So I Go To Watch Bobsburgers At Fox Online... And The Anti-e-cig Ad Pops Up

My first .5 OCC coil only lasted 3 days . I put my device up to 25 watts and it totally fried it. A terrible burnt hit. I backed it back down to 20 watts and it was fine for a little while, but then another bad burnt hit. Down to 15 watts and I literally sucked hot particles in my mouth when taking a hit. ...? The cotton and/or coils are literally breaking apart? That's totally gross and I can only imagine, not that safe.

My second .5 OCC, I never put my device above 17 watts, keeping it at 15 watts for the most part. Within 4 days, same thing ... total burnt hit one day, sucking up hot particles the next?

What's going on? I thought I was supposed to be able to hit a .5 coil up to 30 watts ... Is sucking up hot particles from the coil normal? Should I just keep it at 12 to 15 watts and that's it, taking 1 to 2 second drags and that's it? Is it just a string of bad coils?

Thanks

EDIT: Thought I should mention that the juice I used for both coils was 50/50 watermelon. I hear it's better to use higher VG liquids with sub ohm tanks. But can that be part of the reason why the coils are being fried so quickly?  

Hello to everyone,
I always had doubt about cotton and I was investigating it. I talked to few doctors and they all say the same thing in my country but when i talked to other doctors from other countries I couldnt get much information and I believe the reason is explained well in the following message that I received from a doctor.

I'm calling every doctor and people who use cotton in ecig as a wick, also aspire company as they started to use organic cotton in every coil they have.

Today I have received a scientific explanation from the doctor and I'm translating it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all this sickness usually not known by US or German doctors, because they have high hygiene in their cotton factories. This issue is known by 3rd countries like Turkey and other countries where there is no hygiene in cotton factories and employees inhale cotton dust.

It is under pneumoconiosis category and the sickness name is Bisinosis. The doctor reported; every year many employees who are working in cotton factories that are lack of hygiene and filter getting bisinosis sickness and dead from bisinosis, because of inhaling cotton dust for a long time.

He said it is not important if it is organic or not, the important thing is the particle of cotton. The particle of a cotton is 0,5-5 micron. The problem is the cotton gets burned even with temperature controlled devices because the cotton fire range is so low and this can be detected with a microscope not by eyes. The cotton does not need to be burned and turned to black color that can be seen by eyes. Its particles are burning even with a very low heat at 3.0v and wet with liquid, that can be seen under the microscope only.

When the cotton is burned, that cotton micron diameter goes down from 0,5 to lower diameters and turns to a dust which can be seen by microscope only. Those burned cotton dusts goes to the lungs and stays there because the human body is surely unable to absorbe it as it is not organic anymore because of burned particles.

He clearly state this; The cotton dust cannot be absorbed in lungs and will result bisinosis in time which will lead to dead for sure he says. If it was tolareted and absorbed, there wont be a sickness called bisinosis and people who are working in cotton factories wouldnt die in the past from bisinosis sickness.

He also add this, people working in cotton factories inhaling cotton dusts which is not burned already causes bisinosis sickness, I cannot imagine what burned cotton dust is going to do because its micron diameter is smaller than normal cotton dust due to fire damage, maybe those employees getting bisinosis between 10 -15 years but in ecig case, burned cotton may speed up the process of the sickness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Notice from the doctor; Above information makes cotton %100 dangerous to inhale and will result bisinosis in time soon or late even with temperature controlled devices. Employees are working in 3rd country cotton factories where there is no filtration are not inhaling warm cotton and they are already getting bisinosis, again this sickness is known by 3rd countries which cotton factories have no hygiene and filtration. I hope this will make sense, for everyone who use cotton in ecig.

So, the doctor explanation is above and enough for me to not to use BVC coils anymore also cotton unless someone make a different scientific explanation to above doctors information and make it wrong.

It is clearly understandable if you use cotton in ecig, no filtration(you cannot filter it as the particles can be only seen by microscope), it will surely will cause bisinosis one day as you are inhaling cotton particles in to your lungs which is surely not absorbed.

