Oh - and the ANTZ have already shown up in Wisconsin. They've been sending emails and letters, of the usual twisted facts and lies, trying to block the bill. That's why it's important we counter them!
Wisconsin Senator proposes bill to EXCLUDE e-cigarettes from indoor smoking ban!
- Thread starter kristin
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Although the amount and type of tobacco-specific Nitrosamines detected in various products containing nicotine derived from tobacco varies based on the source, all these studies generally detect about One(1) nanogram total of TSNA per 2mg of nicotine in the product: A 2mg piece of nicorette (gum or lozenge) contains about 1ng, while a 16mg Patch contains about 8. What many people fail to realize is that a nanogram is one millionth of a milligram: That is to say, the nicotine used in these products is 99.99995% pure, and only a small percentage of nicotine--that is similar to the strength of nicotine found in commercial cigarettes (avg 1.63% aka 16.3mg/cig)--is used in e-cigarettes, if any.
Last edited:
When people quote the FDA's press release, they mention that there was nicotine found even in cartridges labeled as containing no nicotine. While not untrue, it is meaningless. If you read the lab report, (quoted above) you learn that the FDA did not find any nicotine in the vapor from cartridges labeled 0 nicotine. The lab report also makes clear that the vapor did not contain any toxins, while the press release is worded in such a way to imply that e-cigarettes will poison users in short order.
I decided to relookup AB 469 just because I could see who exactly is lobbying against it in our state.
Here were the results.
American Cancer Society,
American Heart Association,
American Lung Association in Wisconsin Inc,
Health First Wisconsin,
Wisconsin Association of Local Health Departments and Boards,
Wisconsin Public Health Association
I also happened to find this ...
WI AB 469 - Wisconsin State Legislature - 2011 Regular Session - Legislation - MyGov365
I'm the first voter. It is unanimous, 100% of the people in this state support this bill, it should be passed, more support wouldn't hurt though obviously.
Was my comment.
Warning the website there was slow ... very slow.
Here were the results.
American Cancer Society,
American Heart Association,
American Lung Association in Wisconsin Inc,
Health First Wisconsin,
Wisconsin Association of Local Health Departments and Boards,
Wisconsin Public Health Association
I also happened to find this ...
WI AB 469 - Wisconsin State Legislature - 2011 Regular Session - Legislation - MyGov365
I'm the first voter. It is unanimous, 100% of the people in this state support this bill, it should be passed, more support wouldn't hurt though obviously.
Was my comment.
Warning the website there was slow ... very slow.
Last edited:
There are 8 sponsors for the bill so far... all republicans. Hopefully a few democrats will join in but if not we are going to need every Republican to get it passed.
Just because they ignore it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be said... and often. And if something is said often enough, by enough people, it eventually becomes very difficult to ignore.
Thulium correctly points out that the following is a pretty meaningless question because of the amounts involved, and his response makes perfect sense.
However, out of the curious nature of science. If there was TSNA in the liquid in however small amounts, and not in the vapor from that liquid, where did it go? The process itself of vaporizing the liquid itself perhaps left these impurities behind somehow, which I actually found interesting. Whether there is any truth to that "really" being the case or not, this study actually implied to me that it does. If the ANTZ can spin misinformation into a sentence, why can't a person spin "supported theory" into a sentence.
You can't blame a guy for trying, considering that I think you'd have to prove there was something harmful in the vapor to even consider it for a ban. If someone said, well the liquid could possibly be a bit impure, it is easily countered by the fact the small amount is ridiculous to consider in the first place and the fact that the small amount that was in the liquid never made it to the vapor. This is supported by "the report" they point to quite a bit, even if they are really referring to a press release of that report.
Of course my interpretation of that report is about as good as what the ANTZ do, considering my background. But it's very hard to disprove what I'm saying with the actual report itself ... unlike a lot of what they tell people every day.
I'm going to ask some really dumb questions from time to time, because in all fairness I really don't want to mislead people, but sometimes what I'm asking is really beyond the scope of my experience. However, if I don't ask the question, then I'll be stuck wondering about it, and that just won't do.
