Secondhand E-cig Vapor - New Junk Article

Just watched a news video... "Vape pen charger explosion"
Vape pen charger explosion causes thousands of dollars worth of damage to California woman's home
The lady was charging a vape pen and the charger "explodes" causing a nearby paint can to shoot up into the ceiling. The fire dept guy says "those lithium ion batteries..." and so on. Now wait just a minute! Technically, it wasn't a "vape charger" and they showed the vape pen looked fine. Pens don't come with a charger, just a USB cord, so it was just a universal USB charger (like for phones, ect) and the pen battery didn't explode. Also, why did she have a paint can sitting next to it? Did she leave the vape pen on (might not matter)? Was the USB cord damaged (short)? Pens use a LiPo battery not Lithium Ion. I know I'm nitpicking, but all people will really "hear" is vape pen explodes... nobody really thinks things out. Could this have happened anyway while charging a phone or something else? Right after watching this, I see an article in the local paper telling people to stop vaping immediately because of the recent events (and they don't mention ANYTHING about the real cause!) Final thought: there was also a water bottle next to where the charger was... maybe she spilled water on the charger? I'm like Peter Falk in the old TV show Columbo... "but what got me thinking was..." Maybe I overthink things, but at least I do think (and ask questions)  

I'm looking at all the news reports just running and jumping with joy about the study that came out about teen vaping use today. I believe this was a catalyst that is going to get the general, non-informed "I'll do whatever you say and where do I check the voting ballot again??" public, right behind strict regulations and/or banning. My, how powerful manipulation is with what was once the minority, but what I'm afraid is now the majority in this country.

What is getting me is that almost ALL the commenters are stating that these are bad, very very bad and just look at "all the reports that are coming out about negative side effects." Where are they seeing reports about scientific study results regarding negative side effects and a link to cancer? Or is this just another case of "those people" that want to tell us all how to live imagining all these studies (one even quoted they cause cancer according to recent studies) in their little pea-sized non-independent thinking brains? I am just amazed at how the mind works with some people. How they can just "want something to be" and so, in their little minds, they have fabricated all these studies showing negative side effects and direct causes to cancer. Really?

I'm sorry if I sound ticked off. I'm just so sick and tired of watching a vast majority of Americans lose their ability to think for themselves and that are so content to be LAZY and just believe whatever it is they hear from the media. You know, you just can't fight stupid.  

Ok, let me make this brief as possible. I'm guessing my wife (non smoker or vapor') seems to have developed a sensitivity to my vaping. She seems to have nasal congestion a lot when I'm home. I'm not a cloud chaser, so I don't fill the room and tend to blow my vape away from her.

Has anyone else experienced effects of "Second Hand Vapor"?  

The recent meeting on THR in Australia was an absolute joke, the main stream media refused to cover it, so please share this video to give these "scientists" the attention they deserve.

 

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.  

This is part of an newsletter email:
Q: Do the words used to describe vaping alter perceptions of risk?

A: At first sight, the two headlines appear very similar: “Labeling e-cigarette emissions as ‘chemicals’ or ‘aerosols’ increases the perceived risk of exposure” and “Accurate labels like ‘aerosol’ or ‘chemicals’ increase perceived risks of e-cigarette use”. The ironic thing is that while both fairly accurately reflect the study being reported, one – the one that uses the word “Accurate” – is not quite so, well... accurate.

As any chemistry teacher will tell you, everything is composed of chemicals – you are, your food is, the screen you’re reading this on is made up entirely of chemicals. Which makes the labelling of e-cig vapour as “chemicals” self-evidently true at one level, but deliberately misleading at another. (Don’t drink that water, it’s nothing but chemicals!)

As it turns out, those headlines – one from News-Medical.net, the other from Medical Xpress – are placed over identical reports (i.e. an uncritically reproduced press release) of a study published this week in the Journal of American College Health. And the very title of that study, “Aerosol, vapor, or chemicals? College student perceptions of harm from electronic cigarettes and support for a tobacco-free campus policy”, tells you at once that this is hardly unbiased science, seeking answers not yet known, but rather that sadly common form of pseudo-science that starts out with its conclusion in place and sets out to “prove” it.

