New york to amend health bill, trying to ban the sale of electronic cigarettes!!!

I honestly think this has a lot to do with non smokers and their desire to control what people can and can't do.

I completely understand not being allowed to smoke in an eatery and in a plane and so forth, but the ban went way too far when they decided you can't smoke outdoors. That's just moronic.

I really think that non smokers hate the idea of the E Cig. They think it's nothing more that a way for a smoker to beat the system and they don't want their victory taken away. It's childish psychology. Bloomberg has a personal beef with cigarettes. He think they're icky

He can serve for extra terms as mayor but I cant have a dam Salem in my seat @ CitiField?? Blow me, Mike!

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver


LightSpreedDriver:

I would also like to ask you why you didn't quote the third paragraph of the Wiki reference you quoted:


Long term (chronic) effects

In addition to the acute effects, radiation exposure (both internal and external) carries a long-term risk of death from cancer of 5–10% per Sv.[36] The general population is exposed to small amounts of polonium as a radon daughter in indoor air; the isotopes 214Po and 218Po are thought to cause the majority[41] of the estimated 15,000-22,000 lung cancer deaths in the US every year that have been attributed to indoor radon.[42] Tobacco smoking causes additional exposure to polonium.[43]


So the general population is exposed to Polonium 210 and Lead 210 through radon gas in their houses? And they are exposed to far more than the radiative substances known to be in tobacco? Doesn't this just nicely confirm what I previously said? That people are exposed more to Polonium 210 in the environment than they are exposed to when they smoke????

Now tell the truth - are you one of the thousands of "volunteers' that work for anti-smoking and public health bodies to "talk" about smoking on websites and try to influence public opinion. Why would you quote the first paragraph and not the 2nd and 3rd paragraph of the Wiki reference which completely validates that the radioactive substances in tobacco are too low to cause lung cancer?

Tired of Control Freaks

The West Side Highway and the Midtown tunnel have more toxins and carcinogens going airborn than all the Marlboros in NY combined.

The propaganda amazes me sometimes.

Every e cig I buy is a waste of money I'm a big draw so the battery does not last long I have to keep putting the drops in it consistently, one may last a month before I have to buy another battery, e cigs for me do not work.

reply to post by josephamccoy


this is probably because of that one story where that guy tried to recharge the batteries in his electronic cigarette, (the batteries are NOT supposed to be recharged, i repeat THEY ARE NOT RECHARGEABLE)

and it went BOOM, and he lost his face or something.





horrible story...

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

I always tell the truth, it's a core value of mine. I am also a smoker for almost 30 years. Yup.

Smoking an average of 1.5 packs per day gives a radiation dose of 60-160 mSv/year,[155][156] compared with living near a nuclear power station (0.0001 mSv/year)[157][158] or the 3.0 mSv/year average dose for Americans.[158][159] Some of the mineral apatite in Florida used to produce phosphate for U.S.A. tobacco crops contains uranium, radium, lead 210 and polonium 210 and radon.[160][161] The radioactive smoke from tobacco fertilized this way is deposited in lungs and releases radiation even if a smoker quits the habit. The combination of carcinogenic tar and radiation in a sensitive organ such as lungs increases the risk of cancer. If the smoker also breathes in the asbestos fibers which commonly occur in urban and industrial environments, the risk of cancer is greatly increased.

Source.

I would never work for any company in a job that was to sway public opinion. Correction: Unless it was a Monsanto awareness company seeking to shed light on that evil monster.


ETA2 And after having checked your profile, I can assure you I am a Cancer Research hater too.

reply to post by mytheroy

dude you need to ditch the batteries that look like cigarettes and move to a dual coil tank system (haven't filled mine up in like 5 days!). the cheap disposable one's are rubbish. i'd suggest you get an ego c, if you are going to vape all day a direct dripping atomiser is not what is needed,

reply to post by SoymilkAlaska


the batteries can be recharged this guys pv blew up because it was one he had made himself, the li-ion batteries he was using began leaking gas, his pv had no vent hole and the resulting build up of gas pressure blew it up (i'd just like to say every pv that is manufactured has a venthole but some like the ego c are the battery, dosen't house a battery so no vent hole needed). let me put it this way, if a guy kills himself after moddifying an engine in his car we don't ban the engine. or the sale of engines, and that what this bill is opposing, and that guy blowing his face off is there reason. it reeks it has happened once, only once and this is the reason they give, the world is so corrupt.

reply to post by josephamccoy


They are wanting to ban e-cigs because Big Tobacco is losing money and God forbid people live longer by refusing to poison themselves anymore. The illuminati have to get the world's population down to a manageable 500 million wealthy people and their attending slaves.

