[I Guess They’re Just Not Dangerous Enough . . .]

I Guess They're Just Not Dangerous Enough . . .

By John E. Calfee

June 2, 2009, 11:01 am

Both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal carried front-page stories today (in the Journal, atop the Marketplace section rather than p. A1) on "e-cigarettes," something most of us never heard of until the past few weeks or not until today. Most e-cigarettes come from China. They have been around for a couple of years but only recently reached the $100 million mark in annual sales. In a sense, e-cigarettes are the latest chapter in the continuing debate over smokeless tobacco, which deliver nicotine from tobacco but eliminate the smoke, which is the source of practically all the harms from cigarette smoking. E-cigarettes are the ultimate smokeless product because they don't actually involve tobacco at all. They typically contain nicotine, water, some flavorings and scents, and propylene glycol (which the Times explains is common in hand sanitizers)—plus a battery and a miniature atomizer so that when the user takes a puff, he or she receives a nicotine-laced flavored mist.

The leading public health antismoking organizations like the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (supported by litigation-induced taxes on smokers) are furious about these unregulated products. They want proof of safety and efficacy, and they want the Food and Drug Administration to force e-cigarettes off the market. That is exactly what the FDA is prepared to do, on the grounds that e-cigarettes are obviously designed to help smokers quit, which is a recognized medical use and therefore renders these products subject to FDA rules about the testing and approval of new drugs.

It is hard to believe that e-cigarettes pose even a tiny percentage of the risks of smoking. Remember, there is no smoke, and the dangers of nicotine itself resemble those of caffeine. The antismoking groups are intent upon perpetuating their reckless gamble that smokers can be induced to quit and that in the meantime, virtually harmless substitutes should be kept off the market unless they go through rigorous FDA testing with all its expense and narrow focus on how products are used.

All of which leads to the totally weird observation that e-cigarettes would be free of all this controversy if only they were more dangerous (by putting real smoke in the lungs, for example) and if they didn't seem to help people quit smoking cigarettes. In today's strange public health regulatory environment, cigarettes are OK and smokeless substitutes are not.

And now, what about FDA regulation of tobacco products? Well, that's another story for another time (really soon).

Source: http://blog.american.com/?p=1444

[Service Above & Beyond]

I owe this post to Parker over at http://www.dietsmokes.com . He did me a solid, and he should get props in return.

I ordered a Kissbox from him, oh, a couple months ago it seems. One of the batts crapped out after only a couple of days, and I emailed Parker and said hey... he said he'd send out a new one, no need to return the bad one. I'm thinking excellent.

Well, it didn't come as planned. I went to his site, and saw he was out of batts for the Kissbox (they're the kind that has a separate switch module you screw on in between the batt and the atty), so I'm thinking crap, outta luck on that one.

Several weeks later, I went ahead and ordered a regular titanium 801 kit from him (they were hard to find at the time, so I didn't let the unsent replacement batt chill the purchase). The titanium kit arrived, and again, one of the batts crapped out after only a couple days. I email Parker and informed him of the dead batt, reminded him of the replacement Kissbox batt that was never received, and made him an offer -- send me a complete 801 kit for half-price, and we'll call it even. That way I'd get my two 801 batts, plus the rest of the kit. Seemed fair enough to me.

Well, Parker came back with, hey, no worries, I'll comp you an 801 kit, gratis. Yesterday my latest DietSmokes order came in the mail, and included therein was my free 801 kit, as promised.

Parker could have asked me to mail back the two dead batts. He could have just replaced them. But no, he comped me a complete kit, no questions asked. Maybe he felt a little guilty not making good on the Kissbox batt in a timely fashion, don't know... don't care. Anyway I cut it, that's good service in my book.

So to Parker... thanks man, you did right by me, and I wanted to acknowledge that publicly.

Now... don't any of you go off and tell Parker your gear crapped out when it really didn't, trying to pull a fast one on the man. He's clearly there to do right by his customers, not be ripped off by them. But then... no one here would do that, would they.... Didn't think so.

[How We Know PG Is Safer Than Analog Cigarettes]

First, I didn't assemble the following info, I found it over at another prominent forum, posted by Spikey, a well-known vaper and totally happenin' goth chick her own bad self. I'm replicating it here in its entirety because it offers some real substance to the debate over the relative safety of inhaling propylene glycol.

How we know PG is safer than analog cigarettes

It is very difficult to listen to repeated comments about how we have "no studies" on the effects of electronic cigarettes and the second hand vapor given off by these devices. The main component of the liquid used in these devices is Propylene Glycol (also called PG in references below). There is much research on devices that parallel the effects of this device (fog/smoke machines which put out a significantly higher amount of vapor than these devices and many studies on the individual components (PG, nicotine and water) which make up the vapor given off by the device. There is also a study on the actual vapor given off by the device when all components are combined. It is disappointing that the media and the people providing this information are so misinformed and would make statements which have no scientific basis.

I have omitted studies on Nicotine and water since I am sure you are already aware that there are relatively few harmful effects from nicotine use by the average person and water vapor is not really a concern. Nicotine vapors emitted by exhaled vapor from an e-cigarette are miniscule and negligible due to the fact that the majority of the nicotine is absorbed into the body.

