Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Do You Smoke?

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2013 4:22:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why do you smoke? Does the benefit of smoking cigarettes outweigh the health costs [http://www.cancer.gov...]?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2013 4:31:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I smoke but went the first three days which are supposedly the hardest with ease, so...

I'll give them up completely someday.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 11:22:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 11:17:41 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:
I use a vaporizer. It's harmless provided your nicotine dosage is low enough.

That has yet to be truly established, though, considering the lack of data, and considering the poor quality controls.

That said, so do I, and it's awesome.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 4:03:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/30/2013 11:22:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/30/2013 11:17:41 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:
I use a vaporizer. It's harmless provided your nicotine dosage is low enough.


That has yet to be truly established, though, considering the lack of data, and considering the poor quality controls.

That said, so do I, and it's awesome.

Poor quality control isn't universal among e cigarettes and it is an issue for everything that's consumed.

These devices simply are not cancer causing. The carcinogens in these are equal to nicotine gum which was approved by the fda for long term use.

The only reasonable threat of harm from e cigarettes is by way of heart disease from toxic levels of nicotine. Keeping the dose low should avoid this threat.

The other threats are not reasonably founded. Such as, saying they could be harmful because people haven't used them for an entire lifetime so we don't know. Or that flavorings haven't been tested for inhaling. They may be a valid concern but there's no causal relationship which indicates a reason for harm. Not like the threat of heart disease anyway.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 11:41:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/1/2013 4:03:27 AM, llamainmypocket wrote:
At 9/30/2013 11:22:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/30/2013 11:17:41 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:
I use a vaporizer. It's harmless provided your nicotine dosage is low enough.


That has yet to be truly established, though, considering the lack of data, and considering the poor quality controls.

That said, so do I, and it's awesome.

Poor quality control isn't universal among e cigarettes and it is an issue for everything that's consumed.

Except that due to the regulatory loophole that ecigs currently occupy, it is more an issue for them, as they are less regulated than similar products. You have no real way to determine whether you're getting unless you have a mass spectrometer.

These devices simply are not cancer causing. The carcinogens in these are equal to nicotine gum which was approved by the fda for long term use.

Oh? You have a study for that? You have a study on long-term use of frequent inhalation of propylene glycol? It's a food additive and is generally recognized as safe but, well, as a friend of mine likes to say "give a rat enough of anything and he'll get cancer"; we haven't been sucking it directly into our lungs like we do with e-cigs, and it could plausibly have effects. There are metals that get aerosoled--not sure if that's a quality control or type issue--what effects do those have?

The only reasonable threat of harm from e cigarettes is by way of heart disease from toxic levels of nicotine. Keeping the dose low should avoid this threat.

Again, you do not know that. What you mean to say is that the only demonstrated threat you know of. A subtle but important distinction.

The other threats are not reasonably founded. Such as, saying they could be harmful because people haven't used them for an entire lifetime so we don't know. Or that flavorings haven't been tested for inhaling. They may be a valid concern but there's no causal relationship which indicates a reason for harm. Not like the threat of heart disease anyway.

That is correct! Which is why I said there was a lack of data. Which DOESN'T mean, therefore they're perfectly safe. It means they're an unknown.

I use a vaporizer. I love it. Nonetheless, I recognize that we are not certain they are safe, nor are we certain that "these devices simply are not cancer causing". When you make comments like that, you betray a very fundamental ignorance. I understand that a lot of people have a knee-jerk anti-vaping reaction, and that's what you're used to--that's not what I'm doing, so if you could stop your own knee from jerking, that would be great.

If you think they have been established as safe, or that they are definitely safe, you are simply wrong. We don't have a lot of data, and we haven't done a lot of studies. The studies we have done are often questionable. This just means we don't KNOW how safe they are comaparatively. Do they reduce risk of cancer, but increase risk of pneumonia? Lung infections? COPD/Chronic Bronchitis? We just don't know. That doesn't mean I hate them--to reiterate, I use one--but it does mean that making broad and sweeping claims that outpace the actual evidence is wrong to do.

They appear to be generally safer than cigarettes.
And frankly, regardless of the safety factor, I know I prefer mine over regular cigarettes. Certainly there are some non-health benefits: you can smoke indoors without people realizing and without getting that "people smoke in here" smell baked into the walls. You aren't dealing with a thing that's burning, which means it's not as bad if you fall asleep while using it.

http://www.plosone.org...

http://news.yahoo.com...

http://news.bbc.co.uk...
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 2:01:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/1/2013 11:41:41 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/1/2013 4:03:27 AM, llamainmypocket wrote:
At 9/30/2013 11:22:48 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/30/2013 11:17:41 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:
I use a vaporizer. It's harmless provided your nicotine dosage is low enough.


That has yet to be truly established, though, considering the lack of data, and considering the poor quality controls.

That said, so do I, and it's awesome.

Poor quality control isn't universal among e cigarettes and it is an issue for everything that's consumed.

Except that due to the regulatory loophole that ecigs currently occupy, it is more an issue for them, as they are less regulated than similar products. You have no real way to determine whether you're getting unless you have a mass spectrometer.

That fear is largely overblown. The brands of e cigarettes sold in US stores have quality standards. Blu Cigs and V2 are owned by big tobacco corporations. It is possible to buy crap but crap isn't nearly as accessible.

These devices simply are not cancer causing. The carcinogens in these are equal to nicotine gum which was approved by the fda for long term use.

Oh? You have a study for that? You have a study on long-term use of frequent inhalation of propylene glycol? It's a food additive and is generally recognized as safe but, well, as a friend of mine likes to say "give a rat enough of anything and he'll get cancer"; we haven't been sucking it directly into our lungs like we do with e-cigs, and it could plausibly have effects. There are metals that get aerosoled--not sure if that's a quality control or type issue--what effects do those have?

There are numerous studies of PG and VG that span over many decades that invalidate any fear for harm. Hospitals pump PG through their ventilation systems to disinfect the air on a daily basis. You can find fifty year old studies that prove that PG will actually decontaminate a chamber of viruses on contact.

The only reasonable threat of harm from e cigarettes is by way of heart disease from toxic levels of nicotine. Keeping the dose low should avoid this threat.

Again, you do not know that. What you mean to say is that the only demonstrated threat you know of. A subtle but important distinction.

I do know this because it's been well documented that nicotine isn't toxic in small doses.

The other threats are not reasonably founded. Such as, saying they could be harmful because people haven't used them for an entire lifetime so we don't know. Or that flavorings haven't been tested for inhaling. They may be a valid concern but there's no causal relationship which indicates a reason for harm. Not like the threat of heart disease anyway.

That is correct! Which is why I said there was a lack of data. Which DOESN'T mean, therefore they're perfectly safe. It means they're an unknown.

Embracing a fear for harm while lacking reason is paranoid. If your going to tell me they're unsafe then I need to see that it's founded in reason. Otherwise I'll say you're being unreasonable. Is that fair?

I use a vaporizer. I love it. Nonetheless, I recognize that we are not certain they are safe, nor are we certain that "these devices simply are not cancer causing". When you make comments like that, you betray a very fundamental ignorance. I understand that a lot of people have a knee-jerk anti-vaping reaction, and that's what you're used to--that's not what I'm doing, so if you could stop your own knee from jerking, that would be great.

If you think they have been established as safe, or that they are definitely safe, you are simply wrong. We don't have a lot of data, and we haven't done a lot of studies. The studies we have done are often questionable. This just means we don't KNOW how safe they are comaparatively. Do they reduce risk of cancer, but increase risk of pneumonia? Lung infections? COPD/Chronic Bronchitis? We just don't know. That doesn't mean I hate them--to reiterate, I use one--but it does mean that making broad and sweeping claims that outpace the actual evidence is wrong to do.

You can't get pneumonia from e cigarettes because pneumonia is bacterial and PG kills bacteria. The treatment for pneumonia often involves inhaling PG.

They appear to be generally safer than cigarettes.
And frankly, regardless of the safety factor, I know I prefer mine over regular cigarettes. Certainly there are some non-health benefits: you can smoke indoors without people realizing and without getting that "people smoke in here" smell baked into the walls. You aren't dealing with a thing that's burning, which means it's not as bad if you fall asleep while using it.






http://www.plosone.org...

http://news.yahoo.com...

http://news.bbc.co.uk...

It really is very simple. PG and VG are simple not harmful in any dose. 50+ years of studies and use have proven this. Nicotine is not carcinogenic and is regarded as safe in low doses. The only ambiguity comes from your device and the flavors used. The big american owned brands of e cigarettes are devices made under strict quality controls. Many flavors can be proven safe but others can't.

It you want to argue this with me then you're going to lose unless I willingly concede a point. I've done a lot of research on this subject for fear of my own health.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 3:02:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Like Cody, I will smoke in social situations but would never take it up as a habit.