I might as well attempt to learn something new, while bumping the topic. I agree this topic is beyond the point of promoting an exclusion to the vaping ban, but today its the best I got.
Tomorrow, I'll ask something more relevant, I promise ...
Last edited:
I found this that helps put nitrosamine content into perspective: http://www.nutritionj.com/content/supplementary/1475-2891-8-16-s1.pdf
According to that, it would take about 7,500ml of 1.6% nicotine e-liquid to find as many nitrosamines in one carrot.
Most likely answer: It fell off the scale. It difficult enough finding nitrosamines in e-liquids measured in parts per billion milligrams, mix it with at least 10,000 parts air when vaporized and it becomes unmeasurable without a scale that reads picograms or even femtograms.
Thanks again, and I agree with you that is very likely what happened, considering most air studies are parts per million. Though it did lead me eventually to some interesting reading.
My start was with studies on tobacco itself. TSNA development has actually been under extremely intense study.
Something which makes pretty good sense says, which is kind of ironic, is that TSNA is not detectable in green leaf tobacco. It has been widely assumed by people who study this with reasonable cause, that it actually happens in the curing process.
In that study, they have found that the nitrosation of naturally occurring alkaloids found in tobacco are where TSNA's are likely formed in the first place.
They found that how they cured the tobacco has a direct correlation to the resulting amount of TSNA's in the end product.
The more NOx there was in the process of curing the tobacco the faster TSNA's would form. And most of those were introduced by the heating system that was used in the place it was cured. There are other factors, but that one was such a major factor it was immediately found and for the most part fixed in the states at least.
Where there were direct fire systems, the NOx levels were much higher, and the levels of TSNA went up. The result was they retrofitted a lot of curing barns with heat exchangers and venting the combustion products out of the barn. (Once again combustion is the problem, which is ironic in itself, considering that is what is being eliminated from smoking to vaping.)
This has been shown to work pretty well, unless the venting to the heaters leak basically letting the NOx back into the barn... so some places are going to heating water, and piping the hot the water through where the tobacco is cured, so that if the pipes break, no harm is done.
---
Now back to the topic, I think that education is the key to freedom in our case for our state. The more we can get truth out to the public, and to the legislation that makes these laws, the better off we all are.
I can let the legislators know what I think, and have done my best so far there. So does the work end there, well no. I'd love to magnify the issue and put some heat on the ANTZ. They are so used to being on the offensive, because its really easy to convince people of things they have no knowledge about. Perhaps armed with some basic knowledge though, their reception would be less hospitable, and the lies might stop.
Its easy to get mad at the ANTZ, but I'd much rather use that anger as fuel to get productive and do something to change things for the better. Is there any chance of gaining more support for the cause by taking this issue to the general public via the media?
Bill
My start was with studies on tobacco itself. TSNA development has actually been under extremely intense study.
Something which makes pretty good sense says, which is kind of ironic, is that TSNA is not detectable in green leaf tobacco. It has been widely assumed by people who study this with reasonable cause, that it actually happens in the curing process.
In that study, they have found that the nitrosation of naturally occurring alkaloids found in tobacco are where TSNA's are likely formed in the first place.
They found that how they cured the tobacco has a direct correlation to the resulting amount of TSNA's in the end product.
The more NOx there was in the process of curing the tobacco the faster TSNA's would form. And most of those were introduced by the heating system that was used in the place it was cured. There are other factors, but that one was such a major factor it was immediately found and for the most part fixed in the states at least.
Where there were direct fire systems, the NOx levels were much higher, and the levels of TSNA went up. The result was they retrofitted a lot of curing barns with heat exchangers and venting the combustion products out of the barn. (Once again combustion is the problem, which is ironic in itself, considering that is what is being eliminated from smoking to vaping.)
This has been shown to work pretty well, unless the venting to the heaters leak basically letting the NOx back into the barn... so some places are going to heating water, and piping the hot the water through where the tobacco is cured, so that if the pipes break, no harm is done.
