That would be you, this time around, champ. A nebulizer does exactly the same thing as an ecigarette - convert a liquid to an aerosol for the purpose of inhalation. Also, guess what compound is used in nebulizers when the desired medication is not water soluble? Yep, propylene glycol. The exact same one used in e-cigarettes.
Except the fucking delivery method is distinct, because of ignition. Medical nebulizers use ultrasonic waves. What's the confusing part, exactly? Not the same. Completely different. We've established the materials alone aren't dangerous, that the delivery system may be. Review the existing literature about it, it takes about 20 second. The consensus is "using ignition to vaporize is almost definitely a bad idea." Hence nicotine *inhalers* (Nicotrol) being FDA approved for delivery. Because of the lack of ignition. Because that novel part of e-cigarettes has had no review, no clinical study, etc.
UNDERSTAND YET? HEATING THINGS TO VAPORIZE THEM GENERALLY MAKES THEM MORE REACTIVE, THIS MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT HEALTH IMPACTS.
Get it, fuckstick? Delivery system. Completely novel. Not sure how many times I have to post it.
I'm surprised you didn't notice that point when you reviewed the existing literature.
Haha, just kidding, you just decided you were an expert based on....right, right.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- It took me 20 years
It took me 20 yearsFollow
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
Because that novel part of e-cigarettes has had no review, no clinical study, etc.
Hi, thunder@#%^. There have been a plethora of studies of the actual vapor generated by e-cigarettes, post-ignition. Your inability to read is not sufficient counter to this information.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23033998 wrote:
Conclusions: For all byproducts measured, electronic cigarettes produce very small exposures relative to tobacco cigarettes. The study indicates no apparent risk to human health from e-cigarette emissions based on the compounds analyzed.
http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/10/ntr.ntt203.short?rss=1 wrote:
Conclusions: Using an e-cigarette in indoor environments may involuntarily expose nonusers to nicotine but not to toxic tobacco-specific combustion products. More research is needed to evaluate health consequences of secondhand exposure to nicotine, especially among vulnerable populations, including children, pregnant women, and people with cardiovascular conditions.
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/03/05/tobaccocontrol-2012-050859.abstract wrote:
Conclusions Our findings are consistent with the idea that substituting tobacco cigarettes with e-cigarettes may substantially reduce exposure to selected tobacco-specific toxicants. E-cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy among smokers unwilling to quit, warrants further study. (To view this abstract in Polish and German, please see the supplementary files online.)
Have a read and suck a back of ******
Edited, Dec 20th 2013 9:25am by BrownDuck
Smasharoo wrote:
That would be you, this time around, champ. A nebulizer does exactly the same thing as an ecigarette - convert a liquid to an aerosol for the purpose of inhalation. Also, guess what compound is used in nebulizers when the desired medication is not water soluble? Yep, propylene glycol. The exact same one used in e-cigarettes.
Except the fucking delivery method is distinct, because of ignition. Medical nebulizers use ultrasonic waves. What's the confusing part, exactly? Not the same. Completely different. We've established the materials alone aren't dangerous, that the delivery system may be. Review the existing literature about it, it takes about 20 second. The consensus is "using ignition to vaporize is almost definitely a bad idea." Hence nicotine *inhalers* (Nicotrol) being FDA approved for delivery. Because of the lack of ignition. Because that novel part of e-cigarettes has had no review, no clinical study, etc.
UNDERSTAND YET? HEATING THINGS TO VAPORIZE THEM GENERALLY MAKES THEM MORE REACTIVE, THIS MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT HEALTH IMPACTS.
Get it, fuckstick? Delivery system. Completely novel. Not sure how many times I have to post it.
I'm surprised you didn't notice that point when you reviewed the existing literature.
Haha, just kidding, you just decided you were an expert based on....right, right.
Except the fucking delivery method is distinct, because of ignition. Medical nebulizers use ultrasonic waves. What's the confusing part, exactly? Not the same. Completely different. We've established the materials alone aren't dangerous, that the delivery system may be. Review the existing literature about it, it takes about 20 second. The consensus is "using ignition to vaporize is almost definitely a bad idea." Hence nicotine *inhalers* (Nicotrol) being FDA approved for delivery. Because of the lack of ignition. Because that novel part of e-cigarettes has had no review, no clinical study, etc.
UNDERSTAND YET? HEATING THINGS TO VAPORIZE THEM GENERALLY MAKES THEM MORE REACTIVE, THIS MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT HEALTH IMPACTS.
Get it, fuckstick? Delivery system. Completely novel. Not sure how many times I have to post it.
I'm surprised you didn't notice that point when you reviewed the existing literature.
Haha, just kidding, you just decided you were an expert based on....right, right.
Dude, I'm getting worried. This kind of stress can't be good for you. Why bother getting so worked up over this shit? You should just give this place up and find somewhere more intellectual to hang out. Maybe...the Illuminati? You could play chess with Tony Stark and Reed Richards.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
What's a back of ******
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
[quote=Uglysasquatch]What's a back of **************
Some kind of phallic porcupine, I presume.