Smoking speeds my mind up a little and I can sometimes have better conversations that way. However, I've never been able to understand how a person could get themselves addicted to tobacco considering that the negative consequences of smoking are so widely understood (presumably).
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 6:39:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/1/2013 2:01:25 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:
That fear is largely overblown. The brands of e cigarettes sold in US stores have quality standards. Blu Cigs and V2 are owned by big tobacco corporations. It is possible to buy crap but crap isn't nearly as accessible.

And yet Blu Cigs (owned by Lorillard, makers of Newports and others) doesn't make their own juice, do they? It's made by Johnson Creek, and so therefore it's rather disingenuous to make such claims, llama.

Also, it's not as though the big tobacco corporations have a good track record regarding care for people's health, so an appeal to them as an authority on quality control and health is, well, kind of ridiculous.

There are numerous studies of PG and VG that span over many decades that invalidate any fear for harm.

Uh huh. Sure, and you can provide ones regarding invaling vaporized PG and VG in the manner ecigs do in the quantity ecig users do? Please, why don't you post it, since I believe they don't exist. That's the beauty of actual science: you can always be proven wrong.

Hospitals pump PG through their ventilation systems to disinfect the air on a daily basis.

Again, not equivalent at all.

You can find fifty year old studies that prove that PG will actually decontaminate a chamber of viruses on contact.

Older than 50-year-old studies, actually. Whatever website you're parroting is out of date. More like 60 or 70 years old at this point.

I do know this because it's been well documented that nicotine isn't toxic in small doses.

That's what's known as "dodging the point". There's more than nicotine in ecigs, several things of which we aren't familiar with in the manner they're used in ecigs. Nice try, though!

Embracing a fear for harm while lacking reason is paranoid.

That's not what I'm doing. I'm pointing out that your rejection of all possible problems is unreasonable, and that the science doesn't support you, because there isn't enough of it. That's utterly different, dude.

If your going to tell me they're unsafe then I need to see that it's founded in reason. Otherwise I'll say you're being unreasonable. Is that fair?

If that's what I was saying, it would be!

Except it's not, and I urge you to read things before replying to them as though they say things they don't. I haven't said they're unsafe. I've said that there are reasons to think there might be hazards we aren't fully cognizant of, and that therefore we shouldn't simply declare them unilaterally safe.

You can't get pneumonia from e cigarettes because pneumonia is bacterial

Actually, no, it's not. Please stop making statements that are so flatly wrong--it's embarrassing. SOME of it is, certainly. But pneumonia is actually a generic term for inflammation of the lung, and can be caused by a host of things, including drugs, fungi, viruses and, yes, bacteria. While the most common causes are bacteria/viruses, that doesn't mean that's what I was talking about, now, does it?

and PG kills bacteria. The treatment for pneumonia often involves inhaling PG.

Actually, no, it doesn't. I'm sure there are circumstances when it's done...but "often" is complete horsepuckey that you probably lifted from an e-cig forum.

The treatment for bacterial pneumonia is antibiotics. Used to be amoxicillin, these days it's usually a z-pack.

It really is very simple. PG and VG are simple not harmful in any dose. 50+ years of studies and use have proven this.

First: No, you're actually flatly and completely wrong. There IS a toxic dose for PG, and there have been adverse reactions directly linked to PG toxicity (usually in ICU patients receiving it in large doses IV as part of the suspension that delivers drugs they need: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...)

Propylene glycol is metabolized by the body pretty effectively. And we've added it to various nebulized drugs for a long time. However, e-cigs are used FAR more than your standard nebulized drug, and by people who aren't already in a high-risk category that they're treating.

Nicotine is not carcinogenic and is regarded as safe in low doses.

It is regarded as safe, certainly. But "is not carcinogenic" is not a fact; studies are showing it may be a contributing cause of cancer; the CDC considers the data "inconclusive".

The only ambiguity comes from your device and the flavors used. The big american owned brands of e cigarettes are devices made under strict quality controls. Many flavors can be proven safe but others can't.

Oh? How about you show a study on some flavors, then, proving they're safe?

It you want to argue this with me then you're going to lose unless I willingly concede a point. I've done a lot of research on this subject for fear of my own health.

Where, exactly, did you do this research which led you to make such claims? Where are the studies you looked at? Where were you told PG is used to treat "pneumonia", which to you is always bacterial?

The fact is we do not have sufficient evidence to make the sweeping claims you want to make. If you have some, you're welcome to provide it, but I don't think it exists.

At present there is very little evidence of any harms. But they're new, and haven't been around long enough for us to make any strong judgments regarding the possible hazards of long term use. This is not a controversial statement. This is not something you can argue with, unless you actually do have a study that I've never heard of--which I'd wager large sums of money that you do not.

Meanwhile, there's this:

http://www.medscape.com...

It's a small study. It doesn't do long term. It was looking at one specific thing, and may not extend or have clinical significance. But pretending that they've been proven to be utterly safe and with no harms whatsoever is wrong--just as wrong as anyone who pretends they're just as bad as cigarettes, or that we've proven there are concrete long-term harms.

Again, I use one. I like it. I'm willing to risk the possibility of risks that we aren't fully cognizant of at present--and I am betting my health that they will never be shown to be as harmful as cigarettes. But it doesn't do anyone any good to pretend we are certain of things we are not.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 6:57:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
(And I'll grant, too, that pneumonia is usually reserved for infectious agents, while pneumonitis is often used as a truly generic term for inflammation--still, it's not just bacteria, is the point).
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2013 7:02:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Oh! And I just refound the thing which made me make the pneumonia comment in the first place, from an article from a bit over a year ago:

http://journal.publications.chestnet.org...

Lipoid pneumonia.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 12:30:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/1/2013 6:39:20 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/1/2013 2:01:25 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:
That fear is largely overblown. The brands of e cigarettes sold in US stores have quality standards. Blu Cigs and V2 are owned by big tobacco corporations. It is possible to buy crap but crap isn't nearly as accessible.

And yet Blu Cigs (owned by Lorillard, makers of Newports and others) doesn't make their own juice, do they? It's made by Johnson Creek, and so therefore it's rather disingenuous to make such claims, llama.

No. It isn't. What's disingenuous is acting like a major american corporation has no quality standards because they've outsourced manufacturing.

Also, it's not as though the big tobacco corporations have a good track record regarding care for people's health, so an appeal to them as an authority on quality control and health is, well, kind of ridiculous.

Nobody ever said they were the authority. You're subtly changing my argument in order to make it seem absurd to yourself so that you can criticize it. To confuse a high standard that comes from such a corporation for the authority on health is ridiculous.

There are numerous studies of PG and VG that span over many decades that invalidate any fear for harm.

Uh huh. Sure, and you can provide ones regarding invaling vaporized PG and VG in the manner ecigs do in the quantity ecig users do? Please, why don't you post it, since I believe they don't exist. That's the beauty of actual science: you can always be proven wrong.

Yes I can. More importantly, you can find them yourself.

Hospitals pump PG through their ventilation systems to disinfect the air on a daily basis.

Again, not equivalent at all.

Pumped through hospital ventilation systems for an entire lifetime. Commonly used to suspend inhaled medications to get asthma and infections of the lung... Still not safe in your book.

You can find fifty year old studies that prove that PG will actually decontaminate a chamber of viruses on contact.

Older than 50-year-old studies, actually. Whatever website you're parroting is out of date. More like 60 or 70 years old at this point.

And seventy years worth of research and use and your still on the fence without a reason other than unfounded fears?

I do know this because it's been well documented that nicotine isn't toxic in small doses.

That's what's known as "dodging the point". There's more than nicotine in ecigs, several things of which we aren't familiar with in the manner they're used in ecigs. Nice try, though!

The ingredients in e cigarettes is PG,VG,Nicotine, sometimes alcohol, and flavoring. We know quite a bit about those things.

Embracing a fear for harm while lacking reason is paranoid.

That's not what I'm doing. I'm pointing out that your rejection of all possible problems is unreasonable, and that the science doesn't support you, because there isn't enough of it. That's utterly different, dude.

That's not what I'm doing. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it is unreasonable. It's not an insult. it denotes that you believe something without explaining a causal relationship for it. Such as e cigarettes are harmful. You can't provide a cause for how they are harmful so that belief is unreasonable... I may very well get sick from drinking my next glass of water but without a causal relationship to explain how that would occur then I'd be unreasonable.


If your going to tell me they're unsafe then I need to see that it's founded in reason. Otherwise I'll say you're being unreasonable. Is that fair?

If that's what I was saying, it would be!

But then if not unsafe equates to harmless then I've proven my central point.

