Faceman and the flawed NEJM vaping study.

The New England Journal of Medicine paper quoting that study omitted on salient data point: At normal voltages, PVs produce no formaldehyde, nor any other toxin. It's only when the devices are powered at far above the voltage at which any end user would operate them, for far longer than any end user would operate them, that they begin to burn the wick in the atomizing device. Burning wick is what produces formaldehyde, and no user of these devices does that for any period of time.

To summarize:

Formaldehyde from vaping might go a long way toward explaining Castle's recent more extreme break with sanity.

It might. I still think his crystal meth habit has more to do with it though.

Here's the article under discussion.

It's only three paragraphs, which suggests that Face may actually have read it. And no doubt Castle can refute it (and the accompanying references upon which it's based) point by point, starting here:

There is considerable discussing in the UK over banning vaping in the same places that cigarettes are banned.

California already does.

My view is this - as a stopgap to help smokers wean off their nicotine addiction (which evidence in those nasty ol' medical journals - and first-person accounts - indicates is more powerful than heroin), vaping is a wonderful temporary measure.

As a lifelong habit, it's just another form of addiction, one that has a certain kewl factor that's drawing in nonsmokers.

Free will and all that, but informed free will, is key.

Arguing about the formaldehyde in ecigs is like arguing about the sugar content of vodka. Nicotine is not good for you. It encourages cancer formation. No form of nicotine ingestion is going to be safe. Do not get me wrong, I smoke. I also do not delude myself into thinking there is a safe way to get my nicotine. It is a drug, and it is not one of the safer ones. I do agree smoking should not be done indoors where air is not circulated like in the outdoors, and non-smokers share the air unless it is your home, or the indoor area is dedicated to smokers only.

What i will say is the second hand smoke argument becomes much weaker when dealing with vaping. The vapor dispersal is obviously far better than the dispersal of the smoke from a cigarette. Aside from those who use their vaporizer to emit vapor over a whole area, you are not getting the same problems from a vaporizer. Not to mention the vapor certainly does not leave the same residue smell and tar coating on everything like a cigarette does. If vapor harms your lungs you need to be in a bubble and certainly should not be breathing air from california. You are a fucking weakling and need to get the fuck out of public before someone kicks your granola eating vegan ass back to the cabbage patch where you belong. Whatever little bits of formaldehyde that you get from an e-cig as a second hand person are certainly far less than you got in high school, or if you work in or near a manufacturing plant. s for the firsthand smoker they are allowed to risk their own safety as much as they want as a free person . So shove your anti-smoking rhetoric up your granola hole.

Castle has left the building...

I never crank up mine much past 4 V, so I guess I'm good?

?? Has he passed out for the night or has he been retired again?

Also, I may be missing it, but I don't see in that article where it says how many Ohms the coil that they were using was. That would make a huge difference. Low Ohms and high voltage would be pretty much un-vapable, and actually dangerous IMHO. My battery won't even work with a .8 Ohm coil. Safety feature.

Until some media outlet decides to condense a years-long clinical trial into a sound bite. Yanno, one of those "Coffee Causes Cancer!!!!...Coffee Increases Cognitive Function!!!!...Water Causes Cancer!!!!" headliners.

This is the kind of info Castle should be providing.

No, that was just for fun, a taste of the old days, y'might say. Can't let young whippersnappers like gturner have all the fun, y'know.

Actually, you've got it backward -- the lower the resistance, the higher wattage can safely be applied. But they used a 2.2 ohm coil at over 5 volts, which of course is going to cook the wick along with the juice.

Wrong. Nicotine is, itself, no more addictive and no more harmful than caffeine. It's combusting tobacco to get the nicotine that's harmful, as well as American tobacco processing which deliberately amps up the production of nicotine-specific nitrosamines in order to artificially amplify nicotine's effects.

Imagine coffee producers added methamphetamine to coffee, artificially, to amplify the effects of the caffeine. That's analogous to what Big Tobacco did with nicotine. But nicotine isn't the culprit here.

The effect of nicotine in the brain is as an MAO Inhibitor. Thing is, nicotine by itself doesn't do any more on that front than a cup of coffee. But the combustion of nicotine produces a compound called acetaldehyde, and acetaldehyde just kick's nicotine's ass as an MAOI. Take combustion out of the picture, take fermentation out of the picture, and the nicotine in tobacco is as benign as a sunshine-y day.

Okay, I thought lower ohms meant higher resistance. If that's the case, why won't my battery work with a .8 ohm coil? They told me at the vape store that it was a safety feature.

BTW, a "high end Vaporium", their words not mine, just opened in a nearby town. From what I can tell, it's like a vape store where they have a coffee bar where hipster vapers can go hang out and compare their set ups, juices, and beards.

I am so going to check it out.

Which explains away the people who are addicted to chewing tobacco?

I dunno. He compared it to coffee, so...the same reason people are addicted to coffee?

It does, in point of fact, because fermentation of American-style oral tobacco also produces acetaldehyde among other TSNAs (Tobacco-Specifice Nitrosamines.) Acetaldehyde is the dependence-stimulating compound, not nicotine.

If you're sufficiently interested in the topic, see for yourself -- search for comparisons in adverse health effects between American oral tobacco (which is fermented) and Swedish oral tobacco (which is Pasteurized) known as Snus.

Wrong.

I only read the headline.

Like a poor marksman you keep missing the target.

You're a fucking idiot, and you ought to shut the fuck up. But, because you are, you won't. Derp on, Derpster.

I did say "may have."

Shocker: Castle can't refute anything in the article.

I already have refuted it, you inattentive moron. They generated formaldehyde emissions by deliberately misusing the hardware, operating it at voltages far above those which are tolerable by end users.

Whoa, whoa...slow down there. That sounds like the senile rantings of a formaldehyde addict.

You need it written more slowly? Are you a constituent of the short bus contingent?

As a layman, In order to refute a clinical trial of this caliber with any degree of credibility, you have to do one of two things. Either:

1. Draw up a chart comparing standard voltages with the voltages cited in the NEJM paper (endnotes indicating the manufacturers’ specs would be helpful here), or
2. Cite a paper or papers by reputable experts who have done your work for you

Aternatively, you can call people names and announce “I don’t HAVE to do ANYTHING!!!1!” thereby confirming that you’re ignoring the data because they don’t fit your agenda.

Surely there are papers in reputable journals that confirm your claim.

I am not talking about the high, I am talking about the substance. Nicotine is carcinogenic. Ine other owrds you could spill the liquid on your hand and it would make cancer more likely in that spot. Really nicotine is harmful. It is a drug. It is why if you drink that shit you die.

Wow, you are so fucking stupid you don't think nicotine is bad for you. I did not think my opinion of your intelligence could go lower, but there it is digging it's way down. I am at least honest about the effects of the drugs I use. Vaping does not remove all the harm, but it does remove a lot of it. It is much healthier a way to get nicotine than some other ways. Though I would say the safest way would probably be through the patch on the skin. Your lung tissue is probably more prone to problems than your skin. Aside from that, it is not smoking, but yes you still are taking in a known carcinogen.

Wrong.

"The information about nicotine as a carcinogen is inconclusive."

Well yeah. At high enough levels it's toxic. So is water.

If you drank some e-liquid, it would probably make you wish you hadn't, but it wouldn't kill you.