Re: The curse of 10?
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....
2152 posts • joined 26 Jun 2007
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
AC, existing laws cover this already WRT to driving without due care and attention etc.
Easy solution for the users though: Turn fan to '1', crack a window open a quarter inch, exhale towards it and positive pressure forces it out the window.
Paul, bear in mind that in a cell culture, bleach will kill cancer. But you won't see that being touted as a way to deal with cancer itself.
There's plenty of studies on the effects of e-cig vapour on the human body, and almost all of it comes back with 'we can't find any real problem here, and certainly not when compared to cigarette smoke'. The Royal College of Physicians report "Nicotine Without Smoke" is one of the largest, and most authoratitive reports of it's kind on the subject of e-cigs, and they promote vaping as a smoking substitute with almost no reservations. The research has been done, and it's still ongoing as we speak.
Flavouring is one of the few potential issues (from a risk to human health perspective, almost everything else in an e-cig is well known about), but even that is accounted for in the figures touted by RCP an PHE as 95% safer as one of their 'unknown unknowns' - but due to the fact that almost without exception, all vapers are ex-smokers, even if there were issues, compared to lit tobacco, it's barely worth worrying about.
The real figure is likely closer to 99%, as discussed by Carl V Philips here:
Ralph, I've posted below about this, have a deek here (or CTRL+F "raith").
Current research says that even finding actual, verifiable human health level risks in the users directly is tricky to prove when good quality devices are used properly with decent quality liquids, and in second hand exposure, it's basically just not there at all. Seriously, people have been trying to find 'the smoking gun' in e-cigs for years now, and they just can't do it.
Formaldehyde? Broken methodology (too much power, not enough airflow, a user would never do it, it tastes awful)
Popcorn lung? Correlation, not causation (that is, it was caused by inhalation of powdered diacetyl, not inhalation of vapourised diacetyl containing flavouring - and cigarettes contain 100 times that in e-cigs anyway, and no smoker has ever got popcorn lung from smoking alone - classic conflation for headlines).
The best one was almost certainly Sarah Knaptons piece on cell damage caused by e-cig vapour. She clearly, despite being the Telegraphs science editor, only read the abstract (which was itself misleading) as it showed, IIRC
Airway cells exposed to airextract : No sign of notable damage after eight weeks
Airway cells exposed to e-cig vapour extract: Infrequent signs of mild damage to some cells after eight weeks.
Which would make you think, ooh, maybe danger!
Airway cells exposed to cig smoke extract - in the report, not mentioned in the abstract: All airway cells dead, all within 24hours. Every. Single. Time.
There's a lot of atrocious science in the public health world, and lots of even worse reporting of the science in the press.
But all of the methodologically sound research shows minimal harm to users, and basically fuck all harm to those around them other than perhaps mild annoyance, which is a different thing altogether.
Second hand vaping basically is. The study Dr Farsalinos cites isn't perfect, but it covers a large chunk of the bases that we as concerned individuals are worried about.
Clive Bates, former executive director of ASH, has a pop at the sort of people who quote 'fine particulate matter' as a concern from e-cigs, mostly because none of the research they cite references e-cigs at all, so it doesn't do anything to actually further knowledge on the subject:
Igor Burstyn has a peek at e-cig emissions, basically shrugs his shoulders and goes "Meh, fuck all here to worry about, really"
"Current state of knowledge about chemistry of liquids and aerosols associated with electronic cigarettes indicates that there is no evidence that vaping produces inhalable exposures to contaminants of the aerosol that would warrant health concerns by the standards that are used to ensure safety of workplaces. However, the aerosol generated during vaping as a whole (contaminants plus declared ingredients) creates personal exposures that would justify surveillance of health among exposed persons in conjunction with investigation of means to keep any adverse health effects as low as reasonably achievable. Exposures of bystanders are likely to be orders of magnitude less, and thus pose no apparent concern."