Except it's not, and I urge you to read things before replying to them as though they say things they don't. I haven't said they're unsafe. I've said that there are reasons to think there might be hazards we aren't fully cognizant of, and that therefore we shouldn't simply declare them unilaterally safe.

You can't get pneumonia from e cigarettes because pneumonia is bacterial

Actually, no, it's not. Please stop making statements that are so flatly wrong--it's embarrassing. SOME of it is, certainly. But pneumonia is actually a generic term for inflammation of the lung, and can be caused by a host of things, including drugs, fungi, viruses and, yes, bacteria. While the most common causes are bacteria/viruses, that doesn't mean that's what I was talking about, now, does it?

and PG kills bacteria. The treatment for pneumonia often involves inhaling PG.

Actually, no, it doesn't. I'm sure there are circumstances when it's done...but "often" is complete horsepuckey that you probably lifted from an e-cig forum.

The treatment for bacterial pneumonia is antibiotics. Used to be amoxicillin, these days it's usually a z-pack.

It really is very simple. PG and VG are simple not harmful in any dose. 50+ years of studies and use have proven this.

First: No, you're actually flatly and completely wrong. There IS a toxic dose for PG, and there have been adverse reactions directly linked to PG toxicity (usually in ICU patients receiving it in large doses IV as part of the suspension that delivers drugs they need: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...)

Propylene glycol is metabolized by the body pretty effectively. And we've added it to various nebulized drugs for a long time. However, e-cigs are used FAR more than your standard nebulized drug, and by people who aren't already in a high-risk category that they're treating.

Nicotine is not carcinogenic and is regarded as safe in low doses.

It is regarded as safe, certainly. But "is not carcinogenic" is not a fact; studies are showing it may be a contributing cause of cancer; the CDC considers the data "inconclusive".

The only ambiguity comes from your device and the flavors used. The big american owned brands of e cigarettes are devices made under strict quality controls. Many flavors can be proven safe but others can't.

Oh? How about you show a study on some flavors, then, proving they're safe?

It you want to argue this with me then you're going to lose unless I willingly concede a point. I've done a lot of research on this subject for fear of my own health.

Where, exactly, did you do this research which led you to make such claims? Where are the studies you looked at? Where were you told PG is used to treat "pneumonia", which to you is always bacterial?

The fact is we do not have sufficient evidence to make the sweeping claims you want to make. If you have some, you're welcome to provide it, but I don't think it exists.

At present there is very little evidence of any harms. But they're new, and haven't been around long enough for us to make any strong judgments regarding the possible hazards of long term use. This is not a controversial statement. This is not something you can argue with, unless you actually do have a study that I've never heard of--which I'd wager large sums of money that you do not.

Meanwhile, there's this:

http://www.medscape.com...

It's a small study. It doesn't do long term. It was looking at one specific thing, and may not extend or have clinical significance. But pretending that they've been proven to be utterly safe and with no harms whatsoever is wrong--just as wrong as anyone who pretends they're just as bad as cigarettes, or that we've proven there are concrete long-term harms.

Again, I use one. I like it. I'm willing to risk the possibility of risks that we aren't fully cognizant of at present--and I am betting my health that they will never be shown to be as harmful as cigarettes. But it doesn't do an
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 1:30:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/2/2013 12:30:42 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:
At 10/1/2013 6:39:20 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/1/2013 2:01:25 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:
That fear is largely overblown. The brands of e cigarettes sold in US stores have quality standards. Blu Cigs and V2 are owned by big tobacco corporations. It is possible to buy crap but crap isn't nearly as accessible.

And yet Blu Cigs (owned by Lorillard, makers of Newports and others) doesn't make their own juice, do they? It's made by Johnson Creek, and so therefore it's rather disingenuous to make such claims, llama.

No. It isn't. What's disingenuous is acting like a major american corporation has no quality standards because they've outsourced manufacturing.

Also, it's not as though the big tobacco corporations have a good track record regarding care for people's health, so an appeal to them as an authority on quality control and health is, well, kind of ridiculous.

Nobody ever said they were the authority. You're subtly changing my argument in order to make it seem absurd to yourself so that you can criticize it. To confuse a high standard that comes from such a corporation for the authority on health is ridiculous.

I'm changing nothing, and I'm not being disingenuous--I'll thank you to not make a claim like that again when it's so clearly not warranted, as throwing out such unfounded charges just makes you look foolish.

We were discussing quality controls and their affect on health. You mentioned their ownership by tobacco companies--the clear implication you were making was that because big tobacco companies own some ecig manufacturers, therefore there are quality controls regarding safety in place.

Actually, however, that the hardware is irrelevant because the tobacco companies don't make the fluid (they also outsource the battery unit production, and possibly other aspects, though that's not the main point here...blu's mostly design, shipping, and assembly, really). Even if it wasn't irrelevant, tobacco companies do not have a history of making quality products in regards to people's health.

I'm sure they're delicious, just like a fine mellow Lucky Strike is delicious (LSMFT), and high quality in terms of that. But that isn't what we were talking about.

There are numerous studies of PG and VG that span over many decades that invalidate any fear for harm.

Uh huh. Sure, and you can provide ones regarding invaling vaporized PG and VG in the manner ecigs do in the quantity ecig users do? Please, why don't you post it, since I believe they don't exist. That's the beauty of actual science: you can always be proven wrong.

Yes I can. More importantly, you can find them yourself.

And yet you didn't. If it's so easy, go ahead and do so--otherwise it appears like you don't know what you're talking about.

Hospitals pump PG through their ventilation systems to disinfect the air on a daily basis.

Again, not equivalent at all.

Pumped through hospital ventilation systems for an entire lifetime. Commonly used to suspend inhaled medications to get asthma and infections of the lung... Still not safe in your book.

Quantities, context, and delivery systems matter. They can have effects--and my only point is that we aren't certain what these affects are. So you're right, the use of a product in a totally different context does not mean that I immediately assume it's safe in every context ever. Silly me, I have to go drink ditchwater now, since water is perfectly safe.

You can find fifty year old studies that prove that PG will actually decontaminate a chamber of viruses on contact.

Older than 50-year-old studies, actually. Whatever website you're parroting is out of date. More like 60 or 70 years old at this point.

And seventy years worth of research and use and your still on the fence without a reason other than unfounded fears?

No. Just...no. You don't know what you're talking about. You've made that clear. The studies are about how PG will decontaminate a chamber of viruses on contact. Which has nothing to do with the safety in this context.

The ingredients in e cigarettes is PG,VG,Nicotine, sometimes alcohol, and flavoring. We know quite a bit about those things.

Oh? And what's in the "flavoring"? How many metals come off the vaporizing device (because some do, and I've already provided real evidence of that)? How about you provide some evidence of any of the things you keep claiming?

Because it just reads like you'v been told these things on a forum and take them as what must be true, solely because you want it to be true. Otherwise you would actually have some support other than your own assertion. Of course, if you had actually done research, you wouldn't have been as wrong on the things you've been wrong on as you have been, but that's neither here nor there.

Embracing a fear for harm while lacking reason is paranoid.

That's not what I'm doing. I'm pointing out that your rejection of all possible problems is unreasonable, and that the science doesn't support you, because there isn't enough of it. That's utterly different, dude.

That's not what I'm doing.

Yes, it is.

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it is unreasonable.

Right. Which isn't true--it's perfectly reasonable to say "We don't have enough data establishing this as having no negative health effects".

It's not an insult. it denotes that you believe something without explaining a causal relationship for it.

I actually have provided several possible casual relationships, evidence of possible harms, and noted the lack of any substantive data on the specific circumstances. That you refuse to aknowledge these simple things is not my problem.

Such as e cigarettes are harmful. You can't provide a cause for how they are harmful so that belief is unreasonable... I may very well get sick from drinking my next glass of water but without a causal relationship to explain how that would occur then I'd be unreasonable.

Actually, no, the situation would be more like going outside and drinking from a ditch. You aren't certain what's in it, you aren't certain anything's been done to make it safe. Tap water is incredibly safe, and we have lots of science to back that up. Ditch water, on the other hand, might well give you the runs. Context matters.

If that's what I was saying, it would be!

But then if not unsafe equates to harmless then I've proven my central point.

Ah, now you're asserting they are not unsafe. That is a claim, as much as claiming that something IS unsafe. You have no data to support this.

I note you ignored everything else I wrote. I gave reasons to suspect there might be some safety issues--but I suppose, if you ignore evidence you don't like, it's easy to come to the conclusion you want.

Just, again, to be clear: I am not asserting a lack of safety. I'm asserting a lack of evidence demonstrating safety. Two different claims. i've given reasons to suspect possible harms--and made it clear that these are only possibilities, there is not enough data to make a claim.