There are studies regarding inhalation of propylene glycol and its safety dating back to the 1940's. In fact, it has been used extensively in the US since the 1950's, in medical devices such as asthma inhalers, as an air disinfectant in places like hospitals and restaurants, and even in hundreds of thousands of entertainment venues such as bars and theaters, since it is the substance used for fog and artificial smoke machines.

==================================

Here are a few quotes from the 2007 EPA re-registration decision approving the use of propylene glycol in places like hospitals and food establishments:

"Propylene glycol is used in air sanitization and hard surface disinfection and dipropylene glycol is used in air sanitization."

"Propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol were first registered in 1950 and 1959, respectively, by the FDA for use in hospitals as air disinfectants."

"Indoor Non-Food: Propylene glycol is used on the following use sites: air treatment (eating establishments, hospital, commercial, institutional, household, bathroom, transportational facilities); medical premises and equipment, commercial, institutional and industrial premises and equipment; laundry equipment; hard non-porous surface treatments (bathroom facilities); automobiles; air conditioning filters; pet treatment, including cats, dogs, and caged birds; environmental inanimate hard surfaces; garbage containers/storage."

"Target Pests: Odor-causing bacteria, Fleas, Mites, Red lice, Animal pathogenic bacteria (G- and G+ vegetative), Shigella bacteria, Pasteurella bacteria, Listeria bacteria, Herpes Simplex I and II, Animal viruses, Influenza Virus A2, Aspergillus Niger Fungus, Mold/Mildew, Pseudomonas SPP., Shigella Flexneri, Shigella Sonnei."

"General Toxicity Observations

Upon reviewing the available toxicity information, the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol. This conclusion is based on the results of toxicity testing of propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol in which dose levels near or above testing limits (as established in the OPPTS 870 series harmonized test guidelines) were employed in experimental animal studies and no significant toxicity observed."

"Carcinogenicity Classification

A review of the available data has shown propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol to be negative for carcinogenicity in studies conducted up to the testing limit doses established by the Agency; therefore, no further carcinogenic analysis is required."

And there is much more information in the full document linked below:

http://www.epa.gov/o..._glycol_red.pdf

==================================

Here is a link to a Time article about propylene glycol's germicidal properties when inhaled, published in 1942. They determined that inhaling Propylene Glycol in levels which were significantly higher than would be common under any circumstances did not have any ill effects on the monkeys used for the study. The only significant effect they noted was weight gain.

http://www.time.com/...32876-2,00.html

==================================

This article is about a study done (in the 1940's since it is obviously an unethical study to be done today!) where PG vapors were emitted into a children's convalescent home.

http://www.ajph.org/...nt/36/4/390.pdf

Quote fron this article:

"The report of the 3 years' study of the clinical application of the disinfection of air by glycol vapors in a children's convalescent home showed a marked reduction in the number of acute respiratory infections occurring in the wards treated with both propylene and triethylene glycols. Whereas in the control wards 132 infections occurred during the course of the three winters, there were only 13 such instances in the glycol wards during the same period."

==================================

Here is an incredibly long list of air sanitizing products in current commerce based on propylene glycol, many used in hospitals as approved by the EPA in the above PDF:

http://www.scorecard...ance_id=57-55-6

==================================

Here is an article about long-term exposure of significantly high levels of PG vapor in monkeys and rats.

http://jpet.aspetjou...bstract/91/1/52

From this article:

"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. Comparative observations on the growth rates, blood counts, urine examinations, kidney function tests, fertility and general condition of the test and control groups, exhibited no essential differences between them with the exception that the rats in the glycol atmospheres exhibited consistently higher weight gains."

==================================

Article on the repeated exposure of rats to PG suggesting low priority for further study due to lack of ill effects.

http://www.inchem.or...ids/57-55-6.pdf

The first few lines of this study say:

"Propylene glycol (PG) is not acutely toxic. The lowest oral LD50 values range between 18 and 23.9 grams (5 different species) and the reported dermal LD50 is 20.8 grams. PG is essentially nonirritating to the skin and mildly irritating to the eyes."

==================================

Here is a link to a study showing the safety of propylene glycol as the carrier for inhaled Cyclosporine, for lung transplant patients. Propylene Glycol is used as a drug delivery system, even for patients who have pulmonary complications and whose lungs are compromised BECAUSE of the germicidal and virucidal properties of the substance.

http://www.lieberton...9/jam.2007.0626

From this article:

"There were no respiratory or systemic effects of high doses of propylene glycol relative to air controls. These preclinical studies demonstrate the safety of aerosolized cyclosporine in propylene glycol and support its continued clinical investigation in patients undergoing allogeneic lung transplantation.

==================================

The article below explains that the Entertainment and Services Technology association hired TWO independent companies to test the toxicology of propylene glycol in vaporized form in a work environment.

http://www.esta.org/...FS/cihintro.htm

Quote from this article:

"The Cohen Group report and the HSE Consulting report are not identical documents, but are substantially congruent in their findings. Both reports state that all of the chemicals they studied (glycerin and five dihydric alcohols) are of low toxicity. Some of the chemicals are of such low toxicity that no maximum allowable concentrations have ever been established, even though they are used in a wide variety of industrial applications. A few of the chemicals have permissible exposure limits defined by a variety of governmental bodies in the US, UK and Germany, but these exposure limits are believed to be higher than the levels needed to produce a heavily fogged theatrical environment. Neither report gives any indication that performance environments should be evaluated in a manner different than that used for other industrial work sites.

