Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Bad references.

I haven't been directly involved in writing this article, so I'm not sure what happened here. Refs 27-29 seem to be completely unrelated to the article. And 11-13 are duplicates. I think there may be some other duplicates in the list as well. Someone who's been more involved in editing this article than me could clean it up a bit. Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 04:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarification on Intellicig UK Study

In order to prevent an edit war, I am moving this discussion to the talk page. Davielawson has posted the following justification for his edits on my talk page: "divantrainin Ive noticed that you have changed a lot of my text on the Intellicig study. I have also noticed that what you have changed it to is massively inaccurate. The name Intellicig should possibly be removed from a few of the sentences as you have done and a citation is on the way.

Ive noticed that you have also stated in you talk that there are only 3 or so manufacturers of the hardware components of the devices. Intellicig UK are currently manufacturing to small scale in the UK and will be a 4th manufacturer pretty soon. The purpose of this, is as we all know, the standards of the produce coming from china is sub-standard and possibly unsafe! In an attempt to make a safer product Intellicig are manufacturing in the UK so that stringent quality control checks will be carried out, unlike in other countries"

This section needs a link to the actual Intellicig report, which is why I added a note that a citation is needed. This note reminds other editors that a citation is needed and they may be able to find this report if you can't find it.

In relation to your comment that "as we all know, the standards of the produce coming from china is sub-standard and possibly unsafe", please provide a citation which justifies this borderline-racist comment. I am fully aware that there have been a number of product recalls regarding a wide amount of products coming from China and a number of questions regarding China's quality regulations, but that's not a justification for making a racist comment that suggests all products coming from China are sub-standard.

Wikipedia is not a forum for advertising. Refer to Wikipedia:Spam for more information on Wikipedia's guide to dealing with potential advertising. In general, the editors of this page have tried to remove content that may be misconstrued as advertising. Your reference to the quality control checks and the location of manufacture of one particular brand of e-cigarettes is coming across as selling the benefits of one brand of e-cigarette (i.e. advertising). Further, these aspects of the Intellicig is not significant enough as to justify keeping it in an article that is suppose to cover an article on all electronic cigarette.DivaNtrainin (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to your claims of borderline racism, to suggest that sub-standard products are coming from China, by any stretch of the imagination, cannot be called racism. There have been numerous documented reports of phantom factories in China along with trading standards in the UK warning of Chinese electrical equipment which is sub-standard and unfit for purpose entering the UK market. The Chinese factories which produce electronic cigarettes can do so at such a volume that they can sell cheaper than any other country, as such a monopoly is formed and so quality suffers to maintain a low price.

With regard to the citation needed, the report, Im told, is being uploaded to a server to that it may be referenced.

In relation to claims of advertising, if the Big mac was shown to make your nose turn blue, you are not going to state that "a burger" will turn your nose blue. Claims on the Intellicig study are valid only for the Intellicig device. Naming Intellicig when discussing the Intellicig study would hardly constitute advertising!

Instead of changing the text to make it more accurate, (DivaNtrainin), you have changed it in accordance with your opinion and mis-interoperated the study (which I am assuming you have not yet read), to make false claims that someone is more likely to suffer from nicotine poisoning from the device. I don't know about you, but I don't know of any smokers that have ever suffered from nicotine poisoning, not to say this doesn't happen, but it would suggest a distinct lack of knowledge regarding nicotine addiction and smoking, on your behalf. Davielawson (talk) 08:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

In light of the fact that another editor has removed reference to the Intellicig report, I won't be responding to your post, even though I have some serious concerns about your comments.DivaNtrainin (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, am still waiting on a link to this supposed "study." Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

http://www.intellicig.com/preliminary-analysis-of-blood-nicotine-concentration-z-56.html?chapter=3 Davielawson (talk) 08:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Non-independent and self-published = a big no no.TMCk (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And "censored" in part. Seems to me like they're trying to pull a "BP" [a new therm I invented].TMCk (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you will find it impossible to find a report which has been written or published by a non-commercial body. The Ruyan report by health NZ was carried out by Dr Murray Laugesen working on behalf of Ruyan. I think it worth while to have the report online regardless. The commercial results have been redacted for obvious reasons, however the outcome of the report has shown that the Tmax for the Inellicig in particular, but likely to be most electronic cigarettes, is marginally quicker than that of the traditional cigarette. A second report has also been written to compare smoking of a cigarette to electronic cigarette in an attempt to establish a reliable method for smoking electronic cigarettes in trials. This report may also be of value to other people and other clinical investigators have shown interest in using the Intellicig method in their trials. I understand that this work was carried out by intellicig, however it was an independent lab that tested the samples and an independent doctor who took them. The results have not been fudged, and the actual figures (in a lot of cases) have been redacted. The benefit of this report is that it illustrates and documents for the first time, the Tmax of the device, which for any biochemists or neuroschemistts can appreciate the importance of this in producing an effective NRT product in the future! Davielawson (talk) 11:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the "study" was funded by Intellicig is only one problem with the study. A huge portion of this study was censored. There is a lot of basic information about the study that is missing, such as how many participants were on the study, basic information on the participants (gender, age range, years smoking etc), and actual nicotine quantities in the blood. It's not clear who was the chief investigator in the study. I know the study says it is run by CN Creative Ltd, but typically studies reference a specific person who is seen as responsible for the conclusions drawn from the study. By the way, what is CN Creative Ltd??? How many clinical studies has CN Creative Ltd run? This entire study looks amateurly written (no abstract, the aim of the study is different that the conclusions drawn by the study and the study design). By the way, is it a conflict of interest for you to post your own study to Wikipedia??? The study was written up by a David Lawson and your profile name is Davielawson. Coincident?

In relation to the report posted by Ruyan out of New Zealand, I am all for removing it from the Wikipedia page. Are you seriously interested in opening up this discussion on removing all reports from e-cigarette companies on this Wiki page?DivaNtrainin (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you will find that what you are referring to is a peer reviewed paper which is intended for publishing. Reports do not follow such a design as you stated. There is no formal context for their use. The purpose of this report is for research and development. It is a shame that wikipedia can be edited in such a way. Information whether deemed valid by you or not should be available to people to make their own mind up and this information should not be dictated or censored! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davielawson (talk • contribs) 13:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

In response to DivaNtrainin's question, "Intellicig" is part of "CN Creative LTD" [1] [2].TMCk (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Davielawson, please review Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources to get a better understanding of the type of references that Wikipedia allows. Although there is an allowance for Wikipedia to reference studies that aren't necessarily peer-reviewed, the non-peer reviewed study needs to be executed and presented in a way that shows it is a quality study. In this case, there are many flaws to this report such as sponsor's conflict of interest, censoring information, lack of data, and poor study design. The arguement that this report is for research and development is illogical since most peer reviewed papers are for research and development purposes as well.

If you feel this study needs to be presented to the public, there are many, many, many forums on the internet for you to post your study. However, Wikipedia's policies don't allow you to post your study here.DivaNtrainin (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Health concerns from MNocifora (a.k.a. MNoisy)

Moved this to its own section to get attention -- Equazcion ^(talk) 12:10, 21 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Sorry guys, this was my first time editing on Wikipedia and I was not familiar with the talk page; Hence the extra edits. I sent Equazicon an email and discussed it with him prior to this and he suggested I bring my concerns here. I will take some sections out of this email so I can address the concerns...

First let me clearly state I am NOT using wikipedia for commerical use or spamming! I am a recent user and enthusiast, I started out with products that had VG and had similar negative affects like many users who have used PG. Dry throat and onset of sickness (others have had many other more negative affects). After doing tons of research on why this was happening and what ingredients were causing it, I discovered it was the PG. Switching to VG did the trick. Now on to the email I sent Equazicon...

