6 Misleading Pro-Vaping Arguments We Should Stop Using

he e-cigarette debate is pretty heated. On one side, there are legions of anti-smokers turned anti-vapers warning the smokers of the world away from harm reduction because of the potential for comparably miniscule levels of harm, and on the other you have us vapers, fervent in our support of the devices that helped us quit smoking and eager to jump down the throats of anybody repeating unsupported or downright false statements about e-cigarettes. We’ve spent plenty of time tackling anti-vaping myths since the site got started, but it isn’t just those opposed to vaping that often spout mistruths or plain misleading statements. In fact, there are quite a few pro-vaping myths and misleading arguments that we should stop repeating if we want to be taken seriously. (Don’t worry, “it’s just water vapor” isn’t one of them, because nobody says that.)

1 – “E-Liquid Only Has Four Ingredients”

We’ve all heard it. “Cigarettes contain thousands of chemicals with about 70 carcinogens, whereas e-cigs just contain four: PG, VG, nicotine and flavorings.” In essence, the core point is true – e-cig vapor does contain vastly fewer chemicals than tobacco smoke, and especially less toxic ones – but the specific formulation (“four ingredients/chemicals”) is blatantly incorrect.

The main problem is that “flavorings” does not, in any way whatsoever, class as a single ingredient. Among others, “flavorings” refers to ethyl maltol, vanillin, ethyl vanillin, benzaldehyde, ethyl butyrate, menthol and ethyl acetate. There are also trace levels of tobacco-specific nitrosamines in e-liquids (and vapor). Of course, I’m not alleging that this is something to be concerned about – although there is uncertainty about the risks of inhaling flavorings, the levels are low and it’s still undeniably safer than smoking.

And that isn’t even the whole problem with such statements. The cigarette figure – 7,000, 5,000, 4,000 or whichever number people settle on – is invariably from smoke rather than un-combusted cigarettes. If the same logic is applied to e-cigarettes, we’d also have to acknowledge the presence of all the chemicals in the vapor, including very low levels of formaldehyde, acrolein and various metals. The point can still be made honestly, but simply saying e-cigs contain “four ingredients” is clearly misleading.

What We Can Say Instead

Note: In response to feedback, this post has been updated to include these suggestions for making the same arguments without relying on myths or misinformation. See Carl V. Phillips’ comment below about these updates, which offers valuable commentary on their validity and how well they replace the original claims. 

E-cigarette vapor contains vastly fewer chemicals than best affordable vape online smoke, and any toxic ones present are in quantities not expected to cause harm. Levels of toxic chemicals in vapor have been consistently shown to be anything from tens to hundreds and right up to thousands of times lower than in smoke.

2 – “All of the Ingredients in E-Cigs Are Generally Recognized as Safe”

This is technically true (just like saying “e-cigs contain carcinogens” is technically true), but it’s pretty misleading. The “generally recognized as safe” label, particularly when considering food-safe flavorings, does not apply to inhaling those chemicals, only ingesting them.

The perfect example for this is diacetyl, which is generally recognized as safe, but is not safe for inhalation, and a study by Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos brought this to the attention of the vaping industry after finding it in several tested e-liquids. The Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association has addressed the issues with such claims, and although they take it a little far – claiming, for some unknown reason, that established safety limits for workplace inhalation don’t apply to inhalation through e-cigs – there is a genuine point in there.

Inhaling flavorings probably isn’t going to kill you, but it’s one area where we really do lack information about the risks, and saying they’re “generally recognized as safe” is undoubtedly misleading.

What We Can Say Instead

Something else. Previously, I’d included a (weak) alternative here, but Carl V. Phillips’ comment below is spot on: this argument should just be ditched entirely.

3 – “PG is Used in Asthma Inhalers”

This is an interesting one. I’ve seen the argument made in many places, but whenever I made the decision to try to actually find an asthma inhaler or a nebulizer which uses PG, I’ve been completely unable to.

A poster on reddit even asked outright if anybody could prove this statement, and the result was basically that nobody could. There is one study looking at the potential to use PG as a carrier for an inhaled medicine and another which mentions that PG or ethanol may be used as a cosolvent in nebulizers, but no evidence presented of an asthma inhaler or nebulizer that is actually used today containing PG.