You, on the other hand, are claiming safety, and claiming that any questioning of that safety is unreasonable. You do this based on out-of-context studies and an ignorance of basic, fundamental concepts (such as that pneumonia is always bacterial, or that there is no possible toxicity from PG at any dose). I'm not trying to be mean--but you are wrong.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 1:41:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/2/2013 12:30:42 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:
At 10/1/2013 6:39:20 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/1/2013 2:01:25 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:


Except it's not, and I urge you to read things before replying to them as though they say things they don't. I haven't said they're unsafe. I've said that there are reasons to think there might be hazards we aren't fully cognizant of, and that therefore we shouldn't simply declare them unilaterally safe.

I say they are harmless because there is no causal relationship to explain harm. Like it or not that's reasonable and by virtue of that reason I can say they are harmless. That doesn't mean it's physically impossible.


You can't get pneumonia from e cigarettes because pneumonia is bacterial

Actually, no, it's not. Please stop making statements that are so flatly wrong--it's embarrassing. SOME of it is, certainly. But pneumonia is actually a generic term for inflammation of the lung, and can be caused by a host of things, including drugs, fungi, viruses and, yes, bacteria. While the most common causes are bacteria/viruses, that doesn't mean that's what I was talking about, now, does it?

I see. So it can actually help prevent most kinds of pnuemonia by killing those viruses and bacteria's before they cause infection... Can you explain how e cigarettes CAUSE any other kind of pneumonia?

and PG kills bacteria. The treatment for pneumonia often involves inhaling PG.

Actually, no, it doesn't. I'm sure there are circumstances when it's done...but "often" is complete horsepuckey that you probably lifted from an e-cig forum.

That's a weak criticism. You've essentially acknowledged that PG is used in such a way.

The treatment for bacterial pneumonia is antibiotics. Used to be amoxicillin, these days it's usually a z-pack.

It really is very simple. PG and VG are simple not harmful in any dose. 50+ years of studies and use have proven this.

First: No, you're actually flatly and completely wrong. There IS a toxic dose for PG, and there have been adverse reactions directly linked to PG toxicity (usually in ICU patients receiving it in large doses IV as part of the suspension that delivers drugs they need: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...)

It's impossible to ingest that amount of PG by way of vaporizer. Therefore PG in vaporizers is non-toxic.

Propylene glycol is metabolized by the body pretty effectively. And we've added it to various nebulized drugs for a long time. However, e-cigs are used FAR more than your standard nebulized drug, and by people who aren't already in a high-risk category that they're treating.

We know the toxic level of PG and we know that it's impossible to hit that level by vaporizer so it's impossible to be toxic by way vaporizer.

Nicotine is not carcinogenic and is regarded as safe in low doses.

It is regarded as safe, certainly. But "is not carcinogenic" is not a fact; studies are showing it may be a contributing cause of cancer; the CDC considers the data "inconclusive".

Yes it is. It's a matter of fact that is not carcinogenic. That doesn't mean it's physically impossible but it means there is no casual relationship that shows that it is. A fact is something that is indisputable, not impossible.

The only ambiguity comes from your device and the flavors used. The big american owned brands of e cigarettes are devices made under strict quality controls. Many flavors can be proven safe but others can't.

Oh? How about you show a study on some flavors, then, proving they're safe?

It you want to argue this with me then you're going to lose unless I willingly concede a point. I've done a lot of research on this subject for fear of my own health.

Where, exactly, did you do this research which led you to make such claims? Where are the studies you looked at? Where were you told PG is used to treat "pneumonia", which to you is always bacterial?

You admitted that it was! What's the deal here? Your running in circles dude.

The fact is we do not have sufficient evidence to make the sweeping claims you want to make. If you have some, you're welcome to provide it, but I don't think it exists.

Yeah we do. We have plenty of evidence for the effects of PG,VG, and nicotine as inhaled into the lungs. When you say we don't, what you mean is that it's not impossible and nobody ever said it was impossible. I can say they are harmless and I can provide reason to validate that statement. Therefore it is a reasonable statement. That's not an opinion.

At present there is very little evidence of any harms. But they're new, and haven't been around long enough for us to make any strong judgments regarding the possible hazards of long term use. This is not a controversial statement. This is not something you can argue with, unless you actually do have a study that I've never heard of--which I'd wager large sums of money that you do not.

Your using a God of the Gaps argument. Relying on the holes in information to validate a belief that is unsupported by reason... That's not an analogy I like using as I consider myself a theist but I know you will get it.

Meanwhile, there's this:

http://www.medscape.com...

It's a small study. It doesn't do long term. It was looking at one specific thing, and may not extend or have clinical significance. But pretending that they've been proven to be utterly safe and with no harms whatsoever is wrong--just as wrong as anyone who pretends they're just as bad as cigarettes, or that we've proven there are concrete long-term harms.

Again, I use one. I like it. I'm willing to risk the possibility of risks that we aren'

I don't know why we get into these pitched battles Bladerunner... I say things which I can support by reason and they are therefore reasonable. Trying to prove someone wrong who is being reasonable doesn't make sense.
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2013 2:05:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I simply don't do arguments over 8,000 characters Blade runner. I already divided the argument into two pieces. Am I supposed to divide in four now?

I've already proven my central point that it's reasonable to believe that e cigarettes are harmless in the context I've lined out. I don't think you deny that. You simply state it's not impossible for them to be harmful. I'd like to think you can feel some satisfaction by being right in that context, but impossible was never part of my argument.

You can call me a fool all you want but it doesn't bother me. I'm not even going to judge you for it because I suspect you think that when I use words like irrational and unreasonable that I'm insulting you and I'm not. I just worry that putting you through these arguments is harmful to you. As such, I have a lot of doubt about arguing with you.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2013 12:21:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/2/2013 1:41:07 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:
At 10/2/2013 12:30:42 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:
At 10/1/2013 6:39:20 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/1/2013 2:01:25 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:


Except it's not, and I urge you to read things before replying to them as though they say things they don't. I haven't said they're unsafe. I've said that there are reasons to think there might be hazards we aren't fully cognizant of, and that therefore we shouldn't simply declare them unilaterally safe.

I say they are harmless because there is no causal relationship to explain harm. Like it or not that's reasonable and by virtue of that reason I can say they are harmless. That doesn't mean it's physically impossible.

No. Saying they're harmless is an assertion you do not have grounds to make.

I see. So it can actually help prevent most kinds of pnuemonia by killing those viruses and bacteria's before they cause infection... Can you explain how e cigarettes CAUSE any other kind of pneumonia?

I did, actually. Why don't you actually read the things you respond to? Lipoid pneumonia was directly linked (in, admittedly, only one case) to the use of an ecig. That may be a fluke...it may not.

That's a weak criticism. You've essentially acknowledged that PG is used in such a way.\

Except you claimed it was common. It's not. My point was merely to acknowledge the possibilty. PG is, ater all, generally safe. But since YOU made the claim, why don't you go ahead and back it up? CAN you?


First: No, you're actually flatly and completely wrong. There IS a toxic dose for PG, and there have been adverse reactions directly linked to PG toxicity (usually in ICU patients receiving it in large doses IV as part of the suspension that delivers drugs they need: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...)

It's impossible to ingest that amount of PG by way of vaporizer. Therefore PG in vaporizers is non-toxic.

AAaaaaaaaand back to you being flatly wrong. It is possible. Whether it's probable is another matter entirely.


We know the toxic level of PG and we know that it's impossible to hit that level by vaporizer so it's impossible to be toxic by way vaporizer.

No.

Stop this.

You are just wrong when you make such flat claims.

It is possible. It might be unlikely...and you know what would establish that? Studies. Which we don't have.

Yes it is. It's a matter of fact that is not carcinogenic.

Hmmm....let's see, the scientists who say the findings are inconclusive either way, or llama, who has no idea what he's talking about and never actually backs up his sweeping claims...who is more trustworthy?

Where, exactly, did you do this research which led you to make such claims? Where are the studies you looked at? Where were you told PG is used to treat "pneumonia", which to you is always bacterial?

You admitted that it was! What's the deal here? Your running in circles dude.

No, I'm not running in circles. Stop this, it's childish.

The point is that you don't know what you're talking about. The point is that the question is: where did you do the research you claim to have done, since you're wrong on so many things? I certainly disputed it was used "often", didn't I? Or did you choose to forget that because you didn't like it?

Yeah we do. We have plenty of evidence for the effects of PG,VG, and nicotine as inhaled into the lungs. When you say we don't, what you mean is that it's not impossible and nobody ever said it was impossible.

Actually, no. When I say we don't, it's because we don't. We don't have long term studies on these items being inhaled in these ways into the lungs. You keep claiming we do--that's dishonest of you, and you need to stop.

I can say they are harmless and I can provide reason to validate that statement.