My first cite is from healthnews.com that also includes citations and stats from healthfinder.gov, a goverment site.

My second demonstrates concern over the toxicity of e-cigarettes and cites the New York Times, hardly a unreliable resource.

My third cites another New York Times article.

My fourth cites a manufacturer that doesnt use propylene glycol for an ingredient. Just like the cite in the previous section showing the other manufacturers ingredients.

My fifth cites findings from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry about Propelyne Glycol. This is a US goverment agency.

I have no problem correcting what needs to be done, but I have attempted numerous times to post and it keeps getting pulled. This is obvoiusly important information for the wikipedia, but as I look through the article, my edit mimicks many other parts of the article showing similar studies, ingredient descriptions, findings and/or resources but still is getting deleted. Even when you cited the Times article about PG, it stated there was still possible concerns - "But medical science is cautious—there was still a remote chance that glycol might accumulate harmfully in the erect human lungs which, unlike those of mice..." and this was in reference to airborn PG to kill germs, not vaporization claims.

Also: Even in Wikipedia, under Propleyene Glycol it states these as concerns:

"Eye

Causes mild eye irritation. Contact may cause irritation, tearing, and burning pain.

Skin

Causes moderate skin irritation. Contact with the skin may cause erythema, dryness, and defatting.

Ingestion

May cause gastrointestinal irritation with nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Low hazard for usual industrial handling. May cause hemoglobinuric nephrosis. May cause changes in surface EEG.

Inhalation

Low hazard for usual industrial handling. May cause respiratory tract irritation.

Chronic

May cause reproductive and fetal effects. Laboratory experiments have resulted in mutagenic effects. Exposure to large doses, especially in combination with alcohol or MDMA may cause central nervous system depression. Chronic ingestion may cause lactic acidosis and possible seizures. "

Should I cite this in my edit?

That pretty much it. I just have run into numerous users online via enthusiasts sites and/or message boards that have run into this issue with PG. I was lucky enough to do my research and figure out what was wrong. I thought that was important enough to post to wikipedia. Thanks for your help. Let me know what you think. --MNoisy (talk) 10:10, 12December 2010(UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.76.5 (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits by Cetusshare

Would someone please go through these carefully? I was just browsing them and didn't have the time to check completely. There's one naked link out to findarticle and replacements of other references in the text. I assume these are meant as good faith edits, but I don't think references should be replaced wholesale like that. Like I said, I only just spent a couple minutes looking them over. Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal vaporizer (terminology)

Please leave this at the beginning of the page, I set up a redirect from 'personal vaporizer'. FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 05:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that that's an actual name used for this product? I haven't seen it used in third-party sources. The existence of a redirect by that name isn't reason enough to keep the name in this article. Equazcion (talk) 05:59, 6 Nov 2009 (UTC)

http://www.totallywicked-eliquid.com/help-and-support.html was in the page before, the reference was deleted since others thought it useless FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 06:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider retailer websites to be so reliable as sources for this. Third-party news and media sources etc. are the better bet, and so far I haven't seen any of them referring to the devices that way. Equazcion (talk) 06:05, 6 Nov 2009 (UTC)

They are a distributor, but yes, I see the point, have another reference that was removed. http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/new-members-forum/21069-ecf-abbreviations-101-a.html This one is not affiliated with the sales or distribution of them. FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 06:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a forum though, another type of site that isn't a reliable source. You should check out WP:RS for the sourcing standards we're supposed to use in articles. Equazcion (talk) 06:13, 6 Nov 2009 (UTC)

This or this should qualify under 'News' source according to the page you linked. FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 06:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Those both seem to be blogs, which aren't reliable sources according to the wikipedia guideline. Equazcion (talk) 06:43, 6 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Also, you should consider the possibility that maybe the better alternate name to list in the article would be "e-cigarette" or "e-cig", as those are definitely the most-used colloquial names for the device, and are certainly used more than "personal vaporizer". Equazcion (talk) 06:52, 6 Nov 2009 (UTC)

"Original research:" this is a popular term around the forums, but y'all are right - to my surprise it hasn't crept into anything non-press-release indexed by Google News. I'm sure it originated as a "euphemism" by some vendor, and some people are big on it for 'political' reasons (more accurate/more legitimate-sounding), but the reason it persists is probably that it's the easiest way to encompass the designs that look nothing like a cigarette, especially when whacked down to 'PV.' Dear lazy old-media reporter reading Wikipedia: toss 'sometimes referred to as personal vaporizers' into some article so Wikiality can reflect Wikiality [and people can use Wikipedia to figure out what the heck this term means]. As far as "euphemising" goes, hijacking a term for cannabis paraphernalia (see Vaporizer) wouldn't seem like the first choice to help a cause - and permits some serious misreading of that content before discovering the usage is unrelated except in concept! 64.252.202.60 (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Just check out the various E-Cig forums, the term "Personal Vaporizer" is starting to become very popular. The user posting before me was definitely right when he said that P.V. users are using the term for political reasons as well as for precision. In addition to these reasons, another may be that because e-cig users have ceased using "analogs" (regular cigarettes) they want to distance themselves from the less popular image of second hand smoke and tar (among other things). Greendogo (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Terminology is important, especially for the nature of this particular subject, yet, I see no 'Terminology' section ? Preroll (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition of Top Brands

There are a number of top ecig brands, it would be valuable to list the most known such as NJOY, Volcano, Smoking Everywhere, Smoke Anywhere. Also, would it be of interest to include press mentions such as today on Rush Limbaugh's talk show he provides a nice testimonial for VolcanoEcigs.com and Smoke Everywhere: RobBertholf (talk) 10:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The general concensus is to not allow advertising of ecigarettes as per Wikipedia:Spam and WP:SOAP. Listing a number of ecigarette companies encourages ecigarette companies to spam this Wikipedia page. Please review the history of this Wikipedia page to see the large amount of spam this page gets. All ecigarette companies are very young companies and therefore it is difficult to say that any ecigarette is a so-called top brand.

I also don't see how mentioning how one celebrity endorses a particular brand of ecigarettes constitutes something notable for this particular wikipedia page.DivaNtrainin (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The other problem with this idea is that most of the well known "brands" of e-cigs are all the same devices from the same manufacturers ordered in bulk and labeled with whatever the retailer decides to call it. Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And nevermind the fact that the proposed "Top Companies" over-charge for a not-that-great product. What about the JOYE510? There's a good product. Or the M401? Another fine product that isn't going to break the bank (or the 3 figure mark for an item found unbranded for under $10). Kailey elise (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Legal status by region

in the United States section this statement is false "However, a US Court of Appeal upheld the FDA's original classification in March 2010 allowing them to restrict and ban unauthorized products." The case has yet to go before the court on fda jurisdiction. Judge Leon ruled on a petition for injunction against the fda confiscating product until the case of jurisdiction goes to court based on njoy likely to succeed in the jurisdiction case. fda appealed the injunction and the appeals court put a stay on the injunction until it could review the evidence and oral arguments pertaining to the injunction. If the appeals court overturns the injuntion then fda can confiscate product till the jurisdiction is decided by Judge Leon.

this statement though true by itself in folowing the untrue statement leads the reader to believe that the fda argument is true and this has not been decided by Judge Leon yet. Yes this is the fda's argument but no this argument is not true as of yet and may not be at all. "The FDA argued the right to regulate electronic cigarettes based on their previous ability to regulate nicotine replacement therapies such as nicotine gum or patches. Further, the agency argued that tobacco legislation enacted last year "expressly excludes from the definition of 'tobacco product' any article that is a drug, device or combination product under the FDCA, and provides that such articles shall be subject to regulation under the pre-existing FDCA provisions." The info is Public Record. I have many pdf of transcripts oral arguments etc.Bsdcallaway (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Marketing and Taxes.

