Uma

I just ordered the igo-w and a drip tip.

Picked up a K100 and some "Gambit" juice from Five Pawns... If you guys haven't tried their juice yet... Holy crap, its a little speedy but Damon it's good....

I got an eGo-c twist. Pricey, but I'm happy.

I also bought the wife a iTaste VTR, o never been a fan of the boxy style, but I tried it out, I actually kinda like it....

I just bought a ohm meter for 21.99 shipped will be here tomorrow I hope lol.

Nice!


MicroStick by Mini Ecig

As for finding an RBA for it, I recommend the AGA-S ($12.95 from Sweet Vapes). It's 15.86mm diameter should fit perfectly inside the MicroStick's 16.5mm atomizer hole, and the AGA-S is only 5mm taller than the Mini Ecig MiniGen SS (shown installed in the MicroStick above), and over $50 less.


Youde's AGA-S

Microstick from mini-ecig.com

Now hunting for a no-fuss atomizer to compliment it

Treating myself this payday, placed my first fast tech order for a vamo v5, and itaste svd.

Every week, I soak it in alcohol (PGA) for an hour and then blow it out. That seems to keep it clean.

That's the exact one I bought. I can't wait

Ordered the Vamo 5 today should have it next week by Friday.

Thanks, Uma! Yes, let us not forget the beneficial properties cinnamon has! There's a reason it's been used in hot toddies for hundreds of years, and in spiced cider, etc.

Thanks Uma!
As usual you are a wealth of information and on top of it!

Defiantly worth it's own tread Thanks for sharing this Uma!

Dr. Farsalinos, of Onassis Kennedy Research Center, who has devoted his expertise to researching the eCig, has recently submitted his findings for publishment. He wills notify us all as soon as he has a link.

In the meantime, there is a fear mongering campaign being led by the ANTZ lab teams. (Talbot,etc).

Here is a note from Dr. Farsalinos correcting the ANTZ lies. Take note of the benefits of cinnamon, at the end. .

http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/138-cinnamon-flavours-in-e-cigarettes

Details
Created on Thursday, 21 November 2013 17:51
Cinnamon flavours in e-cigarettes: how inappropriate research can misinform the public and the (amateur) professionals

By Dr Farsalinos

Considerable debate has been focused on the issue of cinnamon flavors after a study was published in a toxicology journal declaring that such flavored liquids are cytotoxic. Just one month ago, a study published by our group also found that a cinnamon-flavored liquid was slightly cytotoxic (although still 10 times less toxic that tobacco smoke). I have already sent a letter to the editor of Toxicology in Vitro raising concerns about the latest study they published on cinnamon, however due to significant misinformation spread throughout the social media, I decided to publish this comment.

First of all, it was surprising to see a vendor removing cinnamon flavors from his sales list. According to a well-known e-cigarette activist, When a juice maker that fills thousands of bottles a day does this - you should listen. My response to this is: If the juice maker who fills thousands of bottles a day knew what he was doing, he should have found out about it before any research was published. What I mean is that makers have no idea about the cytotoxicity of their products. They are doing no research, so how would they know? But it is even worse that they are making such moves (to remove cinnamon flavors) without even reading (or understanding) the research they quote.

Let me explain. The latest study by Talbots group discussed about the cytotoxicity of cinnamon flavors in e-cigarette. Interestingly however, IF SOMEONE READS THE PAPER, he will find that the researchers never used any e-cigarette. Moreover, they never produced vapor! They tested the liquids in liquid form, not in vapor. How can you support that the results have implications for e-cigarette users when no e-cigarette was used and no vapor was produced? However, there is a bigger mistake. The authors mentioned that they tested 8 refill liquids with cinnamon flavor. They mention the names of the liquids and the companies they got them from. After personally searching on the internet and communicating with some companies, I found out that 4 of the samples were concentrated flavors, not refills. The authors themselves found cinnamaldehyde (the substance giving the cinnamon flavor in the liquid) at levels that differed between samples by up to 100 times. This confirms what I found: some of their samples were concentrated flavors.