No, you can't. You've been directly challenged now, more than once, to do so, and you have failed.

Therefore it is a reasonable statement. That's not an opinion.

Actually, it is an opinion. One you hold. One which is objectively wrong, but which you are entitled to hold.

You have provided no sources, and demonstrated fundamental ignorance, yet want to make sweeping claims about things you don't have any evidence of.

That's not reasonable.

Your using a God of the Gaps argument. Relying on the holes in information to validate a belief that is unsupported by reason... That's not an analogy I like using as I consider myself a theist but I know you will get it.

Buwahahyahhahahah. No. Just...very much no.

Learn what words mean. Reread the paragraph.

I don't know why we get into these pitched battles Bladerunner... I say things which I can support by reason and they are therefore reasonable. Trying to prove someone wrong who is being reasonable doesn't make sense.

We get into these pitched battles because you make unsupported assertions, then expect everyone to simply accept them as truth based on no evidence. I'm sorry that I point out when you're wrong--it must be frustrating, since you clearly have problems admitting when you're wrong. I'm sorry that you feel the need to keep coming back again and again, not actually reading the posts you reply to half the time, ignoring the parts you don't like, then pretending you're being reasonable.

Give me actual evidence, or I'm just going to start calling you a liar--because even if you're right on some of your claims, if you're only right by accident, it doesn't count.

You keep claiming you have evidence, yet when explicitly asked for it you don't provide it.

So do so.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2013 12:24:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/2/2013 2:05:37 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:
I simply don't do arguments over 8,000 characters Blade runner. I already divided the argument into two pieces. Am I supposed to divide in four now?

I've already proven my central point that it's reasonable to believe that e cigarettes are harmless in the context I've lined out.

Actually, no you haven't.

Upon what grounds have you done so? Because you've ignored points I've made, then made sweeping and demonstrably untrue claims that I've pointed out are such?

I don't think you deny that. You simply state it's not impossible for them to be harmful.

No. Learn to read. You try my patience.

You can call me a fool all you want but it doesn't bother me. I'm not even going to judge you for it because I suspect you think that when I use words like irrational and unreasonable that I'm insulting you and I'm not. I just worry that putting you through these arguments is harmful to you. As such, I have a lot of doubt about arguing with you.

Ah, yes, the "I'm so right that I don't need facts, and you must be crazy to disagree with all my rightness" argument.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2013 12:26:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Let's try an analogy, llama, since you're having reading comprehension issues.

Imagine I have a mushroom. "Eat it," I say, "It's safe".

"How do you know it's safe?" you ask me.

"Well, I have no evidence it's not safe," I reply, "Therefore it's unreasonable to think that it might be unsafe. Besides, lots of mushrooms are safe to eat that are similar to this mushroom."

Would you eat the mushroom? Even if yes, would you think that was a legitimate argument for the safety of the mushroom?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2013 1:52:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov...

(d)
The ingredient is used in foods at levels not to exceed current good manufacturing practice in accordance with 184.1(b)(1). Current good manufacturing practice results in maximum levels, as served, of 5 percent for alcoholic beverages, as defined in 170.3(n)(2) of this chapter; 24 percent for confections and frostings as defined in 170.3(n)(9) of this chapter; 2.5 percent for frozen dairy products as defined in 170.3(n)(20) of this chapter; 97 percent for seasonings and flavorings as defined in 170.3(n)(26) of this chapter; 5 percent for nuts and nut products as defined in 170.3(n)(32) of this chapter; and 2.0 percent for all other food categories.

And here

http://m.jpet.aspetjournals.org...

With a view to determining the safety of employing the vapors of propylene glycol and triethylene glycol in atmospheres inhabited by human beings, monkeys and rats were exposed continuously to high concentrations of these vapors for periods of 12 to 18 months. Equal numbers of control animals were maintained under physically similar conditions. Long term tests of the effects on ingesting triethylene glycol were also carried out. The doses administered represented 50 to 700 times the amount of glycol the animal could absorb by breathing air saturated with the glycol.

Now let's be reasonable here Bladerunner.

You're probably ingesting more PG in your diet as a food and alcohol additive than I am using E Cigarettes. PG is literally in all kinds of ingestible products. It's effects as a vapor are well documented and are negligible even at 50 to 700 times the amount an animal could absorb by breathing saturated air. PG has been used in a way that exceeds e cigarette for an entire lifetime with no links to harm in doses that greatly exceed what's possible by vaporizer.

Nicotine is not regarded as a carcinogenic. That's not an opinion of mine. That is a fact regarding the medical community. The FDA just approved nicotine gum for long term use as safe for crying out loud. Just because A study which attempts to identify it as a carcinogen comes out inconclusive does not indicate that it may be carcinogenic. It indicates that they could not indicate that it was. Thus evidence that it's not.

I don't know where you get off telling me that I can't make the assertion that e cigarettes are harmless while admitting that you can't say they are unsafe... It would seem to me that the one is required for the other.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2013 2:20:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/3/2013 1:52:16 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov...

(d)
The ingredient is used in foods at levels not to exceed current good manufacturing practice in accordance with 184.1(b)(1). Current good manufacturing practice results in maximum levels, as served, of 5 percent for alcoholic beverages, as defined in 170.3(n)(2) of this chapter; 24 percent for confections and frostings as defined in 170.3(n)(9) of this chapter; 2.5 percent for frozen dairy products as defined in 170.3(n)(20) of this chapter; 97 percent for seasonings and flavorings as defined in 170.3(n)(26) of this chapter; 5 percent for nuts and nut products as defined in 170.3(n)(32) of this chapter; and 2.0 percent for all other food categories.

Yes, because eating is exactly the same as inhaling.

Waitaminute...

And here

http://m.jpet.aspetjournals.org...

With a view to determining the safety of employing the vapors of propylene glycol and triethylene glycol in atmospheres inhabited by human beings, monkeys and rats were exposed continuously to high concentrations of these vapors for periods of 12 to 18 months. Equal numbers of control animals were maintained under physically similar conditions. Long term tests of the effects on ingesting triethylene glycol were also carried out. The doses administered represented 50 to 700 times the amount of glycol the animal could absorb by breathing air saturated with the glycol.

Excellent! An actual bit of real science. Now, this doesn't deal with long term (multiple years) effects, so it's not a perfect study (after all, I don't believe smoking cigarettes increases the cancer likelihood over timeframes like 12-18 months, either, though there are other health effects which would be found).

It does, however, indicate a measure of safety for PG and TG, even in high doses. Fantastic!

Of course, it doesn't address ecigs, concerning their actual method of delivery. So it's not definitive at all. But it certainly feeds into the total data picture--which presently has things on both sides of the equation, which makes our final decision one of uncertainty, and not, as you continue to blithely claim, certainty.

Now let's be reasonable here Bladerunner.

Oh, yes, lets. Because you haven't been so far.

You're probably ingesting more PG in your diet as a food and alcohol additive than I am using E Cigarettes.

Again, since you can't read, apparently, I use an ecig. Not particularly reasonable to not read something someone has repeatedly said. But please, do go on.

PG is literally in all kinds of ingestible products.

Yup--though not really "literally in all kinds", but that's pedantry. I understand what you mean. But, of course, ingestion is different than inhalation. You...do understand that, right?

It's effects as a vapor are well documented and are negligible even at 50 to 700 times the amount an animal could absorb by breathing saturated air.

Huh, that's interesting, since it's not what you presented.

PG has been used in a way that exceeds e cigarette for an entire lifetime with no links to harm in doses that greatly exceed what's possible by vaporizer.

No, it hasn't. Neither study you've presented supports that.

Nicotine is not regarded as a carcinogenic. That's not an opinion of mine. That is a fact regarding the medical community. The FDA just approved nicotine gum for long term use as safe for crying out loud. Just because A study which attempts to identify it as a carcinogen comes out inconclusive does not indicate that it may be carcinogenic. It indicates that they could not indicate that it was. Thus evidence that it's not.

No, the CDC considers ALL the data inconclusive. Which is what I said, and if you actually read the things I type, and the things I reference, you'd understand that. Clearly, however, you do not.

I don't know where you get off telling me that I can't make the assertion that e cigarettes are harmless while admitting that you can't say they are unsafe... It would seem to me that the one is required for the other.

No, not at all--and your lack of understanding of that is a commentary on the sad state of education today.

I don't have to assert they're unsafe. I simply assert that we are not certain either way--safe or unsafe. I'm an agnostic, if you will, regarding the long-term safety of ecigs.

You, on the other hand, are making an actual claim...for which your only data seems to be a monkey study regarding PG alone (since TG isn't relevant to ecigs). That doesn't demonstrate what you claim it does.

I gave you studies showing possible harms--you ignored them. If you ignore all evidence against your position, while using evidence that doesn't actually support your position as though it does support your position, that's not being reasonable.

