I'm happy that Wiki can provide solace and justification for your misguided thoughts.
Your choice - you can back up what you claim to know about breast implants, or you can choose to leave unaddressed the fairly objective representation of the facts as they are now known that I have linked to.
However, I don't think that the pretense that you have superior knowledge of the matter, but which you are unwilling to share, qualifies as "discussion".
Regards,
Renato
Replacing nicotine with nicotine (without the other noxious aerosol/ vapours) in my mind is fraught with difficulties if you think that nicotine replacement is a main stay of smoking cessation techniques- usually in a step down process.
Because nicotine is such a short acting drug (hence you smoke 20 a day not one) what is the control with e-cigs to stop over use and perpetuate a dependence?
At least with patches it is modified release preps and part of the PBS scheme for smoking cessation is a gradual reduction in strength i.e 21mgs/ 14mgs / 7 mgs etc
Where is the mechanism for over use control?
I also agree that heating up and inhaling particles into the delicate pulmonary tissues is asking for trouble. Even if a study of 20 people didn't show any negative cardiovascular effects.
Sir Richard Dolls land mark epidemiology study on smokers took years before the findings were universally accepted, mainly because of resistance by the industry but also some medical experts.
WE can expect mixed messages about this as well.
Graham
Your choice - you can back up what you claim to know about breast implants, or you can choose to leave unaddressed the fairly objective representation of the facts as they are now known that I have linked to.
However, I don't think that the pretense that you have superior knowledge of the matter, but which you are unwilling to share, qualifies as "discussion".
Regards,
Renato
I see that, as at the time, you most probably took your main news sources on the silicone breast implant issue from Woman's Day or New Idea, you are unwilling to now cough up anything relevant.
Regards,
Renato
I am a bit concerned about these alarming battery explosion claims
when it comes to the E-cigarette.
I'd have to think twice about the post-coital cigarette, methinks.
If you are charging the battery (when the explosions have occurred), you won't be having the e-cigarette.
That said, some of the really big e-cigarettes bear a striking resemblance to dildos. At the moment one can buy them with inbuilt LCD screens, and MP3 player and radio and flashlight.
I suspect it's only a matter of time before they come out with a Bill Clinton version.
Regards,
Renato
Replacing nicotine with nicotine (without the other noxious aerosol/ vapours) in my mind is fraught with difficulties if you think that nicotine replacement is a main stay of smoking cessation techniques- usually in a step down process.
Because nicotine is such a short acting drug (hence you smoke 20 a day not one) what is the control with e-cigs to stop over use and perpetuate a dependence?
At least with patches it is modified release preps and part of the PBS scheme for smoking cessation is a gradual reduction in strength i.e 21mgs/ 14mgs / 7 mgs etc
Where is the mechanism for over use control?
I also agree that heating up and inhaling particles into the delicate pulmonary tissues is asking for trouble. Even if a study of 20 people didn't show any negative cardiovascular effects.
Sir Richard Dolls land mark epidemiology study on smokers took years before the findings were universally accepted, mainly because of resistance by the industry but also some medical experts.
WE can expect mixed messages about this as well.
Graham
Hi Graham,
If you look at that Youtube link I posted, no one is saying anything about wanting to reduce nicotine and quit smoking. They just want to switch to something cheaper and/or safer. Although if they do switch to vaping with e-cigarettes, they have quit smoking. E-cigarettes are not a tobacco item.
You ask where is the mechanism to control over use? I ask, where is the mechanism to stop a 2 cigarette a day Marlboro Gold user, switching to Camels or Marlboro Red and smoking two packets?
Or what's stopping that user from being a smoker of the light Marlboro Gold and buying packets of much stronger patches, gum and lozenges?
They're the exact same thing. I am unsure why you are into wanting to control something for the sake of control, when millions of people seem to have no difficulty.
I know that not inhaling anything is best. But both you and I know that is never going to happen with a segment of the population.
So, from a public policy perspective, which do you think would be best for them, regular cigarettes or e-cigarettes?
Regards,
Renato
I see that, as at the time, you most probably took your main news sources on the silicone breast implant issue from Woman's Day or New Idea, you are unwilling to now cough up anything relevant.
Regards,
Renato
The 60's weren't kind to you were they?
I find your posts amusing , I never open your links, I gather their selected biased views that favour your wacky way of thinking.
I find your posts amusing , I never open your links, I gather their selected biased views that favour your wacky way of thinking.
Fascinating - you finally admit that you choose to remain deliberately and utterly ignorant in order to participate in a discussion.
And throw in personal and irrelevant barbs as well, when I don't have the temerity to agree with those deliberately ignorant-of-facts views.
And instead of reading a source of facts presented by me, you instead choose to hunt up something else totally irrelevant on Wikipedia, to present instead.
Very strange behaviour, in my opinion.
Regards,
Renato
Fascinating - you finally admit that you choose to remain deliberately and utterly ignorant in order to participate in a discussion.
And throw in personal and irrelevant barbs as well, when I don't have the temerity to agree with those deliberately ignorant-of-facts views.
And instead of reading a source of facts presented by me, you instead choose to hunt up something else totally irrelevant on Wikipedia, to present instead.
Very strange behaviour, in my opinion.
Regards,
Renato
Fos, do you have a link that supports that view?
I gave you the wiki home page link to help you out but you seem too blind to see things as they really are.
Maybe you have a scan of an irrelevant article from your favourite girlie magazine, you do only buy them for the articles I'm sure.
Fos, do you have a link that supports that view?
I gave you the wiki home page link to help you out but you seem too blind to see things as they really are.
Maybe you have a scan of an irrelevant article from your favourite girlie magazine, you do only buy them for the articles I'm sure.
The link which you have categorically admitted that you didn't want to read, and which I told you which section was particularly relevant, is below. And it is in a response to a post by you. Now suddenly you want to read it, but ask for it again.
What exactly is your difficulty?
And what is your perverse fascination with sexual habits that you ascribe to me? I suspect it says something more about you than it does me.
Regards,
Renato
Hi Everyone,
For those interested in this post the following scary article appeared in the Murdoch Herald Sun of 29 Nov 2014 page 32.
EVEN MORE E-CANCEROUS
"E-CIGARETTES contain up to 10 times the level of cancer-causing agents as regular tobacco, Japanese scientists said on Thursday, the latest blow to an invention once heralded as less harmful than smoking.
The electronic devices function by heating flavoured liquid, which often contains nicotine, into a vapour that is inhaled.
Japan’s Health Ministry commissioned the study, which found carcinogens such as formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in vapour produced by several types of e-cigarette liquid.
Formaldehyde — a substance found in building materials and embalming fluids — was present at much higher levels than carcinogens found in the smoke from regular cigarettes. "
This was so disturbing that my wife cut out the article for me to read.
This gives a lot more detail and the the exact opposite conclusion to that in the Herald Sun,
specifically
“Health ministry officials acknowledged that the elevated formaldehyde levels found in a single brand of e-cigarette was not proof in itself that vaping posed an increased cancer risk.”
And so we have a new human enterprise ..those producing, those using, those against and lobbiest for either side.
The good news is many humans are occupied ..that's what it's all about finally
And so we have a new human enterprise ..those producing, those using, those against and lobbiest for either side.
The good news is many humans are occupied ..that's what it's all about finally
It's not particularly clear from the Guardian article. though it could be read that instead of having formaldehyde in them, the base ingredients from one brand got converted to formaldehyde more so than in other brands.
Reading various forums though, one health issue came up from people who are actually into vaping which hasn't appeared in research. Many people suffering from tinnitus (ringing in the ear) claim that when vaping with the thicker Propylene Glycerine e-liquid their tinnitus gets worse, whereas they have no trouble with vegetable glycerine e-liquid.
Regards,
Renato
On the surface it appears to be a better option than smoking.
I've heard reports that its more intense or 'more addictive', is this really the case? I presume the majority of the users are ex smokers (thus how addictive is kind of nonsense), i'm sure we'll see the day however when school kids hide behind the shed and vap. no smoke smell to give them away anymore!
On the surface it appears to be a better option than smoking.
I've heard reports that its more intense or 'more addictive', is this really the case? I presume the majority of the users are ex smokers (thus how addictive is kind of nonsense), i'm sure we'll see the day however when school kids hide behind the shed and vap. no smoke smell to give them away anymore!
What is happening is that tobacconists sell the electronic cigarettes and zero nicotine e-liquid to the public. And some them sell the illegal nicotine e-liquid under the counter to you if they know you. Only problem is that many such bottles don't have a label on them to say how much nicotine is in them, whereas those purchased from overseas are appropriately labelled with the nicotine content.
So if one is say a smoker of mid strength regular cigarettes who would have no problem vaping 8mg or 11mg nicotine e-liquid, one is very likely to get spun out (feel it in your head for a few minutes) if vaping the 18mg or 24mg e-liquid which are meant for the smokers of heavy cigarettes.
Similarly for those who smoke light cigarettes who would be better off with 6mg or 8mg e-liquid, they'd find the heavy strength way too much. I suspect that this aspect is where the notion of "more intense" comes from, as people either don't know the nicotine content of what they vape, or don't know which level is appropriate for them. But it would be the same case as if a regular smoker of Marlboro Gold suddenly smoked a packet of Marlboro Red or Camels
Most vaping people I've spoken to rate e-cigarettes, when used with the appropriate nicotine level e-liquid that equates to what they normally smoke, as at about 70% of the way towards the feel and experience of a real cigarette.
Regards,
Renato
How do I buy shares.
Could you vap medication..
Like vics maybe set up for assma suffers
Hard to say whether vaping would be any good for medicines. Some would plainly have their molecules destroyed or reduced by the atomiser heating process. And I guess some wouldn't be affected, as plainly vaping doesn't affect the flavour of strawberry, raspberry, lemon, apple, grapefruit, grape, watermelon and tobacco flavoured e-cigarettes.
Best not to try it, I suspect.
Tobacco companies, seeing the writing on the wall, have now jumped in and started buying out all these new upstarts who had been wrecking their cigarette sales. I guess the figure that they could use their brand names on the e-liquids and charge a premium.
