Talk:Electronic cigarette

References - new PHE 243 page evidence update

A nice fat 243 page evidence update published by Public Health England - executive summary of of the executive summary is that the 2016 findings are reaffirmed with stronger evidence. Not mentioned in the article yet. Many of the refs here now fail MEDRS on age, and can very often be updated using this very strong source, and/or the new American National Academy one, also only used once at present. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

We have been discussing the NAP review above. Here is the summary[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I have inserted a portion from this report with regard to observed youth access and use as well as added the American Cancer Society's new position statement in support of adult use as a means of tobacco harm reduction. PhilEdits (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the body and 4 paragraphs is usually the limit. It is recommended that the content is supported by the source presented. The American Cancer Society statement was rewritten and moved to another page. Cutting and pasting content directly from the source is a copyright violation if added to the article or talk page. See WP:COPYVIO. QuackGuru (talk) 04:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

increase of calls to U.S. poison centers from children drinking liquid, 2014 CDC press release

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2014/p0403-e-cigarette-poison.html

'The number of calls to poison centers involving e-cigarette liquids containing nicotine rose from one per month in September 2010 to 215 per month in February 2014, . . . '

' . . . More than half (51.1 percent) of the calls to poison centers due to e-cigarettes involved young children under age 5, . . . '

' . . . by ingestion, inhalation or absorption through the skin or eyes. . . '

---

then Director of CDC Dr. Tom Frieden basically said, yeah, the nicotine liquid comes in colorful packages and appealing flavors. It's an issue. We touch on this in our article, probably should have more info with more references. Cool Nerd (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Not unreasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Like most other aspects of the subject, the 2018 PHE update gives up to date coverage - see above. Johnbod (talk) 11:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Toward the end of our lead, we do say, "A European directive of 2016 set standards for liquids, vaporizers, ingredients and child-proof liquid containers." Cool Nerd (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

FWIW - although perhaps not entirely ok for the main Electronic cigarette article - the following recent references may be worth noting here - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Why does "vaping" redirect to this page?

When I search for vaping I get to this article. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by B0ef (talk • contribs) 16:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

What were you looking for if it wasn't this? Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

SYN violation

Combining two sources together is a SYN violation. There are other issues with the wording when it was originally added. QuackGuru (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Utter rubbish. This is disruptive editing on your part and any more of it will see an Arbcom Enforcement against you.

There is no SYNTH violation here, it is taken directly from the Pharmaceutical Journal source, which is itself based on the PHE source (whether that is linked directly here or not).

Nor is it, as you have falsely claimed, either a verification failure or a copyvio. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I have rephrased it - really the ref would be better as the original PHE report, already used. Johnbod (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Quack clarification needed

Quack you need to spell out, using English, what your concerns are with these paras you have removed:

The concern that children could start smoking after using e-cigarettes has been shown in England to be less critical, but worth continued observation. The sale of these products to people under age 18 is illegal and should be more closely monitored. What has been found for youth is that some experimentation with these devices among never smokers occurs, but e-cigarettes are attracting very few young people who have never smoked into regular use. E-cigarettes do not appear to be undermining the long-term decline in cigarette smoking in the UK among young people.

The American Cancer Society supports all efforts to stop smoking and in 2018 stated that individuals should be encouraged to switch to the least harmful form of tobacco product possible; switching to the exclusive use of e-cigarettes is preferable to continuing to smoke combustible products.

Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Johnbod where do we put information like this? https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2018/january/do-less-harm--e-cigarettes-a-safer-option-than-smoking.html

PhilEdits (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The first bit is nothing new, really just confirming the British PHE reports. Adding anything at all to this article is extremely difficult while it is in the grip of QuackGuru, who takes the RCT-only position, and is unfriendly to the public health perspective. Unless you are prepared to devote hours a day trying to get him to explain his cryptic edit summaries, and engage in discussion in plain English. He is pretty unresponsive (see section above), and hard to follow when he does respond. At the moment he has essentially driven off other editors from the page, as he has with other pages in the past; there has been very little activity on the article since last September. Eventually he either moves off to edit something else, or gets a topic ban. You might try Tobacco harm reduction for some of it (from the paper when it is published, & other sources for the stuff at the end). That article seems not to have been updated much since 2016, though QG is also active there. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Johnbod I am prepared to continue on this topic and would hope Quack is open to discussions about potential edits perhaps even as my Coach. I'm retired and only have one extremely large volunteer project other than this to devote my 'serious work' efforts. My corporate training should not go to waste, I am confident that if we approach this with an open mind and the mutual goal to update this section to the neutral point of view needed (as it currently reads like a one sided opinion to anyone well informed on the topic). This topic in general is very new, and a cautious approach was wise as we waited for more data to come in. Now that it has started to arrive, the trepidations from the last few years, 2011-2016/7,are proving to be merited in some ways, and prudish/prejudiced in many others. I do recognize the need to further examine the use of certain flavorings in electronic cigarettes, not for their appeal to youth, but for the diacetyl, acetoin and acetyl propionyl harm which are of unknown safe levels. There is one standard for the workplace and another for individuals. DAAP is already present in foods and cigarettes, how do the levels compare. The case of popcorn lung was the only known extreme example that has raised all caution levels, and is far above any known eliquid on the market today. Flavoring companies have gone out of their way to formulate new concentrates that remove (or reduce) these DAAP issues but an industry standard has yet to be established. There is a difference in a diacetyl ingested vs inhaled and more study is needed. I think it is very interesting that even WedMD has a 2015 article which includes a section 'Are E-cigerettes Safe?' and it points out that the dangers are much less hazardous than smoking. The article also clearly states that second hand smoke is less dangerous than cigarettes, for the vaper exhales very little and the device emits none when not being inhales vs 75% of the second hand smoke from a cigarette stemming from the lit cigarette just being held between puffs. WedMD reminded us in 2015 that this is a product for adult smokers, and is not a product for people who do not smoke. More information as you have already pointed out now exists to answer some of the questions raised in this ancient article. They don't even broach youth, for this is not a youth product... the CDC and other agencies have raised this issue and stressed it over the potential health benefits to the millions of people still smoking. What we have failed to address is the lobbying that is being done by the pharmaceutical and tobacco industries to curb vaping- which is eroding their income. Perhaps if they had found more effective methods of putting an end to the cancerous problem of 'analog' cigarettes by offering effective NRT's and stricter laws we would not be here today. Chalk one up for the consumer marketplace. https://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20150218/e-cigarette-ingredients#3 . If only WP gave such a balanced overview of the topic. Mrphilip (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

You should probably spend some time reading the archives for this talk page (which are archived rather too quickly) to see the previous laps round this track. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

References

I see the need for that, issues include warnings going back a number of years and bans from certain topics. I shall try not to be one of those authors.Mrphilip (talk) 09:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

vocabulary of current ecig/pods/mods/vape gear terms

Advice on vocabulary not included regarding electronic cigarettes/vaping. Is is useful for wiki to offer descriptions of what a Rebuildable Drip Atomizer (RDA) is compared to a Rebuildable Tank Atomizer (RTA), Rebuildable Atomizer (RBA) Rebuildable Drip & Tank Atomizer and as well as what an Atomizer is in general. What about open and closed pod systems?

Would you use a source like Spinfuel, Vaping360 or Vaping.com? ECF is a great resource, but forums are forums. Still new here and seek oversight before oversteeping (pun intended). What depth are you looking for? I may be able to help some.

In a first search I couldn't find anything except for a RED highlighted lack of definition for RTA. Where do you want to place these things category wise within wiki pages of this industry's components? RDA's and refillable pods saw a large increase in sales in 2017. Squonk box mods too, regulated and unregulated. These trends will continue.

I do not know the extent wiki wants to be the resource for this knowledge. One obvious problem is this page does not appear to have been updated at all in 2017 or 2018 except for a few sections. Your direction would be appreciated. Thank you in advance. PhilEdits (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

This is mostly true - we prefer to use published sources rather than trade/consumer websites, and there aren't many on this fast-moving field. The kind of medical papers we prefer are often manifestly ignorant or out of date in their brief coverage of the delivery mechanisms (ie the actual ecigs). We don't really aspire to be "the resource for this knowledge", but our coverage should be rather better than it is, but probably mostly in subsidiary articles. Johnbod (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes

Maintenance tags were added to the citations that are not MEDRS compliant. For example, the Mailman School of Public Health source is written by people from the Columbia University. Citing a university for medical content is generally unreliable. Sciencedirect publishes numerous studies. Citing a study for medical content is generally unreliable.

See WP:MEDRS: "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials."[2]

The WP:LEDE is usually 4 paragraphs for an article of this length. The current 7 paragraphs is way too long. See MOS:LEADLENGTH. The See also section has duplicate links. See WP:OVERLINK.

Sourced content was replaced with failed verification content. For example, The wording was "...and as of 2015 most e-cigarettes are made in China." The date was changed to 2018, but the source is from 2015. There is failed verification content recently added. For example, "The vaping community refers to a traditional cigarette as an analog cigarette.[13]" fails verification. There are other problems with the content recently added. For example, the lede states "Since known carcinogens have been removed from the equation when vaping, scientists are currently examining the amount of heavy metal that might be exhaled." It is unsourced and also incorrect. See "E-liquids and aerosols tested so far contain some toxicants in concentrations much lower than in tobacco smoke and negligible concentrations of carcinogens."[3] The quickest way to fix the recent changes would probably be to apply WP:TNT. QuackGuru (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)