It's all about money and those damned lobbyists paying out those bribes...er i mean "gifts" if politicians will "think" about voting their way . Gotta keep bringing in that blood money, they must worship Dollar Almighty and sacrifice humans to it or they will not remain prosperous (anyone seeing the subtle hints pointing at Molech yet?).

reply to post by josephamccoy

Wowzer! That sounds pretty nasty and eerily similar to people who replaced (non-approved) batteries in mobile phones or ipods or something similar, only to find they later spontaneously combusted in their pockets without warning.

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver


LightSpeedDriver

Then please use your head to consider what you are quoting:

"Smoking an average of 1.5 packs per day gives a radiation dose of 60-160 mSv/year,[155][156] compared with living near a nuclear power station (0.0001 mSv/year)[157][158] or the 3.0 mSv/year average dose for Americans.[158][159] "

First of all - 60 -160 mSv/year. This is what a smoker is exposed to. Now consider that exposure is NOT dosage. When you inhale particulate, the mucous layer in your lungs traps it and you cough it out. So reduce it from that. Then consider half-life. Wiki quotes a half-life of about 50 days ( I believe its really 138 days). Which means what material is in your lungs is reduced by half every 50 days.

Then consider that Wiki is about the most unreliable source to quote in the world because everyone can just post what they want Wiki to say.

Then consider that not all smoker, even heavy smokers get cancer. If the radiation in cigarette smoke were at dangerous concentrations then ALL smokers would get cancer.

Then explain to me how comparing exposure to naturally occurring radiation that is in the air we all breathe, in the dust we are all exposed to, in the food we all eat to living near a nuclear power plant makes any sense what so ever????

I don't know Brother - must it looks to me like your rock-solid proof has fallen apart.

Here is a reference showing Polonium in food

www.acsa.net...

Here is a reference showing Polonium in air and dust. Matter of fact, Polonium evaporates into the air quite rapidly

www.iaea.org...


Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by josephamccoy


My issue with these AND regular cigarettes is the sugar content. YES that's right. Did you know that nicotine isn't really that addictive. And many are saying it's actually the sugar that the tobacco is soaked in to make it taste better. Sugar is cancer's FAVORITE food and EVERY vape user and cigarette smoker are depositing cancer food into their lungs. Not only that it is also known to cause teeth damage. My niece recently started and had BEAUTIFUL teeth. Now she has staining in the front. They say it is from vaping. People are getting cavities from it who've never had dental problems before vaping.

Why invite problems you're trying to get rid of? It's the SUGAR that is so addictive and THAT is why it's so easy for you to switch to vaping, since there is probably MORE sugar in the vape cartridge contents. Sugar IS more powerful than even coc aine and does NOTHING positive for your body ingested in this fashion. It is ONLY going to give you cancer and rot your teeth, YUK.

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

Sigh....

Research by NCAR radiochemist Ed Martell determined that radioactive compounds in cigarette smoke are deposited in "hot spots" where bronchial tubes branch. Since tar from cigarette smoke is resistant to dissolving in lung fluid, the radioactive compounds have a great deal of time to undergo radioactive decay before being cleared by natural processes. Indoors, these radioactive compounds linger in secondhand smoke, and therefore greater exposure occurs when these radioactive compounds are inhaled during normal breathing, which is deeper and longer than when inhaling cigarettes. Damage to the protective epithelial tissue from smoking only increases the prolonged retention of insoluble polonium 210 compounds produced from burning tobacco. Martell estimated that a carcinogenic radiation dose of 80–100 rads is delivered to the lung tissue of most smokers who die of lung cancer.[

From the same source as my last post.