==================================

Below are links to the independent studies completed for the ESTA.

http://www.esta.org/.../docs/cohen.pdf

Statement from the Cohen Study:

"Prolonged and repeated inhalation of triethylene glycol and propylene glycol concentrations well above those present in high-density fog theatrical productions has been repeatedly demonstrated to not pose a health hazard to human subjects. Both glycols have generally been found to be not irritating to the eyes and skin, although splashing the pure compound into the eye may produce transient irritation."

http://www.esta.org/...FS/docs/HSE.pdf

Statement from HSE study in which PG referes to Propylene Glycol:

"PG, G, and TEG's toxicity data appears to be well studied and demonstrates low occupational hazards."

==================================

Article about E-cigarette safety and study confirmation

http://www.24-7press...tudy-101013.php

From this article:

"Toxic emissions scores for the Ruyan brand of e-cigarettes tested compared to tobacco cigarette brands such as Marlboro revealed what most e-cigarette consumers already knew: tobacco cigarettes emit over 100 times more toxic chemicals than e-cigarettes do. From a list of more than 70 of toxic substances found in tobacco cigarette smoke, 0 of those toxicants were found in e-cigarette emissions."

==================================

Actual study on E-cigarette liquid.

http://healthnz.co.n...rt21-Oct-08.pdf

Direct Quote from this article:

"Several toxicants in headspace of the Ruyan® e-cigarette cartridge have, on some tests, been found, specifically acrolein and acetaldehyde, at very low levels, and at levels below those determined to be harmful, and well below the minimum risk levels accepted by the US Public Health Service and OSHA.

The results obtained to date do not mitigate this report's overall conclusion that the Ruyan® e-cigarette is designed to be a safe alternative to smoking, and appears to be safe in absolute terms on all measurements we have applied."

==================================

Below are links to some statements and interviews from doctors sharing their feelings on these devices.

Dr. Joel Nitzkin:

http://www.ecigarett...-cigarette.html

Dr. Michael Siegel:

http://tobaccoanalys...ps-want-to.html

Dr. Carl Phillips:

http://www.tobaccoha...g/faq/ecigs.htm

And I'll add an interview with David Sweanor:

http://www.ecigarett...id-sweanor.html

Here is a video by former US Congressman Matt Salmon, the current president of the ECA (Electronic Cigarette Association):

http://www.ecassoc.org/

==================================

The bottom line is this: Propylene glycol as the base carrier liquid for the small percentage of liquid nicotine found in e-cigarettes is a safe and well-studied substance. It truly amazes me to hear such misinformation spread, even by doctors and health groups, about propylene glycol and e-cigarettes. E-cigarettes are in fact considered by many reputable doctors and others in the field of tobacco harm reduction to be nearly one-hundredth as harmful as the so freely available tobacco cigarettes they were designed to be an alternative to. I believe the misinformation is deliberately propogated by people with a vested interest in seeing these devices do not succeed in replacing TOBACCO cigarettes. The media may succeed in scaring consumers, but the government cannot justifiably ban this device without some form of ACTUAL study showing detriment to the body of the user or the people around the user.

By condemning e-cigarette users to a smoking environment, you risk the health of the residents who have quit smoking for a healthier lifestyle and to protect the health of their chilkdren, families and those around them. If you refuse to prohibit the use of smoke/fog machines within your county then there is NO reasonable basis for these restrictions. Now that you have the above information, the fact that we "do not know" what is in the vapor is NO longer acceptable.

Info gathered by Spikey, posted at E-Cigarette-Forum.com, June 5, 2009.

http://www.e-cigaret...cigarettes.html

[Vapor War]

The FDA looms this forum, perhaps I should create a sub forum for them

I don't know, Chris... it's not like the government's at a loss for ways to distribute their unremitting, hypocritical, lobby-induced, screw-the-people and tax-'em-for-it propaganda.

Just my 2 cents.

[So Who Does #2 Work For?]

You being so well-connected, Sarge, maybe you can help promote ecigs with the powers that be and help keep the things on the market. I'll bet if the military says, yeah, these things are the way to go, the FDA might get the boot in the *** they so richly deserve.

[I Added A Hole In A 901 Atty]

OK, one of the questions I've seen posted here and there concerns the DSE901 atomizers. They have a single air hole in the barrel... stop the hole with your finger and you can't draw it, so obviously that hole is the sole source of air for the device. The question has often been raised as to whether adding another hole would improve performance, but I don't recall hearing of anyone trying it on a working 901 atty. Intrepid jackass that I am, I decided to rip into a perfectly good 901 atty with my drill press and report the results.

I adjusted the whistle-style mouthpiece so that the flat plane of the mouthpiece aligned with the original airhole, which helped me eyeball my target location on the opposite side of the barrel. I scribed my target on the barrel, set up a very small drill bit in my drill press, secured the barrel in a drill press vice, threw plenty of light on my work, centered the barrel to the drill, and gently deployed the drill bit to the barrel of the 901 atty. The drill wanted to drift off to the side, of course, but I figured if I went real slow and gave the bit time to get started, I could avoid taking a pointed awl and hammer to establish the centerpoint for the drill bit, which I thought might damage the atty worse than drilling it a new *** would. I was right... by going real easy, the drill bit gained a bit of traction and got itself started in the barrel. I gently pressed into the barrel until I heard the drill break through the casing. I immediately eased up on the handle of the press, blew off the scrap metal shavings, and remounted the atty to the batt and gave it a tug. Fortunately, it produced a hit. I had done no damage... but did my experiment improve anything?