What is reasonable is to say that ecigs have no proven harms (which I already have said), but that we don't have enough data to definitively say they're "Safe"--and that the regulatory environment they occupy encourages problems regarding "extra" chemicals (since there is no legal requirement to test for them). Again, this is not unreasonable, and has been my position since the beginning.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2013 3:17:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/3/2013 2:20:11 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/3/2013 1:52:16 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov...

(d)
The ingredient is used in foods at levels not to exceed current good manufacturing practice in accordance with 184.1(b)(1). Current good manufacturing practice results in maximum levels, as served, of 5 percent for alcoholic beverages, as defined in 170.3(n)(2) of this chapter; 24 percent for confections and frostings as defined in 170.3(n)(9) of this chapter; 2.5 percent for frozen dairy products as defined in 170.3(n)(20) of this chapter; 97 percent for seasonings and flavorings as defined in 170.3(n)(26) of this chapter; 5 percent for nuts and nut products as defined in 170.3(n)(32) of this chapter; and 2.0 percent for all other food categories.

Yes, because eating is exactly the same as inhaling.

Waitaminute...

In terms of dosage, It's water soluble so it's runs its course through the lungs and out the body. The second link provides research of its effects by inhaling.

And here

http://m.jpet.aspetjournals.org...

With a view to determining the safety of employing the vapors of propylene glycol and triethylene glycol in atmospheres inhabited by human beings, monkeys and rats were exposed continuously to high concentrations of these vapors for periods of 12 to 18 months. Equal numbers of control animals were maintained under physically similar conditions. Long term tests of the effects on ingesting triethylene glycol were also carried out. The doses administered represented 50 to 700 times the amount of glycol the animal could absorb by breathing air saturated with the glycol.

Excellent! An actual bit of real science. Now, this doesn't deal with long term (multiple years) effects, so it's not a perfect study (after all, I don't believe smoking cigarettes increases the cancer likelihood over timeframes like 12-18 months, either, though there are other health effects which would be found).

Like I said before, it goes through the lungs and out the body. It's water soluble. Provided it's not harmful by inhaling which was indicated by research, and the dosage levels in the body is safe which was indicated by research, then reason demands the natural conclusion that it's not harmful.

It does, however, indicate a measure of safety for PG and TG, even in high doses. Fantastic!

Of course, it doesn't address ecigs, concerning their actual method of delivery. So it's not definitive at all. But it certainly feeds into the total data picture--which presently has things on both sides of the equation, which makes our final decision one of uncertainty, and not, as you continue to blithely claim, certainty.

You mean a vaporizer? What's used to make vapor... I wonder how they made vapor in the second link without a vaporizer...

Now let's be reasonable here Bladerunner.

Oh, yes, lets. Because you haven't been so far.

Actually I have been. Your confusing the process of reason for your own personal opinion of what is reasonable.

You're probably ingesting more PG in your diet as a food and alcohol additive than I am using E Cigarettes.

Again, since you can't read, apparently, I use an ecig. Not particularly reasonable to not read something someone has repeatedly said. But please, do go on.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure that you do.

PG is literally in all kinds of ingestible products.

Yup--though not really "literally in all kinds", but that's pedantry. I understand what you mean. But, of course, ingestion is different than inhalation. You...do understand that, right?

It's not because it's water soluble. After it leaves the lungs it goes into the blood stream and out the body.

It's effects as a vapor are well documented and are negligible even at 50 to 700 times the amount an animal could absorb by breathing saturated air.

Huh, that's interesting, since it's not what you presented.

PG has been used in a way that exceeds e cigarette for an entire lifetime with no links to harm in doses that greatly exceed what's possible by vaporizer.

Given the fact that is in your alcohol, frosting, lotions, creams, flavorings, and many more products for an entire lifetime then I think it has.

No, it hasn't. Neither study you've presented supports that.

Nicotine is not regarded as a carcinogenic. That's not an opinion of mine. That is a fact regarding the medical community. The FDA just approved nicotine gum for long term use as safe for crying out loud. Just because A study which attempts to identify it as a carcinogen comes out inconclusive does not indicate that it may be carcinogenic. It indicates that they could not indicate that it was. Thus evidence that it's not.

No, the CDC considers ALL the data inconclusive. Which is what I said, and if you actually read the things I type, and the things I reference, you'd understand that. Clearly, however, you do not.

Why don't you ask your doctor next time you pay him a visit. Maybe he could school you.

I don't know where you get off telling me that I can't make the assertion that e cigarettes are harmless while admitting that you can't say they are unsafe... It would seem to me that the one is required for the other.

No, not at all--and your lack of understanding of that is a commentary on the sad state of education today.

I don't have to assert they're unsafe. I simply assert that we are not certain either way--safe or unsafe. I'm an agnostic, if you will, regarding the long-term safety of ecigs.

You aren't certain and the only reason you're not certain is because you want to believe what you do without reason.

You, on the other hand, are making an actual claim...for which your only data seems to be a monkey study regarding PG alone (since TG isn't relevant to ecigs). That doesn't demonstrate what you claim it does.

I gave you studies showing possible harms--you ignored them. If you ignore all evidence against your position, while using evidence that doesn't actually support your position as though it does support your position, that's not being reasonable.

What is reasonable is to say that ecigs have no proven harms (which I already have said), but that we don't have enough data to definitively say they're "Safe"--and that the regulatory environment they occupy encourages problems regarding "extra" chemicals (since there is no legal requirement to test for them). Again, this is not unreasonable, and has been my position since the beginning.

Catsup safe. Mustard safe. Mustard and catsup... Not sure. Not enough research. Maybe quality standards during manufacturing? Have these been tested with cheetos?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2013 3:37:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/3/2013 3:17:36 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:

In terms of dosage, It's water soluble so it's runs its course through the lungs and out the body. The second link provides research of its effects by inhaling.

Actually, in terms of dosage, that which is inhaled is more potent than that which is ingested--and that which is injected even more so.

Like I said before, it goes through the lungs and out the body. It's water soluble. Provided it's not harmful by inhaling which was indicated by research, and the dosage levels in the body is safe which was indicated by research, then reason demands the natural conclusion that it's not harmful.

Research that was conducted over 12 months. Again, not a long term study. You do understand that, right? Time and dosages, when variable, get different results? This should be fairly straightforward--as I said, and you ignored completely, smoking for only 12-18 months, then quitting, is unlikely to have long-term health effects.

You mean a vaporizer? What's used to make vapor... I wonder how they made vapor in the second link without a vaporizer...

You do know that there are multiple kinds of vaporizers, right? And that vapor inhaled directly from the vaporizing source is likely to have different qualities (such as metals) than that inhaled once the vapor has reached ambient air?

Actually I have been. Your confusing the process of reason for your own personal opinion of what is reasonable.

No, you're just pretending that it's reasonable to make things up and assert them as true without evidence.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure that you do.

Ah, yes, the "you must be lying!!!" argument. Stop this nonsense--it serves you no purpose. I have demonstrated more knowledge on this subject than you have; you have no grounds to question me other than your refusal to admit your errors.

It's not because it's water soluble. After it leaves the lungs it goes into the blood stream and out the body.

Ah. So you don't know at all what you're talking about.

You are flatly wrong. They are differemt, and pretending otherwise is either profoundly ignorant, or outright dishonest. Up to you to show which.

There's a reason we differentiate between inhalation, ingestion, and contact when discussing methods of exposure to chemicals.

PG has been used in a way that exceeds e cigarette for an entire lifetime with no links to harm in doses that greatly exceed what's possible by vaporizer.

Given the fact that is in your alcohol, frosting, lotions, creams, flavorings, and many more products for an entire lifetime then I think it has.

Except since we don't inhale those things, you're being foolish--and dishonest, since you know I've already addressed this. Furhter, "greatly exceed what's possible by vaporizer" is laughable, too, since vaporizors can be used a hell of a lot more than alcohol, frosting, lotions, et al, throughout the course of the day--and have a different method of exposure.

Why don't you ask your doctor next time you pay him a visit. Maybe he could school you.

Or maybe you could learn what you're talking about? This isn't an actual "point". What I said is a fact: the CDC considers the overall data inconclusive. Your response is BS--the "well, your doctor will agree with me". It's not fact, and it's not reasonable.

I'm sorry that it's so hard for you to understand that you do not know what you're talking about--but I have demonstrated that to be the case, and you simply crossing your arms and disagreeing doesn't change that.

http://www.cdc.gov...

"EFFECTS OF CHRONIC OR REPEATED EXPOSURE: Nicotine is a teratogen (capable of causing birth defects). Other developmental toxicity or reproductive toxicity risks are unknown. The information about nicotine as a carcinogen is inconclusive."


