Kmel

I was just checking online and there are a lot of alternatives to Paypal. Thisappears to be one of the better ones, based on online reviews. I checked because I am down to my last atomizer. When I tried to reorder yesterday, it looked like almost everyone with 510 atomizers is "unable to process" because they are on Paypal

@EasyE You can get EverClear here in California. Go to Beverages & More, and ask for it. That's where I got mine. @All There is, however, a difference between the EverClear sold in various States. And this is something everyone using it ---especially those using it to cut juice) should know -- some States allow the sale of nearly pure EverClear 95% alcohol and some States only allow the sale of EverClear with a maximum 75.5% alcohol. The bottles are the same, both say "EverClear", but one has a lot higher alcohol content. So when you are giving out recipes for vape liquid with EverClear, be sure and account for the actual alcohol content of the EverClear you are using. In California, the alcohol content is 75.5%. Below from Wiki: 190-proof It is illegal to sell the 190-proof variety in some states of the United States, namely Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota [3], Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Washington, California, and Kansas. Everclear 190 is legally sold in some military stores within the continental United States. [edit] 151-proof In California, Nevada, Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and some other states, the 151-proof variety is sold.

What's so bizarre that it's almost funny, is that there are numerous articles and State funded tobacco control papersavailable online complaining that roughly "50% of smokers believe the myth that nicotine causes cancer". So instead of correcting many smokers inaccurate belief, here is California government requiring you to do something that perpetuates their ignorance! I could understand a statement that says "Smoking causes cancer", but "Nicotine Causes Cancer"? Unbelievable.

Absolutely fascinating conversation. I understand and commend you for wanting to help people make the healthiest decisions possible re getting off nicotine. However, I was pretty bowled over by the line in your new disclaimer stating that "Nicotine Causes Cancer". I've searched high and low for any evidence that nicotine alone causes cancer and have found nothing credible to suggest that nicotine alone, apart from smoking, causes cancer. Yes, there might be trace amounts of potentially carcinogenic nitrosamines in the production of nicotine, but there's been no evidence that such a low level of nitrosamines actually causes cancer. Does Nicorette gum carry the warning label for causing cancer? I am a bit confused as to why that statement, "Nicotine Causes Cancer", is there. Further, while we all know of nicotine's addictive properties, if it doesn't cause other negative health effects, why such eagerness to get people off it? There are only two reasons that I can think of: 1. Nicotine addiction still "an addiction" and all addiction is "a disease"; 2. Without the e-cig satisfying the nicotine craving, someone would jump back to cigarettes to satisfy that nicotine in a heartbeat. As for nicotine addiction as "a disease", yes, that is a good model to use for a medical professional looking a treatment options. And it is a good reason for keeping the next generation from getting hooked. But, if it causes no ill effects to the physical health of the addict, then I'd say it probably ought to be pretty low on the list of addictions for people to feel a need to "cure". The best I think that we can hope for (collectively) in this generation is harm reduction. Even many anti-smoking groups have given up on seeking perfection in human behavior and have instead adopted a harm reduction strategy. The second issue is what I think is the really tough issue. E-cigs with nicotine make it easy to quit analogs, but until the nicotine addiction is cured, the leap back to analogs from e-cigs is way too easy. We haven't broken any of the major behavioral links to smoking --still have the hand to mouth habit -- and still have the addiction to nicotine. The very thing that makes vaping nicotine an effective smoking replacement (it similarity to smoking) is the very thing that makes returning to smoking an easier leap. So ultimately, until we ultimately wean ourselves off of nicotine, we are easy marks for returning to smoking.

Actually, the Everclear that is sold in the US isn't 100% pure grain alcohol. Depending on what State you are in, the legal limit for Everclear could be anywhere from 75-95% pure.

