More Q's for the vets

[Eroq]

Sorry for some reason my original thread was closed so I couldnt respond with further questions.

First thanks for your feedback and Dom I found some of your reviews very informative. As a pack a day smoker (almost 30 years now) and truely nicotine addict Im afraid i'll "run out of my fix". The starter packages with pcc's are what I've been considering. The volcano and another starter package from wicked was it? Are theyre better 510 starter packs out there Im missing? Does the pcc really do what they claim? If so wouldnt I use less batteries? What is the bat life on the pcc assuming that needs to be replaced as often as the vap batts.

Another huge question I haven't looked for an answer for yet is, the vapor exhaled Im assuming you dont want children around or next to you while vaping(whoa nice run on sentance). Wifes harping on me about that one, 3yo and 3mo in the house here. Of course neither of us have been able to quit smoking even after our doc keeps harping on us that we have to quit because the 3rd hand smoke is giving our kids asthma, and chronic ear infections. Ah the guilt over that one.

Thanks again for your feedback!

 

[Hellen A. Handbasket]

You'll have to decide about vaping around your children. Not enough studies have been done about the nicotine left over in 2nd hand vapor. In all, the consensus is that the amount is negligible. Some threads that you and your wife can read are here:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/ask-veterans/94937-second-hand-vaping.html

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/vapor4life/58130-health-issues-using-around-infants.html

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-their-system-inhaling-second-hand-vapor.html

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/health-safety-e-smoking/36449-vaping-safe-around-infants.html

This article is also interesting:

E-CIGARETTE USE - COULD IT PROTECT US ALL FROM THE NEXT PANDEMIC?
Murray Laugesen
Public health physician Health New Zealand

Bob Bowden, Florida contributor to e-cigarette-forum.com, raises the question whether e-cigarettes, apart from avoiding smoking and future lung cancer risk, actually confers immediate short term positive benefits, by reducing the risk of its users inhaling live viruses and bacteria from room air. This is mind-blowing enough, but could its possible benefits also protect others close by? Is the e-cigarette more than a tool for reducing harm? Is it also potentially a talisman to ward off infection?

History
That propylene glycol (PG) may protect users of the e-cigarette from airborne bacterial and viruses dates back to World War II. ‘Air Germicide’, a story in Time magazine Nov 16, 1942, reported the research of Dr. Oswald Hope Robertson at Chicago's BillingsHospital. He showed that half a part per million of PG in air could kill bacteria and viruses in that air within seconds. He found PG could protect mice from influenza virus, and that monkeys could well tolerate living in air containing PG. On the face of it, e-cigarette users might indeed be better off.

Second hand PG
For e-cigarette mist to have any chance of protecting non-users of e-cigarettes depends on whether e-cigarette users exhale sufficient PG, and this is doubtful. While the mouth smoke inhaled contains PG at 300 parts per million, in the next breath the exhaled mist is invisible and PG is only about 5 ppm. Several PG users, however, might exhale enough to maintain a viricidal concentration of PG. PG is mostly absorbed, and broken down to carbon dioxide and pyruvate, which is burnt for energy. And so PG mainly benefits the user, not the surrounding air space.

Protecting air travelers
Air travel is a weak point in defending ourselves internationally from fatal respiratory infections. Bird flu and pandemic influenza can spread globally at the speed of jet travel, as one infected person can infect many others through air-conditioned, re-circulated air. Governments are spending millions on how to contain or just even slow the spread of such epidemics. Perhaps PG should be seriously considered.

Even the tuberculosis bacillus can infect passengers seated some distance from the infected passenger on a flight between San Francisco and Hawaii, as CDC (US Centers for Disease Control) has reported.

PG is not used to sterilise aircraft air, and airlines medicating cabin air via air-conditioners could incur unwanted legal claims. Permitting the use, however, of e-cigarettes on passenger flights might at least help protect the e-cigarette user, and just possibly, those in the adjacent seat. Airlines would not need to do a thing, apart from inform in-flight staff that e-cigarette use is permissible.

E-cigarettes, being flameless, and not producing harmful gases, are not banned by laws against second-hand smoke or use in flight. Their use in the aircraft toilet will not activate the smoke alarms. And until research confirms or denies it, the PG in e-cigarette mist just might have health protection benefits for other passengers. Non-smokers desiring enhanced personal protection could use e-cigarettes containing zero nicotine.

Further research
We already know there is no way e-cigarettes can cause lung cancer. Equally, they do not cause fires. E-users would also like to know whether switching to e-cigarettes reduces coughs, colds and flu compared with smokers who have simply quit nicotine altogether. Everyone would like to know whether permitting e-cigarette use on long haul flights reduces respiratory infection risk for passengers.

Another note is many e-cig users report that their asthma symptoms have disappeared after switching to e-cigs. So, if someone can inhale vapor and not have symptoms, I'd assume this is much better than smoking in a home environment. I just wouldn't vape while holding a child or in a confined area such as a bathroom with a child present.

The biggest concern around small children is that liquids are kept locked up and PV's aren't left around where children can get a hold of them.

 

[DonDaBoomVape]

Speaking of being locked: That's what happens with questions put to the veterans in this forum. They are transferred to a temporary holding area for us to answer and then placed back in ATV for all to see, but the thread is closed. Most of ECF is for interactive discussion; ATV is an exception.

You said: "thanks for your feedback [referring to your earlier ATV question] and Dom I found some of your reviews very informative." Since that question was answered by Hellen, Kent, and me, I'm guessing that you are referring to my reviews. [If not: Boy, do I feel egotistically embarassed.!] If so, thanks! But only some of them?

Hellen very effectively responded to your concerns about second-hand vape. As for the questions in your preceding paragraph:

...The starter packages with pcc's are what I've been considering. The volcano and another starter package from wicked was it? Are theyre better 510 starter packs out there Im missing? Does the pcc really do what they claim? If so wouldnt I use less batteries? What is the bat life on the pcc assuming that needs to be replaced as often as the vap batts...

Most PCCs are very effective and will recharge a battery about four times before needing to be recharged itself. [So charge the PCC (including a battery in it) while you sleep and you're set to go all day and evening.] They'll probably last many months (years?).

If you have narrowed the choices to the Volcano and the 510, I vote 510 (for all the reasons I articulated in that review). I'm guessing that the 510 "starter package from wicked," to which you refer is the $49 "TECC-TITAN Full PCC Kit"...

...also available in silver. It is the same high quality as any other Joye 510 e-cig and PCC. It is not, however, necessarily the best price. It comes with only one atomizer and battery. You definitely will need at least one extra battery and atty: an additional $33 from Totally Wicked. Total cost = $82 + $7 shipping = $89

You can get a two-battery, two-atomizer basic kit for $35 (+ $5 shipping) from Cignot and a PCC for $23 (free shipping) from Rocky Mountain Vapor. Total cost = $63.