It's important to note that although it suggests monitoring - which is fine by me - 99% of users are ex smokers, who are/were getting orders of magnitude more harm from lit tobacco. As a second-party participant, basically the evidence we have says that you have nothing to worry about other than finding it a bit annoying. I'll grant you that the annoyance is relevant, but it's not worth legislating on by any standards.
It'd be nice to see more research into this (and there is some more, but I'm too busy at the moment to go hunting for it), but as it stands there seems to be little to be worried about as an end user (especially if they are a smoker - your reducing your risk profile to a stupendous degree), and we can say with great confidence that there's very likely nothing a bystander need be concerned about due to dilution in the air.
Hope that helps :-)
The Horizon program showed that there were particulates in the air (which isn't a shock, as they had a pair of cloud chasers dripping in there; literally the worst case scenario for generating vapour) but they very tellingly stopped short of stating that it was harmful.
Because it's almost guaranteed not to be based on the known materials science, and there is no evidence that it is when it's tested for. That is to say, there is evidence of it's effects, and harm isn't evident in the research.
VG and PG have a long, long history of animal inhalation testing going back over sixty years that shows zero notable negative effects that can be attributed to the vapourised liquids (they were chosen as the bases/bulk for a reason - the only side effect seemed to be the animals putting on some weight as they metabolised the vapour through their lungs), and in any other case, especially outdoors, even if there were a risk (from flavourings etc), it'd be so dilute that it'd be of no biological effect, as direct biological effect at levels that propose a risk to human health in users of the devices has yet to be proven in any meaningful way. The few good studies done on vaping in enclosed spaces (that is, actually using an enclosed space, with a vape device - not just using ecig residue on a petri dish) show much the same; the biological effect (never mind toxicological) just isn't there.
It's also worth remembering that second hand smoke contains physical, solid particles that lodge in the lung, as a product of combustion, as happens with any smoke; the vapour from e-cigs is liquid based, which means it doesn't behave in the same way, and so doesn't have the same risk profiles (much lower, as it liquifies on contact rather than lodging in place and causing damage). Otherwise, you'd not want to spend too long in the shower or the bath, or out in the rain.
There's a lot of very, very bad science out there at the moment surrounding e-cigs (the horizon program was lacking that, which surprised me - there's plenty of headline grabbing shite out there) and without being embedded in it or having a history in epidemiology or biological research, it's difficult to tell what's good and what's bad.
The latest one is a study that shows a potential gateway effect from vaping to smoking. This, however, can be happily ignored as population level studies show that this just isn't happening - yet it still gets reported as a thing that's happening despite the overwhelming evidence that the exact opposite is happening.
IE, it's not impossible that someone who vapes may go on to smoke if they like the sensation. However, actual data in the real world shows us that >98% of users are smokers, and that transferrance of smoking naive vapers to regular vaping is a tiny, tiny minority, and never smokers who vape, and then go on to smoke are like unicorns; rare and probably a bit 'special'.
Just because it has 'research' pinned to it, doesn't mean it's actually good research. If you meta-analyse what colour people report the sky to be, chances are you can make it appear that a 'statistically significant proportion of subjects may believe the sky is red'.
There's a lot of people calling the sky red lately in the public health world...
On the subject of this button, I find it interesting that people are saying the NHS are skint, yet apparently the issue of smokers (or vapers) around hospitals is important enough to blow half a years wages for a nurse on. Because you just know this won't have cost £500 to install. It's the NHS after all...
If you fudge the numbers a little, it looks and smells very much like a semi-custom, process shrunk and binned Jaguar set, and a Polaris class GPU.
RX480 is > 5 TFLOP, and a tweeked and binned set of Jaguar cores (bearing in mind they can customise memory buses, throw EDRAM on there etc; I doubt it's a Zen implementation) could bump that up a touch towards the 6TFLOP range, depending on how you interpret the numbers.