Lacey, You have far more confidence that "logic and reason" can win the day with people like Senator Corbett than I do, especially on anything that even resembles "smoking" even though vaping isn't smoking. The more I read on this issue, the more I am convinced that this is about power, money and puritanical zealotry. Not sure if you recall but back in the late 1990'a there was something called the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement The MSA took away the right of smokers to bring class action lawsuits against the Tobacco Companies in return for the State's collecting a bounty on every cigarette sold in the State, ostensibly to pay for "the higher medical costs that that the State incurs for smoking related health costs". From the get-go, the MSA was a lie. Smokers die earlier than non-smokers so that the State actually incurs less health costs for smokers than for non-smokers. This was about money -- huge amounts of it -- the MSA covered 46 States to the tune of $200 Billion dollars over 25 years. What the MSA did was lock out smaller tobacco companies from competing and offering cigarettes at lower prices, protect the major tobacco companies from litigation, and provide the States with money in return for protecting the major tobacco companies' market share. Each player in this game have an investment in keeping the game going forever. The State's need the MSA money (per cigarette sold) to keep going. Anti-smoking organizations (like the American Legacy Foundation, who a dear friend of mine worked for) need their MSA money to keep their programs going. The puritanical zealots have a personal and professional investment in their little anti-smoking world where they are "important". Pharmaceutical companies have bought their share in this deal by funding people like Corbett to pass stricter smoking legislation so that smokers will use more of their nicotine replacement products when they quit smoking. Everyone in this game --and that's what it is, a game -- has literally bought a seat at the table on the smoking/non-smoking issue, EXCEPT the electronic cigarette industry. I wish that this issue was about logic and reason. But, from what I can see, it's a corporate/governmental cartel that isn't "recruiting any new member groups". It isn't about health or even sanity -- it's about the corporate/governmental money & power, which they all have and want to keep. KMel PS I wish there were more politicians like Tom McClintock, who understand that adults have a right to weigh their own risks and make their own decisions but that isn't who is driving the issue.

If anyone has a tea kettle, a pair of tongs and some canned air to blow it completely dry afterward, it might be worth a try. Next gung-uped atomizer, I'll try it.

Will be curious about the ultrasonic jewelry cleaner's effectiveness as it essentially "shakes" the gunk off. I talked to husband -- the Engineer-- about his potential solutions. His solution was steam at the right pressure. If the pressure is too low it won't work, if it's too high it might damage the atomizer. But if the steam was just right, it should remove all the gunk, and if dried properly it could theoretically keep the atomizer going indefinitely. I also asked him about chemical solutions to the problem -- his education was actually as a chemical engineer. He said that if lemon juice or vinegar didn't work, he wouldn't try much of anything else (other than maybe everclear, if you could get your hands on it.) Because even cleaners labeled "non-toxic", are not meant for that kind of use -- and "non-toxic" at room temperature doesn't mean that they are non-toxic when heated & inhaled (even in minute quantities) as they would be in a vaporizer.

The problem with Simple Green or anything else potentially toxic isn't what it gets off completely, but rather that it may continually stick to something it has only partially removed. Then the atomizer heats up, melts that Simple Green infused PG and you may have a problem. The weird thing is that PG, in and of itself, is supposed to be a very mild solvent. So why would it clog up the atomizer? I am wondering if it is the flavorings or nicotine that is clogging it up, because finding that out could tell us what to use to clean it -- and maybe how to prevent it.