Finally, there is still another problem in their study. They tested the substance itself (cinnamaldehyde) to see how toxic it is. They found it toxic at levels 400 times lower than currently approved for food use. This is a very strange result and it is hard to explain how regulatory authorities have accepted cinnamaldehyde to be available at such high levels (of course, before the approval, several tests were performed and it was not found toxic).The authors have to explain why their findings contradict previous research.

As I mentioned above, a letter to the editor has been sent and is currently evaluated for publication. In short, the results of this study have nothing to do with e-cigarette use and are more applicable to cinnamon use in food (since they tested the liquid in liquid form and they used several concentrated samples). Besides that, the reactions from manufacturers show that, unfortunately, they cannot accept their ignorance and instead of asking an expert so that they get informed, they react in a way that produces panic to vapers, does nothing to protect consumers and only results in a game of public relations tactics. This is even more unfortunate than the mistakes in the research protocol. As a final note, let's not forget that research has shown cinnamon to have anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidant and maybe anti-cancer properties...

Dr. Farsalinos, of Onassis Kennedy Research Center, who has devoted his expertise to researching the eCig, has recently submitted his findings for publishment. He wills notify us all as soon as he has a link.

In the meantime, there is a fear mongering campaign being led by the ANTZ lab teams. (Talbot,etc).

Here is a note from Dr. Farsalinos correcting the ANTZ lies. Take note of the benefits of cinnamon, at the end. .

http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/138-cinnamon-flavours-in-e-cigarettes

Details
Created on Thursday, 21 November 2013 17:51
Cinnamon flavours in e-cigarettes: how inappropriate research can misinform the public and the (amateur) professionals

By Dr Farsalinos

Considerable debate has been focused on the issue of cinnamon flavors after a study was published in a toxicology journal declaring that such flavored liquids are cytotoxic. Just one month ago, a study published by our group also found that a cinnamon-flavored liquid was slightly cytotoxic (although still 10 times less toxic that tobacco smoke). I have already sent a letter to the editor of Toxicology in Vitro raising concerns about the latest study they published on cinnamon, however due to significant misinformation spread throughout the social media, I decided to publish this comment.

First of all, it was surprising to see a vendor removing cinnamon flavors from his sales list. According to a well-known e-cigarette activist, When a juice maker that fills thousands of bottles a day does this - you should listen. My response to this is: If the juice maker who fills thousands of bottles a day knew what he was doing, he should have found out about it before any research was published. What I mean is that makers have no idea about the cytotoxicity of their products. They are doing no research, so how would they know? But it is even worse that they are making such moves (to remove cinnamon flavors) without even reading (or understanding) the research they quote.

Let me explain. The latest study by Talbots group discussed about the cytotoxicity of cinnamon flavors in e-cigarette. Interestingly however, IF SOMEONE READS THE PAPER, he will find that the researchers never used any e-cigarette. Moreover, they never produced vapor! They tested the liquids in liquid form, not in vapor. How can you support that the results have implications for e-cigarette users when no e-cigarette was used and no vapor was produced? However, there is a bigger mistake. The authors mentioned that they tested 8 refill liquids with cinnamon flavor. They mention the names of the liquids and the companies they got them from. After personally searching on the internet and communicating with some companies, I found out that 4 of the samples were concentrated flavors, not refills. The authors themselves found cinnamaldehyde (the substance giving the cinnamon flavor in the liquid) at levels that differed between samples by up to 100 times. This confirms what I found: some of their samples were concentrated flavors.

Finally, there is still another problem in their study. They tested the substance itself (cinnamaldehyde) to see how toxic it is. They found it toxic at levels 400 times lower than currently approved for food use. This is a very strange result and it is hard to explain how regulatory authorities have accepted cinnamaldehyde to be available at such high levels (of course, before the approval, several tests were performed and it was not found toxic).The authors have to explain why their findings contradict previous research.

As I mentioned above, a letter to the editor has been sent and is currently evaluated for publication. In short, the results of this study have nothing to do with e-cigarette use and are more applicable to cinnamon use in food (since they tested the liquid in liquid form and they used several concentrated samples). Besides that, the reactions from manufacturers show that, unfortunately, they cannot accept their ignorance and instead of asking an expert so that they get informed, they react in a way that produces panic to vapers, does nothing to protect consumers and only results in a game of public relations tactics. This is even more unfortunate than the mistakes in the research protocol. As a final note, let's not forget that research has shown cinnamon to have anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidant and maybe anti-cancer properties...