Mix that in with a console OS (so less general purpose overhead) and the idea of it being VR class doesn't seem quite so far fetched. Certainly explains why AMD were so cheery about their semi-custom ops recently.
Or, you know, someone saw the state things were in, and just upped the number of apache processes allowed to run/threw more RAM in/split the DB across more, faster disks/whatever. IE what normally happens when a service shits itself due to load and needs more resources, and needs them at short notice.
Which is rather more likely than a shadowy cabal wanting to throw a referendum.
There have been reports of people with whitelisting and 2FA having issues as well; I think the current working/speculative theory is not that the authentication methods have been cracked etc, but that they are being wholesale bypassed.
If you can bypass the requirement for 2FA/whitelist etc, then having those set up won't help.
Unless anyone else has any brighter ideas?
I've not used TV for a good few years, and never used it at home, so I've got no dog in this fight, as it were, but I'm all ears for theories, arf.
@AC re base liquids, the docoo has been updated to cover this.
As I stated previously, nicotine base liquid sold to consumers is covered by the 20mg/ml, 10ml limit and will only be available to manufacturers.
You can argue that maybe a manufacturer might do 'back door sales' but the fines for non-compliance are pretty high so don't expect it to be commonplace.
Nicotine Base Liquid
The TPD requirements on nicotine concentration (20mg/ml maximum) and size of presentation (10ml maximum for refill container and 2ml maximum for e-cigarettes) apply to products sold to end consumers (irrespective of whether the end consumer intends to modify the product).
The requirements do not apply to ‘trade sales’ i.e. where you are not selling direct to a consumer. But for all sales (trade and to consumers) the tank capacity of a refillable e-cigarette must not exceed 2ml.
The application of all TPD requirements are subject to transitional provisions.
As I said, that wording (nicotine containing liquid) was very specific so as not to mistake 'e-liquid' with 'nic base'.
That said, the NZ Gov has changed their position quite a lot recently (thank you, NNA NZ - they've been poling their noses in) and they appear to be quietly looking to the UK for guidance on this matter.
I'm hoping that, with A Billion Lives being premièred there, and getting some more focus on the subject (rather than it being a niche of a niche of a niche when it comes to public health policy) that they're attitude will end up more closely aligned with ours.
That is not the opinion of the NNA and VIP, who have taken advise from MHRA, DoH and regulatory specialists, though.
High strength liquids are for liquid manufacturers, registered with MHRA, only, as I understand it - retail sales are NOT an option without medicinal licensing.
It's really quite wonderful if you don't like Big Tobacco.
In the UK the stats (that I've posted three times on these comments....) show that kids who never smoked basically just aren't interested in vaping. That's fine.
In the US, the stats show that only 20% of (similarly small percentage of) youth using e-cigs use nicotine - although it doesn't drill deep enough to show whether these are smoke-naive, or previous smokers; on the flipside, I don't think the ASH data records nicotine use, so six of one, half a dozen of the other...
Regardless, as nicotine outside of smoking shows next to zero addictive qualities (this is true in lab rats and also in clinical experiments with nicotine, or NRT, in never smokers - it's why NRT doesn't have an addiction warning) this means that any potential gateway to smoking (or even regular vaping) is limited at best outside of existing smoking youth - to which e-cigs appear to be a gateway out of smoking.
Then have a look at the conversion rates from 'experimentation' to 'regular use' for cigarettes - that's a different story. One that anyone who smokes will likely remember being very powerful, and it's backed up by the stats, even if you remove the hyperbole.
So as you say, if the kids must experiment - and I was one once, and I did - then better to piss about with an e-cig than a lit smoke on every front.
Yeah, you say that, but MHRA and DoH were dead set on making e-cigs medicinal only (IE a defacto ban) only a few years ago until vapers actually stepped in and told them what a fuckwitted idea that was - IIRC that was what basically created the New Nicotine Alliance to ensure that there was a somewhat central point for outreach to media and politicians (they currently have input on the APPG on e-cigs, and contacts in DoH and MHRA) as they weren't a thing back then.