In the U.S marketing, it has shown that using Electronic Cigarettes save money over time, rather than using regular cigarette. In the article “Save Money with Electronic Cigarettes,” Mary Rivers states that “The federal tax on a pack of cigarettes rose from thirty-nine cents to a dollar and one cent last year.” Back in the days a pack of cigarette use to be around two dollars and fifty cents, but nowadays one pack of cigarettes are around five dollar. The ones that are five dollars are the regular brand, but if you are trying to find a better quality brand it goes up to seven dollars. But in other hand electronic cigarettes can be rechargeable and reusable. Kpstyle (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Health issues of electronic vs. tobacco cigarettes

I hope folks will keep an eye out for studies that substantiate or debunk health claims of ecigs vs tobacco cigarettes. I think most people considering ecigs will be smokers who do not want to give up nicotine but want a healthier delivery system (if available). The big question isn't "is it just as health to use an ecig as not" but "is it healthier to use an ecig rather than smoke a tobacco cigarette"?

I ordered an ecig kit for my daughter who smokes tobacco and does not want to quit on the assumption that a modern nicotine delivery system like ecigs will be less harmful than tobacco. I'm sure lots of other smokers and friends of smokers would welcome a less harmful alternative. Funkyj (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no serious doubt that e-cigarettes are healthier than cigarettes. This is evident from the chemical composition of the vapour (as per manufacturer declarations and independent verifications, by the US FDA among others). And of course hundreds of thousands to millions of users all agree that using e-cigarettes in place of tobacco has dramatic health benefits.

I would personally like to see health issues divided into three sections; first, political issues, and secondly health issues in absolute terms: for instance it is known that exposure to nicotine carries certain risks and long-term effects, that some manufacturers have shown their quality control procedures leave things to be desired (DEG contaminated glycerin, benzene in one other case), and so on. Then thirdly, as you suggest, a comparison to real tobacco products, since this is what really interests smokers, and since e-cigarettes aren't too interesting to non-smokers after all. Each of these sections would be relevant, but mixed up as they are now they just don't make a lot of sense, because they are not really related issues.

For instance, e-cigarettes are not clearly classified in the US; are they a drug delivery product or a tobacco product, or both (or neither)? In either case, the FDA has to regulate them somehow, and whatever health warnings or recommendations they issue would have to follow the relevant legislation (consider what is known about cannabis and what you won't ever hear the FDA say as long as cannabis is illegal). The decision has actually been made in a lawsuit filed against the FDA by an e-cig manufacturer, but the judge has stalled for two months so far in pronouncing the verdict (and nobody seems to know why). Now, if e-cigs turn out to legally be a drug product, someone would have to invest 8 years of time and upwards of a billion dollars in clinical testing (which is well beyond the means of the e-cig industry right now), before the FDA would announce that they are a legitimate alternative to real tobacco, and as a tobacco product it would simply be illegal to say (even if absolutely true) that e-cigarettes are healthier than cigarettes, thanks to Obama's recent tobacco legislation.

Another problem is that the industry is not actually 100% legit. Rather, it's full of small businesses run by people without too many scruples (hello, MNoisy), and most of the genuine testing that's been done has still been funded by the industry, which leaves any skeptic with perfectly valid concerns over conflicting interests. Similarly, many harm reduction organisations have spoken out in favour of e-cigs, but as it turns out, pretending to be a credible health organisation is a little too easy. The press has been amazingly incompetent on the issue, too, which makes it hard to rate such sources.

Still, I'm working to rewrite the health section completely, but I don't exactly do this full time and it'll take a while before I have a draft ready.--ReturningTarzan (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The most relevant health question is actually how electronic cigarettes compare to other nicotine replacement therapy methods, like patches, gum, and other types of inhalers. The lack of such comparisons in the FDA studies has been the biggest criticism against them. Comparisons to tobacco smoke would also be telling. PS, MNoisy emailed me following my latest revert/warning, claiming not to have any ties to a retailer. I've invited them to this talk page to discuss their proposed edits. Equazcion (talk) 14:20, 13 Dec 2009 (UTC)

My apologies to MNoisy if he or she is really not affiliated with a retailer. It just really, really looks like it. Anyway, I don't agree that a comparison to "other" NRT methods is as relevant as you say, specifically because of the "therapy" aspect. Only some e-cig companies have marketed their products as NRT, and it's my impression that most larger retailers (now) maintain that e-cigs are not a medical product, simply a recreational nicotine product that one may well use in place of tobacco, and that's the official position of the ECF, too. Additionally I believe it's the consensus among users that e-cigs are just a "healthier alternative".

My reasons for wanting to add comparisons to real cigarettes don't really have anything to do with the FDA. The FDAs failure to compare e-cigs to NRT products is particularly relevant to them, of course, since on one hand they approve products known to contain minute quantities of TSNAs (and ones that come in child-friendly flavours), and on the other hand they condemn e-cigs for having the same problems, so there's arguably a double standard there. But I don't see it as especially relevant outside the context of the FDA's criticisms. --ReturningTarzan (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that the old bugbear of- should drug use be treated as a medical/harm minimization\control personal issue or as a legal public-prohibition issue is lurking underneath much of the discussion and brings an ideological element to it. Pragmatic experience would suggest that prohibition is expensive and often fails especially in the the global market place that is the net. Pragmatism also suggests that because Ecigs do not smell, do not set of smoke detectors, (and are increasingly not looking anything like a cigarette) that policing a ban would be very difficult.

Update April 2010

There are several studies that show that nicotine in its pure form (the form that works on your brain and is in your bloodstream) is carcinogenic. I am a Scientist who knows a lot on this subject. If anybody deletes the factual information that I have put on this page regarding the harmful effects of nicotine including in its form in electronic cigarettes again without good reason then I will have no choice but to begin legal proceedings against them. I have the resources to do this. I would strongly advise against any more vandalism of this page by anybody, you could be causing countless people to become addicted to a highly carcinogenic drug of abuse by your actions.

It is the right of the public to know that although they may be harming themselves less than they are with traditional cigarettes that they are still harming themselves when smoking electronic cigarettes.

If people want to delete what I have written may I kindly suggest that they replace all of what is explained when doing so. Any more block deletes of the facts that the public deserve to be able to see on this site will not be tolerated, especially when it is clearly unnecessary (the moderator read through all that I added and saw no problem with it).

You have the opportunity here to explain any reasons for deleting the information I place on this page about the health risks of electronic cigarettes so I suggest you do so in future when deleting mass blocks of text. Jplay1989 (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes it's easier to just correct the article, you know. ;) Citing an article that basically says "we don't know a lot about the cancer risk of nicotine except that we're a bit baffled by these here findings", and summing that up as "there is clear evidence that nicotine causes cancer" is disingenuous, not becoming of a "capital-S" Scientist, and it misleads the people whom you claim have a "right to know".

If cancer research were as easy as extrapolating from a couple of cells in a petri dish, we'd have a hundred cures by now. The very articles cited as sources for this causal link between nicotine and cancer make it plainly obvious that the link is not necessarily causal, and that indeed evidence from the real world strongly contradicts the lab results in this case. Sad as it may be for this public that really does have a right to know, the knowledge doesn't exist yet; there is only speculation at this point, as one article spells out explicitly.