I like this video, points out that cars and sex have risk too, but we can reduce
But we can reduce the harm. Just stick vape where they say snus.

Dr. Farsalinos, of Onassis Kennedy Research Center, who has devoted his expertise to researching the eCig, has recently submitted his findings for publishment. He wills notify us all as soon as he has a link.

In the meantime, there is a fear mongering campaign being led by the ANTZ lab teams. (Talbot,etc).

Here is a note from Dr. Farsalinos correcting the ANTZ lies. Take note of the benefits of cinnamon, at the end. .

http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/138-cinnamon-flavours-in-e-cigarettes

Details
Created on Thursday, 21 November 2013 17:51
Cinnamon flavours in e-cigarettes: how inappropriate research can misinform the public and the (amateur) professionals

By Dr Farsalinos

Considerable debate has been focused on the issue of cinnamon flavors after a study was published in a toxicology journal declaring that such flavored liquids are cytotoxic. Just one month ago, a study published by our group also found that a cinnamon-flavored liquid was slightly cytotoxic (although still 10 times less toxic that tobacco smoke). I have already sent a letter to the editor of Toxicology in Vitro raising concerns about the latest study they published on cinnamon, however due to significant misinformation spread throughout the social media, I decided to publish this comment.

First of all, it was surprising to see a vendor removing cinnamon flavors from his sales list. According to a well-known e-cigarette activist, When a juice maker that fills thousands of bottles a day does this - you should listen. My response to this is: If the juice maker who fills thousands of bottles a day knew what he was doing, he should have found out about it before any research was published. What I mean is that makers have no idea about the cytotoxicity of their products. They are doing no research, so how would they know? But it is even worse that they are making such moves (to remove cinnamon flavors) without even reading (or understanding) the research they quote.

Let me explain. The latest study by Talbots group discussed about the cytotoxicity of cinnamon flavors in e-cigarette. Interestingly however, IF SOMEONE READS THE PAPER, he will find that the researchers never used any e-cigarette. Moreover, they never produced vapor! They tested the liquids in liquid form, not in vapor. How can you support that the results have implications for e-cigarette users when no e-cigarette was used and no vapor was produced? However, there is a bigger mistake. The authors mentioned that they tested 8 refill liquids with cinnamon flavor. They mention the names of the liquids and the companies they got them from. After personally searching on the internet and communicating with some companies, I found out that 4 of the samples were concentrated flavors, not refills. The authors themselves found cinnamaldehyde (the substance giving the cinnamon flavor in the liquid) at levels that differed between samples by up to 100 times. This confirms what I found: some of their samples were concentrated flavors.

Finally, there is still another problem in their study. They tested the substance itself (cinnamaldehyde) to see how toxic it is. They found it toxic at levels 400 times lower than currently approved for food use. This is a very strange result and it is hard to explain how regulatory authorities have accepted cinnamaldehyde to be available at such high levels (of course, before the approval, several tests were performed and it was not found toxic).The authors have to explain why their findings contradict previous research.

As I mentioned above, a letter to the editor has been sent and is currently evaluated for publication. In short, the results of this study have nothing to do with e-cigarette use and are more applicable to cinnamon use in food (since they tested the liquid in liquid form and they used several concentrated samples). Besides that, the reactions from manufacturers show that, unfortunately, they cannot accept their ignorance and instead of asking an expert so that they get informed, they react in a way that produces panic to vapers, does nothing to protect consumers and only results in a game of public relations tactics. This is even more unfortunate than the mistakes in the research protocol. As a final note, let's not forget that research has shown cinnamon to have anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidant and maybe anti-cancer properties...

They love the fees they can charge big pharma. I'm so glad Judge Leon told them oh hell no when the fda droolingly insisted for ecigs to be classified as drugs.