The UK is, in short, perfectly capable of making it's own stupid decisions without EU assistance!
I won't argue that the TPD - and particularly Article 20, although the rest of it isn't exactly a subtle, nuanced piece of delicate, evidence based legislation that will shine a bright light throughout the world - isn't a slapshod piece of shit written up to, one presumes, satisfy the WHO with the WAR ON TOBACCO (that going by the main players in BT, they're losing badly - they're all making far more money than ever) because the TPD is blatantly a massive stinking pile of shit across the board.
Conflation with an EU exit vote, however, means that those trying to counter us can claim it's just 'brexit rambling' and rabblerousing, and dismiss it as such, as being a 'niche anti-EU argument' and then it gets drowned out by all the other Brexit stuff.
Which is why those of us who are putting in the hard work to contact MPs and Lords right now aren't making that connection between the two - it's plain dangerous and undermines the main message, which is 'it's shite, get shot'.
Re timings for a leave if it were to be voted for, I have it on pretty good authority (IE Vapers in Power, New Nicotine Alliance) that yes, if we did leave the EU on the 23rd, we would still be beholden to the TPD and all other treaties till we sort out the formal exit. That's why they aren't making this a Brexit thing, because it's functionally irrelevant to us in the near term, and takes focus away from what matters - which is fighting the TPD.
From the Beeb (but backed up by any other source you care to look for)
How long will it take for Britain to leave the EU?
This was a question asked by many people. The minimum period after a vote to leave would be two years. During that time Britain would continue to abide by EU treaties and laws, but not take part in any decision-making, as it negotiated a withdrawal agreement and the terms of its relationship with the now 27 nation bloc. In practice it may take longer than two years, depending on how the negotiations go.
It took Greenland three years to get out, for reference - and that was back in the 80s before the red tape truly took hold; I'd expect a UK exit to take at least that long.
If we can get the TPD fucked off, then we can talk about the EU overall, yeah? ;-)
I will say though, seeing the shenanigans involved with TPD, I've gone from 'firmly remain' to 'on the fence'. It's seriously knocked my previous belief in the EU system, right to it's core.
I expect that most people who are for exit have had the EU do something similar to them at some point in the past, and that's why I don't dismiss those who want to leave. I can see why, these days.
PS: Small note, I don't represent VIP or NNA, in case I give that impression!
"First off, nicotine is a lethal poison in high percentage form. We've had a handful of deaths from high purity e-juice in the US already."
Now look at the number of deaths caused by laundry pods and detergents. Hint - it's a little bit bigger.
There is very little danger to health from the concentrations found in e-cigs, and the LD50 of nicotine is pretty highly contested. It appears that it should be far higher than that which is currently accepted (That is, it's not as toxic as people think)
"Second, what are the health effects of breathing the oils and glycols used in e-juice? We don't want to replace a carcinogen with something that might cause cancer or lipid pneumonia."
There are no oils in e-liquid. Glycols used are OK'd by the CDC and EPA for inhalation. The RCP report and PHE reports covered this in detail.
It'd not be surprising to find out that e-cigs increase the risks of some airway issues over a never-smoker or never vaper, but absolutely nowhere near the levels that lit tobacco does, and that is the only comparator that is required as that kills over 600,000 people a year in the UK and US alone.
"Finally, howinhell do I know just what is in that e-juice? It could actually be what is advertised, it might also be anything from ricin to plutonium.
OK, maybe not that extreme, but let's face it, a lot's made in China, which is a proper warning label."
Like the laptop you're using. Better chuck that out!
90% of the liquids on vape shop shelves are made in the US or UK using ISO certified clean room facilities, with batches, tracking, etc. They use USP grade bases and food grade flavourings. Flavourings are the only real concern, but most of them are OK'd to be heated up to the same range as foods as they cook and not be terribly dangerous, and again, still nowhere near as dangerous as lit tobacco. There are risks, but they are minutia compared to lit tobacco.
