It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Study: Some E-Cigs Put Out Tobacco-Like Levels of Carcinogens

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2014 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Mianeye

Inhaling oxygen is not healthy, for the record.

Now, dont get me wrong, Im not claiming any of it is good for you. I am saying that the only reason any of this is being pushed to the public is because the big corporations out there arent making money off of them.

If they were on the inside, these 'studies' would not be out there.




posted on May, 9 2014 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Meee32

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
The formation of chemicals is based on two factors: The juice used and the temp at which it is burned.

Unless you go out of your way to buy some cheap, nasty juice and burn it at a high temp, Im guessing youll be fine.

Anything, when burned at a high enough temp, will cause chemical reactions.


Yeah sure maybe, I think we need a study on that too, it is great info for us to have... I'll enjoy my ecig even more knowing that I've cut down from dozens of carcinogens to just one! And if I vape as I do it will be at very low levels if at all. Happy days.
Who exactly are you referencing here? All I see are people discussing the article.


Have you quoted the wrong quote there? Did you mean to quote another? I'm a bit lost... But man serious I'm tired and drained. Barely slept for 2 days lol...



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: jacobe001

No problem jacob, you're welcome.


Thanks for making your awesome contribution to the thread... Some scary ass stuff in that list... Glad to see the back of them.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Meee32

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Meee32

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
The formation of chemicals is based on two factors: The juice used and the temp at which it is burned.

Unless you go out of your way to buy some cheap, nasty juice and burn it at a high temp, Im guessing youll be fine.

Anything, when burned at a high enough temp, will cause chemical reactions.


Yeah sure maybe, I think we need a study on that too, it is great info for us to have... I'll enjoy my ecig even more knowing that I've cut down from dozens of carcinogens to just one! And if I vape as I do it will be at very low levels if at all. Happy days.
Who exactly are you referencing here? All I see are people discussing the article.


Have you quoted the wrong quote there? Did you mean to quote another? I'm a bit lost... But man serious I'm tired and drained. Barely slept for 2 days lol...
No worries I was just a little confused. its of no consequence, so it really doesnt matter



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: captaintyinknots

I hear you, no worries


I'm just saying that the studies should be performed and we will just have to wait and see what they come up with, even if it should be bad news.

If they in any way ban vapors they should also ban tobaco, if not there is clearly foul play from the tobaco companies.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: captaintyinknots

I hear you, no worries


I'm just saying that the studies should be performed and we will just have to wait and see what they come up with, even if it should be bad news.

If they in any way ban vapors they should also ban tobaco, if not there is clearly foul play from the tobaco companies.
They wont ban vapes, what they will do is tax the crap out of it, making it so that only bigger companies can afford to produce the juice.

Bank on it.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: captaintyinknots

Could be, in the end it is only money that counts for them.


edit on 9-5-2014 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Meee32

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Meee32

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
The formation of chemicals is based on two factors: The juice used and the temp at which it is burned.

Unless you go out of your way to buy some cheap, nasty juice and burn it at a high temp, Im guessing youll be fine.

Anything, when burned at a high enough temp, will cause chemical reactions.


Yeah sure maybe, I think we need a study on that too, it is great info for us to have... I'll enjoy my ecig even more knowing that I've cut down from dozens of carcinogens to just one! And if I vape as I do it will be at very low levels if at all. Happy days.
Who exactly are you referencing here? All I see are people discussing the article.


Have you quoted the wrong quote there? Did you mean to quote another? I'm a bit lost... But man serious I'm tired and drained. Barely slept for 2 days lol...
No worries I was just a little confused. its of no consequence, so it really doesnt matter


Okay cool cool, all is well


And on another point about taxing vaporisers... Again possible, only you can make your own if you like, I have all the kit to do just that. Really easy to do and fun too.
Maybe stock up on that incase they ban it lol... I do get you and most studies/articles I would agree with you. But I just found this to be positive and fairy unbiased, baring the use of the plural in the headline. But hey it is a new agency I wouldn't expect anything less from them.

EDIT: Sorry I should clarify, I mean make your own ejuice... Yeah they could tax the e-cig itself but theyre mostly the one off purchase anyway.
edit on 9-5-2014 by Meee32 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Meee32

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Meee32

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Meee32

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
The formation of chemicals is based on two factors: The juice used and the temp at which it is burned.