Yes, the modified 901 draws easier. Figured it would.

But does it improve vapor production, which was the whole point of the task? Not a bit, in fact two holes seems to produce less vapor (with less throat) than it does when I stop the added airhole with my finger.

So the answer is in -- adding a second airhole to a DSE901 atty does nothing to improve vapor, but it is an easier draw. I'll be taping over the hole I added and let the atty serve out its life.

Those clever Chinese apparently figured out the perfect amount of air the 901 atty wants to see for maximum vapor and throat. You can't beat science and good design, usually. But it was fun trying.

[So Who Does #2 Work For?]

What Poppa said.

[Dry-smoking Vs. Cartridges ?]

At home I use a syringe I got from Johnson Creek to inject into the cart bottom (better saturation that way). Away from home I drip on the cart with a eye-dropper.

I prefer to drip the carts cause they last longer than direct dripping. Plus I'm trying to prolong my atty life, which burn out soon enough no matter what you do. But I figure swamping the atty with juice doesn't help.

[Vapor War]

Vapor War

Our irrational hostility toward electronic cigarettes.

By William Saletan Posted Wednesday, June 3, 2009, at 10:44 AM ET

First there was smoked tobacco. Then there was smokeless tobacco. Now there's something in between.

It's vaporized nicotine, aka "vaping." It isn't quite tobacco, and it isn't quite smoking. Should we ban it, since it's sort of like smoking? Or should we tolerate it, since it's different in important respects? Does the war on smoking require total victory, or can we accept a peace deal that lets the industry, in some form, escape?

Let's start with a bit of background. Vaporized nicotine has been around in various forms for at least two decades. Lately, it's been spreading across the world in the form of "electronic cigarettes." Two months ago, Slate's Emily Yoffe tried them out and reported:

The e-cigarette contains no tobacco and produces no smoke. Instead, it is an ingenious electronic device. … The "filter" is a receptacle for nicotine suspended in propylene glycol—the main ingredient in deodorant sticks and artificial smoke machines. … When the user sucks on the filter, a nicotine-laced vapor is produced, satisfying a smoker's cravings. … [One product] allows you to choose filter cartridges with different levels of nicotine. I selected "none," which meant my e-cig was the buzz-free equivalent of nonalcoholic beer. The cigarette came in flavors such as tobacco, vanilla, mint, and apple. … Fortunately, as bad as the mist tasted, there was no noticeable odor, and it dissipated almost immediately, and thus didn't create a secondhand vapor problem.

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal and New York Times followed up with similar reports. "The vapor can be inhaled and then exhaled, creating a cloud that resembles cigarette smoke but dissipates more quickly and doesn't have the lingering odor," says the Journal. The Times described an e-cigarette that "delivered an odorless dose of nicotine and flavoring without cigarette tar or additives, and produced a vapor mist nearly identical in appearance to tobacco smoke."

So is vaping smoking? Let's run the checklist. Cigarette? Yes. Smoke? No. Cloud? Yes. Odor? No. Tar? No. Nicotine? Optional.

Good luck sorting this one out.

The first practical question is whether you can vape in places where smoking is now forbidden. Yoffe tried this and got a mixture of technical tolerance and social disapproval. The Journal adds:

Users have had varied experiences vaping in public, ranging from indifference to odd glances. On a recent day, Shai Shloush, 25, from Knoxville, Tenn., huddled in the back of a movie theater to watch the new Star Trek movie. He powered up his e-cigarette and puffed away. "I was covering the LED part so people wouldn't notice," said Mr. Shloush, a former smoker. "Every once in a while I'd be really sneaky about letting out the smoke."

The Times claims that "because they produce no smoke, they can be used in workplaces, restaurants and airports." One user, for example, reports that "when everyone was smoking outside in the cold, I just stood in the warm bar, smoking."

The next question is whether we should officially regulate them like cigarettes. According to the Journal,

The American Lung Association, along with the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American Heart Association and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, recently called for e-cigarettes to be removed from the market. The groups say e-cigarettes have yet to be proven safe and that kids may be attracted to the products, some of which come in flavors like chocolate and strawberry. "Nobody knows what the consumers are actually inhaling," says Erika Sward, director of national advocacy at the American Lung Association.

Governments seem to be buying this view. The FDA has officially barred importation of e-cigarettes. "These appear to be unapproved drug device products," a spokeswoman tells the Times, "and as unapproved products they can't enter the United States." Australia and Hong Kong have also prohibited the devices.

That's a pretty awkward position. We restricted smoking, tobacco sales, and advertising based on decades of evidence that smoking was harmful to smokers and bystanders. Now we're treating electronic cigarettes the same way based on ... what? That "nobody knows" how bad they might be? The elements of smoking that justified our war on tobacco—carcinogens, combustion, secondhand smoke, even nicotine—have been removed or made optional. Is it really logical to ignore these differences?

And why should we presume that vaping is as dangerous as smoking, when research on vaporized marijuana suggests the opposite? Here are two such reports quoted last week in the Human Nature blog. First, a 2007 paper in Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics:

Whereas smoking marijuana increased CO [carbon monoxide] levels as expected for inhalation of a combustion product, there was little if any increase in CO after inhalation of THC from the vaporizer. This indicates little or no exposure to gaseous combustion toxins. Combustion products are harmful to health and reflect a major concern about the use of marijuana cigarettes for medical therapy as expressed by the Institute of Medicine.