"But then, I remember my own nation's history, when it was a good idea to drink water with either radium or thorium in it - right until some rich family lost a family member to jaw cancer, then we began regulating things touted as health bringing, medicines, etc."
Don't disagree; it's a case of whether the regulations being applied are accurate, backed by science, and applicable to the risk involved that matter. The TPD and FDA Deeming Regs are, patently, not.
That's a problem. A big one, given that the products they are regulating have a staggering potential to reduce the existing harm that is happening right now from lit tobacco.
"I'll give full disclosure, I am a cigarette smoker, smoking worse yet, unfiltered cigarettes. I've yet to meet an e-juice that is strong enough to begin tapering down, they've all, save one lethal percentage I didn't dare toy about with, been too weak and I'm not about to touch that 80% nicotine crap without a proper chemical lab to ensure it's 80%, protect myself from that toxic strength (nicotine is trivially absorbed by the skin) and ensure I can survive even a dose at a properly diluted dosage."
None of the doses available (typically up to 54mg/ml) are even remotely lethal, and would barely be described as harmful to human health. I'll make some suggestions for you at the end regarding this as from the rest of your comment you may well be a good candidate for these things, but obviously, I am not a doctor, etc. If abrupt changes are dodgy, then consult a good doctor, preferably two, who are familiar with these devices and how they operate first.
"And not inhale a brew that clogs my lungs with something even worse than my Luckies already are providing."
There is no way for an e-cigarette of any kind to be able to deliver the same level of toxins as lit tobacco does, because there is no combustion involved, and it's the combustion that delivers - almost without exception - every piece of harm from smoking.
The Royal College of Physicians report on e-cigarettes. I'd strongly suggest downloading the full report from the link, and reading at least the chapter summaries, then going back and checking anything you think is a bit woofly, chasing citations etc.
It is specifically aimed at people like you who have misconceptions about vapour products, misconceptions, ironically, gleefully doled out by the press and some quarters of public health who go for the 'quit or die' method of smoking harm reduction. The RCP are pissed that people are misinterpreting this stuff, which is why, as one of the most august, respected health bodies on the planet, they analysed all the relevant data on e-cigs, and after that, recommended their use to smokers as a lit tobacco substitute.
Bear in mind the RCP are the ones who blew the whistle on lit tobacco harm in the first place - if anyone was going to shit on e-cigs, it'd be them. The RCP are what made the Surgeon Generals warning happen.
Having questions is a good thing. There's lots of data out there. Just be wary of shitty press reports. Read the literature.
A great example is the report that e-cig vapour causes DNA breaks in cells, in pitri dishes after eight weeks exposure. OK, not exactly human applicable, but worth nothing. This was bandied about the press as 'e-cigs are as bad as smoking'. Thing is, something that the press release for the paper didn't mention, and the news outlets repeating the press release didn't check. Because they also exposed the cells to cigarette smoke. Which killed all the cells in 24 hours every time.
Which actually shows that e-cigarettes are significantly less harmful than lit tobacco in this situation - exactly the opposite of what was reported.
There's a good breakdown of this study here on it's own Pubmed page by Clive Bates - this study was being used by the anti-harm-reduction cabal. Now every time they link to it, there's a nice breakdown showing why they are wrong to link to it.
As for your history with vaping, if you've used a smaller device that utilises the 'mouth to lung' method (suck into mouth, inhale that back afterwards) then as a smoker of unfiltered smokes, you'd want at least 18mg/ml normally, in a liquid that is 50PG/50VG - the PG content and nicotine together give the throat hit you're probably looking for. if you were on greater than that, then you might want to look at direct lung devices, which you simply 'breathe in' without holding it in your mouth beforehand - kinda like carbing/sidestreaming your smoke. So if you found 36mg was getting you there in a mouth to lung device, 18mg would probably give similar satisfaction in a direct lung device.