Since you are a scientist, I would happily listen to alternative viewpoints, however. But what sort of a scientist are you? --ReturningTarzan (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems odd to me as a biochemist to hear someone describe themselves as a "Scientist". Any "scientists" that I know would not state that they were as scientist as this could be as broad as a microbiologist to a geologist or a geographer which really have no relation to the subject! As a biochemist I would say that your comments are totally invalid, to threat legal proceedings against someone who deletes an entry on a wiki is utter trash! If you have justified reasons for your claims and statements then maybe you should state them?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davielawson (talk • contribs) 07:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have heard that nicotine is not so much a carcinogen in itself but it may act a bit like a growth promoter hormone. Any comments? Is Ecigs less likely to result in emphysema? What is the view of dentists?- real cigarettes are definitely bad for your teeth. I have had mental health (depression anxiety) issues for most of my adult life, and as is often the case found cigarettes/nicotine's personally a big issue, bad for physical health .... but ( and the claims of the health profession in this mental health area are definitely not based on first hand experience)  ! The Ecig method of delivery certainly 'works' for me in a way that other NRTs do not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedestrian1957 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It is now time to update the FDA section, considering the news today that their case has been reversed again, and may not regulate the ecig as a drug delivery product, but only as a tobacco product. This of course means that non-tobacco products may have no regulation at all. This is appropriate given the actual risks, albeit unpopular with anti-smoking groups who want to ban them. The EPA report, using a mass spec, concluded only what was "detected" and did not measure the quantity of tobacco specific nitrisamines let alone compare those to actual cigarettes. There are 1/1000 total TSN's in the e-cig compared to a marlboro, and 1/300 compared to an ultralight. There were no tobacco specific nitrisamines detected in the non-tobacco flavors (duh). Clearly the report and the experiment was designed to mislead, supporting the politics rather than the science. I will be changing this section, adding the measured levels and the appropriate references, so that we tell the whole truth like a scientist instead of the partial truth like a politician. mbbradford 23:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Atomizers lifetime.

Atomizers (at least nowadays) on average, last for far more than a month. There is the possibility that you get a 'dud', but that happens for most electronic products. Preroll (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Although i have personally seen the vast majority of PV users complain that their atomizers only last for about a month (some claim as little as a week), in my own experience they can last for many months. People just don't know how to care for them. However, due to the discrepancy between how long they are capable of lasting and how long they last in the hands of the average unrefined dolt, perhaps this section could be somewhat expanded to explain this aspect better.

In case this helps anyone, DON'T use cleaning solutions of any kind. Just blow it out really hard (do NOT use canned air, which may contain weird crap designed to discourage huffing) until there is no more fluid coming out (2 or 3 really good hard blows from the threaded end), wipe down the inside with wadded tissue or cloth (you can use a cotton swab but it might leave filaments which burn and taste terrible), and "dry burn" (engage the battery until the atomizer glows orange for maybe 5-7 seconds, over and over until any residue is burnt out. Be careful not to overdo it; any longer than several seconds and the element will fry. Also: always have at least one backup! I'm still using my original atomizer from August and it still hits real cleanly. ~transmothra (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Health effects of nicotine

I copied this section into Nicotine patch and Nicotine gum articles. But my edit was reverted:

rv, first source is not available online, second has close paraphrasing, edit summary indicates WP:COPYVIO

So probably the section should be removed from this article too. Innercover1 (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition of patented model & safety issues of devices

For consideration, there are variety of electronic cigarettes models, batteries,portable compact charger,atomizer & etc. that are patented and I recommend that addition should be made to include patented ones because patent organization such as European Patent Oraganisation (EPO) requires a certain standard of quality & safety before granting patent rights .

This is very important as there are instances where poor quality devices have caused physical damage to user. There has also been instances where modified 'personal vaporizer'(PV) exploded in a user's hand cause by using unprotected Lithium-Ion battery & leaking liquid may cause nicotine intoxication. This may also be safety issue that should be included as part of this article.

ECF E-cigarette Unsafe Ecig Unsafe.(Fareez Shah (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC))

E-cigs legal in China

I have now heard the same reply from seven Chinese sellers, in several different forums, that e-cigs are legal in China but tobacco cigarettes are so cheap that few Chinese are using e-cigs. I have added a line about China with one reference, which is actually a reference from a couple of Chinese sellers. Roger491127 (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Many manufacturers in China produce E-cigarette, for example (Redacted), and sell them abroad, and more and more Chinese try E-cigarettes too, but they like tobacco cigarettes more, and tobacco cigarettes are legal in public, this maybe the biggest reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.91.237.3 (talk) 07:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Electronic cigarettes are in fact illegal in China and Hong Kong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam esq (talk • contribs) 02:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC) Seemingly the public has a vague attitude to e-cigarettes. So many companies are now engaged in its R&D, production and marketing; on the other hand little laws or regulations have been issued on it. Now there is no HS code available for e-cigarettes. We can export it as atomizer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.60.34.218 (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Court ruling statement has no source.

"On February 11, 2011 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that electronic cigarettes did not meet the definition of medical devices under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act therefore should not be subject to the same testing rules."

I can not find anything that proves this statement, in fact I found a statement that said the FDA might seek the Supreme Court and it is from February 14, 2011.

The ruling was from the United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued September 23, 2010 Decided December 7, 2010 No. 10-5032. the court said "Together, Brown & Williamson and the Tobacco Act establish that the FDA cannot regulate customarily marketed tobacco products under the FDCA’s drug/device provisions, that it can regulate tobacco products marketed for therapeutic purposes under those provisions, and that it can regulate customarily marketed tobacco products under the Tobacco Act." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam esq (talk • contribs) 02:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2011/02/14/gvsb0214.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.71.87.182 (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing a grossly inaccurate interpretation of a good source; fixing it now. --CliffC (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Recipe tables

It seems that the recipe tables are not sourced. Would someone be so kind as to provide relevant citations? Thanks. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"overstated"

Since gadget compatibility here seems to only be temporary, let me clarify my edit summary:

"overstated" here refers to people's claims, the one who are raising concerns over appeal to non-smokers. It doesn't describe an absolute fact. I've added "possibly" to the statement to clarify this. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:13, 30 Mar 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions

Suggest redirecting people searching for specific brands such as e-lites to this page

BHGobuchul (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Inventor of electronic cigarettes

While many believe Hon Lik was the original inventor of electronic cigarettes, this is in fact untrue. An American named Herbert Gilbert, of Beaver Falls, PA actually invented the first iteration of the electronic cigarette, and received a patent for his invention in 1965. The patent was for a "Smokeless Non-Tobacco Cigarette, Patent No. 3,200,819 and issued on August 17, 1965. Several other parties, including Philip Morris, Procter & Gamble and R.J. Reynolds were all issued patents in the early 1980s for electronic cigarette products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam esq (talk • contribs) 02:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Children? Really?

In paragraph three, suggesting that eCig companies are marketing to children is insupportable. The product in question requires a significant initial investment, and then regular access to credit cards and physical shipping addresses. Further,marketing efforts do not appear in any mainstream source catering to minors. I suggest that this passage is an appeal to emotion, rather than a credible statement.