What bisinosis is: Byssinosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Byssinosis, also called "brown lung disease" or "Monday fever", is an occupational lung disease caused by exposure to cotton dust in inadequately ventilated working environments)

UPDATE:
I just received a second opinion from another DR, MR Farsalinos send me the following email after I ask him the above explanations.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, i have a question for you. Has the doctor who told you about byssinosis informed you about silicosis? It is a disease which is caused by inhaling silica dioxide fibers. That means, silica and ekowool fibers used as wicks (alternatives to cotton). Silicosis is even more common than byssinosis.

Byssinosis is almost exclusively observed in workers in cotton processing. So, most likely it is dust from the spores of cotton which cause the disease. Processed cotton does not have spores or other type of dust. It is possible that cotton fibers may cause a disease, which is not byssinosis, and i found only 1 case report of someone who developed some form of disease due to cotton fibers. But he was exposed to huge levels of cotton dust every day for many years.

I find it unlikely that the cotton wick will cause byssinosis, but of course none can be 100% sure. However, i think that silica and other alternatives may be equally (if not more) problematic. So, please stay calm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, second opinion is clear my mind now and made me calm.
 

I was pretty upset with the wired article and wrote a lengthy response for my blog. Thought I'd share.

[h=2]Wired: http://www. wired. com/2015/04/war-vapings-health-risks-getting-dirty/"

The War Over Vaping’s Health Risks Is Getting Dirty“ - My Response to this Misleading Article[/h]I was really bothered by how misleading this article was, so I’m gonna break it down.

Before I begin, a clarification: There are many issues regarding ecig or “vaporizer” usage, and on many of them, there’s no disagreement between anti-vapers and pro-vapers. For instance, both groups do not want children getting ecigs. However, many people - like in this wired article - muddle a bunch of the issues together, so I’ll be teasing them apart.

For nicotine enthusiasts, 2015 will be remembered as part of a golden era. Less than 10 years after they were introduced in the United States, e-cigarettes have gone relatively unregulated by health agencies, with companies and users making their own rules in a nicotine-laced Wild West. E-cigarette companies have been advertising their products to adults and children alike, claiming to help smokers quit while simultaneously promoting lollipop-flavored liquids…
Reminiscent of glamorous smoking ads of the last century, many of the ads feature celebrity endorsements; in a Blu ad, Jenny McCarthy flirts with the camera while rejoicing that she can now smoke without scaring guys away with her smell. And many of them seem shockingly child-centric…
​
1. Advertising to adults: This is a legitimate question. Personally, I’m leaning toward lighter regulations for ecig ads bc numerous studies have shown they are much safer than cigarettes (American Heart Association, x, x, x, x, x ) and can act as an effecting smoking cessation aid, though they are not yet approved for that purpose (American Heart Association, x, x ). But again, a legitimate question.

2. Advertising to kids: No-one wants that. Furthermore, no-one has done that! When critics like the author of the wired article allege that is happening, they almost always are referring to the non-tobacco flavors offered. However, the reason sweet, fruity, and candy flavors are offered is because they are extremely popular amongst adult vapers (x, x). Saying they’re marketed to children is like saying sweet alcoholic drinks are marketed for children because all adults would obviously prefer bourbon. It’s ludicrous. Adults like sweet flavors too.
2b. On a related note: Some have been concerned that ecigs may increase teen use of cigarettes, but the evidence thus far says otherwise. (x, x).

…Last week, the California Department of Public Health launched a anti-vaping campaign called Still Blowing Smoke. And in January, the San Francisco Department of Health launched #CurbIt, pointing out the dangers of e-cigs and their brazen plays to hook kids while warning residents that vaping is only allowed in the same places as smoking.
There’s plenty of evidence behind the campaigns’ claims—studies that link e-cigs to asthma, lung inflammation, MRSA infection risk and exposure to harmful chemicals. But with scant data on the long-term health effects of e-cigarettes and their usefulness as a quitting tool, the ads use a number of classic psychological strategies to help beat back the ire of pro-vapers…
​
3. The Still Blowing Smoke ads were themselves blowing smoke. I’d like to discuss three of their main tv ads.
3a. One suggested that ecigs are marketed for kids bc of the flavors, as discussed above.
3b. Another suggested (or rather, alleges) that vaping is a “Big Tobacco” conspiracy! While it’s true that Big Tobacco has bought in to some ecig production, the vast majority of vape businesses are small businesses, such as the brick-and-mortar “vape shops” that are emerging. Perhaps more importantly, this is guilt by association. If Big Tobacco owned Chantix, a popular smoking cessation aid, would that automatically mean it’s evil? And unlike the vast, vast majority of small vape businesses, Big Tobacco has an incentive to make cigs fail: Users are more likely to continue smoking! (Not to mention the very impressive revenue that states gain from tobacco sales, which vaping threatens. x, x)
3c. Finally, they aired a commercial with a small toddler reaching for a vape, presenting that as a risk. Which it is, of course - just like with any other chemical left around the house, be it alcohol, cleaning supplies, or whatever! That isn’t a vaping issue; it’s a parenting issue.
More info on those ads here.
4. The #CurbIt campaign (x) similarly suggests that vapes are part of a Big Tobacco conspiracy and marketed to children (sigh).
4a.What bothered me most was the phrasing they used in one particular ad: “We know e-cigarettes are harmful, just like cigarettes.” While one could argue that it merely meant, “ecigs are also harmful”, it seems to me to be implying that they are just as harmful, which is patently false.
4b. And as others have pointed out: One is likely inhaling more toxic fumes from the curb than from vaping!
4c. Of course, that does leave the question of second-hand-vape exposure, which #CurbIt also alerts the public to. However, the evidence for second-hand vpe exposure is still very thin, with many experts thinking it has a minimal effect if any. (x, x ).

5. To be sure, no-one thinks that vaporizers are completely harmless. Almost nothing is! The question is relative harm (as well as harm-reduction). Are ecigs bad for asthmatics - well, how bad? Certainly they’re better than cigarettes. Might ecigs cause some lung inflammation? Very possibly, but are we going to outlaw every activity or product poses any amount of tissue inflammation?! Clearly that’s an absurd approach. We need to look at overall health, relative health, and common standards in other areas. (For instance, caffeine is addictive, but the public has no qualms with allowing people to use it.)

6. I’ll add that in addition to the lack of studies demonstrating long-term adverse affects, the research on short-term affects are mixed, with many indicating that it is very safe in general, and particularly in contrast to cigarettes.

One CDC ad relies on anecdotal evidence to make its point. It features a story from an e-cigarette user, a 35-year-old wife and mother named Kristy from Tennessee who says she started smoking e-cigarettes hoping to quit combustible cigarettes. Instead, she began to smoke both, until her lung collapsed. The American Vaping Association reportedly called the ad “patently dishonest,” saying that it implies vaping led to lung disease, when in reality Kristy had gone back to smoking cigarettes alone in the months before her lung collapsed. California’s anti-vaping campaign lists toxins that humans once thought were safe—arsenic-laced powdered wigs, radium therapy, and of course cigarettes—and compares them to e-cigs, using a deceptive associative tactic that we’ve called out before.

​
7. This is one of the few points where the piece describes one obvious instance of misleading advertising - and the vaping community’s obvious and necessary response to such deception. (And for what it’s worth, there are thousands and thousands of people who credit ecigs with saving their lives #VapingSavedMyLife). But even here, the article’s authors don’t really take the anti-vaping activists to task for it. In fact, they almost seem to endorse that very same tactic:
The problem is, as in the early days of campaigns against cigarettes, there isn’t definitive evidence that e-cigarettes cause long-term harm—a point that pro-vapers will be quick to remind you of. But there also isn’t definitive evidence that they’re safe. And there are many good reasons to assume they’ll be found in time to increase cancer and heart and lung disease.

​
The Wired article doesn’t explain what those reasons are… just that it’s a good assumption! (I guess they also think they’re like arsenic-laced powdered wigs.)
What firm science there is to rest on is fairly obvious: E-cigarettes are almost certainly less toxic and carcinogenic than regular cigarettes. But that doesn’t mean that they’re not a health hazard. “We already know you’re breathing in a lot of toxic chemicals, which is bad,” says Glantz. “You’re breathing in a lot of toxic particles, which is bad. You’re taking in nicotine, which is bad. A cigarette is by far and away the most dangerous consumer product ever invented. So to say it’s not as bad as a cigarette is not saying very much.”

​
8. This was, to me, perhaps the most balanced paragraph in the article, but even here I’d challenge some aspects. In essence, of course breathing anything other than air isn’t going to be good for you, but it’s a matter of degree for the general public, and relative health for smokers. This might be a good time to mention that the studies thus far indicate that 99% of vapers are smokers or ex-smokers (x, x ). That is, they switched from “the most dangerous consumer product ever invented” to something less harmful, perhaps much, much less harmful, for at least part of the time.

In the absence of incontrovertible evidence, then, public health agencies have to continue to play a little dirty themselves to get citizens to pay attention. In a couple of years, researchers will begin to do association studies to pull out long-term health effects. Until that science rolls in, the, prepare to sit back and enjoy the show. These two camps will be hashing it out for a while.

​
9. This another area where I disagree: If there is a lack of evidence, don’t treat it like a deadly substance. If the evidence suggests that it’s getting many people off of a horribly injurious habit, then definitely don’t treat it like a deadly substance.

All in all, very disappointed in the article. It basically boasted propaganda for a cause that may further harm millions. It presents very little actual information, and seems to ignore the information which extols the virtues of vaping over smoking. To be sure, we need more studies, as many of the study’s done so far have been faulty (like the popularized “formaldehyde” study - x) or contain a conflict of interest. Still, much of the evidence thus far is positive, and legislating as though it were negative is unfair to vapers and the millions suffering from tobacco cigarette addiction.
All Wired really seemed to care about discussing is the social media attention the debate is getting - and probably just trying to cash in on that by stirring the pot.
P.s. Of Interest: List of studies related to ecigs and vaping. (x)  

Takes a different angle... it’s the metals which have caused irreparable damage on a woman’s lungs...

in California though

The article goes on to say;

“Professor John Britton, director of the UK Centre for Tobacco & Alcohol Studies and consultant in respiratory medicine at the University of Nottingham, suggested that the conclusions were not all they seemed.

He said there was no evidence of any cobalt particles in the lung samples and that claims made about vaping were wrong.
He added: “There is nothing in this new paper that should change advice to smokers. If you smoke, switch. If you don’t smoke, don’t vape. And just as you wouldn’t buy unlicensed alcoholic drinks, don’t vape cannabis or other bootleg products.”  

if there is no nicotine, is ecig harmless! right?

but actually that's a definitely wrong info and concept.

e-liquid made by Vegetable glycerin , Propylene glycol , flavor , (nicotine)

so it's not vapor!

you should remind this and also one of ecig's prorperty is absorbing water in your throat thus

u need to drink sufficient water to protect throat.

then if you vape around people, the e-cig smoke can harm other people.

so vapers need to beware these fact well.  

Obviously enough there's no smoke in tobacco vapor (heat not burn) but is the opposite also true? Is there vapor in tobacco smoke as well?

The reason I ask is because my body seems to react negatively to vaping e-juice so I'm hoping tobacco vapor doesn't feel the same because if smoking already has vapor in it then there should be no reason for me to react negatively to tobacco vapor anymore than tobacco smoke.  

Copied from another group.
With permission

I am the owner of Sapphyre Nicotine. I have been in the e-cig and vape business since 2009. This post is a little long but hopefully it is informative for some.

In 2009 the FDA started seizing shipments of electronic cigarettes under the claim that they were drug delivery devices and therefore need to pass FDA approval prior to being marketed and sold in the USA. The industry was just starting out and this was a big blow. Shipments of product were not allowed to enter the USA. Credit card companies were not allowing ecig companies to work with them. It was not looking good for ecigs. A company called Smoking Everywhere sued the FDA and made the argument that ecigs should be regulated as a tobacco product since they contained nicotine which is derived from Tobacco. Njoy joined the litigation and eventually took over when Smoking Everywhere went out of business. In 2010 Njoy won the litigation and ecigs ended up being regulated as tobacco products. This was the best outcome of two evils. The FDA appealed the decision and lost that as well. That’s when the ecig industry really started taking off. Bigger players got into the market and eventually RJR, Altria/Philip Morris, BAT and other big tobacco companies came out with ecig products. They quickly became the dominant sellers in c-stores. The tobacco companies were happy selling tobacco and menthol flavors only. That’s what they knew and that’s what they were good at.

A few years later eliquids and open systems started getting popular. These products were not very popular in c-stores. That is when vape stores started opening up. They were mainly concentrating on open system (eliquids, mods and great tasting flavors). For a short time c-stores tried to sell eliquids, but they didn’t have the know how or the time to educate customers. C-stores were good at selling closed systems and vape stores were good at open systems.

To the uninformed public we are all lumped in as one industry --- electronic cigarettes.

In reality there are 2 different industries that are somewhat related.

A) The ecig/closed system industry: In the USA as of Sep 2019 is a $6.4 billion industry. It is controlled mostly by big tobacco companies. Juul (Altria/PM), Blu (Imperial Tobacco), Vuse (British Tobacco, formerly RJR), Njoy (only independent supplier), Logic (Japan International). 75% of ecigs are sold in C-Stores, drug stores and food stores. As a comparison, regular cigarette sales in the USA are around $80 billion dollars and about 75% comes from c-stores.

While ecigs sales increased at a 40% year over year rate, regular cigarette sales dropped by 7% year over year. That is a large number that is troubling to big tobacco.

The closed system industry sells primarily tobacco and menthol/mint flavors. If flavors were banned it would not impact the industry very much. The companies selling closed systems are not going to join our fight to save flavors. They have no monetary incentive to do so. In addition all of these companies are going to apply for PMTA. They are not going to sue the FDA and risk getting PMTA approval unless it greatly impacts their business.

The vapor/open system industry: In the USA as of sep 2019 is a $2.6 billion industry. It is NOT controlled by a few large companies. There are a lot of hardware and ejuice suppliers. It is mostly sold at adult only vape stores. $1.7 Billion sold at vape stores, $350 million in c-stores and $550 million online. Lots of suppliers, distributors, small businesses are part of this industry. They mostly sell flavored eliquid as opposed to tobacco and menthol flavors.

Having been involved with both the ecig business and the vape business, I can say that they are completely different. The vape industry is getting punished for crimes committed by the ecig industry. Unfortunately we are being lumped in as one. We are the easier one to target. We need to do a much better job getting this message out.

I would also like to make a point regarding zero nicotine flavors being regulated by the FDA. The reason our industry is regulated by the FDA as a tobacco product is because the eliquid contains nicotine. This is the only reason the FDA has authority over these products. Because zero nicotine ejuice does not contain nicotine, it is no longer a tobacco product. While the FDA is going to try and enforce regulation of zero nicotine ejuice as a tobacco product by using the “intent to use” rationale, that argument is simply not valid. The FDA will also not be able to regulate zero nicotine ejuice as a drug/drug device combination either. Ejuice with no nicotine does not cause a change in the body and therefore will not be classified as a drug. This is only my educated opinion. I am not an attorney and am not making any legal claims.

I hope this was somewhat informative to people that have not been involved with ecigs and vapes as long as I have. Feel free to add, correct if you have information that I missed.

Feel free to share  

I just came across this article, claiming that even nicotine-free e-liquids contain lung-harming substances like acrolein:

[URL='http://lungcancernewstoday.com/2015/06/08/nicotine-free-e-cigarette-vapor-also-damages-lung-cells/']Nicotine-Free E-Cigarette Vapor Also Damages Lung Cells Lung Cancer News Today[/URL]

What I hate about articles such as these is that they're almost always posted with some scary headline and usually end up saying there isn't a proper research into topic or they're awaiting further investigations.

Anyhow, can anyone comment on what 'acrolein' is? I've heard of formaldehyde being created when vaping on high wattage, but this is the first time I hear of acrolein.  

Why ? - The many varieties of devices, flavors, and nicotine strengths still available in many places not contaminated by the political whores who apparently hate all tobacco so much that they are willing to jeopardize the lives of many thousands, if not millions, of ex and even current smokers, by killing off the vape industry in favor of their hypocritical agendas of tobacco control.

The fact that vaping tobacco has been proven to be less toxic than lit tobacco products is, to them, all the more reason to restrict and eventually eliminate it. {As has been done in India where all vaping is a crime}

Vaping has been and is still being used by many to wean their way off of nicotine by gradually lowering nicotine concentration - For others who do not want to quit completely vaping offers a much safer alternative to the toxic stew present in lit tobacco, especially cigarettes.

And the fact that vaping for flavor with zero nicotine is available - seems to give them all the more reason to outlaw flavors ?!??!?!

Do they know what they are doing you may ask? - Sure they do, and its all about money. Apparently they make more in tax revenues from old fashioned cigarettes - Still as tax rates go up everywhere on vape products, they may decide there is enough to be made to keep it legal. But don't fool yourself, it has nothing to do with 'saving the children'. In a nation where it may soon become easier, in some places, to buy marijuana than tobacco - I ask who is going to save the children from the political whores who can no longer keep following the mantra that "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

Who will save the children from them ?

And no I am not against marijuana legalization - but still must point out that tobacco, a mental stimulant, is being downgraded by a drug often used to get 'stoned'

Maybe this is what they want - Not a thinking population of voters - When a stoned population is easier to fool!  

I'm a 45yo New Zealander, and I have absolutely no axe to grind, except one:

I smoked for 25 years. Therefore the tobacco companies have had more than their fair share of my money, and more importantly my health.

Thanks to vaping, using RBAs and mods, and diying my own ejuices - I've been smoke-free for 20 months.

One company that looks like winning, with all the fake news and hysteria being dredged up in USA over vaping is Phillip Morris International. And I'm not talking about their cigarette products - but rather their IQOS product.

A Device That Heats Tobacco, But Doesn't Burn It, Can Now Be Sold in the U.S. Here's What to Know About IQOS

The FDA have already approved this product for sale in USA. And how does the IQOS work?

the FDA says the pen-like IQOS device heats, but does not burn, “tobacco-filled sticks” wrapped in paper, creating an aerosol that contains nicotine. Marlboro, an Altria brand, will make the tobacco sticks used inside the cartridge, which will come in menthol and unflavored versions.
Click to expand...

It's pretty much a cigarette, that goes into a device which 'heats' the tobacco, so you can inhale it.

Here's Why IQOS Could Completely Own the U.S. E-Cig Market | The Motley Fool

And how safe is it?

Comparison of Chemicals in Mainstream Smoke in Heat-not-burn Tobacco and Combustion Cigarettes. - PubMed - NCBI

There is little scientific data, however, of the hazards and toxicity of iQOS. In this study, we evaluated several harmful compounds (nicotine, tar, carbon monoxide (CO) and tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs)) in the mainstream smoke and fillers of iQOS, and compared their concentrations with those from conventional combustion cigarettes.

The concentrations of nicotine in tobacco fillers and the mainstream smoke of iQOS were almost the same as those of conventional combustion cigarettes, while the concentration of TSNAs was one fifth and CO was one hundredth of those of conventional combustion cigarettes. These toxic compounds are not completely removed from the mainstream smoke of iQOS, making it necessary to consider the health effects and regulation of iQOS.
Click to expand...

iQOS may not be as harm-free as claimed, study finds

The University of California study found that, since the device could only be used for six-minutes before it needed to be recharged, it may cause some people to shorten the interval between puffs in order to make sure they did not waste any of the tobacco stick which could increase the possible toxic exposure.

But of greater concern was that the polymer filter melted slightly during use and released formaldehyde cyanohydrin, a toxic substance which could be fatal to humans. The compound is metabolised in the liver and broken down into formaldehyde and cyanide.

"This study has shown that the iQOS system may not be as harm-free as claimed and also emphasises the urgent need for further safety testing as the popularity and user base of this product is growing rapidly," the study concluded.

University of Otago public health and marketing Professor Janet Hoek said the findings led her to question whether it really was a "reduced harm" product as claimed by the manufacturers.

If users inhaled more frequently as it was suggested, it was likely they would "increase their nicotine intake and exposure to harmful compounds present in the inhaled aerosol", she said.

She said those who had tried unsuccessfully to quit smoking were better off considering e-cigarettes.
Click to expand...

Just my