Typically you use these with liquids that have a higher VG content, so you get less throat hit, but because they develop a *lot* more vapour, more quickly, you can use a lower nicotine level - as more is delivered to your lungs in one hit. It also tends to be smoother on the inhale, too.
But speak to your specialists, and ideally, speak to a specialist who is not anti-ecig. Or give them a copy of the RCP report to consult before your next meeting with them.
I, like you, was skeptical that e-cigs could be 'that good' (IE there must still be some major problem with them, there must be a reason for the medical community to not be behind them, etc) but I didn't smell of fags and my lung capacity came back so I was fairly 'meh' about it. Since that time (four years ago) I've been following the literature and - as you can probably tell from my posts - I'm agog that they haven't been grabbed with both hands and presented to smokers as just a good way to avoid the lit tobacco part, because there is so little evidence of harm, and what evidence there is, compared to lit tobacco, is genuinely very small.
Obviously with your current health....situation, shall we say ;-) then I'd say that being careful would be wise, but as a lot of your conditions can be linked to lit tobacco, I'd strongly suggest not ruling them out of a possible harm reduction/reversal strategy. I will say that they aren't for everyone, but do keep them in the sphere of possibilities.
Also, do watch this - it's a cheeky rip of a UK documentary that was shown last night, showing a bit more abut e-cigs, and their effects. They checked the volunteers health before and after. I think that's more likely to change your viewpoint than any dry public health report ;-)
Best of luck, regardless.
I hate to be that guy - but leaving the EU on June 23rd won't make a jot of difference for at least three years, as we need to negotiate an exit plan, rework transitional regs, replace existing trade laws etc.
And even then, if any vendor wishes to sell to the EU, they still need to comply with the TPD - but at that point, we won't have a place at the table to negoatiate on. So if the EU goes antiscience and jacks up the prices for compliance, vendors and manufacturers are even more humped then they already are.
So I'm afraid Brexit ain't gonna fix this.
Even ardent "leave" proponents accept this in the e-cig world that's why we're pushing to get TPD annuled, regardless of Brexit.
"Vaping is an unproven technology with unknown health impacts."
"I know of people now who are taking in -far- more nicotine than they did as cigarette smokers (Yes, minus all the evil stuff that went along with it) and nicotine can have severe health impacts."
Nicotines health impact, without lit tobacco, is on par with caffiene - it stresses the cardio system a touch, and has some neuro effects. Little else. That's why nicotine patches are not sold with any particular warnings with regards to overdose or continued use.
"I also, don't want to be in a room with people vaping because again, it's an unknown technology with unknown health effects."
See the above link to the RCP report. No-one has found anything of particular concern in second hand vape, other than, you know, barely detectable levels of anything, and certainly not anything that is a danger to human health.
"So yes, it needs to be regulated. Do you know what's going on in the factory that makes the chemicals you're taking directly into your body? The majority of which are produced in Asia probably under less than ideal conditions?"
Yes, it does need to be regulated, but not like this. And no, most liquids are not made in Asia. 90% of what you'll see on the shelves of UK vape shops is either UK or US made, using USP ingredients. This regulation will likely create a black market for 'out of spec' products like 100ml bottles of liquid containing nicotine, which will increase the risk of harm as they are not made in ISO certified clean facilities, but are instead mixed at home or in the back of shops. Do you see how bad regulation works now?
"I also wonder, really do wonder, at what point people who vape will realise they are -no- different from someone sticking a needle into their vein and injecting heroin. Ignore the stereotype images and look at it objectively.
Drug users. One just happens to be legal, and one doesn't."
That's nothing less than abject fuckwittery and villification of harm reduction at it's finest, and shows how little you know about the matter at hand. I bet you reckoned that needle exchanges were a mistake because the junkies deserved to get HIV, right?
The idiots are out in force today, for sure.