Are we truly to believe that "children" have the ability to order illicit (for their age) products, pay for said products, and orchestrate delivery in such a fashion that their parents remain unaware? Further, the use of "children" as opposed to the more appropriate "teens" or even "adolescents" is a transparent attempt to evoke an emotional response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.227.73 (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• I did some editing in the first section to conform with WP:WTW but did not remove "children." My reasoning is that reference #45 quotes a lawmaker being concerned with the appeal to children. So it is acceptable to note this.Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Kids should be aloud to experiment with the eCig, especially if there are no health risks. Its harmless. And theres nicotine free cartridges too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.16.4 (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Comparison to real cigarettes

Can someone include a section on how an ecig compares to a real cigarette in terms of taste? It seems odd that this article is missing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gold333 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the reason that info is absent is because it's so subjective. There could be reliable sources that discuss that comparison, if someone can find them. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:12, 1 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Inventors

I sure wish there was some way to work in Al Jaffee's steam cigarette. He came up with it in Mad magazine, December 1964. In the June 1964 issue, he had offered an idea for cigarettes with screw threads to which differently flavored filters could be added. --Bluejay Young (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Kyle Williams - Electronic Cigarettes

I would like to add an image of an Electronic Cigarette to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitm6337 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Add reference sources

In the section "Legal Status -> Other Countries" a reference to [[3]] can be added on the entry for Brazil. This is the official publication of the ban on e-cigs on Brazil, referenced on the newspaper article referenced on ref #67. It is a permanent link to a government site, and is more notable and reliable than the newspaper. Wikiguymindu (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Propose deleting AACR and smokeless tobacco research

I question whether the cited AACR oral carcinogen finding belongs in this article at all. That finding bears on "smokeless tobacco" (chewing tobacco, snuff, etc.) and seems quite misleading in an article about ecigs. Sharp11 (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Extremely misleading. Unless someone can show that (S)-N’-nitrosonornicotine is present in the vapor produced by this product, the section should be removed from this article. I question whether anyone who understands the delivery of nicotine in this product and has reviewed enough available sources so to feel moved to contribute to this article would really, genuinely fail to differentiate ecigarettes from snuff. No, ecigs don't produce smoke, but they are not "smokeless tobacco" products. All that said, if that chemical is present in the vapor, the section should, by all means, explicitly say so and otherwise remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.39.78.81 (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that it is not absolute whether the oral carcinogens are present or not. That is also one of the problems with the FDA study. Anyone can make the liquids for the vapors, and it really depends on what that particular liquid has in it. Therefore, an absolute statement that the vapor contains these carcinogens is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Basically, there is no reason for the AACR findings to be in this article, as they do not pertain to e-cigarettes. Mrschwen (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

"possibly overstated claims of safety"

Nope, that's not one and I believe he's talking about the somewhat discredited FDA study though we don't know. Which manufacturer made what claims? What chemical are they talking about? Under "Safety of liquid bases" it clearly states the main chemical in use is safe and has been used for years. Even nicotine is optional and many suppliers don't even sell it. This is about the device in general and in general manufacturers don't claim such things so to include that in the first section is misleading. Jurrut (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Electronic cigarettes are marketed as a safer alternative to smoking, and even if you want to say the marketer's intentions are arguable, that's still the root of the controversy surrounding electronic cigarettes; and it's the point of most of this article. All the claims of possible harm and possible safety in the legal and health sections are a result of that, otherwise they wouldn't be there. The statement in the intro just summarizes all the controversy detailed in the rest of the sections, as leads are meant to do. I don't know that there's any source that points to particular manufacturers as making claims of safety, as most of them point to a general marketing trend instead. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:49, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC)

This article is not about the controversy and nor is it about the dangers of the additives. It's about a generic device. We wouldn't include problems with a model of car in the automobile page. Safer is also a very different claim to safe. Someone is claiming those trends exist and that's what is needed, not just someone repeating them. Even then it has to be widespread enough to be worthy of inclusion (especially in the lead), not just fringe examples and also widespread enough that it's accurate in describing the whole industry. Unsupported attributions are not ok. Jurrut (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

"Someone repeating them" is what Wikipedia relies on. If a reliable source says something, we do generally consider that acceptable for our content. You're talking about WP:Primary sources, which are actually considered less reliable. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:21, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC)

A Q&A blog is not a reliable source and nor are third or fourth hand accounts that claim a fact exists, but don't actually know who made those claims. Jurrut (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I changed the ref. I haven't noted any "third or fourth hand accounts", but secondary ones, which are what we use for Wikipedia articles. You might also want to look at WP:Synthesis -- using refs to actual manufacturers' or retailers' claims in order to make a broad statement isn't allowed, since reasonably we want to know that a reliable source made the assessment rather than Wikipedia editors. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:43, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Discovery is known for their journalism?

There's only one single sentence in that new ref that comes close and that doesn't say they're overstated claims of safety but unsubstantiated health claims (apparently pro-health, not negative given she mentions vitamins). If it was the December last year the research she's talking about was watching Youtube video's, literally. If she meant December the year before it's on there for you to see it doesn't say that as well as the extent of her research which was very much specific to the brands she chose, not the industry as a whole (this ford's oil is leaking etc). Considering she's funded by an anti-tobacco group her claims have to be taken with the same degree of scepticism we give pro-ends studies.

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/search?author1=Prue+Talbot&sortspec=date&submit=Submit

Here's another article on her that claim except in this one she only tested five brands however as they acknowledge, the primary source gave them the press release to print.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101203141932.htm

And another that makes a very interesting claim especially considering we do know all about propylene glycol.

http://www.gizmag.com/study-finds-electronic-cigarettes-pose-health-risk/17206/ Jurrut (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The claim we're looking to cite here isn't that electronic cigarettes are unhealthy -- only that the topic is controversial. Specifically you asked for a ref regarding the claim that people have pointed to overstated claims of safety in their marketing, as is my understanding, and this ref does show that. As for the reliability of Discovery, whether or not you agree that its journalism is top-notch, it (at least their news site) fits Wikipedia's standards regarding reliable sources. See WP:RS. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:43, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC)

That ref points to overstated claims of health benefits, not safety and as I said one sentence is grossly insufficient to make such a claim regarding an entire industry. This is only about whether that claim is verifiable, accurate and made by a reputable source. That's not the case. Jurrut (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought if something is beneficial to your health then that would indicate it's safe too. Anyway I added more refs. Let me know if that's enough yet, I can get more. Equazcion ^(talk) 09:38, 11 Mar 2012 (UTC)

No benefits have nothing to do with safety. Still none of those articles support that claim however a suitable compromise would be what those do say. Something along the lines of "Concerns exist among medical professionals and researchers due to the lack of evidence regarding the aerosol inhaled and any additives used while anti-smoking groups have stated it could appeal...." though it would mean reworking that paragraph. The first two new refs do support that statement (and would be easy to find many more) but the third is rather dodgy so best to just drop it. Inclusion of the "unsubstantiated health benefits" regarding vitamin additives would also be good but that's probably better further down the page and stating which researcher said it (and the manufacturer if there's only one). In the second article, health.com, Dr Cobb makes a statement (page 2) about his research and levels of nicotine which should be included further down the page. Jurrut (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The articles begin with the premise that e-cigs are claimed to be healthy alternatives to smoking (eg. "Makers of e-cigs tout their product as the first healthy cigarette...," from the CNN article, "healthy"), and go on to examine both sides of that claim. We're just seeking to summarize that controversy, and I think "possibly overstated claims of safety" does that pretty succinctly. If something is "safe", that does tend to translate to "healthy" in this context, no? I'm not seeing the problem. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:56, 11 Mar 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't they're two very different claims. Being healthy does mean it's safe but being safe does not mean it's healthy. That CNN article also says they only contain pure nicotine aka it's rubbish so it's best to lose that one. Jurrut (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Then in this context it's an apt substitute. The point we're trying to get across is that there are claims that e-cigs are actually healthy, which may or may not be true -- it could be an overstatement of safety. Even the ones who claim e-cigs are "very safe" or "safer than regular cigarettes" are in dispute. And we're not in any position as Wikipedia editors to say we have better information than a CNN article, at least not without citing another source claiming that. See WP:V. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:15, 11 Mar 2012 (UTC)

It's not and there's no need for any substitute, say what it says, not what you want. We most certainly are in a position to dismiss that claim as nonsense and the entire article as very questionable because of that. Not verifiable, not supported by mainstream consensus, this article and the manufacturers themselves...oh and common sense as pure nicotine would kill the user. Use the second article as that is written by a health journalist, is not biased towards one point of view unlike many others, and quotes researchers who've been published on this topic in medical journals rather than anti-tobacco journals. Jurrut (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The change in wording is just for the sake of succinctness -- otherwise we'd have to use a disputable word like "healthfulness" or else lengthen things considerably, when there's no need. If something is claimed to be healthy, that covers safe too, by your own definition. That's besides that fact that this is just a summary whose details come later (WP:LEDE), and there is never a need to use the exact words of a source (in fact it's better not to). Verifiable means it was stated in a reliable source, such as a CNN article. We, again, are not in any position to dismiss claims made by reliable sources as defined by WP:RS. This is how Wikipedia works (for better or worse). Equazcion ^(talk) 15:49, 11 Mar 2012 (UTC)

break

It's not a change of wording but change of meaning. That claim is not verifiable because it's a CNN journalist making it (which makes them a primary source) versus doctors, researchers, the manufacturers and all the other journalists who did bother to do some basic research on the topic. Jurrut (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not a change in meaning. If they claim it's healthy, they are claiming it's also safe (according to your definition, again), which is what the statement here says. As far as verifiability: If a reliable source states a claim we take it to mean it's been researched and fact-checked. That's a major distinction between reliable and unreliable sources -- a blog works as you describe, with one author who can self-publish their own original claim (that's why they're not considered reliable), which is markedly different from something like a news service publication. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:09, 11 Mar 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not my definition, read it again. No, it's not a reliable source for such a claim because, as I said, everyone else says otherwise. No amount of debate will change either of those facts. Jurrut (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Above you said, "Being healthy does mean it's safe but being safe does not mean it's healthy". Let me know how I'm reading this wrong.

Again, a reliable source is defined in WP:RS, and your opinion of this one doesn't change Wikipedia's criteria.

I've brought quite a few reliable sources stating that there are claims of health regarding e-cigs, and that those claims are controversial. Do you have reliable sources that say otherwise? Equazcion ^(talk) 16:21, 11 Mar 2012 (UTC)

By ignoring the part you didn't bold. You're free to consult a dictionary if you doubt me.

And in that page it specifically states a news organisation is not perfect which this is clearly an example of. Will you now be removing all references in the article to other additives and change it to state the only ingredient in the juice is pure nicotine? No because that source is wrong and everyone else is right.

You provided articles that make claims but none of those directly support the statement. If you think any do please quote the specific phrase. Jurrut (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The part I didn't bold isn't applicable -- the source says "healthy", and we're stating "safe", which (according to the bold part of your statement) is implied by "healthy". It doesn't matter if safety doesn't also imply health (it would if the CNN article stated "safe" and we were trying to claim "healthy" here, but we're not). The inclusion of "the only ingredient: pure liquid nicotine" in the CNN article does seem inaccurate, but it seems more like a case of overzealous dramatic flare, and certainly no indication that the rest of the article is in question. Besides which, it's not the only ref that states the facts we're concerned with. There is controversy over the safety of e-cigarettes, and all the refs state that fact. I guess I'm still not seeing the problem. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:41, 11 Mar 2012 (UTC)

It's implied by healthy but they certainly aren't interchangeable. It creates a very different meaning and as I said please consult a dictionary if you doubt this. Dramatic flare? No it's grossly inaccurate, they're saying it's pure poison, reflecting poor research at best. It's not a reliable source for an encyclopaedia when so many actually credible ones exist.

As I said, please quote the specific phrase you think supports the statement I removed. Jurrut (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I know what the words mean :) Safe in this context is "safe for human consumption", and "not detrimental to one's health". It's perfectly reasonable then to say that something claimed to be healthy is indeed safe. If it's healthy it has to be safe.

Let's take a slightly different approach, because I'm really not understanding what you're trying to accomplish here. Disregarding the wording used in the intro here, what is the point you disagree with? And what do you think should be said instead? Equazcion ^(talk) 17:04, 11 Mar 2012 (UTC)

However it's not perfectly reasonable to then say a claim of health benefits equates to claims of safety, you're taking another step. Does no harm does not mean improves well being.

What I'm trying to accomplish hasn't change since my first edit so if you don't understand it that's a problem given you reverted it. I offered an alternative much further up which is supported by reliable sources. Jurrut (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

We're not saying "a claim of health benefits equates to claims of safety". If someone claims something is healthy, then logically we can say they're claiming it's safe.

I saw your proposed change to the wording but it didn't clarify for me what your problem is with the implications of the current wording. Could you restate it? Forget about specific words for the time being, if possible, and just try to describe what you think the article is implying that it shouldn't imply. Perhaps it's my failing, but if you could humor me and try to explain what the larger issue is here, it might help us get through this. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:38, 11 Mar 2012 (UTC)

Something alarming, though: the health risks of an electronic cigarette are being viewed in a manner that mirrors the way we initially viewed the health risks of normal cigarettes until we became more intelligent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.100.119 (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

"Normal" cigarettes are safer than the older unfiltered cigarettes. E-cigs are safer than "normal" cigarettes. Note that safer does not mean safe. Hanxu9 (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem I have and it still exists is that statement isn't support by the sources. The article is stating that someone has made specific claims of safety and someone, we can presume an expert, has said those claims are overstated. I don't dispute that a claim of them being completely harmless is false. I do dispute that actual manufacturers and most retailers have made such claims of safety and most importantly that any of those sources support that. Some 'used car salesmen' have but if they're a small number, according to those sources not OR, and you feel that needs to be included it should be qualified. That and 'possibly overstated' is a terrible phrase for an encyclopaedia. Jurrut (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The article mentions later that a politician voiced those concerns (over overstated claims of safety). As I've attempted to explain, repeatedly, we're not claiming "possibly overstated claims of safety". We're summing up the concerns that have been raised, without supporting them ourselves. Someone is concerned that companies make them sound safer than they are -- that's all we're saying. You're reading the sentence as "claims are made that could be considered overstated", but that's not what it says. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:24, 3 Jul 2012 (UTC)

"Margaret thinks Sam might be overstating how nice his house is". That's the gist of our sentence. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:27, 3 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I'm new to wikipedia editing but I would like to draw attention to the fact that this article states under health concerns 'AACR stated (April 2012) that "The chemical (S)-N’-nitrosonornicotine, or (S)-NNN, which is present in smokeless tobacco products, is a strong oral carcinogen"' I've tried to find the full study but I can only find the press release on the (AACR) link provided, Does this study include electronic cigarettes in its use of the phrase 'smokeless tobaccos products' From what I read on the AACR press release when they refer to 'smokeless tobaccos products' there is no mention of electronic cigarette vapours or liquids, just snuff, chewing tobacco and such like. This should be looked into as it gives readers the impression that electronic cigarettes contain a carcinogen that causes cancer in 100% of animals exposed and it put me off using an electronic cigarette, until I read more and found these chemicals are in smoking tobacco anyway and are possibly not even in electronic cigarettes anyway. This need clarifying but Good work though guys.::::::::::: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.192.241 (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Need to add "vape" as another term for an e-cigarette

The term "vape" is commonly used among "vapers." This is important because it helps break the link with cigarettes, which are harmful and socially unacceptable. Kbwalk3 (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I added that pseudonym to the introduction.
COice6 (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

"Vape" is a verb, not a noun -- as in, "I vape electronic cigarettes," though "a vape" could be a an act of vaping, much as "a smoke" can be an act of smoking ("I need a quick vape"). --198.146.216.165 (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It's both. As a noun, "vape" is slang for "vaporizer." The veracity of this is supported by the second definition of "vape" found on urbandictionary.com.
COice6 (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Buying them

You can find electronic cigarettes in pharmacys or in other stores. There are many different brands and choices that the client may chose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.33.132.80 (talk) 08:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Current image not ideal?

The description for the image is "Electronic cigarette resembling a tobacco cigarette." However, we now have access to models that more closely resemble tobacco cigarettes (some even including the cork-coloured mouth tip). Would it be better to change it for an image that reflects the newer models? As an example, I took a photo of one of my 85mm e-cigs. Maybe if someone else could take a better photo of one of these newer, smaller models it could more accurately represent the technology now available. 203.134.20.222 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Pictures of various types of electronic cigarettes would be a good idea, so that readers are made aware that different appearances are possible. Mrschwen (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You're going to need to submit the image with a Creative Commons license or free equivalent (make sure to allow commercial use otherwise the images cannot be uploaded to the Commons and will have to be used as copyrighted images). - M0rphzone (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Confusion about FAA ban

The article states that in Feb. 2012, there was an unruly passenger that refused to stop using his e-cigarette and that the FAA had not ruled on the use of e-cigarettes in flights at that time. However, this 2011 article from Consumer Reports (http://news.consumerreports.org/money/2011/03/travel-airlines-lahood-dot-bans-e-cigarettes-william-mcgee.html) says that a FAA ban has been in effect since at least 2010. I'm not sure what to make of this. Is this a reliable source?108.15.50.162 (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Your source seems to be reliable. As for the "unruly" passenger, the airline might have just put their own rulings in effect at their own discretion what they can do if a passenger is disturbing peace on that flight. Didn't take a look at the sources so my comment should be seen in a general way as to my knowledge about the issue.TMCk (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Conventional smoking causes diseases over time

TMCk, I think it's a well-known fact that conventional smoking causes diseases if you smoke over a long period of time (read: lifetime), but since "a person's increased risk of contracting disease is directly proportional to the length of time that a person continues to smoke as well as the amount smoked", then go ahead and word it as "can cause", but this tips it towards the "denialism" pov. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It is a fact that it can cause a decease when smoking and also depends on how much cigarettes one smokes per day. Take a look at our Health effects of tobacco article for more in dept info. Not every smoker ends up with cancer or another decease. The percentage of getting such while smoking is just greatly increased compared to non-smokers, ergo, smoking can cause cancer or other diseases but smoking related decease is not a given outcome. Therefore we can't say "it causes" certain deceases but we sure can say it "can" cause those health side effects. With other words: It does heightened the risk of such deceases but doesn't mean that every smoker will get it. You won't find a RS that will tell you that every smoker will get cancer; The numbers are not confirming such claim.TMCk (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Anti smoking advocacy groups might want to let you believe a different story just as the tobacco lobby used to tell you smoking is safe. The truth lies beyond that.TMCk (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Also to consider: Smoking#Health effects.TMCk (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Alright, we'll stick to statistical portrayal. - M0rphzone (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.TMCk (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Inhaled health effects of inhaling nicotine vapor into lungs a subject of uncertainty?

This statement most likely needs to be revised, mostly because it is POV and contains flat out untrue statements made by certain anti-smoking groups. Prior to removing it, and potentially causing an edit war, I am putting it up for debate.

The Nicotene inhaler (US FDA approved), in which the user inhales nicotine saturated air through a plastic tube, was developed and marketed to be an OTC stop smoking aid approved first in Sweden in 1996. In 1997 it was approved as OTC in the UK as an OTC smoking cessation aide. In approvals for OTC in these two countries the effects of the inhaled Nicotene had to be studied for approval. The US FDA on 05/02/1997 approved this same device as a prescription NRT, again it had to be studied, the NDA can be assessed here

 http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/97/020714_nicotrol_toc.cfm . 

The US FDA has been petitioned to make the current inhaler OTC in the US, on several occasions, most notably in 2003, with it being rejected because as a smoking cessation aide the inhaler when used as prescribed only has a 0.77% success rate by itself, but the other reason given was that the inhaler would be "abused" (People would remain on it more than 6 months or would concurrently smoke, or use other NRTs, while using the device) and possibly become a gateway drug. In this scenario e-cigs would never be approved OTC by the FDA, due to claims that it can be abused.

Anyhow the effects of inhaled nicotine vapors has been studied extensively for more than 15 years, with the products that produce such vapors remaining on the market (Eg; there isn't a huge risk). With that said, there have been isolated case studies where users of certain E-cigs have had allergic reactions to the non-Nicotine components of the vapor causing pneumonia. The recent Greek study found that while there wasn't a cardiovascular effect (The E-Cig is safer for the Heart than traditional cigs), there was a slight respiratory system effect with E-Cigs, due to the inhalation of the non-nicotine components in the vapor on the user.

A really good scholarly presentation, with many included case studies was presented at the 2012 UK National Smoking Cessation Conference on E-Cigeretes. The presentation can be accessed here; http://www.uknscc.org/uknscc2012_presentation_108.php?show=archive

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.249.210.32 (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC) 

Page reorg?

This article is unorganized and duplicitive in parts. I'd like to attempt to better organize all content under the following categories:

1. History 2. Market 3. Harm Reduction 4. Health Concerns 5. Regulation -US -Europe -Other 6. Components

Initially, I won't propose any edits other than organizing the information into a more sensible structure and format. Any thoughts or concerns? Tobaccogirl (talk)

I think you and User:Ecigindustrygroup have conflicts of interest with this article, so you cannot edit this article. If you are not affiliated with any groups, then feel free to edit, otherwise other editors have to edit for you. - M0rphzone (talk) 08:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, our COI policy does not expressly prohibit COI editing in a case such as this. If anything, Ecigindustrygroup could be considered a subject matter expert, which Wikipedia active encourages to participate. Belchfire-TALK 20:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to revisit this. Because I cannot directly edit, I wanted to gain buy-in on a potential reorganization of the page. Here are proposed sections.

1. History 2. Market 3. Harm Reduction 4. Health Concerns 5. Regulation -US -Europe -Other 6. Components

As far as my reasoning. 1- as discussed in a separate talk section, there is nothing currently on the size of the market. 2- nearly all of the content in the "health concerns" section is not actually a health concern, but is more in line of "harm reduction" and should be considered as it's own separate section. 3- how e-cigs are regulated is a major topic of discussion now and should also be considered as its own section.

Thoughts? I'm happy to help draft the content for consideration, but would like buy-in first. Ecigindustrygroup (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed content for a potential new section on the size of the market

There is nothing in the current article on the size of the market in the U.S. or around the world. If any other editors think the information is useful, please feel free to add.

Annual sales for e-cigarettes in the United States are at $500 million. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/business/media/campaigns-for-electronic-cigarettes-borrow-from-their-tobacco-counterparts.html?_r=0

Worldwide sales estimated at $2 billion Source: http://blog.euromonitor.com/2012/11/e-cigarettes-a-us2-billion-global-industry-who-should-be-worried.html

The tobacco industry entered the market in April 2012 when Lorillard Inc. acquired blu e-cigs, a maker of electronic cigarettes, for $135 million. Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304723304577365723851497152.html

Ecigindustrygroup (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I endorse the need for such a section, but I question the $500 million figure, which seems low. Also, the WSJ article is behind a paywall, so it isn't particularly useful here. Belchfire-TALK 20:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

North Carolina's Biz Journal recently covered the interest in electronic cigarettes by tobacco companies.

Lorillard Inc. and Reynolds American Inc. are banking on a future when they increasingly rely on electronic cigarettes that deliver nicotine-filled water vapor to legions of former smokers, with these higher-margin product lines serving up growing profits. Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/triad/print-edition/2012/11/30/big-tobacco-betting-on-e-cigarette.html

The purchase of blu e-cigs by Lorillard was detailed in the Winston Salem Journal. Source: http://www.journalnow.com/business/article_6e12cd05-e7d7-50e5-a6dd-d426f41f218a.html

As far as market size, the NY Times article stating $500 million in the U.S. is the best source I can find. Ecigindustrygroup (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support such a section. DrNegative (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

ecita

http://www.ecita.org.uk/ - could me mentioned somewhow? --MilkMiruku (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Safety of heated PG/VG

Recently, there was a reference that was removed that implied that PG decomposed into water and oxygen. (removed because it linked to a website directly linked with the subject matter)

While this may or may not be true, the MSDS information for propylene glycol suggests that it decomposes into carbon monoxide as well as carbon dioxide. I'm not sure if this would apply to the case of all electronic cigarettes, but it's worthy of notice as the carbon monoxide is particularly worrying.