It’s very hard to prove it isn’t used – since there could always be something we didn’t find – but a little research shows that Ventolin (albuterol), Airomir (salbutamol), Salamol (salbutamol) and the Maxair Autohaler (pirbuterol) definitely do not contain PG, and I’m sure you could go on to check out other options too.

We’d love to be proven wrong on this one (and will update/remove this as needed), but it seems like this argument – especially for inhalers – is total bullshit.

For nebulizers, it could be that it’s occasionally used (though, again, we can’t find a concrete example), but studies have shown that – as many vapers will know – some people find PG very irritating to the throat, so inhaled medicines using less of it are generally better tolerated.

Additionally, it wouldn’t even be a very good argument if an inhaler or nebulizer was found to contain PG. There’s a big, big difference between inhaling a few puffs of an asthma inhaler and chain-vaping several hundred puffs per day. And you hardly see asthmatics blowing out clouds, so we’re clearly consuming larger quantities of PG with each puff too.

It’s absurd to be concerned about small quantities of things like nitrosamines in e-cig vapor because the dose makes the poison, but it’s just as ridiculous (if not more so) to assume that just because a small amount of something is safe then a much larger amount is nothing to worry about either. In short, asthma inhalers and vaping are not comparable, even if inhalers did contain PG (which they don’t).

As for why this argument has gained so much traction, my only guess is for the same reason I want it to be true: it’s so powerful to be able to say, “well, even asthmatics can inhale PG without problems, so worrying about it in e-cig vapor is silly.” But when you really want something to be true, you don’t have much motivation to go and check out whether or not it’s really the case. Much like those who repeat anti-vaping arguments without fact-checking, this one in particular shows that we vapers can do exactly the same thing.

What We Can Say Instead

Propylene glycol has been well-studied, and is used in theatrical fog machines, some air disinfectants and a multitude of other consumer products. While it may not be entirely safe to inhale directly, any risks it poses pale in comparison to those of smoking.

4 – “Nobody Has Died from Vaping”

Another claim you often see is “nobody dies from vaping!” or even comparisons of the statistics for smoking deaths and the lack of deaths from vaping.

To see the problem, you can just imagine cigarettes had only been on the market for 10 years or so. Would we be seeing any deaths from smoking? Well, probably not, no.

For one, smoking generally reduces your lifespan by about 10 years, and the risks overall increase the longer you’ve been smoking, so even on that simple basis you probably wouldn’t see deaths from smoking a decade after cigarettes were introduced. The concept of “pack-years” is used, where one pack-year is the equivalent of smoking a pack of cigarettes a day for a year, and generally (as you’d expect) the risk of various conditions increases with pack-years. There are increased risks after 10 pack-years, but it really starts getting serious quite a bit further down the line.

On top of this, the average age of diagnosis with lung cancer is 70, the average age of a first heart attack is 66, and COPD is normally diagnosed in people aged 40 or older. In general, smoking-related illnesses strike quite late in life. That’s why the figure is 10 years of lost life, rather than 40 or so.

In short, after 10 years of smoking, chances are you’ll still be alive, so the lack of deaths from vaping at present means pretty much nothing. And that’s before you get onto the whole issue of establishing that vaping rather than something else (e.g. the vaper’s smoking history) is to blame for the deaths and thereby being able to say “vaping kills n people per year.” We might be able to do so in 20 or 30 years, but right now we’re far from being able to honestly compare death rates.

What We Can Say Instead

After almost a decade of vaping, no related health problems have been documented in vapers, and the evidence to date shows that vaping is substantially safer than smoking.

5 – “Cigarettes Have 750 Times More Diacetyl Than E-Liquids”

Whenever the issue of diacetyl in e-juice is brought up, you’ll see several vapers commenting that “But cigarettes contain 750 times more diacetyl than e-liquids!”

While the general message – that cigarettes contain more diacetyl than e-liquids – is true, the actual figure is complete bullshit. The origin of the figure is Michael Siegel’s blog post in response to the most recent diacetyl study, where he calculated the average diacetyl levels in the e-liquids tested (including those with no diacetyl) as 9 μg per ml (technically per cartridge, which is a little less but close enough). He then pulled up some comparative figures for cigarettes.

Then, undoubtedly because he isn’t too familiar with vapers’ habits (or the limited evidence looking at how much people consume – one example here), he made the comparison based on consumption of 1 ml of e-liquid per day vs. a pack of cigarettes. If you can remember a day recently when you only consumed 1 ml of e-liquid, it’s safe to say you were either also smoking or you forgot your e-cig when you went to work. Virtually no full time vapers, in this age of 150 W mods and sub-ohm tanks, is consuming just 1 ml per day.

This wouldn’t have been much of an issue, because Siegel made it clear – in the original blog post – that this was a comparison between daily intakes for smokers and vapers. However, in Guy Bentley’s Daily Caller story about Siegel’s blog post, even though he did clarify in the post, the headline was “‘Popcorn lung’ chemical 750 times greater in tobacco cigarettes.” This was made even worse by Siegel explicitly claiming “The levels of diacetyl are about 750 times lower than in cigarettes” in a more recent blog post, without qualifying the claim. It seems even if you turn against tobacco control – as Siegel admirably did in response to the more nonsensical claims about second-hand smoke – ridding yourself of the truth-stretching habits isn’t so easy.

To be clear, a figure somewhere in the region of 100 and 200 times lower is completely accurate. So why make such a misleading claim? The answer appears to be because 750 times sounds like such an extreme difference that it makes the inevitable follow-up point seem even stronger.

What We Can Say Instead

Cigarette smoke has hundreds of times more diacetyl than e-cigarette vapor. A day of vaping instead of smoking reduces your diacetyl intake by up to 240 times.

6 – “Smokers Don’t Get Popcorn Lung from the Diacetyl in Cigarettes”

So after laying the groundwork by exaggerating the gulf between diacetyl level in e-liquids and cigarettes, the follow-up point is that “smokers don’t even get popcorn lung!”

Put together, these points make the concern about diacetyl seem almost laughable. So cigarettes contain way more diacetyl than e-cigs and smokers don’t even get this nightmarish “popcorn lung disease” we hear so much about.

But, as Dr. Farsalinos pointed out in his paper looking at diacetyl in e-juice, the claim that smokers don’t get popcorn lung isn’t as reliable as it may seem. It’s true that not many smokers are diagnosed with popcorn lung, but you can’t read too much into that.

Firstly, popcorn lung is fairly rare, even in those exposed to diacetyl in industrial settings; the most common consequence is simply impaired lung functioning and general respiratory issues. Secondly, diagnosing popcorn lung is pretty difficult, and misdiagnosis is very common.

So smokers might not be diagnosed with popcorn lung very often, but they are regularly diagnosed with COPD, a more general obstructive lung condition, and this happens a lot more than you’d expect even heavily diacetyl-exposed people to be diagnosed with popcorn lung. Of course, smoke contains tons of bad chemicals, but it’s not exactly easy to say that diacetyl doesn’t contribute to the problems smokers have. Plus, when presented with a smoker with lung problems, is a doctor going to jump to popcorn lung as a diagnosis, or just assume it’s COPD?

None of this means that diacetyl in e-cigarettes is anything to worry about – you can learn more about what we know here – but brushing it aside with “smokers don’t get popcorn lung” is a severely flawed argument.

What We Can Say Instead

While diacetyl may contribute to the lung problems from smoking, there is no solid evidence of risk from inhaling it in quantities like those seen in e-juice, although it is possible. If risks are uncovered, diacetyl can easily be removed from e-juice or otherwise avoided by vapers.

Conclusion – Scoring An Own Goal?

Inevitably, this may seem like a vaping advocate scoring an “own goal,” to borrow a phrase originally used in a different context. Am I just being a jerk and bashing e-cigs, when they get unfairly criticized way too much already? I don’t think so. For one, I am not blindly pro-vaping. My main aim is to give smokers and vapers accurate information from which they can make decisions about whether they want to vape. If it turns out vaping has serious risks, I will happily explain them as best I can.