And second, a 2007 study in the Harm Reduction Journal, which found

that respiratory symptoms like cough, phlegm, and tightness in the chest increase with cigarette use and cannabis use, but are less severe among users of a vaporizer. ... The odds ratio suggests that vaporizer users are only 40% as likely to report respiratory symptoms as users who do not vaporize, even when age, sex, cigarette use, and amount of cannabis consumed are controlled.

Let's be blunt about what's going on here. We tolerated smoking until science proved it was harmful to nonsmokers. As momentum grew, the war on smoking became cultural, with disapproval and ostracism of anyone who lit up. Electronic cigarettes have removed the war's scientific basis, but our cultural revulsion persists. Therefore, so does our prohibition and condemnation.

Maybe what we need is a convergence of the tobacco debate with the marijuana debate. In each case, vaporization is dissolving the categories and grounds that warranted prohibition. Liberals can see this, but only in the case of pot. Conservatives can see it, but only in the case of tobacco. Go talk to one another. The engineering and re-engineering of drugs will only get more complicated as technology improves. We'd better start thinking rationally about it.

Source - Slate.com

[Charlie Bit Me]

Personally, I like this version:

http://www.youtube.c...player_embedded

[Obama: Please Save The Electronic Cigarette]

A very good letter. I hope it doesn't fall on deaf ears.

[How's Your Joye510 Holding Up?]

Funny... I was thinking of starting a thread asking the very same question, Chris.

I got my 510, what... almost a month ago. I tend to like the penstyles better, but the atty's do seem to crap out a lot. I had two 801 atty's die in the past week. They seem generally NOT very durable, and it can be a pain to find them available sometimes... like tonight, f'rinstance. I had to search for an hour or better locating 801 atty's at a decent price.

But my little 510 is still on the original atty. One of the batts died within a week, and I hobbled along on one batt, using the 510 as a secondary ecig. I just got a second 510 batt from Parker, and now intend to lean more heavily on the 510 for a few days to see if I can kill the atty. Will report.

If we learn that the 510 is really the workhorse in terms of durability it seems to be, I'll have to rethink my preference to the 801s.

[Midland Street bar offers electronic cigarette for smoke-free environment]

The newly re-opened Duso's Bar is smoke-free, but that doesn't mean you have to go without nicotine.

A new invention from China, and sold at Duso's, is offering smokers an alternative to traditional cigarette.

http://www.mlive.com...ffers_elec.html

[A day vaping at Disney.]

Well, I thought the Georgia team did a real fine job against Washington last night... comported themselves very sportsman-like. Props to the Bulldogs.

[A day vaping at Disney.]

Ah man, how sweet is that?! How nice to enjoy a day out with the family and not feel like a social pariah.

As more non-smokers get to interact with vapers and see for themselves how socially benign ecigs are, I think a lot of the knee-jerk reactionism against vaping will subside a good deal. Not from the dedicated anti-inhalationists, of course... nothing short of total abstinence will satisfy those intolerant tightbutts. But most reasonable people, as they experience vaping up close, will come to agree that this is NOT smoking, this is something else, something ultimately unobjectionable.

Looks like you had great weather as well.

Speaking of Florida (and not to go off-topic too much... but)... the U of Florida Gators are set to play in the finals against Washington in the NCAA Women's College World Series this week in OK City. Been watching the series all week on ESPN, and your gals are playing some serious softball. Looks like the SEC might take home their first World Series title. We're a big fast-pitch softball family here in Indiana, and we're rooting for ya.

[E-Cigs to hit the battlefield]

GAINESVILLE, FL, May 27, 2009 /24-7PressRelease/ -- Smoking has long been taboo on the fields of war because of the light generated by dragging on a cigarette, but with e-cigarettes becoming such a hot commodity, one distributor has taken it to the next level.

Known as "No. 9 Stealth", this e-cigarette is more subdued and not bright white. It comes without the characteristic LED on the end that simulates the light given off by a cigarette. With no carcinogens, flame or light being emitted from the No. 9 Stealth, it could be what some soldiers have been wanting for years.

"The idea came from a military vet who served with the 11th ACR, "Blackhorse Regiment" in Vietnam and Iraq," says Kyle of Ecigaretteschoice.com. "No matter how well you cup a cigarette with your hands, the red glow shows through and it makes you a perfect target for snipers, especially at night. He thought e-cigarettes were a great idea, but if the LED is removed and the battery is colored right, it's a comfort item for soldiers who want a smoke out in the field.

E-cigarettes only generate 10% of the heat a tobacco cigarette generates, which reduces the chance that a soldier could be detected from miles away by the heat alone.

"You would be amazed at how bright a cigarette cherry is from a mile away when it's pitch black outside," says Earl Ellis, a former sergeant in an army ranger unit. "When I was in, they didn't tell you you couldn't smoke at night, but they made it clear you were putting your whole unit's lives in your hands. If everybody dies tonight, it's your fault. It's no joke."

Many non-smokers would say the solution would be what it is now: stop smoking.

