The anti Vapor’s will talk about exploding ecigarettes, when this started to happen the ecig industry quickly responded by creating regulated mods that had reverse battery protection and short circuit protection.
The problem is that we are dealing with high current batteries. We have seen the same problem with cell phones and other devices that use the same technology. If you short circuit a AAA or other such battery you may get slight leaking and venting but that’s about it. But with those batteries your are measuring the maximum drain in the milliamps to a few amps. The batteries used in ecigarettes are capable of 10s of amps. Some capable of 30+ amps. If you short circuit any battery capable of such current you will have a violent reaction. Same holds true if you short circuit your car battery. This is why the vast majority of the accidents occur with loose batteries carried in a persons pocket shorting out with keys or loose change.
Here’s a typical 18650 used for an ecigarette vs a car battery.
As you can see there is an inherent risk with all high powered batteries.
What they didn’t tell you is that they cranked up the voltage to the point of dry hits which to any of us vape the flavor when you hit that point is intolerable.
“The main finding was that at low voltage, no formaldehyde was detected, but at high voltage, high levels of formaldehyde were detected. Using these levels, the authors extrapolate to derive an overall lifetime cancer risk from vaping, which they claim is higher than that from cigarette smoking.
The Rest of the Story
There’s just one problem with the study, but this problem renders its conclusion invalid.
The conditions used to study the e-cigarette aerosol at the high voltage setting were unrealistic and under such conditions, a vaper would never be able to use the product. This is because the wattage being used was so high that the vaporizer was overheated (for a conventional e-cigarette it would likely damage or burn the coils), creating a horrible taste which a vaper could not tolerate. This is sometimes referred to as the “dry puff phenomenon.”
But how did the industry respond? Within a very short time the manufactures came out with temperature controlled devices further reducing the risk.
“eCigarettes are a gateway to smoking” and flavored ejuice is marketed to kids.
Well the first part has been debunked more times then I care to count. Is there an uptick in teen use? YES. If any of us remember when we started smoking as teens. Those are the rebellious years. Smoking was the forbidden fruit, the more propaganda that was put out against tobacco the more attractive it was. So gives the rebellious nature of children at this age, would they be more likely to try cigarettes? PROBABLY. In the absence of ecigarettes would they be more likely to go straight to cigarettes? Again probably. They are also prone to other risky behavior including reckless driving, drug use and risky sexual behavior, but is anyone making the claim that vaping leads to sex? And as former Tobacco Control member Michael Siegel says,
” In fact, the truth appears to be the exact opposite of what these groups are telling the public. Electronic cigarettes are not creating a whole new generation of smokers. Instead, they appear to be diverting smokers and potential smokers away from tobacco cigarettes and toward the fake ones, which are orders of magnitude safer. And by equating the health hazards of smoking with those of vaping, these groups are the ones who are actually guilty of undermining 50 years of public health efforts in smoking reduction. . . Joe Nocera, in his New York Times column, astutely points out this strange behavior for an agency that is supposed to be focused on preventing disease and death. He writes:
On the flavoring, that ones a little harder, yes flavoring might appeal to kids, but then most of us wouldn’t have continued vaping if it were not for the flavors, as hard as I tried I never found a tobacco flavor that could replace my good old Camel straight. It’s just not out there. It was not until I gave up that quest and experimented with other flavors that I was satisfied. But on the marketing front, when you ever saw or heard an ejuice ad? You have to already be a vapor and look for it online or find a vape shop. Which is probably why most youth use the Juul, not because of the flavoring but because you can get those at convenience stores, gas stations etc etc. Not vape shops who don’t allow children in. So to say these ejuice manufacturers are marketing to kids is a lie, I challenge the likes of Stanton Glantz to produce this marketing.
<p><a href=”https://vimeo.com/254162282″>IGNORING #MeToo | GLANTZ SEXUAL HARASSMENT ALLEGATIONS LEAVE MOST SILENT</a> from <a href=”https://vimeo.com/user48773701″>RegulatorWatch.com</a> on <a href=”https://vimeo.com”>Vimeo</a>.</p>
While the anti smokers/anti vapors are allowed to continuously put out false reports as a result of a poorly done report done by Stanton Glantz and his cronies when they were suppose to be studying the effects of radon. The report was so poorly done using questionable methodology that the tobacco companies won in court? No, instead of defending their Bullshit report they argued that as a government report it was not review able by the courts. So the government can lie through reports while at the same time forbid the vaping industry from openly talking about harm reduction.
So I have shown the industries rapid response to questionable claims by the anti vaping community. Exploding batteries brought us regulated Mods. Over voltage brought us temp control. And even the juice manufactures were quick to respond, when the anti vapors went on a campaign talking about diacetyl and “Popcorn Lung” even the report was complete BS most manufactures were quick to remove it from their flavors. Ignoring the fact that diacetyl was suspected but not proven to cause the lung ailments in that popcorn factory and the fact that they were inhaling high doses in powdered form. They ignore the fact that the diacetyl in traditional cigarettes is 750 times higher, again from Dr Michael Siegel.
Fujioka and Shibamoto conducted a study to measure the diacetyl exposure from active smoking. They found that the average diacetyl content of the cigarettes tested was 335.9 micrograms per cigarette. Assuming that a smoker consumes one pack per day (20 cigarettes), the average daily inhaled does of diacetyl associated with smoking is therefore 6718 micrograms.
Table 1. Average inhaled daily diacetyl dose associated with smoking vs. vaping
Vaping: 9 micrograms
Smoking: 6718 micrograms
Daily exposure to diacetyl from smoking is therefore 750 times higher, on average, than exposure to diacetyl from vaping.
Even if one looks at the maximum detected level of diacetyl in the electronic cigarettes vs. real cigarettes tested, the exposure of a smoker is much higher than that of a vaper.
Table 2. Maximum inhaled daily diacetyl dose associated with smoking vs. vaping
Vaping: 239 micrograms
Smoking: 20340 micrograms (see Pierce et al., 2014)
Thus, the “worst” e-cigarette tested produces diacetyl exposure that is 85 times lower than that of the “worst” cigarette tested.
There is a second important fact that was omitted from the journal article (and from the ensuing media coverage).
That fact: Despite the much higher levels of diacetyl in tobacco smoke than in e-cigarette vapor, smoking has not been associatedwith “popcorn lung.”
Thus, it is clearly misrepresenting the scientific evidence to conclude that vaping increases the risk of “popcorn lung” or that vaping causes “popcorn lung.”
None of these rapid advancements would have been possible had the industry had to spend millions of dollars jumping through the FDA process. Even the simple removal of diacetyl from ejuice would have required the industry to spend millions of unnecessary dollars and to what end. It use to be that a person or product was innocent until proven guilty. But if you can paint with the broad brush of “Big Tobacco” the opposite seems to be true.