The study of college students in 2018 and 2019 found – not altogether surprisingly – that those asked to assess the harmfulness of secondhand “aerosol” or “chemicals” emitted by e-cigarettes were more inclined to see them as dangerous than those who were asked to assess “vapor”.

It also found, unsurprisingly, that they were around twice as likely to support a tobacco-free campus policy. This being the US, where authority routinely seems to miss the point that e-cigarettes don’t contain tobacco, we can take that to mean a vape-free campus policy too. Which, it is not hard to assume, is exactly what the researchers wanted them to support.

The study’s conclusion is itself a masterpiece of deception (perhaps self-deception). It is this: “Health campaigns should use accurate terminology to describe e-cigarette emissions, rather than jargon that conveys lower risk.”

Just how the term “chemicals” – which, after all, encompasses every breath you take – is more “accurate” than “vapor” the authors make no attempt to explain.

Now it may be true that much research which purports to support e-cigarette use is equally tendentious, setting out with its conclusion already prepared. But to respond with such blatantly bad science is no help to anyone who really wants to discover facts as yet unknown. And there are plenty of those yet to be discovered in the field of vaping.

Oh, and the answer to the question posed above is: “Yes, of course”.
Click to expand...

This is a link to the study mentioned.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07448481.2020.1819293  

I have an iPV Mini that the finish is starting to look a little bad in certain areas on the mod.

I am going to cover it with a vinyl wrap, but can't decide what to buy.

Pricewise, the J-Wrap and Vapor Skinz are at least double the price or more than the wraps you can buy off of Ebay from companies such as "MightySkinsDecals1"

Are these Ebay wraps in the $7.00 - $8.00 price range of much poorer quality than the expensive J-Wraps, Vapor Skinz, etc?

Thanks,  

Perhaps folks who have posted documentation in a variety of spots would want to post it here as well. We could use a go-to thread when we're looking for solid evidence on a topic ("Just the facts, ma'am.).

Let's post only heavy-duty stuff, genuine documentation, not in-my-opinion pieces and the like. I'll start with these:

A document from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("These e-cigarettes are not considered smoking devices, and their heating element does not pose the same dangers of ignition as regular cigarettes.") A 55-page study from the National Institutes of Health's National Center for Biotechnology Information ("The potential of significant adverse effects on bystanders is minimal.") A 13-page study from FEMA's U.S. Fire Administration ("More than 2.5 million Americans are using electronic cigarettes [e-cigs or e-cigarettes], and this number is growing rapidly. Fires or explosions caused by e-cigarettes are rare. Twenty-five separate incidents of explosion and fire involving an e-cigarette were reported in the United States media between 2009 and August 2014."). ​
 

I'm tired of hitting the 10sec cut off time and still craving more vapor (per hit).

(Rather than just taking another hit) I want to maximize the amount of vapor per second per hit to achieve this.

I have my lemo tank opened up all the way which allows for maximum airflow.

Is it true that more wraps (on my coil build) would create more vapor since it's more surface area of saturated wick?

That coupled with more wattage would burn it hotter, also creating more vapor.

And using a gauge like 24 would help keep the ohms down, which in turn would allow for faster coil heat up time/temp to produce vapor quicker to maximize vapor per second?

Please let me know if these steps will yield more vapor per second or just send me on a different direction / adjust my ideas to allow me to obtain my desire.

Thanks ECF!  

So I pulled the trigger and decided to upgrade my istick 20w and get the istick 50w.
Came fully charged so threw on my nautilus and started vaping and I have to draw really hard to get some vapor. I've tried different wattages from 7-18 and the results are still low vapor. Not no vapor but not as much as I should be getting. So I thought it was a bad coil or atty so I threw the same tank onto my istick 20w and worked perfectly with a ton of vapor.
Threw it back on the 50 and made sure the counter was counting and took a vape for 7 seconds with about half the vapor from the 20w.
Am I doing something wrong?
thanks
Brian