Unless you go out of your way to buy some cheap, nasty juice and burn it at a high temp, Im guessing youll be fine.

Anything, when burned at a high enough temp, will cause chemical reactions.


Yeah sure maybe, I think we need a study on that too, it is great info for us to have... I'll enjoy my ecig even more knowing that I've cut down from dozens of carcinogens to just one! And if I vape as I do it will be at very low levels if at all. Happy days.
Who exactly are you referencing here? All I see are people discussing the article.


Have you quoted the wrong quote there? Did you mean to quote another? I'm a bit lost... But man serious I'm tired and drained. Barely slept for 2 days lol...
No worries I was just a little confused. its of no consequence, so it really doesnt matter


Okay cool cool, all is well


And on another point about taxing vaporisers... Again possible, only you can make your own if you like, I have all the kit to do just that. Really easy to do and fun too.
Maybe stock up on that incase they ban it lol... I do get you and most studies/articles I would agree with you. But I just found this to be positive and fairy unbiased, baring the use of the plural in the headline. But hey it is a new agency I wouldn't expect anything less from them.
Thats the point though. Once a tax is applied, the 'do it yourself' person will be out of luck, as well as most of the boutique juice makers. It will simply make it too expensive.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Meee32

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Meee32

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Meee32

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
The formation of chemicals is based on two factors: The juice used and the temp at which it is burned.

Unless you go out of your way to buy some cheap, nasty juice and burn it at a high temp, Im guessing youll be fine.

Anything, when burned at a high enough temp, will cause chemical reactions.


Yeah sure maybe, I think we need a study on that too, it is great info for us to have... I'll enjoy my ecig even more knowing that I've cut down from dozens of carcinogens to just one! And if I vape as I do it will be at very low levels if at all. Happy days.
Who exactly are you referencing here? All I see are people discussing the article.


Have you quoted the wrong quote there? Did you mean to quote another? I'm a bit lost... But man serious I'm tired and drained. Barely slept for 2 days lol...
No worries I was just a little confused. its of no consequence, so it really doesnt matter


Okay cool cool, all is well


And on another point about taxing vaporisers... Again possible, only you can make your own if you like, I have all the kit to do just that. Really easy to do and fun too.
Maybe stock up on that incase they ban it lol... I do get you and most studies/articles I would agree with you. But I just found this to be positive and fairy unbiased, baring the use of the plural in the headline. But hey it is a new agency I wouldn't expect anything less from them.
Thats the point though. Once a tax is applied, the 'do it yourself' person will be out of luck, as well as most of the boutique juice makers. It will simply make it too expensive.



Hmmm but aren't the ingredients used for other purposes? I'm not so sure they can tax the individual ingredients but I can defo see them taxing the crap out of the completed ejuice.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Take this to heart: Its 1 ONE study. without separate scientists backing what they say, I am going to go out on a limb and call hogwash. Formaldehyde in formaldehyde out - in other words I don't think there is any unknown chemical reactions occurring that we didn't already know about. "oh yea its got formaldehyde" chya don't you think we would've discovered this in another study by NOW? be critical and deny ignorance and big tobacco. I vape, and I don't believe this for ONE second.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Meee32

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Meee32

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Meee32

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Meee32

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
The formation of chemicals is based on two factors: The juice used and the temp at which it is burned.

Unless you go out of your way to buy some cheap, nasty juice and burn it at a high temp, Im guessing youll be fine.

Anything, when burned at a high enough temp, will cause chemical reactions.


Yeah sure maybe, I think we need a study on that too, it is great info for us to have... I'll enjoy my ecig even more knowing that I've cut down from dozens of carcinogens to just one! And if I vape as I do it will be at very low levels if at all. Happy days.
Who exactly are you referencing here? All I see are people discussing the article.


Have you quoted the wrong quote there? Did you mean to quote another? I'm a bit lost... But man serious I'm tired and drained. Barely slept for 2 days lol...
No worries I was just a little confused. its of no consequence, so it really doesnt matter


Okay cool cool, all is well


And on another point about taxing vaporisers... Again possible, only you can make your own if you like, I have all the kit to do just that. Really easy to do and fun too.
Maybe stock up on that incase they ban it lol... I do get you and most studies/articles I would agree with you. But I just found this to be positive and fairy unbiased, baring the use of the plural in the headline. But hey it is a new agency I wouldn't expect anything less from them.
Thats the point though. Once a tax is applied, the 'do it yourself' person will be out of luck, as well as most of the boutique juice makers. It will simply make it too expensive.