But more importantly, since I am still ultimately pro-vaping (just not blindly so), when is it appropriate to score goals against your own team? In training. Pointing out weaknesses in your own side’s defense and drawing attention to glaring mistakes helps us avoid those mistakes in the future. It makes it less likely opponents will be able to score an easy goal past us.

To ditch the analogy: if we make flawed, misleading arguments to support vaping, anybody sufficiently knowledgeable will be able to pick them apart and make us look like we’re either being purposefully deceptive or dumb. The only way to make sure your position is strong – and more importantly, accurate – is to subject it to just as much scrutiny as you would arguments from those who disagree with you.

So am I scoring an own goal? Yes, but that’s a good thing if we don’t want a weak defense.

Reference: http://ecigarettereviewed.com/6-misleading-pro-vaping-arguments

Best Mechanical Mods Under $100

Machenical Modes are to-the-point, high-power vaping devices, and although they’ve been falling out of favor with vapers thanks to the rising popularity of high power VV/VW devices, they still have many staunch supporters. Authentic mechanical mods are works of art, and they’re often priced accordingly: with it often costing well over $100 to pick one up. But what about if you want the hard-hitting performance of a mechanical mod without breaking the bank? What are the best mechanical mods for under $100?

We’ve surveyed vapers to find out the community’s views on what the best cheap mechanical mods for 2016 are – with our poll attracting over 3,000 votes – and we’ve used the results to put together a definitive list.

Best Cheap Mechanical Mods Under $100

10 – The Ragnarok Full Copper by VLS

The Ragnarok Full Copper mod by VLS just qualifies as one of the best cheap mech mods under $100, and boasts a beefy build from 99.99% pure red copper. The device includes PEEK insulators, a spring-loaded firing button, a pure copper telescopic top pin and a copper bottom firing pin. It’s 24 mm in diameter, which will lead to a less-than perfect fit with most atomizers, but overall the design is sleek and understated, with a single VLS Ragnorak logo on the switch and nothing else. The device also has a near-zero voltage drop, offering fantastic performance for just $99.99. You can also pick up the stainless steel version for $78.99.

9 – Dogecorn by Congrevape and Vape Overload

The Dogecorn vape mod is an almost unbeatably affordable 18650 mechanical, priced at just $41. It’s a 21.7 mm diameter mod with naval brass construction and plated in sterling silver or 24k gold, as well as being available in colored finishes. The mod features a floating 510 connection, has a round square post on the bottom for a smooth firing action, and the option of replacing the spring-operated button with a neodymium magnet. It looks pretty cool too, with “Dogecorn” written down the center of the tube in Roman-style lettering and the “doge” meme logo towards the bottom.

Everything is beautifully put together, and even though it doesn’t do anything particularly special, for the price, it’s a very well-made mech mod that’s pretty difficult to top, and well-deserving of its spot on this list.

8 – Magneto II by Smoktech

The Magneto II from Smoktech makes this list as one of the cheapest mechanical mods on the market, priced at just $44.99. The device is a telescopic mechanical, compatible with both 18350 and 18650 size batteries, with a diameter of just over 22 mm and stainless steel construction.

The mod features a magnetic switch – which can be locked with the aid of the locking ring – brass contacts, an adjustable center pin (so it’s compatible with most 510-threaded atomizers) and floating pins on both the positive and negative connections so the device works with both flat and button-top batteries. It also has three vent holes to protect you in the unlikely event that you have an issue with your battery. The device is available in gold, black, blue, red and stainless.

7 – Phantom by WOTOFO

The Phantom mod by WOTOFO (known for the Freakshow, Troll and Sapor RDAs) is priced at just $44.99 and is designed as the ideal entry-level 18650 mechanical vape mod. The device features a choice of two top caps – for hybrid (direct atomizer-to-battery) or standard connections – rhodium-plated copper contacts for improved conductivity, two 24k gold-plated springs so you can adjust your throw to your liking and an adjustable delrin ring on the button. The appearance is minimalist, with the Phantom of the Opera design on the button being the only thing on the mod, leaving you to appreciate the finish without logos cluttering up the aesthetics.

6 – Sleeve Mod by Limitless Mods

The aluminum version of the Sleeve Mod by Limitless Mods costs just $67.95, and it’s solid performance on our poll lands it a spot as one of the most popular mechanical mods under $100. The device is made from 7071 aluminum, has a direct atomizer-to-battery hybrid connection and has a one-piece contact button (to minimize voltage drop by using fewer components).

It also features a four-point rail system to keep your button from slipping off, improve conductivity on the negative point (as well as maintaining consistency) and to ensure there’s proper grounding so you don’t get a hot button. There’s also an adjustable delrin section on the bottom connection so you can adjust it to suit your battery. The device also features changeable sleeves – hence the name – so you can change up the design of your device to suit your preferences best online vaporizer.

5 – Tesla Two Box Mod

The Tesla Two is an unregulated box mod, and makes this list of the best mech mods under $100 thanks to its huge, in-built battery with a 400 mAh capacity and a huge maximum continuous current output of 40 A, translating to 100 W with a 0.18 ohm coil. It’s aluminum-bodied and features a spring-loaded, copper-plated silver firing pin to ensure great connectivity with pretty much any 510 atomizer on the market. The device has a solid, impressive appearance – with four color options but nothing on the body other than a circular, metallic firing button the edge – and costs just $39.85.

4 – Hit iThin by Anatolian Mods

The Hit iThin by Anatolian is one of the top mech vape mods under $100, costing just $55 direct from the mod-maker. When you purchase the mod, you can choose between brass, copper and stainless steel construction for the top cap, tube, the switch housing and the button itself, and you can also get a brushed or polished finish on the tube and 18350, 18500 and 18650 sizes. The mod has a standard connection – not a hybrid – but still only has a voltage drop of around 0.06 V, hitting hard enough for most vapers, and the firing button is recessed (so there’s no locking ring needed). The mod has one small engraving on its body towards the bottom, and an Anatolian Mods Hit iThin logo on the button.

3 – MCR 101 by MCR Mods

The MCR 101 is another great mech vape mod under $100, but it ships from the UK, and the price varies depending on the material used, with the 18350 hiduron version (a stainless steel alloy) currently available for just over $91. The device features a hiduron top cap, tube and lock ring, delrin 510 and battery insulators, adjustable 24k gold-plated and rhodium flashed brass contacts on the top cap, a nickel plated brass contact on the bottom and vented housing for the switch. The device comes with a magnetic and spring-operated switch, with a 22 mm external diameter (18.5 mm internal) and a laser engraved button. This ecig mod has a pretty sleek look to it, with exceptional build quality, but the options under $100 are limited because of that.

2 – Tugboat Mod by Flawless

The creators of the popular Tugboat RDA have produced it’s mech mod counterpart, the Tugboat Mod. Ranking in the top 20 in our poll and costing just $99.99, the Tugboat mod has earned its second-place spot in this list, although it pushes the cost about as far as it can go.

The device is a 22 mm diameter, 18650-only mod made from lightweight 6061 T6 aluminum, with a hybrid connection the improve conductivity. The Tugboat Mech Mod also features copper contacts and delrin insulators, to improve conductivity and heat resistance. The mod also has a flush-fitting magnetic button, to give a sturdy but smooth throw that doesn’t degrade over time. It’s available in a choice of four finishes (baby blue, black, gun metal grey and white) and features the classic Tugboat logo engraved on the tube, along with a crest design on the firing button.

1 – Fuhattan by AmeraClone

The Fuhattan is a clone of the Manhattan, but costs considerably less – currently priced at just $24.99 – and is the best mechanical mod under $100 based on our poll of vapers.

The device takes a single 18650 battery, housed inside a copper tube and wrapped in a carbon fiber sleeve. It has a threaded 510 connection with sliding pin in the top cap and copper contacts throughout. The device uses a magnetic firing switch to protect against accidental firing when it’s stood up and to ensure a consistent throw over time, unlike springs that often need to be replaced after extensive use. The switch also has venting holes in case you have battery problems, and you also get two spare copper pins for the atomizer, as well as an extra copper bottom pin.

The mod also looks pretty cool with the carbon fiber sleeve, thanks to the copper top and bottom and the “FU” logo cut out of the sleeve so the copper provides its color. The Fuhattan may be a clone, but its performance won’t disappoint.

Best Mech Mods Under $100 (As Recommended by ECR Staff)

There are plenty of options for cheap mechanical mods in the list above, but it goes without saying that this only scratches the surface of the vast array of eligible devices on the market. So we’ve put together an additional list, based on our own staff’s picks. The list isn’t as objective as the main top 10 above, but if you’re looking for more options, these are some devices to consider.

10 – Invader Mini by Tesla

The Invader Mini from Tesla is a mechanical box mod, with a fairly non-descript appearance and aluminum construction. The mod takes two 18650 batteries, and boasts some safety features you don’t usually get with mechanical devices, such as short circuit (for resistances under 0.1 ohm) and reverse battery protection, making it a pretty good option for any vapers unsure about the safety aspects of mechanical ecig mods. The mod is available for just $49.95.

9 – Excalibur Mod by Cigreen

The Excalibur Mod is a mechanical 18650 tube mod with a copper construction and a pretty cool design, featuring a sword logo with “Excalibur” written down the blade and available in three finishes. The device has a magnetic switch, a small voltage drop (thanks to the hybrid 510 connection), a pin-free top cap and a lockable fire button. Everything is very easy to use, and at just $44.99, it’s a pretty tempting option for vapers on a budget.

8 – The Infected by USA Made Mods

The Infected is an 18650 tube mod made from 304 stainless steel and brass, with a recessed firing button (to prevent accidental firing when you stand it up) and a magnetic switch. The mod has 99 percent pure tellurium copper contacts, which minimizes voltage drop and ensures a consistent connection when you hit the fire button. The mod has a big vent hole in the body, and both the top and bottom cap can be removed to access the battery. The device costs just $89.95.

7 – Seeker Mod by EHPro

EHPro may have a reputation for producing clones, but the Seeker Mod is an authentic creation of theirs, a 26650-size mechanical tube vapor mod. The device is built from copper, with a stainless steel locking ring and silver contact pins, and uses a simple spring for the firing button. The device might not be the highest-end device on the market, but it performs well and offers the substantial battery life of a 26650 mod. For just $59.99 it’s an excellent deal that it’s hard to pass up.

6 – Antique Dragon by Tesla

This device mainly makes the list thanks to its awesome design, featuring a mosaic pattern stretching across much of the body that’s broken up by a fire-breathing dragon design. The mod is an 18650 tube device, with a recessed button that uses a magnetic switch, a reverse-threaded locking ring, copper contacts to aid conductivity and an adjustable positive contact to eliminate battery rattle. It costs just $32.95 too, making it one of the cheapest options on this list.

5 – Full Copper CLT Mod by Infinite

 

The CLT mod comes from the same company who made the RDA of the same name, and the full copper version boasts a sleek, beautiful design – with barely-visible lines separating the tubes – and a recessed, engraved firing button. Tubes are available for 18650 and 18350 battery sizes, and the mod has a 22 mm diameter for a flush fit to most atomizers on the market and features copper contacts throughout. It looks best paired with the CLT RDA, but it works well with most atomizers. Although it’s currently out of stock, VaporDNA has it listed for $49.99.

4 – Hell Hound Box Mod by Wulf Mods

The Hell Hound is another unregulated box mod, with a straightforward but effective design and all copper connections for minimal voltage drop. The mod takes two 18650 batteries, which run in series for a substantial power output, and are accessed through a magnetic panel at the back of the device. The device doesn’t have much else to offer in terms of features, but with a sturdy design and a high-quality copper fire button, it’s an extremely dependable mechanical vape mod, and you can pick up for just $99.95.

3 – Ragnorak Full Copper by VLS

This device was also featured on the main list, but it’s definitely among our picks, with a beautiful design, super-low voltage drop and a smooth firing pin. It’s slightly large 24 mm diameter means it might not fit flush with many of your atomizers, but the high-quality construction (everything is made in the USA), top-end materials and excellent performance of the device make it well-worth the $99.99 price-tag.

2 – Sleeve Mod by Limitless

This is another of our picks that was also featured on the main list, and although our favorite is the copper version (which costs over $100), the aluminum edition is a fantastic option for vapers on a budget. With excellent conductivity, replaceable sleeves so you can tailor the look to your preferences, and a direct battery-to-atomizer hybrid connection, it’s a high-end mech with a very affordable price tag of just $67.95.

1 – CAM Mod by Kryptonite Vapor

The CAM Mod – the Cheap Ass ‘Merican Mod – is our pick for the best mech mod under $100: a 22 mm diameter 18650 tube mod, with quality construction and plenty of colors to choose from. The mod is made from stainless steel, copper and brass, and has a recessed firing button, a hybrid-style connection and spare O-rings to ensure a snug fit with the various atomizers on the market. It might be among the more expensive options on this list – available for $98.99 – but for the top-quality build and excellent performance, it’s well-worth spending the extra money.

Conclusion – Authentic Devices for Under $100, as Well as Clones

The most striking thing about the run-down of some of the best mechanical mods under $100 is that there is only one clone in the line-up, and even that is one that’s taken on its own identity. The very best-rated mechanical mods in our poll may have been more expensive than $100, but with plenty of clones of them available anyway, it’s refreshing to see such a selection of high-quality mech mods that won’t break the bank. If you know what to look for, you can definitely have a solid mechanical mod vaping experience without spending too much.

Reference: http://ecigarettereviewed.com/best-mechanical-mods-under-100

Minimum Effort, Maximum Impact: The Anti-Vaping Junk Science of Rebecca Williams

If you want a constant stream of junk science on a topic, one thing you’ll need is some researchers willing to crank out a shoddy paper in support of your cause, ideally without putting too much work into it. For e-cigarettes, the junk science never seems to let up, and there are plenty of researchers wary enough of vaping to allow some apparent bias to creep into how they conduct and report the results of their studies. One recent example led to widespread declarations that “e-cigarettes don’t help people quit smoking,” but as soon as you take a look past the headline, you see that it wasn’t a study that could have possibly led to that conclusion – some researchers just examined Google search trends related to vaping.

The name on the study seemed familiar, Rebecca S. Williams. A little Google search later (which is apparently a highly scientific discipline) and the reason became clear: she isn’t new to this game. This is actually the third time her name has been attached to a laughable piece of anti-vaping junk science that required little more than browsing the internet. Let’s take a look at all three of them and enjoy a moment of silent appreciation of her contribution to the cause of criticizing vaping for any reason you can think of.

1 – Divining People’s Intentions Through Keyword Analysis

The newest study from Dr. Williams, Dr. John Ayers and others managed to drag “e-cigs are useless for quitting” headlines out of an analysis of search keywords. Seriously.

According to Williams:

The e-cigarette industry, the media, and the vaping community have promoted the notion that e-cigarettes are an effective device for quitting smoking, yet what we’re seeing is that there are very few people searching for information about that.

Although the researchers presented some findings that may be of use to some people – for example, the word “e-cigarette” is declining in usage and being replaced with “vaping” or related words – it’s safe to say the whole endeavor was a waste of even the minimal effort required. Plus, if you’re familiar with vaping and the evolution of the language used, the shift away from “e-cigarettes” is hardly surprising.

The attention the study received stemmed from a couple of results, with each making headlines separately about a month apart: only about 3 percent of searches related to vaping used terms that suggest concern about health risks (e.g. “e-cigarette risks”) and 0.3 percent or lower were clearly related to quitting smoking. The example they gave of this type of search is “do e-cigarettes help smokers quit?”

To see the catastrophic issue with this assumption: let’s just Google it. First, you’re presented with this:



And secondly, only three of the first 30 results actually provide anything resembling useful information on quitting smoking by vaping. Really, only the second result actually contained tips. There are a hell of a lot of “do e-cigs help you quit” news stories, but very little in the way of the sort of practical tips you probably want. Here’s a wild idea: maybe that’s why not many people bother searching for it.