Why am i suddenly craving walnuts lol

You've just guaranteed I won't ever smoke a US made analog again. A friend from Norway says evidently the cigarettes are more "pure" over there, very few additives, if any, and very low addiction rate. The lung cancer rates are incredibly low in Norway - and this friend generally manages to make it through a day smoking very few cigarettes (like, half a pack is excessive smoking for him).

Gum in a cave environment can be very destructive. Water vapor that dissipates cannot really do any damage.

That's still kind of odd... 'Absolutely no gum'... but 'Sure thing' to blowing vapor clouds? I mean, it's awesome he let you vape... but it still comes across as kinda strange.

This weekend I and the other Den Leaders for my sons Cub Scout Pack took them "cave camping". It was a very cool trip but a couple of the parents were smokers and had asked if they could bring their "Nicorette" gum in with them. They asked since gum was expressedly forbidden so I told them I wasnt sure. Well as soon as we got into the cave the tour guide says "No Tobacco, No gum, No firearms, No open flame, etc.... One of the parents asked about nicorette and he said absolutely not.

I pulled the tour guide over to the side and asked him about vaping and explained it to him. He said that wouldn't be a problem. Since I always over pack I brought 4 fully charged Ego batteries and 4 full tanks of 24mg (just in case I was gonna have to sneak) I talked to the parents that smoked and set them each up with a battery and full tank to use for the trip and all 3 of them say they are going today to buy the starter kits. I sent them links and such but am sure they will just go to the B&M which is fine, their money. I was just proud to have led the way on hopefully a much healthier life for them and it all happened in a cave almost 2 miles below the earths surface!

Incidentally, even with 70pg liquids the vapor production is immense in 100% humidity lol.

Started vaping recently in an effort to transition/quit smoking. This method as some may be aware has been utilized by smokers for years. Obviously not in the same format, but the foundation of delivery was the same.
What I find so frustrating is the lose/lose position a smoker is in as far as the perception of regulating entities, and the realization that they perceive e-cigs in a negative light only due to self imposed ignorance on how they handled cigarettes. It's so twisted..the reality of the whole situation is that it simply boils down to money. Our state and federal governments have been milking smokers with heavy tax for years, they advertise this as an incentive to get people to quit. Reality is, they know full well that all this will do is fund them.
Now another possible alternative comes along that isn't introduced by a drug company and they feel the need to put the brakes on. Don't get me wrong...they aren't banning them, but they aren't doing much to support the cause either. I can't say that e-cigs are a silver bullet, but they give people hope of the possibility that they may be able to embrace a viable replacement to cigarettes. If they begin taxing, or harshly regulating this product they do nothing more than show their true colors and just how much they actually care about the health of Americans.
They talk about e-cigs being a gateway to smoking! You have to be kidding me! Nicotine doesn't get you high, sending the user looking for the next progression. Most smokers started by believing it was cool, or to fit in and found themselves hooked. To this day..our government in recent times has less to say about that then e-cigs! It's all about the handout they receive from big tobacco and it's such a transparent stance that it's offensive they believe any sensible person would see this any differently.
God willing, my new e-cig, and the producers of the product help support me as I try to get off of the tobacco train. Lord knows if the dollars in tax I give now change to cents the government will happily determine that they mislabeled the tax as being tobacco, when it was intended to be nicotine.
That happens, it's time to go after all the users of caffeine too, because if their was cigarette with caffeine and no nicotine, rest assured there would be people who'd start using it.
Leave the e-cigs and those of us excited about trying a new quitting option alone! This is what the leaders of this country have preached to us smokers, so put your money where your mouth is and back a healthier alternative rather than thinking about how to make up the revenue difference.

My reason...
Despite quitting regular cigarettes for 12 years (cold turkey), I constantly wanted one. The reason I quit smoking was to protect my headmates. I missed smoking so much. Then, stress pushed me to where I was going to buy a pack of cigarettes, and snagged a disposable e-cig instead. It did the trick! 3 of those at $10 a piece and realized I should just get a vape pen. I love this thing! Without it, I'd most likely be sucking on an old fashion coffin nail right now, despite 12 years quit. Maybe I went a little over kill with the pen I picked out, shouldn't have spent so much, but... this will certainly keep me from picking analogs back up.