Hmmm but aren't the ingredients used for other purposes? I'm not so sure they can tax the individual ingredients but I can defo see them taxing the crap out of the completed ejuice.
Take a look at what has happened to the price of rolling tobacco since it began to be taxed.

The individual ingredients would get a little tricky to tax, but the nicotine certainly could be, and, if my suspicion is correct, you will see the glycol and the such become very tough to find in anything but industrial size containers.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: nrd101
Take this to heart: Its 1 ONE study. without separate scientists backing what they say, I am going to go out on a limb and call hogwash. Formaldehyde in formaldehyde out - in other words I don't think there is any unknown chemical reactions occurring that we didn't already know about. "oh yea its got formaldehyde" chya don't you think we would've discovered this in another study by NOW? be critical and deny ignorance and big tobacco. I vape, and I don't believe this for ONE second.


Well read my initial op, I am a vaper too. It's possible, I guess we'll have to wait on the studies to be released (there were 2 by the looks of it and they confirm each other). I'm no chemist and have no idea how formaldahyde is created in this instance or in any for that matter... I think the newspaper must have had early access to these studies but yeah sure we could wait for the studies release etc... I just think if they were gonna lie they would have made it worse than this...

It clearly says in the article that ecigs are the better choice over cigs... Why would they say that?

The article seems very reasonable to me. I vape at 3.2 anyway so I'm all good.
And my cartomizer is designed to keep the wick and coil as soaked as possible.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Meee32

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Meee32

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Meee32

originally posted by: captaintyinknots

originally posted by: Meee32

originally posted by: captaintyinknots
The formation of chemicals is based on two factors: The juice used and the temp at which it is burned.

Unless you go out of your way to buy some cheap, nasty juice and burn it at a high temp, Im guessing youll be fine.

Anything, when burned at a high enough temp, will cause chemical reactions.


Yeah sure maybe, I think we need a study on that too, it is great info for us to have... I'll enjoy my ecig even more knowing that I've cut down from dozens of carcinogens to just one! And if I vape as I do it will be at very low levels if at all. Happy days.
Who exactly are you referencing here? All I see are people discussing the article.


Have you quoted the wrong quote there? Did you mean to quote another? I'm a bit lost... But man serious I'm tired and drained. Barely slept for 2 days lol...
No worries I was just a little confused. its of no consequence, so it really doesnt matter


Okay cool cool, all is well


And on another point about taxing vaporisers... Again possible, only you can make your own if you like, I have all the kit to do just that. Really easy to do and fun too.
Maybe stock up on that incase they ban it lol... I do get you and most studies/articles I would agree with you. But I just found this to be positive and fairy unbiased, baring the use of the plural in the headline. But hey it is a new agency I wouldn't expect anything less from them.
Thats the point though. Once a tax is applied, the 'do it yourself' person will be out of luck, as well as most of the boutique juice makers. It will simply make it too expensive.



Hmmm but aren't the ingredients used for other purposes? I'm not so sure they can tax the individual ingredients but I can defo see them taxing the crap out of the completed ejuice.
Take a look at what has happened to the price of rolling tobacco since it began to be taxed.

The individual ingredients would get a little tricky to tax, but the nicotine certainly could be, and, if my suspicion is correct, you will see the glycol and the such become very tough to find in anything but industrial size containers.


Well sure of course but again it is an end product and very easy to tax... Did you know you can buy tobacco plant seeds of ebay for pennies? And it is legal to grow in most places, it can be grown even in the UK. Actually the plants/flowers are quite beautiful. Have you ever seen them? I'm on my phone or I'd grab you links. There are even tobbaco growing forums/communities much like the vape community. They claim it is healthier as no chemicals are added etc. So yeah you could do that and save big bucks.


I did think they could tax the nicotene, perhaps they already do? That stuff is hella expensive...