This isn't a matter of debate, it is one of fact: the CDC considers the data inconclusive. Pretending otherwise makes you look foolish--and is demonstrably wrong. I'm sorry you don't like it. That doesn't make it untrue.

You aren't certain and the only reason you're not certain is because you want to believe what you do without reason.
o
No. The only reason I'm not certain is a lack of data. The only reason you're certain is because once you have formed an opinion, you consider it fact regardless of what's actually true.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2013 3:53:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/3/2013 3:37:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/3/2013 3:17:36 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:

In terms of dosage, It's water soluble so it's runs its course through the lungs and out the body. The second link provides research of its effects by inhaling.

Actually, in terms of dosage, that which is inhaled is more potent than that which is ingested--and that which is injected even more so.

ORLY? So the three militers of liquid that I inhale which is less than half PG and mostly exhaled is more potent than drinking a single alcoholic beverage once a day which contains 5% PG? How about the one cupcake a day which has frosting that's 25% PG?

Like I said before, it goes through the lungs and out the body. It's water soluble. Provided it's not harmful by inhaling which was indicated by research, and the dosage levels in the body is safe which was indicated by research, then reason demands the natural conclusion that it's not harmful.

Research that was conducted over 12 months. Again, not a long term study. You do understand that, right? Time and dosages, when variable, get different results? This should be fairly straightforward--as I said, and you ignored completely, smoking for only 12-18 months, then quitting, is unlikely to have long-term health effects.

It's pumped through hospital ventilation systems. It's pumped through fog machines. It's in asthma inhalers. It's in your beverages, lotions, cupcakes, and flavors. It's been so for a lifetime... To you, it's still not safe to inhale. Maybe that's the next question that you should ask your doctor.
You mean a vaporizer? What's used to make vapor... I wonder how they made vapor in the second link without a vaporizer...

You do know that there are multiple kinds of vaporizers, right? And that vapor inhaled directly from the vaporizing source is likely to have different qualities (such as metals) than that inhaled once the vapor has reached ambient air?

So now you're a vaporizer expert all of the sudden? You don't even think PG is safe to inhale! How do you become an expert about something you appear to be terrified of?

Actually I have been. Your confusing the process of reason for your own personal opinion of what is reasonable.

No, you're just pretending that it's reasonable to make things up and assert them as true without evidence.

I just proved my points with evidence straight from the FDA!

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure that you do.

Ah, yes, the "you must be lying!!!" argument. Stop this nonsense--it serves you no purpose. I have demonstrated more knowledge on this subject than you have; you have no grounds to question me other than your refusal to admit your errors.

What brand do you use?

It's not because it's water soluble. After it leaves the lungs it goes into the blood stream and out the body.

Ah. So you don't know at all what you're talking about.

You are flatly wrong. They are differemt, and pretending otherwise is either profoundly ignorant, or outright dishonest. Up to you to show which.

There's a reason we differentiate between inhalation, ingestion, and contact when discussing methods of exposure to chemicals.

PG has been used in a way that exceeds e cigarette for an entire lifetime with no links to harm in doses that greatly exceed what's possible by vaporizer.

Given the fact that is in your alcohol, frosting, lotions, creams, flavorings, and many more products for an entire lifetime then I think it has.

Except since we don't inhale those things, you're being foolish--and dishonest, since you know I've already addressed this. Furhter, "greatly exceed what's possible by vaporizer" is laughable, too, since vaporizors can be used a hell of a lot more than alcohol, frosting, lotions, et al, throughout the course of the day--and have a different method of exposure.


You must be joking! You can't even vaporize 5% of a 20 ounce beverage worth of PG in a day. That would be an ounce a day! A realistic level is a half ounce in a month!

Why don't you ask your doctor next time you pay him a visit. Maybe he could school you.

Or maybe you could learn what you're talking about? This isn't an actual "point". What I said is a fact: the CDC considers the overall data inconclusive. Your response is BS--the "well, your doctor will agree with me". It's not fact, and it's not reasonable.

I'm sorry that it's so hard for you to understand that you do not know what you're talking about--but I have demonstrated that to be the case, and you simply crossing your arms and disagreeing doesn't change that.

No you haven't. You've demonstrated that you're willing to look facts straight in the face and deny them.

http://www.cdc.gov...

"EFFECTS OF CHRONIC OR REPEATED EXPOSURE: Nicotine is a teratogen (capable of causing birth defects). Other developmental toxicity or reproductive toxicity risks are unknown. The information about nicotine as a carcinogen is inconclusive."


This isn't a matter of debate, it is one of fact: the CDC considers the data inconclusive. Pretending otherwise makes you look foolish--and is demonstrably wrong. I'm sorry you don't like it. That doesn't make it untrue.

You aren't certain and the only reason you're not certain is because you want to believe what you do without reason.
o
No. The only reason I'm not certain is a lack of data. The only reason you're certain is because once you have formed an opinion, you consider it fact regardless of what's actually true.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2013 4:13:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/3/2013 3:53:22 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:

ORLY? So the three militers of liquid that I inhale which is less than half PG and mostly exhaled is more potent than drinking a single alcoholic beverage once a day which contains 5% PG? How about the one cupcake a day which has frosting that's 25% PG?

Oh, no, you're not dodging this. You equating things that were not equal--that was wrong, you were wrong to do so. Step one is to admit that you were wrong. Then we can move on to relative amounts.

Now, to what extent digested PG is diminished in terms of systemic circulation as compared to inhaled PG is a question that I don't actually have an answer to--and I'm absolutely certain you don't. (and, of course, we would have to factor in PG/VG comparative levels, unless you're using Blu, which is 100% VG. Of course, you know that, right? Because your statement would imply that your tank is 100% PG--which is clearly not true, if only due to flavoring, let alone whether you do the common 50/50 mix.

It's pumped through hospital ventilation systems. It's pumped through fog machines. It's in asthma inhalers. It's in your beverages, lotions, cupcakes, and flavors. It's been so for a lifetime... To you, it's still not safe to inhale. Maybe that's the next question that you should ask your doctor.

Just stop this stupidity. The circumstances are different--pretending that there couldn't reasonably be differences in effects is absurd.

You do know that there are multiple kinds of vaporizers, right? And that vapor inhaled directly from the vaporizing source is likely to have different qualities (such as metals) than that inhaled once the vapor has reached ambient air?

So now you're a vaporizer expert all of the sudden? You don't even think PG is safe to inhale! How do you become an expert about something you appear to be terrified of?

I'm not terrified of them. Unlike you, however, I actually know what I'm talking about. I note you don't answer the question--instead, you dodge it with this sad attempt at snark. I'm sorry that you're so out of your depth, but that's not my problem.

Actually I have been. Your confusing the process of reason for your own personal opinion of what is reasonable.

No, you're just pretending that it's reasonable to make things up and assert them as true without evidence.

I just proved my points with evidence straight from the FDA!

No, you didn't, and I explained exactly why.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure that you do.

Ah, yes, the "you must be lying!!!" argument. Stop this nonsense--it serves you no purpose. I have demonstrated more knowledge on this subject than you have; you have no grounds to question me other than your refusal to admit your errors.

What brand do you use?

I started with Blu--actually was involved in some beta testing for them, too. Right now, though, I use a Kanger Pro pyrex tank, with an eGO 650 mAh battery (I have a pass-through 1000 mAh one, but it doesn't fit as well in my uniform front pocket). 50/50 PG VG mix, various flavors and nicotine levels depending on my tastes. My wife uses a ViviNova with a dual coil, but I prefer the bottom feeding.

What do you use?

Except since we don't inhale those things, you're being foolish--and dishonest, since you know I've already addressed this. Furhter, "greatly exceed what's possible by vaporizer" is laughable, too, since vaporizors can be used a hell of a lot more than alcohol, frosting, lotions, et al, throughout the course of the day--and have a different method of exposure.


You must be joking! You can't even vaporize 5% of a 20 ounce beverage worth of PG in a day. That would be an ounce a day! A realistic level is a half ounce in a month!

Math is your friend.

1 US fl. ounce is approximately 30 mls.

I refill at least once a day, and my tank holds (approximately) 3 ml.

Simplifying that for the purposes of example to 3 total ml of PG a day (1 refill, but 50/50 and excluding flavor), a realistic level is far more than an ounce in a month--an ounce in 10 days is more like it.

And, again, you're equating two things which are not equal--and that I've pointed out to you numerous times.

I'm not asserting that the levels are high enough to do anything...I'm asserting that the situations that you keep claiming are equal aren't equal. Because they aren't.

That which goes through the digestive tract is utterly different in terms of bodily processing than that which is absorbed directly into the blood stream via the lungs. This is basic physiology.

No you haven't. You've demonstrated that you're willing to look facts straight in the face and deny them.

