoddy flavourings. I know half a dozen home mixers personally, and they are incredibly careful about what they use for exactly the reasons you state - they don't want to be inhaling obviously nasty shite, either!
As for the second hand component, there is nothing that suggests that the exhaled part is likely to affect a bystander. If you're taking a dander down town, you are at significantly more risk from diesel fumes (and even ventilation/extraction from a kebab shop grill) than you are from e-cig vapour.
We've seen this before with the diacetyl 'scare' a few years ago (and a solid year before the press found out about it) - when manufacturers were shown to still be using diacetyl (even though diacetyl in and of itself has never been shown to be harmful in vapourised form - just powdered - but that's something I covered in another post) were literally put out of business because no-one would buy from them.
Any good vape shop will be very, very careful about it's supply chain. It's not a solved problem (you'll still see market stalls selling imported goods etc) but without any kind of regulation, the market has managed to keep on top of this surprisingly well, without intervention.
And remember - lit tobacco is regulated.
I'm all for some sensible regs, frankly (feel free to check my previous posts - most of my recent interjections have been on this subject), but just because something is regulated doesn't automatically make it safe, and the counter is also true. Evidence always trumps 'concerns' and we have plenty of it at this stage to make some pretty confident assertions that second hand vapour isn't anything to be remotely concerned about other than on a social etiquette level.
Because yes, dude-bros in their snap backs and their mech mods blowing big clouds at the bus stop annoy me too....
PS: If I'm missing a specific point you are arguing, just tell me or ask it directly in a reply - I've recently got a job 70 miles away that starts this Monday coming, so I'm running around like a loon trying to arrange things for that, after six months of being out of work and currently being utterly skint; hence I might miss some bits as I have 'bigger problems' to deal with - apologies :-0