On the other hand, glycerin decomposes into not only the above mentioned carbon oxides, but also produces "irritating and toxic fumes". From some original research, I am led to believe that these fumes are mostly composed of propenal (acrolein), which is indeed irritating and toxic.

That said, however, it is possible that the degradation products are different in the presence of water, nicotine, and the flavourings added (as well as being a blend of PG and VG in most cases). It would also help to know if there is any difference between heat-based atomizers and piezoelectric atomizers when it comes to the thermal degradation of the bases, as well as microbial decomposition of the latter. 202.138.28.58 (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Had a quick check with a friend who is chemical engineer/cosmetics manufacturer- the decomposition temperatures for both PG and PV are well above the temperatures generated in a electronic cigarette vaporizer, and I would also hazard that the total energy (wattage)involved would be insufficient to heat up and decompose a significant quantity of these liquids, even if the temperature was to go well above the 80C that is the norm in these devises.Pedestrian1957 (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

[OP here. Have dynamic IP. Really should consider opening an account <_<] Really? From what I had read, e-cig temperatures ranged anywhere from 70C up to 250C(!). And while I agree that there would probably only be small amounts of decomposed product, I think it would be great to have quantitative analysis of the amount of decomposition products, so we can compare them to tobacco cigarettes, as well as study the numbers standalone to see if there's anything we can do to reduce harmful byproducts. It'd also be great to see which base (PG, VG, or PEG) is 'best' (health-wise) for e-cigs. 58.178.158.190 (talk) 07:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

e-nicotine technology

http://wraltechwire.com/chapel-hill-firm-raising-3m-for-smoking-cessation-technology/12162250/

http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2013/03/513957ebe55ca

http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/print-edition/2013/03/15/delivering-an-e-cigarette-with-a-jolt.html?page=all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.219.195.44 (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Deadly risk for the general public not yet expressed or understood

Whateves.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.200.248.225 (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The article should have an advise alerting readers that it is not medical information what's on the page;there's just a few correct parts and the whole chemical process behind the vast majority of the devices is described in a misleading way and it is really leading to an abuse and a possible threat for minors and unconscious individuals more in general. I'm addresing the dangers related to e-liquids and nicotine in general. I'll give the experts the opportunity to find "the rights words" to fit this data into the article. What I'm claiming is that there's is a misleading use of the world "vapor" ,probably lead by the interests of some deceitful propaganda. As you can clearly see by using/dissassemblig/taking apart the pieces of whatever device by the name "e-cig" being sold all over the world, a resistor (which brands are defining as "atomizer" ,same brands who abused the word "vapor" to moderate and calm down the general public) which is glowing red hot (it actually arrives in the white spectrum if the shortcircuit taking place in the device keeps going for more than 5 seconds,which means more than 500 degrees Celsius) burns (by simple pyrolysis) the so called "e-liquids" making real smoke , not vapor(being water one of the minor ingredients,as clearly visible by the various researches on the subject); also,decarboxilation of those organic compounds takes place,changing the molecular structure of flavours which are safe to some degree,but approved for ingestion and digestion, not for total molecular alteration and inhalation, as Glycerol (i.e.) has a boiling temperature >290 °C (>560 K) with decomposition. Also,the various chemical interactions between the residues of fried food flavours (http://www.epochem.com/products/flavor.htm) and such organic compounds isn't explained. Writing/saying "vapor" and still permitting the use of suchs misleading words is a threat to all the people who are reading this. We should give the right example by informing the general public.

TO READ -Genotoxic and Antiapoptotic Effect of Nicotine on Human Gingival Fibroblasts http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/79/1/75.full -Mechanisms for nicotine in the development and progression of gastrointestinal cancers http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3371638/ -The genotoxic effect of nicotine on chromosomes of human fetal cells http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/apl/uiht/2011/00000023/00000013/art00006 -The genotoxic and cytotoxic effects of nicotine in the mouse bone http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/73917/Documents/The%20genotoxic%20and%20cytotoxic%2... -Nicotine (side effects) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine -Chemical difference between smoke and vapor http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/threads/584855-Chemical-difference-between-smoke-a... -The neurotoxicity of environmental aluminum is still an issue. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20553758 -Neurotoxic effects of aluminium among foundry workers and Alzheimer's disease. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12520766 -Can the controversy of the role of aluminum in Alzheimer's disease be resolved? What are the suggested approaches to this controversy and methodological issues to be considered? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772802 -Rational scale to assess the harm of drugs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_... -What's simple pyrolysis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrolysis -What's decarboxilation of molecules http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decarboxylation -See "red hot" temperature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_radiation -Aluminium (health concerns) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium -Users experiences as a proof of uncomprehension http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/rebuildable-atomizer-systems/336210-60x-coil-image.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by X2y (talk • contribs) 08:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

P.s. : I did forget to talk aboutoverdose risk (there are e-liquids rated at 24 mg of nicotine per milliliter; pouring them on the skin or ingesting them may easily result in death as stated in the description of the wikipedia article about nicotine which has a lethal dose of 0.5/ 1 mg per kilogram) and real SAFE vaporizers (which are piezoelectric and aren't what is described in the article) ...Also , just in case you didn't think this story could get any weirder , there are even more devices of the poorest quality standards ; those are the cartridge based e-cigs ! The cartridges have an aluminium membrane which literally evaporates (posing a lot of health concerns , like neurotoxicity , for example...).

P.p.s : anthropologically speaking , this habit should be described as recreational use of drugs.

I'm open to questions (if any and only after you have read the links above). Best regards For an informed world X2y (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be drifting into a harm minimization vs prohibition thread. And the link of aluminum to Alzheimers largely rested upon a study of a small group on a small island-Quoting the odd research paper that confirms a linking hypothesis whilst ignoring all the research papers that found no correlation is one of the banes of modern journalism and things like wikki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedestrian1957 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I was not sure whether to put my remarks in this section, or start a new one, so I started a new one, "Do E-cigarettes produce second-hand or third-hand smoking risks?" but I'm also putting this note in here to direct others' attention to it. Anonnymos (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Electronic Cigars

I believe Electronic Cigar should have its own section. From general knowledge and reading online, there is a lot of curiosity about electronic cigars. While this product is similar to electronic cigarettes in terms of base technology, its users and forms differ. Wikipedia is a resource for people looking to learn more about special products like ecigar and lets allow for its own page to be created. I am referring to this page which is being suggested to be merged with electronic cigarette page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_cigars — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainDickie (talk • contribs) 05:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think that electronic cigars should be mentioned in the article, but only when describing the different forms e-cigs can have. While the intended users of e-cigars may be different than those of other e-cigs, the mechanism and use is still identical, so I don't think it's necessary to have a separate section. 58.178.158.190 (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting studies for the article

1. "In conclusion, our study does not indicate any harmful effect of nicotine when given in its pure form by inhalation."
2. "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."
3. "5 vapers using e-cigarettes for 5h in a small room without renewal of indoor air do not produce detectable levels of nicotine in the air." and "On the base of the obtained results and on ARPA data about urban pollution, we can conclude by saying that could be more unhealty to breath air in big cities compared to staying in the same room with someone who is vaping."
4. "We assessed nicotine content, content of the known nicotine degradation products and impurities, and presence of ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol" and "The nicotine content of electronic cigarette refill bottles is close to what is stated on the label. Impurities are detectable in several brands above the level set for nicotine products in the European Pharmacopoeia, but below the level where they would be likely to cause harm."--Merlin 1971 (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)