Riiiiight.

So you've admitted that the CDC states the data is inconclusive?

No, wait, you just ignored it.

The only one refusing to look "facts straight in the face" is you, unfortunately.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2013 5:38:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/3/2013 4:13:31 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/3/2013 3:53:22 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:

ORLY? So the three militers of liquid that I inhale which is less than half PG and mostly exhaled is more potent than drinking a single alcoholic beverage once a day which contains 5% PG? How about the one cupcake a day which has frosting that's 25% PG?

Oh, no, you're not dodging this. You equating things that were not equal--that was wrong, you were wrong to do so. Step one is to admit that you were wrong. Then we can move on to relative amounts.

No. And you're crazy. I've demonstrated that PG is ingested orally in massive doses over lifetimes, small doses by inhalation of life times, massive doses by inhalation over medium duration, and is so trusted that it can accompany by anything ingested. And yet you still believe it's harmful based on your own ignorance which you seem to willfully embrace.

Now, to what extent digested PG is diminished in terms of systemic circulation as compared to inhaled PG is a question that I don't actually have an answer to--and I'm absolutely certain you don't. (and, of course, we would have to factor in PG/VG comparative levels, unless you're using Blu, which is 100% VG. Of course, you know that, right? Because your statement would imply that your tank is 100% PG--which is clearly not true, if only due to flavoring, let alone whether you do the common 50/50 mix.

It's pumped through hospital ventilation systems. It's pumped through fog machines. It's in asthma inhalers. It's in your beverages, lotions, cupcakes, and flavors. It's been so for a lifetime... To you, it's still not safe to inhale. Maybe that's the next question that you should ask your doctor.

Just stop this stupidity. The circumstances are different--pretending that there couldn't reasonably be differences in effects is absurd.

You do know that there are multiple kinds of vaporizers, right? And that vapor inhaled directly from the vaporizing source is likely to have different qualities (such as metals) than that inhaled once the vapor has reached ambient air?

So now you're a vaporizer expert all of the sudden? You don't even think PG is safe to inhale! How do you become an expert about something you appear to be terrified of?

I'm not terrified of them. Unlike you, however, I actually know what I'm talking about. I note you don't answer the question--instead, you dodge it with this sad attempt at snark. I'm sorry that you're so out of your depth, but that's not my problem.

Actually I have been. Your confusing the process of reason for your own personal opinion of what is reasonable.

No, you're just pretending that it's reasonable to make things up and assert them as true without evidence.

I just proved my points with evidence straight from the FDA!

No, you didn't, and I explained exactly why.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure that you do.

Ah, yes, the "you must be lying!!!" argument. Stop this nonsense--it serves you no purpose. I have demonstrated more knowledge on this subject than you have; you have no grounds to question me other than your refusal to admit your errors.

What brand do you use?

I started with Blu--actually was involved in some beta testing for them, too. Right now, though, I use a Kanger Pro pyrex tank, with an eGO 650 mAh battery (I have a pass-through 1000 mAh one, but it doesn't fit as well in my uniform front pocket). 50/50 PG VG mix, various flavors and nicotine levels depending on my tastes. My wife uses a ViviNova with a dual coil, but I prefer the bottom feeding.

What do you use?

Eroll and virgin vapor. That's the only thing you've proven to me, that you do actually use e cigarettes.


Except since we don't inhale those things, you're being foolish--and dishonest, since you know I've already addressed this. Furhter, "greatly exceed what's possible by vaporizer" is laughable, too, since vaporizors can be used a hell of a lot more than alcohol, frosting, lotions, et al, throughout the course of the day--and have a different method of exposure.


You must be joking! You can't even vaporize 5% of a 20 ounce beverage worth of PG in a day. That would be an ounce a day! A realistic level is a half ounce in a month!

Math is your friend.

1 US fl. ounce is approximately 30 mls.

I refill at least once a day, and my tank holds (approximately) 3 ml.

Simplifying that for the purposes of example to 3 total ml of PG a day (1 refill, but 50/50 and excluding flavor), a realistic level is far more than an ounce in a month--an ounce in 10 days is more like it.

No. A realistic level is a half ounce of pg in a month. That would be approximately a month of e liquid. That's 30ml. What you're using isn't normal and to be honest it's f-ing absurd to equate an ecigarette to a dong sized mod. You crack me up.

And, again, you're equating two things which are not equal--and that I've pointed out to you numerous times.

I'm not asserting that the levels are high enough to do anything...I'm asserting that the situations that you keep claiming are equal aren't equal. Because they aren't.

That which goes through the digestive tract is utterly different in terms of bodily processing than that which is absorbed directly into the blood stream via the lungs. This is basic physiology.

No you haven't. You've demonstrated that you're willing to look facts straight in the face and deny them.

Riiiiight.

So you've admitted that the CDC states the data is inconclusive?

What do you think inconclusive means? It means they didn't conclude anything. You're being crazy, stop it.

No, wait, you just ignored it.

The only one refusing to look "facts straight in the face" is you, unfortunately.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2013 5:45:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/28/2013 4:22:16 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Why do you smoke?

I like it/ am addicted

Does the benefit of smoking cigarettes outweigh the health costs [http://www.cancer.gov...]?

Depends on why one smokes and what factors they find relevant to their personal CBA.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2013 5:53:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/3/2013 5:38:25 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:

No. And you're crazy. I've demonstrated that PG is ingested orally in massive doses over lifetimes,

Which you maintain is identical to inhalation, even though it is not.

small doses by inhalation of life times,

This I agree to.

massive doses by inhalation over medium duration,

This I also agree to.

and is so trusted that it can accompany by anything ingested.

Which, again, is not inhalation.

And yet you still believe it's harmful based on your own ignorance which you seem to willfully embrace.

No, I don't.

Seriously, how many times do I have to say the same thing? Claiming I'm making an assertion that I am not making is flatly dishonest of you, llama. I have not said it was harmful, not once except in contexts where it actually is demonstrably harmful.

What I've said is that ecigs lack enough research to assert them as safe. It's not the same claim, I've explained it's not the same claim. Stop pretending I've said things I haven't--it's such a transparent lie on your part that it makes you just look stupid.

What do you use?

Eroll and virgin vapor. That's the only thing you've proven to me, that you do actually use e cigarettes.

Right, but that's because you ignore things you don't like. I've given you sufficient evidence for all of my claims. You simply refuse to read any of it, then pretend I've claimed things I haven't, and attempt to accuse me of lying.

Simplifying that for the purposes of example to 3 total ml of PG a day (1 refill, but 50/50 and excluding flavor), a realistic level is far more than an ounce in a month--an ounce in 10 days is more like it.

No. A realistic level is a half ounce of pg in a month. That would be approximately a month of e liquid. That's 30ml. What you're using isn't normal and to be honest it's f-ing absurd to equate an ecigarette to a dong sized mod. You crack me up.

First: "dong sized mod"? Really? It's not a mod, it's a fairly standard tank. Most tanks hold around 2-3 ml.

Going through 1+ tank a day is not unusual at all.

And you have no fault you can actually find regarding my math--just, again, attempts at snark that fall flat because you don't know what you're talking about.

What do you think inconclusive means? It means they didn't conclude anything. You're being crazy, stop it.

Right. And so therefore, your conclusion that it is not carcinogenic is unreasonable.

It's not that I'm crazy, it's that you've tried so hard to not admit you could possibly be wrong about things that you are clearly wrong about, that you've tied yourself into knots.

Nicotine has not been established as non-carcinogenic. It hasn't been established as carcinogenic, either, nor have I claimed it has. You claimed it had been established as non-carcinogenic--and you can't support that claim. I claimed we aren't certain--and I can support that claim with direct quoting from the CDC, which agrees with me that we aren't certain it's not carcinogenic. Is that clear enough for you, or are you just going to accuse me of saying more things I didn't say?

The point of all this is: there are many different factors to ecigs. Some we have a relatively high confidence in their safety (and despite my disagreements about your misrepresentations regarding PG, I do agree that it's generally been shown to be safe), some we do not (the metals from the tanks, for example, or even the effects of inhaling heated flavorings over extended periods of time), but we certainly don't know enough to make any claims about ecigs yet. You keep claiming we do...and you use things that simply don't apply in attempts to support your argument.

For the umpteenth time, I'm not saying they definitely are harmful. I'm saying we don't have enough data regarding them, particularly regarding their long-term use. You say we do have enough data, because we can add it to foods, and eating is identical to inhaling. Since that's not true, it doesn't actually support your point. You have demonstrated an ignorance of facts and physiology, and you have continually misrepresented me, even when I have made my position explicit. We can do this all day--it won't make you any more right to repeat yourself. The data simply isn't there to support a claim in any direction regarding them.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!