Some kind of phallic porcupine, I presume.
There have been a plethora of studies of the actual vapor generated by e-cigarettes, post-ignition.
Did you read any of them? Did you notice the part where they ignore the effect on the user of the device and concentrate on "air quality" ? Did you look into the funding for the studies you linked?
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the answer is no for all of these questions.
That said, I've ceased caring. There will be legitimate peer reviewed studies at some point and either the delivery system will be considered safe or less safe. I don't particularly care about the outcome, but the idea that one can consider this delivery system "safe" for users right now is absolutely based on guessing.
I'm not a doctor, I'm not a medical researcher, I have been involved in the statistics side of multiple FDA studies. You're not a doctor, you're not a medical researcher, you haven't been involved with the FDA in any way.
Your ability to research things via google is inferior to mine. It's fairly important you come to grips with that. Not equal, not close to the same, inferior. You lack the reasoning horsepower to differentiate biased material from data. Don't feel badly, most people are the same.
I'm done with this thread. Feel free to declare "victory" or whatever, I won't mind. Or notice, likely.
Did you read any of them? Did you notice the part where they ignore the effect on the user of the device and concentrate on "air quality" ? Did you look into the funding for the studies you linked?
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the answer is no for all of these questions.
That said, I've ceased caring. There will be legitimate peer reviewed studies at some point and either the delivery system will be considered safe or less safe. I don't particularly care about the outcome, but the idea that one can consider this delivery system "safe" for users right now is absolutely based on guessing.
I'm not a doctor, I'm not a medical researcher, I have been involved in the statistics side of multiple FDA studies. You're not a doctor, you're not a medical researcher, you haven't been involved with the FDA in any way.
Your ability to research things via google is inferior to mine. It's fairly important you come to grips with that. Not equal, not close to the same, inferior. You lack the reasoning horsepower to differentiate biased material from data. Don't feel badly, most people are the same.
I'm done with this thread. Feel free to declare "victory" or whatever, I won't mind. Or notice, likely.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Debalic wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
That would be you, this time around, champ. A nebulizer does exactly the same thing as an ecigarette - convert a liquid to an aerosol for the purpose of inhalation. Also, guess what compound is used in nebulizers when the desired medication is not water soluble? Yep, propylene glycol. The exact same one used in e-cigarettes.
Except the fucking delivery method is distinct, because of ignition. Medical nebulizers use ultrasonic waves. What's the confusing part, exactly? Not the same. Completely different. We've established the materials alone aren't dangerous, that the delivery system may be. Review the existing literature about it, it takes about 20 second. The consensus is "using ignition to vaporize is almost definitely a bad idea." Hence nicotine *inhalers* (Nicotrol) being FDA approved for delivery. Because of the lack of ignition. Because that novel part of e-cigarettes has had no review, no clinical study, etc.
UNDERSTAND YET? HEATING THINGS TO VAPORIZE THEM GENERALLY MAKES THEM MORE REACTIVE, THIS MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT HEALTH IMPACTS.
Get it, fuckstick? Delivery system. Completely novel. Not sure how many times I have to post it.
I'm surprised you didn't notice that point when you reviewed the existing literature.
Haha, just kidding, you just decided you were an expert based on....right, right.
Except the fucking delivery method is distinct, because of ignition. Medical nebulizers use ultrasonic waves. What's the confusing part, exactly? Not the same. Completely different. We've established the materials alone aren't dangerous, that the delivery system may be. Review the existing literature about it, it takes about 20 second. The consensus is "using ignition to vaporize is almost definitely a bad idea." Hence nicotine *inhalers* (Nicotrol) being FDA approved for delivery. Because of the lack of ignition. Because that novel part of e-cigarettes has had no review, no clinical study, etc.
UNDERSTAND YET? HEATING THINGS TO VAPORIZE THEM GENERALLY MAKES THEM MORE REACTIVE, THIS MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT HEALTH IMPACTS.
Get it, fuckstick? Delivery system. Completely novel. Not sure how many times I have to post it.
I'm surprised you didn't notice that point when you reviewed the existing literature.
Haha, just kidding, you just decided you were an expert based on....right, right.
Dude, I'm getting worried. This kind of stress can't be good for you. Why bother getting so worked up over this shit? You should just give this place up and find somewhere more intellectual to hang out. Maybe...the Illuminati? You could play chess with Tony Stark and Reed Richards.
I assumed the above rant was stress relief versus stress build-up.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Debalic wrote:
You could play chess with Tony Stark and Reed Richards.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Well done, Brownduck, you beat that Smasharoo character well and sound. He won't be showing his face round these parts any time soon, I reckon.
Kavekk wrote:
Well done, Brownduck, you beat that Smasharoo character well and sound. He won't be showing his face round these parts any time soon, I reckon.
Who's up for the next bout?