Just so we understand how bad SJR 8 is, I am posting the full text here: BILL NUMBER: SJR 8 AMENDED BILL TEXT AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 25, 2009 INTRODUCED BY Senator Corbett MAY 19, 2009 Relative to electronic cigarettes. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SJR 8, as amended, Corbett. Electronic cigarettes. This measure would request that the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prohibit all sales of electronic cigarettes until they have been found by FDA to be safe the FDA has found them to be safe . Fiscal committee: no. WHEREAS, The chemical nicotine is classified as a drug due to its stimulative, sedative, and addictive qualities; and WHEREAS, More that than 90 percent of smokers who seek to quit their addiction to nicotine fail, most relapsing within one week; and WHEREAS, Extended exposure to nicotine results in tolerance, requiring escalating doses of the drug to receive the desired stimulation; and WHEREAS, Withdrawal symptoms from nicotine include cognitive and attention defects, cravings, inability to sleep, and sleep disturbance; and WHEREAS, An unregulated product called electronic cigarettes is currently being marketed as a smokeless alternative to traditional cigarettes; and WHEREAS, Electronic cigarettes are rechargeable, battery operated drug delivery devices that look similar to cigarettes and allow the user to inhale a smokeless vapor often containing nicotine; and WHEREAS, Electronic cigarette producers market their product to children by utilizing shopping mall kiosks and locations frequented by children; and WHEREAS, These marketing efforts are similar to previous attempts to entice children to use nicotine products. Previous campaigns have included products such as cigarette candy and advertisements with cartoon characters and flashy packaging; and WHEREAS, Studies show a correlation between children who used cigarette candy and adults who are current or former smokers; and WHEREAS, The federal Food and Drug Administration has previously banned nicotine lollipops and nicotine lip balm; and WHEREAS, A study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute found that teens were more likely to be influenced to smoke by cigarette marketing than by peer pressure. Similarly, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that as much as one-third of underage experimentation with smoking was attributable to tobacco company marketing efforts; and WHEREAS, Electronic cigarettes may increase the number of young smokers; and WHEREAS, According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, over 3,600 people under the age of 18 18 years of age begin smoking daily, 1,100 of whom will become regular smokers. One-third of these young smokers will die of smoking-related illnesses; and WHEREAS, It is in the best interest of California to protect children from these products; now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and the Assembly of the State of California, jointly, That the Legislature calls upon local, state, and federal governments to find ways to prevent the use of nicotine products by children; and be it further Resolved, That the Legislature requests that the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which has jurisdiction over the regulation of nicotine products, prohibit all sales of electronic cigarettes until they have been found by that FDA to be safe the FDA has found them to be safe ; and be it further Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the United States, to the President pro Tempore of the United States Senate, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to each Senator and Representative from California in the Congress of the United States, to the Commissioner of the United States Food and Drug Administration, and to the author for appropriate distribution. Ironically, given all the lies in this Resolution, Sen Ellen Corbett is on the Senate Ethics Committee!

And by the way,SJR 8, requesting that the FDA ban e-cigs until proven safe, isn't dead yet. It's actually in the Assembly Committee on Governmental Organization. We aren't out of the woods yet, as much as I wish that we were!

Nice press release from the ECA. But I did read that tomorrow the Senate and Assembly are going to reconvene to go over the bills that got vetoed, and decide what to do about them. So we must keep an eye on them tomorrow to see that Corbett's crew doesn't pull a fast one and get the 2/3 to override it.

Took your advice, Keenan, I followed the money. Ellen Corbett is up for re-election next year. On 5/18/2009, Ellen Corbett got a $1500 donation to her re-election campaign from Merck Pharmaceuticals And there is this from May 9, 2009 Cary (Pharmaceuticals), which licensed the hypertension drug candidate from Georgetown University, patented the antismoking drug by combining an antidepressant pill by GlaxoSmithKline PLC and hypertensive pill by Merck & Co. Inc., both federally approved drugs. The company is gearing up to test the resulting once-a-day tablet, which blocks nicotine receptors and calms cravings for what Cary said will be less than the price of a cigarette pack, on 500 smokers at five clinical sites around the country. Cary then will license out the product line to a larger drugmaker that can handle the monthly payments of a final third-phase clinical trial while paying the local company for its development trouble until then. They're banking on -- and asking investors to bet on -- what analysts expect to be a $2.6 billion market for antismoking products by 2010.

Just in, Schwarzenegger has signed 89 bills, vetoed 94 and SB400 isn't among the ones signed or vetoed. Now, the suspense really is killing me!

I completely agree, Keenan. But one of the problems is that "the money" is actually coming from us -- from our tax dollars. Right now 17 million homes in the US are in pre-foreclosure. Here in the Sacramento area, over 50% of the mortgages are higher than the values of the homes. And yet, just as an example, the Federal government still has $650 Million in grants to hand out to "Community Wellness" (read anti-smoking) groups, who have decided to treat vaping the same as smoking. How do you fight that kind of money? Pfizer and Big Pharma are hard enough to fight, but when your government is spending your own tax dollars against you? What do you do, quit paying taxes and get hauled off to jail?