---
Now back to the topic, I think that education is the key to freedom in our case for our state. The more we can get truth out to the public, and to the legislation that makes these laws, the better off we all are.
I can let the legislators know what I think, and have done my best so far there. So does the work end there, well no. I'd love to magnify the issue and put some heat on the ANTZ. They are so used to being on the offensive, because its really easy to convince people of things they have no knowledge about. Perhaps armed with some basic knowledge though, their reception would be less hospitable, and the lies might stop.
Its easy to get mad at the ANTZ, but I'd much rather use that anger as fuel to get productive and do something to change things for the better. Is there any chance of gaining more support for the cause by taking this issue to the general public via the media?
Bill
Last edited:
The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA) was formed right here on ECF late in 2009 by a couple thousand consumers who were concerned that the product that enabled them (finally!) to halt the damage being done to their bodies by smoke was under attack and could become outlawed. We were baffled by the groups that came out in favor of banning e-cigarettes. Were these not the very groups that had been nagging and nagging us for years to quit? And when we finally do quit, they want to outlaw the product that made it possible?
Are you kidding me? The American Lung Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society would rather see us dead than using an e-cigarette? The Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids wants to protect kids by making sure that as many adults as possible cannot quit smoking? What goes on here?
As we were forming the organization and asking for ECF member input regarding what the name, mission, goals, and activities should be, we learned that e-cigarettes were not the first product that has proven effective in helping smokers regain their health. We learned that many of our ranks were using smoke-free tobacco products along with or instead of e-cigarettes to maintain smoking abstinence.
Wow! Aren't smokeless products at least as dangerous, if not more-so, than smoking? What about those warning labels that say they cause mouth cancer and, "This product is not a safe alternative to smoking"?
Turns out that the specific health warnings were outdated, based on products from the past that contained higher amounts of toxins than modern products. And they forgot to tell us that the risks of mouth and oral cancers have always been higher among smokers than users of smokeless products. And it turns out that the latter warning is one of those clever half-truths so often used in propaganda. To be more accurate, that label would need to read, "This product is not a 100% safe alternative to smoking." Then, at least the reader would understand that the product is, to some extent, safer than smoking. But how much safer is it? Perhaps a miniscule amount?
It turns out that the LOWEST estimate is that modern smokeless products are 90% less hazardous than smoking. Many experts looked at the epidemiology of smoking related diseases in Sweden, where a high percentage of smokers switched to a type of moist oral snuff called "snus" (rhymes with "goose"). They found that Sweden has extremely low rates of cancers, and one of the lowest lung cancer death rates in the EU. They also found that those who switched from smoking to snus greatly reduced their risks of cardiovascular disease, too. And, since these products don't bombard the lungs with smoke, the smoking-related lung disease risk is to reduced to the risk faced by any other former smoker, even those that stopped using any form of nicotine. These experts put the "how much safer" figure closer to 99% safer.
So as we formed CASAA, we decided to broaden the mission beyond e-cigarettes to encompass any product that can be used as a less hazardous alternative to smoking. This concept is known as Harm Reduction, or more specifically, Tobacco Harm Reduction.
Some people might call what we do lobbying, but I don't think it fits the mold. We work to ensure the availability of reduced harm alternatives to smoking and to provide smokers and non-smokers alike with truthful information about such alternatives.
I see us more as educators and advocates.
Last edited:
I was thinking about this the other night...
I was thinking that if the right person from the local newspaper were approached, and met with in person, one might be able to provide them with a compelling story and enough information to encourage them to run that story. Now imagine if this were happening all around the country. CASAA could provide the package of information, but the compelling story would be your own. And since one can dream, just imagine if this were all coordinated so that the stories from all across the country appeared in newspapers all across the country on National Vaping Day.
Like I said, one can dream.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 66
Wisconsin bills (S 389 and H 469) die in committee, would have clarified that e-cigarette use isn't banned in current statewide smokefree law.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 66
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