Originally posted by josephamccoy
reply to post by detachedindividual

 

they have been around for over 8 years and the first users are still going strong, as far as i can tell all the negativity has been brought about by the companies that sell the NRT's and they contain nicotine just like e cigs. the other ingredients are propylene glycol and food flavourings. there is also vegetable based glycol.

about the fluid

But can you tell me the effects of INHALING flavorings etc? Flavorings are designed to be ingested, at a low rate over a period of time, not repeatedly inhaled as you would with a cigarette.

Flavorings, sweeteners, stabilizers and so on have been approved for use in the way they were intended, for ingestion. This does not take into account their inhalation.

A sleeping pill might be approved for public use. But that is on the assumption that it is going to be ingested and not crushed up and snorted, or inserted rectally. If you then use a product in a way that was not intended it is down to you.

That is what these companies are doing with these products. They are selling things that are untested, and that were actually not intended for use in the way they are now being used.

Incidentally, it was once legal to use coc aine, heroine and other class a drugs. They were sold over the counter to whoever wanted them.

Uranium was used to sell everything from watches to soap. People ingested it over and over again for years before the link was made and the dangers discovered.

People seem to always think that we are more clever now than we ever have been, and while that is true to an extent, it is only true in the frame of the time. While we can look back now and think it was obvious that those things were harmful, who's to say that in fifty years we won't be looking back and saying the same thing about every aerosol product ever sold?

Originally posted by detachedindividual
reply to post by detachedindividual

 

Uranium was used to sell everything from watches to soap. People ingested it over and over again for years before the link was made and the dangers discovered.

People seem to always think that we are more clever now than we ever have been, and while that is true to an extent, it is only true in the frame of the time. While we can look back now and think it was obvious that those things were harmful, who's to say that in fifty years we won't be looking back and saying the same thing about every aerosol product ever sold?

Thank you for bringing a little reason to the rhyme. There is nothing inherently "wrong" with smoking tobacco, obviously it has health risks but those should not include additional material designed to make the enjoyers of The Demon Weed (Tobacco) suffer major and life threatening health problems.

In a bid to avoid commercially tainted tobacco I now smoke Natural American Spirit tobacco. An additive free tobacco, 100% tobacco and nothing else. Unlike commercial tobacco it is not easy to smoke, there is no mint, valerian, cocoa or sugar to make the smoke more acceptable or tolerable to the human lung but it is "honest" tobacco.

reply to post by josephamccoy

Probably the same reason they banned it here in Norway. They don't get taxes from it like they do with tobacco, which is the ONLY thing they care about. They don't care about our well being and they just use health reason as justification so they can get more taxes.

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver


Don't waste your time, one thing i've learned about humans is they will argue till they are blue in the face if it's something they do. It's called denial and I say just let them do it, but I resent having to support that with tax dollars.

As for the e-cig thing, well I don't agree with it.

Geesh, cigarettes up there cost about $10 a pack, $100 per carton and I bet the electronic cigarette costs about $500.

My dad a smoker for 40years+ had tried many times to give up, he never could, even after having a stroke he couldn't manage more than a day without a smoke.
He bought an E-cig, he transitioned to it quickly, and then managed to use it to give up over the next 6months.
The revenues companies and the government stand to lose has got to be the motivating factor behind big business and government sinking their grubby paws into it.
Can't stand to see a penny lost, either of them.

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver



Lightspeedreader

And does your "source" also consider that since Polonium is in the air and dust, that it also "settles" in hot spots in the bronchi?????

Instead of just quoting an unreliable source - why don't you use your common sense to think just a little bit about what they are saying and whether or not it is a reasonable thing to be saying?

Billions and billions of dollars have been spent trying to prove that smoking CAUSES lung cancer. This has been going on for the last 50 years. Here is a fact - the countries with the highest rates of smoking have the lowest rates of lung cancer (Japan, Greece) There might be a clue in there somewhere

Tired of Control Freaks