From your mouth to God's Ear, Keenan! I just keep thinking about that Ayn Rand quote: "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

Corbett was vying for getting a Torch Award, awarded to the legislator who gets the most anti-tobacco legislation passed. I did some research, Chris, and I found that there is a long-term, anti-tobacco strategy with cross-pollenization of international (WHO), Federal, State and local agencies working in cooperation to gradually eliminate tobacco everywhere. They are well-funded, mostly by our tax dollars. They set up this longterm strategy a number of years ago and never expected electronic cigarettes to come along mess up their projections and targets. E-cigs are sort of "neither fish, nor fowl" -- they are smoking, but not smoking; they aren't pharmaceutical nicotine replacement, but they are nicotine; and they have their own potential advantages/disadvantages when it comes to affecting their plan/strategy. In short, e-cigs are a new "variable" in the face of bureaucrats who want no new "untested and uncontrolled variables". That is why e cigs are under attack from all sides. It sounds bizarre -- here's the e cig that can get people to quit smoking and these anti-smoking bureaucrats are trying to eliminate it -- but it makes perfect sense if you are an anti-smoking bureaucrat who wants to control everything and wants nothing to affect you plan. In short, we are getting thrown under a truck by bean-counters and tobacco-abolitionist zealots -- and in the saddest of ironies, we are the ones paying their salaries.

I understand your point, etara, but the legislature passes something like 700 new bills a year here. Please tell me we need 700 new laws in California? It's ridiculous what they try and regulate here -- and it's killing the State.<p>If it were up to me, I'd say to legislators, "You get 20 new bills a year, period. Think very carefully what new legislation the State needs, because that's it -- no more, not signing more than 20!"

By the way, I found out why Schwarzenegger hasn't signed or vetoed SB400 yet. It was on the news this morning -- Schwarzenegger is threatening a mass veto of ALL legislation passed by the legislature if the legislature doesn't agree to upgrade California's water system. Let's hope that he goes through with it!

You're welcome Darth! I am educating myself, too. Here's another article that I sent to Lacey today. The relative risks of a low-nitrosamine smokeless tobacco product compared with smoking cigarettes: estimates of a panel of experts What this article means is that if e cigs are equally low in nitrosamines or even lower, the FDA can't waive that "cancer causing nitrosamines" e cig report around and get logical people to believe it anymore.

Actually, from what I have read most smoke juice does contain "nitrosamines" -- virtually all nicotine does. But according to the New Zealand Study, the level of nitrosamines in the Ruyan e cig were so low that they are not carcinogenic: Tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) were found, equal to 8 ng, in the 1 g of liquid of the 16 mg cartridge. This amount is extremely small, equal for example, to the amount reported to be present in a nicotine medicinal patch. (8 ng in 1g = eight parts per trillion). 2) These very small amounts traces are likely to be due to the fact that even medicinal grade nicotine is extracted from tobacco. 3) The level in the 16 mg nicotine cartridge, for example, is 31 times the level in the 0 mg cartridge. On a daily dose basis, TSNAs in the 16 mg nicotine e-cartridge are 1200 times less than in the tobacco of 20 manufactured cigarettes, and 3000 times less than the daily dose in a can of Swedish moist snuff.14 Conclusion. The Ruyan® e-cigarette cartridge does not contain carcinogenic levels of TSNAs, in that no product containing these trace levels has been shown to cause cancer.

There is one reason that I do understand this e-cig ban passing in the CA legislature and it is very cynical: California legislators are so addicted to cigarette taxes, especially given the State's current financial mess, that they actually WANT us to go back to smoking cigarettes so they can finance their own pet projects with those taxes. It's the reason that I am afraid that Schwarzenegger might drink the koolaid, too. I hope that I am wrong!

The FDA extended the comment period to December 28th. That site makes it really difficult to find where you need to be to comment, but it's here Docket number FDA-2009-N-0294

Battery-powered cigarettes catch on with consumers Interest high despite FDA warning about contents..... Pretty good article!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE PRLog (Press Release) – Sep 29, 2009 – FDA taking public comments on tobacco regulation (including e cigs) The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is taking public comments through December 28, 2009 on how it should implement the regulation of tobacco products. The agency said in a federal register notice that it is particularly interested in approaches and actions it should consider to reduce tobacco use and protect public health. Comments can be submitted to the agency online at http://www.regulations.gov, or by mail to the Division of Dockets Management [HFA-305], Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Comments should be identified with the docket number, FDA-2009-N-0294.