The authors seem to imply that the searchers for “buy e-cigarettes” are about “shopping,” rather than quitting smoking. There are so many issues with this that it’s hard to know where to start. It seems they were unable to imagine that people might know what they want to do before they start searching for something. Vaping is a replacement for best online quality vaporizer . If you want to vape instead of smoke, you just try to vape when you would have smoked. You don’t need a special type of e-cigarette or anything in particular to do so, you just need to buy an e-cig and give it a go.

There are plenty of tips that can help along the way, but if you were interested in quitting smoking, you would hardly need to add “quit smoking” to the end of your search. It would be like searching for “decaffeinated coffee” but then inexplicably feeling the need to add “to quit caffeine.”

As Michael Siegel notes, the authors seem to think they can read the minds of the searchers based on the keywords that they choose. If they had that ability, I’m pretty sure they could get a better job than adding to the mountain of anti-vaping junk science: they could help law enforcement work out when someone was searching “buy knives” because they’re planning a murder rather than just planning on cutting up some vegetables.

2 – Kids Can Buy E-Cigarettes Online… If They Have Their Parents Driver’s License and Credit Card

“And all I had to do was steal my dad’s identity.”

This study led to claims that “teens can easily buy e-cigarettes online,” with three out of four attempted e-cigarette purchases being vape online. The study did find that, but a couple of points undermine the result to the point of making it entirely meaningless.

Firstly, the study notes:

Youth buyers were recruited with a parent who gave written permission for his or her child to use the parent’s driver’s license to attempt to bypass age verification.

And secondly:

All purchases were made with credit cards issued for each youth buyer in his or her own name or his or her parent’s name. (emphasis mine)

So, “most teens can buy e-cigarettes online easily” should really read, “most teens with access to a parent’s driver’s license and credit card can buy e-cigarettes online easily.” Somehow, I don’t think that would have been quite as headline-friendly.

In fairness to the authors, a follow-up study did require youth to use their own cards and their own ID, and the results showed that very few vendors performed the checks necessary to confirm that the purchaser was old enough to vape. Why they didn’t just do this the first time around is anybody’s guess, but the fact that the concerns turned out to be justified in no way excuses the first, thoroughly absurd attempt to demonstrate it.

3 – Researchers Discover Vaping Conventions, Are Inexplicably Horrified

“Aaah! Look at all the particles in the air! There isn’t even a ‘vaping is going to kill you’ booth!”

This is the most laughable and lowest-effort study of the bunch: it consists of Rebecca Williams learning about vaping conventions using Google and then prattling on about how public health doesn’t get invited to come along and throw cold water on the festivities.

She writes:

Vaping conventions promote e-cigarette use and social norms without public health having a voice to educate attendees about negative consequences of use.

Well who’d have thunk it? Next she’ll be bemoaning the fact that rock festivals don’t include a booth full of people yelling about how “loud music can damage your hearing” as Slayer blares out Raining Blood or how beer festivals don’t have a booth of busybodies warning everyone about liver disease. We’re trying to have fun!

She then goes on to suggest that since people vape at the conventions (the horror!), “Future research should focus on the effects of attending these conventions on attendees and on indoor air quality in vapor-filled convention rooms.”

And that study happened, too. The researchers came up with the startling revelation that rooms full of people vaping contain vapor, and all they had to do was sneak around and hide what they were doing while ignoring any potential ethical issues (as discussed by Carl V. Phillips and Clive Bates). They’re expecting their Nobel Prize any time now.

Want to Join the Crusade Against Harm Reduction? Get Your Laptop Out!

The primary lesson from Rebecca Williams and her colleagues’ forays into e-cigarette research is that you can accomplish a lot if you just have an internet connection and are capable (ish) of using Google. If you follow in her footsteps, you might just discover that the worrying (and apparently in no way whatsoever related to quitting smoking) trend of people searching for “buy e-cigarettes” is continuing! Egad! You might even find out that these “VapeCons” don’t display giant neon warning lights saying “These products are not approved as smoking cessation devices.” And if you do, journals and journalists will apparently be lining up to give you a platform from which to spout whatever nonsense suits your agenda.

Reference: http://ecigarettereviewed.com/low-effort-anti-vaping-junk-science