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   
www.google.co.uk... 0CDYQ1QIoAQ&dpr=2&biw=640&bih=335

Check it out, I looked into growing some before I found e-cigs and it would have been the next best thing. But before that I have never thought about their flowers. Or even what the plant looked like lol... But yeah really nice looking plant, I may still stick some in the garden for decoration. Lol



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 10:01 PM
link   
The Formaldehyde probably comes from the carrier, propylene glycol. I doubt if it actually comes from the nicotine. There are a couple of carriers that they use. So this Formaldehyde issue may not be with all the different mixes. Propylene glycol is sometimes put in regular cigs. too

An E-cig is much more potent than a cigarette I have heard, but you only only take a few tokes at a time to get the nootropic effect.

If you want to know what B-carbolines are, just google it. They are in many things in varied amounts. High concentrations are in some mushrooms. Tobacco has a moderate dose, nothing that is going to get you high, but it does add to the dependency issue.



posted on May, 9 2014 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Mianeye

And those supposed carcinogens, are in what ratio compaired to analog cigarettes?

Totally out of conrol Nazism.

I quit smoking 2 to 3 packs, per day, thanks to e-cig. That is the real reason there is now a push to ban them. That is a lot of tax dollars not being "collected", which impacts state "revenue". I am sure Phillip Morris is not spending gobs of money to ban them too, as ecigs compete directly with the bottom line as well.

Nope, the only reason of course, is for the children.



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 02:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
The Formaldehyde probably comes from the carrier, propylene glycol. I doubt if it actually comes from the nicotine. There are a couple of carriers that they use. So this Formaldehyde issue may not be with all the different mixes. Propylene glycol is sometimes put in regular cigs. too

An E-cig is much more potent than a cigarette I have heard, but you only only take a few tokes at a time to get the nootropic effect.

If you want to know what B-carbolines are, just google it. They are in many things in varied amounts. High concentrations are in some mushrooms. Tobacco has a moderate dose, nothing that is going to get you high, but it does add to the dependency issue.


Well then I guess we could cut out the glycol then? But yeah more experiments are needed I think... Just to fine tune an already awesome product. This is how I see this study, it will help improve e-cigs even more! Which has to be a good thing.

To me e-cigs are a life saver, I also think I could most likely use the nicotene free juice and still be fine, just because it is so like smoking that my mind would be tricked.



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 02:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Not Authorized
a reply to: Mianeye

And those supposed carcinogens, are in what ratio compaired to analog cigarettes?

Totally out of conrol Nazism.

I quit smoking 2 to 3 packs, per day, thanks to e-cig. That is the real reason there is now a push to ban them. That is a lot of tax dollars not being "collected", which impacts state "revenue". I am sure Phillip Morris is not spending gobs of money to ban them too, as ecigs compete directly with the bottom line as well.

Nope, the only reason of course, is for the children.


I know there is a push to ban them but I think it is a little too reactionary to lump all science in with that. This article is great and just informs us that vaping a certain way releases formaldehyde, so now we CAN avoid even formaldehyde if you keep the e-cigs voltage low. It could also pave the way for even better, even safer e-cigs, which is awesome no?




edit on 10-5-2014 by Meee32 because: (no reason given)


I mean in the article he states that e-cig vs normal cig, he'd take the e-cigs... As even with the formaldehyde it's still much bettet because normal cigs have DOZENS of carcinogens... They say that in the article, if they're working for tobacco corps then why say ghat? Lol Just doesn't add up...

I for 1 welcomr this research, so what even if e-cigs released half the carcinogens of normal fags, they would still be twice as safe. As it happens though there is only 1 carcinogen, so this proves e-cigs are infinitely safer than normal cigs... They do state skoking nothing at all is the safest option... Which is fair enough in my opinion.
edit on 10-5-2014 by Meee32 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 03:41 AM
link   
Now that I am a bit more with it after my sleep I clicked through to the original article here www.nytimes.com...

In it you can see that 1 of these studies is actually performed by a e-cig manufacturer, so I guess they want e-cigs banned so they put themselves out of business? I think it says volumes about the e-cig business vs the tobacco business... Tobacco companies HID the data about how bad their ciggys were, they didn't come and tell us! Is that what you would want for e-cigs? But no, the manufacturers did a study and submitted it's findings to a peer reviewed journal. It's so awesome and really gives me hope that we can get a practically zero carcinogen experience from our beloved e-cigs.


To be honest I am a little surprised by some e-cig users reaction to this, though I can understand why you're on the defensive.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join