"Smoking isn't a moral issue; it's a health issue and it's a choice," says Kyle. "Most non-smokers have no idea how hard it is to quit, even with help from patches, gums, and all the other stuff; the mental addiction is what gets you, because the nicotine is out of your system in a couple of days. People have all the information about the dangers of tobacco that they need and many people have no desire to quit and for those people, e-cigarettes are the answer. For soldiers who don't want to quit, the answer is No. 9 Stealth."

Smokers Smart Choice is the first to meet their needs and supports our troops and thanks them with an automatic discount on all orders to Iraq & Afghanistan APO addresses.

Source

[needin some help with making cartridges last.....]

I inject with a syringe, as well, so the stuffing gets fully saturated. When away from home, of course, as one hesitates to pull out a syringe in public (I want neither the social scrutiny nor the public safety hassles), I carry juice in 4ml bottles with an eye-dropper and top off as needed. A paperclip helps to work the stuffing and let air trapped in the bottom of the cart escape, allowing more liquid to enter, but you can get by with just dripping with a dropper.

Unless the cart stays fully saturated, flavor and vapor quickly diminish... and I'm sure it helps keep atomizers from burning out if the cart stays filled with juice. If it puddles a bit on top, I don't worry, I figure it's like dripping on the atty in that case. I keep a folded paper towel on my desk to clean up any juice that squirts out the sides of the mouthpiece when I press it back on the atty. By keeping the battery end of the ecig low and drawing gently, I have little problem with sucking in juice. And I suppose I've gotten used to the taste, anyway, so it's not the end of the world if I get a bit of juice in my mouth, I just wipe it off and keep on vaping.

I figure I go through about 10ml of juice a day, as two 30ml 24-strength bottles won't quite get me through a week. So I'm still spending less than half on juice that I once spent on analog cigs. I may well go to 36mg and dilute with glycerin, I just haven't done so yet.

Yes, vaping is a lot more involved than smoking. You can't beat just pulling out a cig and lighting up for simplicity, but the extra muss and fuss of vaping is a small price to pay for the benefits and advantages. I just consider it a new hobby, and take enjoyment in the activity.

I was doing a gig the other night in a bar that allows smoking. There I was, surrounded by smokers, an environment which if I had been quiting smoking I would normally have wanted to avoid, but I felt very at-ease, not the least tempted or discomfitted by the smoke around me. Vaping has totally replaced smoking for me, and I'm just glad to be on the other side of the cigarette paradigm.

Vaping so totally transcends smoking in every way, I find it mindboggling that anyone would object to the activity. But there's no dirth of nincompoops out there, is there....

[E-Cigarette Interview with Dr Murray Laugesen]

26th May 2009

E-Cigarette Interview with Dr Murray Laugesen

We have been fortunate enough to talk to the man who, outside the laboratories of the electronic cigarette manufacturers themselves, probably knows most about the electronic cigarette. Respected researcher Dr Murray Laugesen of Health New Zealand, is one of the few to have carried out an in-depth analysis of the contents of the electronic cigarette, and has presented on his findings at international conferences. In this interview we talk to him about concerns over the electronic cigarette.

ECD: In previous interviews we have conducted scientists have estimated that, based on the evidence available, the risk to health from electronic cigarettes is between 1% and 1/10th of 1% of real cigarettes. You have actually done a product assessment of Ruyan electronic cigarette. What's your assessment of the risks?

ML: We would rate the Ruyan electronic cigarette two to three orders of magnitude safer (100 to 1000 times safer) than a tobacco cigarette. We say this because our testing of the Ruyan e-cigarette for nearly 60 major toxicants has not found any cigarette smoke toxicants in any but trace quantity so far. This is not surprising, as the operating temperature of the atomiser of an e-cigarette is 5 to 10% that of a burning tobacco cigarette, so the volatile cigarette smoke toxicants are not created.

Provided each e-cigarette maker has certified good manufacturing practices, plants and uses pure ingredients their emissions should be harmless also. The problem is that most manufacturers do not comply in this respect. Ruyan has taken a risk in publicly testing their product. They come out squeaky clean.

ECD: When we first requested an interview with you several months ago, you suggested we wait, as you might well have some more information regarding the products. There has also been more research conducted in New Zealand since that time. What are the latest developments?

ML: New Zealand researchers at the Dublin conference of the international Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco in late April 2009 presented research showing the Ruyan e cigarette is free of cigarette smoke toxicants, is able to increase nicotine in the bloodstream of users, and relieve cravings.

ECD: The position taken by most public health groups in the US is that these devices should not be used until they have undergone further extensive testing. Is this a position you agree with?

ML: With prescription drugs, we would agree. But nicotine is one of the safest of drugs, and is being sold as the alternative to the most dangerous consumer product – the tobacco cigarette. Low risk compared to cigarettes is the real world risk that smokers face. The risk that distributors face is of being sued for defective product – an insurable risk and not huge for sellers of e-cigarettes.

Further "extensive testing" to prove near zero absolute safety in the USA means testing to FDA protocols. In the USA this costs millions of dollars, and several years delay, and implies large price markups on medicinals under near monopoly conditions. There needs to be either a simpler or provisional slate of tests required, short of medicinal registration, or, as in the UK, these devices and refills need clearance to be sold as non-medicines (with the option of some brands later qualifying as medicines).

So my hope would be that the FDA and other regulators will review their stance on e-cigarettes with the aim of how to save the most smokers' lives most effectively, balance this public health imperative against their brief to protect consumer safety, and possibly fashion a new regulatory approach for faster acting nicotine products.

The product is safe, efficacious, and possibly effective in stopping smoking. E-cigarettes have been on sale in the UK since 2007 (classed as non-medicines), and in the USA for over one year without any harm reported in the media or medical journals, or by doctors reporting adverse reactions. It is a product that potentially just might assist smokers to quit and therefore cut the 1 in 2 cumulative death rate in smokers. Further research is needed.

So far the only response from almost every government regulator has been to say that the nicotine in e-cigarettes means they classify as medicines, requiring millions of dollars and years of delay and thousands of pages of paper work to follow the regulatory processes to bring this product to market. This cost is repeated as each new product is patented and tested, for approval. Patents are in dispute, and further patents and improvements in design are in the pipeline.

There is a clash also between the absolute safety of a cigarette substitute (in fact, no drug is 100% safe) and the relative safety of e-cigarettes compared with tobacco smoking. Regulators decree what is good for populations, and this can clash with fundamental rights of citizens to be able to buy any reasonably safe product that will diminish their risks of dying early from continuing use of smoking tobacco.

Government tobacco control agencies could assist by sitting down with medicine regulators, to balance these considerations, and produce relaxed safety regulations for fast acting nicotine products as proposed by the tobacco group of the Royal College of Physicians London recently.

The tobacco control community could assist by working with government health and research agencies, to fast track this product's research and development as the first of a new generation of possible substitutes to replace tobacco smoking. But one thing is clear - smokers need a whole generation of better products to provide their needs for safe nicotine, and the sooner these can be coaxed to market, the better.

ECD: The WHO amongst others have raised concerns about the delivery of nicotine to the lungs via the device. Is this a concern you share?

ML: First we now know that the nicotine dose per puff is low, and more puffs need to be taken to satisfy cravings as do tobacco cigarettes. Secondly we find that the e-cigarette nicotine is more likely absorbed in the upper airways rather than in the lungs – and so it will not be delivered very rapidly to the brain as in the case of the tobacco cigarette.

The lower nicotine per puff in the e-cigarette and the slower uptake compared with tobacco cigarettes means the addiction risk is probably low. Perhaps e-cigarettes could be made more satisfying, without impairing the taste. Such e-brands may already exist, but the lack of research funds means we just do not know which they are. E-cigarette distributors wishing to move product, and public health agencies, wishing to save lives, need to pay much closer attention to nicotine deliveries, because without sufficient nicotine, e-cigarettes will not satisfy as cigarette substitutes.

ECD: By using an electronic cigarette, using what we know of the ingredients, in what ways could a smoker expect their health to improve?

"E-cigarette users should switch completely ... as even a single cigarette daily greatly increases the risk of a heart attack

ML: The main health advantage of using the electronic cigarette is if and when it replaces tobacco cigarettes, which carry a one in two risk of early death. Those who quit smoking tobacco by any other means such as cold turkey also reap that advantage as long as they do not relapse.

E-cigarette users should switch completely or quit nicotine completely and avoid even one tobacco cigarette per day, as even a single cigarette daily greatly increases the risk of a heart attack.

Propylene glycol, the main ingredient of e-cigarette mist, is known to kill airborne flu virus and bacteria, and tends to protect those exposed to it in inhaled air, whereas in contrast smoking tobacco doubles the risk of death in a flu epidemic. However we don't have any data as to the extent that propylene glycol inhaled intermittently from an e-cigarette might prevent inhalation of live bacteria and viruses. This merits research.

ECD: What conditions are not likely to improve after switching to the electronic cigarette?

ML: Electronic cigarettes will not protect from diseases and damage due to past tobacco smoking, but they can help the smoker to stop making things much worse by continued inhalation of irritant and toxic tobacco smoke.

ECD: Despite your own studies in New Zealand and many supporters in the Tobacco Harm Reduction community, electronic cigarettes have been banned in Australia and in your own country, New Zealand; there seems to be a defacto ban in Canada and they look likely to be made illegal in the US under requirements which require testing which is physically impossible to carry out. Yet such a ban on a product so much safer than cigarettes seems absurd. What is the reason for the opposition to the electronic cigarette?

ML: Most regulators would privately agree the system is absurd. E-cigarettes are caught in a two-box regulatory trap. Nicotine products are in law usually either tobacco products or medicines. A choice between only two options is a dilemma for the regulator.

E-cigarettes, seeking to be tobacco-free, no longer fit the first box.

So regulators classify it in the second box, as a medicine.

From a smoker's viewpoint, however, it belongs in a third box, as a lifestyle choice or cigarette alternative. It is also a question of market power. Big Tobacco controls Box no. 1, Big Pharma and the white coat health professional prescribers and dispensers control box no 2, while many smokers addicted to nicotine, the ones most likely to be sitting on death row, are powerless. They would like to buy from Box no. 3, but it is empty.

ECD: One study in Europe has suggested that making snus illegal has cost thousands of European lives. While obviously difficult to quantify, in your opinion would a ban on the electronic cigarette in the US cost the lives of smokers?

ML: Making snus illegal in Europe has helped ensure that the popularity of snus in Swedish men, the low cigarette smoking rates in men, and the low Swedish lung cancer rates in men have not benefited men in Europe. Compared with snus, the e-cigarette has the advantage of appealing to both women and men. Bans on electronic cigarette in countries such as the United States could frustrate efforts to know whether the e-cigarette can wrest market share from tobacco cigarettes. A ban on their sale would crimp their potential to save lives. However, we need some statistics as to how many e-cigarettes have sold industry-wide, and how many of these customers are still smoking.

Source: http://www.ecigarettedirect.co.uk/...

Interviewer: James Dunworth

[Super Mini Trick]

I would have posted pictures to demonstrate what I meant but, I gave my PeeWee away to user J45Hartman a little while ago because his broke and he couldn't afford a new kit.

What a humanitarian! Sean, you redeem your sorry *** today with that random act of kindness.

Chris... really... you need to cut Sean some slack. He's not nearly the insufferable butthole you told me he was.

<=== Just stirring up whatever mud's available....

[Anti-ecig Opponents Launch Petition to FDA]

Exactly. What we're seeing here is intolerance taken to the molecular level. We, as vapers, cannot claim that what we exhale is "nothing but water vapor". Whatever nicotine our bodies do not absorb is most likely exhaled. Our significant others report back to us that there's a faint smell of wild cherries (or whatever) in the air. So there's some cycling of what we vape into the air around us. Most likely unconsumed PG or VG is exhaled as well.

So it's that microscopic inhaliatory content (I coined the term 'inhaliatory', BTW) being dispelled that's freaking out the anti-smoker crowd. It is quite apt, Chris, to mention pollution from the very cars the health-nazis drive relative to what they are likely to ever be exposed to from we lowly vapers. We're talking parts per billion compared to the voluminous output of any internal combustion engine. Gimme a break!

[Anti-ecig Opponents Launch Petition to FDA]

ASH (Action on Smoking & Health), a long-time anti-smoker organization, is turning up the heat to promote their anti-ecig agenda. Not known as the most tolerant of folks, nor so much concerned with the civil liberties of (say)... all Americans, ASH has launched a petition to the FDA calling for severe regulation of e-cigs.

=========================

COMING SOON TO A NO-SMOKING SECTION WHERE YOU ARE SITTING:

A new device for addicted smokers who want to be able to get their nicotine fix by "smoking" in places where smoking is prohibited, and do so by exhaling a cloud of "smoke" made up of a chemical which is both toxic and addictive.

This new product, already being sold and used in many U.S. cities, is called an e-cigarette.

It doesn't burn tobacco, but it does allow smokers to inhale – and to exhale into the air around them – the addictive substance nicotine which constricts blood vessels, increases the heart rate, and produces other changes in a body (especially in people not accustomed to it).

Most astonishingly, the product is currently not subject to any regulation, so we have no way of knowing what other chemicals might also be given off when the user exhales into the air. FOR A COPY OF ASH' s LEGAL PETITION, SEE BELOW.

ASH TO THE RESCUE

To help protect nonsmokers, and also smokers who might use the product instead of quitting, ASH has filed a formal legal petition demanding that it be regulated by the FDA.

Want to Sit Next to This Guy?

If you don't want people sitting next to you – in a waiting room, restaurant, bar, or any other area where smoking is now prohibited – using one of these devices to get around smoking bans, and forcing you and your loved ones to inhale deadly nicotine – please help now!

SOURCE: http://ash.org/ecigpetition

[TV Shows & Movies Online]

Love Hulu, discovered it way back before they started their TV ads. Will check out crackle.

Otherwise, we have a netflix account which totally did away with our premium cable movie channels. We get the disks sometimes, but often just stream the movie right off the web (I have our 50" plasma hard-wired to the puter, so we can toss the browser window right up there and open it to wide screen... very nuvo millennium).

Here's a shot of my studio as of a few months ago (it's grown since then):

[An Interview with Professor Michael Siegel]

A good read.

"Perhaps the most interesting example of the dependence upon ideology rather than science and a strong evidence base is the issue of electronic cigarettes. The major national anti-smoking groups have asked the FDA to take these products off the market. This is despite evidence that electronic cigarettes are much safer than conventional cigarettes and much more effective than traditional nicotine replacement therapy products in keeping smokers off cigarettes. It really comes down to ideology vs. science.

"The anti-smoking movement's ideology - which is guided by an abstinence only type of philosophy - just doesn't have room for a product that looks and acts like a cigarette but happens to be orders of magnitude safer. In this case, the science - the health effects - just don't matter. The ideology is too deeply ingrained to allow the product to be given a chance of saving lives.

.....

"Whether electronic cigarettes are safer than conventional cigarettes is really a non-issue. The real questions are how effective the product is in helping smokers keep off cigarettes, how electronic cigarettes could figure into a long-term strategy for promoting smoking cessation, and what specific messages about electronic cigarettes and health would be appropriate to communicate to the public."

Source:

http://www.ecigarettedirect.co.uk/intervie...ael-siegel.html

[Easy Bottle Mod]

Organic -- that may be the key word as I thought they tasted like $hit!!

Now that's how I felt whenever I'd light up a standard commercial cig. Tasted foul to me, but the organics tasted very fine.

Of course, now that I'm an ex-smoker, they all taste like crap to me.

[Easy Bottle Mod]

Nice idea, but how do u vape 30 mls in 3 DAYS??? Im like halfway done with one bottle, its been about 4 weeks

That's close, maybe 4 days. I was two packs a day of analogs, and I work at a puter a lot, vaping all the time. So far roughly two 30ml bottles a week covers me.

I can't complain. That's $40 for juice when I was spending $100 for analog American Spirit organic cigs.