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
[quote=Uglysasquatch]What's a back of **************
"If all the ***** that have been in her were on her, she'd look like a porcupine"
"If all the ***** that have been in her were on her, she'd look like a porcupine"
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Smasharoo wrote:
I'm not a doctor, I'm not a medical researcher, I have been involved in the statistics side of multiple FDA studies. You're not a doctor, you're not a medical researcher, you haven't been involved with the FDA in any way.
I'll have you know I bought some aspirin the other day, Frances Kelsey. That involved me with the FDA!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Kavekk wrote:
[quote=Uglysasquatch]What's a back of **************
Some kind of phallic porcupine, I presume.
Some kind of phallic porcupine, I presume.
Quote:
Who's up for the next bout?
I'd like to see a match - a real, vicious, no holds barred affair, you know, none of this cordiality business - between Samira and Jophiel for the main event. I think the novelty would be a big draw there, you know, we don't see these posters lock horns very often. For the undercard, I say we give gbaji lsd until he starts arguing with himself.
Edited, Dec 20th 2013 4:21pm by Kavekk
lolgaxe wrote:
Debalic wrote:
You could play chess with Tony Stark and Reed Richards.
I figured Stark and Richards would get fed up.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Kavekk wrote:
For the undercard, I say we give gbaji lsd until he starts arguing with himself.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Kavekk wrote:
Quote:
Who's up for the next bout?
I'd like to see a match - a real, vicious, no holds barred affair, you know, none of this cordiality business - between Samira and Jophiel for the main event. I think the novelty would be a big draw there, you know, we don't see these posters lock horns very often. For the undercard, I say we give gbaji lsd until he starts arguing with himself.
Edited, Dec 20th 2013 4:21pm by Kavekk
Isn't he already on LSD?
Smasharoo wrote:
There have been a plethora of studies of the actual vapor generated by e-cigarettes, post-ignition.
Did you read any of them? Did you notice the part where they ignore the effect on the user of the device and concentrate on "air quality" ? Did you look into the funding for the studies you linked?
Did you read any of them? Did you notice the part where they ignore the effect on the user of the device and concentrate on "air quality" ? Did you look into the funding for the studies you linked?
Yeah OK, Gbaji.
Smasharoo wrote:
There have been a plethora of studies of the actual vapor generated by e-cigarettes, post-ignition.
Did you read any of them? Did you notice the part where they ignore the effect on the user of the device and concentrate on "air quality" ?
Did you read any of them? Did you notice the part where they ignore the effect on the user of the device and concentrate on "air quality" ?
Yeah. Want to take a gander as to why? Could it possibly be because there is literally not one single human on the face of the Earth, in or out of the medial profession, who for one instant believes that the effects of an e-cigarette on the user of the device can possibly be even remotely in the same ballpark in terms of harm when compared to a tobacco cigarette and thus the single and only concern with regards to e-cigarette use from a legislative perspective is whether they represent any harm to bystanders? No one is no question about whether an e-cigarette is safer to use than a tobacco cigarette. The question is whether someone who does not smoke and is currently not being exposed to second hand smoke from tobacco products because of bans on smoking in many locations would suffer an increased health risk from tobacco smokers shifting to using e-cigarettes which are not currently banned in those same locations. Because, see, this is relevant to the question as to whether or not to extend those bans to e-cigarettes.
Of course, as the article I linked showed, even though there have been studies on this exact question, which definitively conclude that there is no significant increase in health risk at all to bystanders, fear and hysteria tends to lead the day with regards to e-cigs.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
I dunno. Lots of people said the same thing about diet soda (can't be worse and will probably be a lot better for you than sweetened soda). That... may not be true, in fact; and part of the problem is that people tend to use a lot more of the guilt-free alternative.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Can these things be used to nebulize a Tab?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I'd be interested in seeing what burning aspartame would do.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Just RC.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Samira wrote:
I dunno. Lots of people said the same thing about diet soda (can't be worse and will probably be a lot better for you than sweetened soda). That... may not be true, in fact; and part of the problem is that people tend to use a lot more of the guilt-free alternative.
I don't know if that's a great analogy though. Both were still "soda", and no one seriously argued differently. The discussion was more an academic question of relative health effects of different sweeteners.
In this case, we're talking about two radically different products. The only similarities are that both are inhaled, and both (might) contain nicotine. And it's only that latter possible commonality, and the fact that e-cigs can therefore be used as a substitute for smoking tobacco cigs, that even puts them in the same broad category. And IMO, that's an incredibly weak connection. We're really talking about a completely different product, and it should really be treated as such and not lumped in as a "tobacco/smoking product" at all.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Samira wrote:
I dunno. Lots of people said the same thing about diet soda (can't be worse and will probably be a lot better for you than sweetened soda). That... may not be true, in fact; and part of the problem is that people tend to use a lot more of the guilt-free alternative.
I don't know if that's a great analogy though. Both were still "soda", and no one seriously argued differently. The discussion was more an academic question of relative health effects of different sweeteners.
But it LOOKS like smoking, so it MUST be similarly harmful.
Recent Visitors: 300
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (300)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- It took me 20 years
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC