Talk:Electronic cigarette

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Claims are sourced[edit]


  • Brain:
  • Eyes:
  • Eye irritation[2] and blurry vision[3]
  • Corneoscleral lacerations or ocular burns after e-cigarette explosion[4]
  • Airways:
  • Irritation and cough[5]
  • Increased airway resistance[6][7]
  • Irritation of the pharynx[8]
  • Stomach:
  • Heart and circulation:
  • Chest pain[7]
  • Increased blood pressure[7]
  • Increased heart rate[7]
  • Death after e-cigarette explosion (small risk)[4]


  1. ^ "State Health Officer's Report on E-Cigarettes: A Community Health Threat" (PDF). California Tobacco Control Program. California Department of Public Health. January 2015.
  2. ^ Biyani, S; Derkay, CS (28 April 2015). "E-cigarettes: Considerations for the otolaryngologist". International journal of pediatric otorhinolaryngology. doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2015.04.032. PMID 25998217.
  3. ^ a b Breland, Alison B.; Spindle, Tory; Weaver, Michael; Eissenberg, Thomas (2014). "Science and Electronic Cigarettes". Journal of Addiction Medicine. 8 (4): 223–233. doi:10.1097/ADM.0000000000000049. ISSN 1932-0620. PMC 4122311. PMID 25089952.
  4. ^ a b Paley, Grace L.; Echalier, Elizabeth; Eck, Thomas W.; Hong, Augustine R.; Farooq, Asim V.; Gregory, Darren G.; Lubniewski, Anthony J. (2016). "Corneoscleral Laceration and Ocular Burns Caused by Electronic Cigarette Explosions". Cornea. 35 (7): 1015–1018. doi:10.1097/ICO.0000000000000881. ISSN 0277-3740. PMC 4900417. PMID 27191672.
  5. ^ a b Grana, R; Benowitz, N; Glantz, SA (13 May 2014). "E-cigarettes: a scientific review". Circulation. 129 (19): 1972–86. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.114.007667. PMC 4018182. PMID 24821826.
  6. ^ Ebbert, Jon O.; Agunwamba, Amenah A.; Rutten, Lila J. (2015). "Counseling Patients on the Use of Electronic Cigarettes". Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 90 (1): 128–134. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2014.11.004. ISSN 0025-6196. PMID 25572196.
  7. ^ a b c d e Orellana-Barrios, Menfil A.; Payne, Drew; Mulkey, Zachary; Nugent, Kenneth (2015). "Electronic cigarettes-a narrative review for clinicians". The American Journal of Medicine. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.01.033. ISSN 0002-9343. PMID 25731134.
  8. ^ Zborovskaya, Y (2017). "E-Cigarettes and Smoking Cessation: A Primer for Oncology Clinicians". Clin J Oncol Nurs. doi:10.1188/17.CJON.54-63. PMID 28107337.

Each claim for the adverse effects diagram which links to here is sourced using only MEDRS-compliant sources. There are multiple sources that verify each claim. QuackGuru (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Since you seem not to understand why this is a WP:SYN, let me quote: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". The picture is a stand-alone entry, as opposed to articles, and thus there is no possibility of explanation, and presenting a neutral discussion on the things it presents. And thus it is even more important that it presents a clear (pun unintended) picture of what it presents, and this one doesn't.
For original pictures, to wikipedia, such as this one. There is an out in WP:OI: Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments. But this image fails this, by presenting an overview that has not been published! --Kim D. Petersen 15:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
It even cites case-reports - which even fails WP:MEDRS, despite your claims to the opposite - not all sources are created equal! The Death claim is not even supported by its reference (which is a collection of case-reports), the mortality it was referring to was from a fire caused by oxygen equipment close by. -- Kim D. Petersen 15:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Sources are not being combined to reach a new conclusion. QuackGuru (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
See WP:OI: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." This image passed OR because there is no original research. The image would have too much detail if every detail was explained in the image. QuackGuru (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
You are aware that synthesis is WP:OR right? Thus there is OR there. Where is that list of adverse effects published? --Kim D. Petersen 21:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
The specific detailed list of the adverse effects are at Safety of electronic cigarettes#Adverse effects. The list itself does not need to be published in a source because each entry is supported by each source. QuackGuru (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Isn't it remarkable that the most common adverse effects described by the article, that you quote as the source, isn't in the image? --Kim D. Petersen 23:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
See "The media have reported a number of EC explosions where individuals suffered burns, lost teeth and/or palate trauma, neck fractures, and battery acid exposure to the face, mouth, and eyes6,7; moreover, one user died when his charging EC exploded and ignited adjacent oxygen equipment.8"[1] Also see "Although the number of serious adverse events is small compared with the number of EC users worldwide, the consequences may be devastating to those involved in an EC-related blast."[2] The content in the image is supported by the source presented. When the image was being created there was a discussion. It was decided to include general information. The image states "- Wounds and burns in case of e-cigarette explosion". There are newer sources that verify the content in the image.[3][4] Again, the details go in an article instead of overcrowding an image. If anyone wants more detailed information in the body of the Safety of electronic cigarettes article I can add more detailed information. Just leave a note on the talk page of that article and let me know what you want summarised. QuackGuru (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Write about it in an article, where it can be described in a WP:NPOV way, where it is possible to explain that this is an extremely rare event, and not something that you even can expect from e-cigarettes in general. --Kim D. Petersen 22:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
It not something that a user would expect from vaping. That's what makes it relevant to add to an image. Editors can start working on a dedicated image for e-cig blasts and death when more sources are available. A new image may or may not include the rarity part. It depends on what the sources say and what editors decide at that time. QuackGuru (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Who choses what is relevant for the image? You? Can you spell WP:POV. Wikipedia uses WP:WEIGHT, not POV to determine whether something should go in or not. Does the prevalence of WP:MEDRS sources on adverse effects have death as a credible adverse effect? --Kim D. Petersen 23:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no issue with it, and there is no WP:OR, since there is no synthesis by editors. The image is a basic overview. It is not meant to go into extreme detail. There are adverse effects that are also coming from the device itself. That means the image is covering a variety of adverse affects. Therefore, there is no real problems with the image, and it really should remain in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Of course there is an issue - you cannot just dump sources together and get a comprehensive picture. That is the essence of WP:SYN. --Kim D. Petersen 14:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Sources are not being dumped together. Each claim is supported by each source. Therefore, there is no SYN. QuackGuru (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Each claim is supported - yes. But the compilation and the choises of what to add and not to add is done by an editor - and it is not copied or found in any other source - thus it is WP:OR: An original list of adverse effects not published as such elsewhere. --Kim D. Petersen 22:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
It is not a list that is coming to a new conclusion - thus it can't be construed as OR. There is a compilation of entries but it was determined that this image can't include too much detail. If there are other entries about the adverse effects that are missing then please share that with me. I don't think an entry was intentionally excluded from the list except for the part about death. QuackGuru (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Even assuming that i bought your argument... you would still have to fight with WP:NPOV, since it is quite obvious that the adverse effects were picked not for their prevalence in the literature, but instead by some editors personal opinion on what should be there. Still not good. Now we are even more into WP:POV territory. --Kim D. Petersen 23:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Adding low level details where prevalence is known would not improve the image. That kind of detail belongs in the body of the Safety of electronic cigarettes article with a 4 paragraph summary here in accordance with WP:SYNC. QuackGuru (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

A picture needs to follow our WP:POLICIES as well - and this is pure WP:SYN. The picture conflates the extremely rare with the rare, it conflates serious with non-serious adverse effects. It even adds issues that have only been mentioned in an individual source. Basically it is a WP:POV collection someone created by cherry-picking sources => WP:SYN. --Kim D. Petersen 14:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
The image follows policies and it uses quality sources rather than individual articles. If there is an issue with a particular source then it can be replaced with a newer source that verifies the same content. QuackGuru (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
No. The image fails WP:SYN - since it describes a original list of adverse effects, not published in any sources before. --Kim D. Petersen 22:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
The image passes WP:Verifiability - since it describes a general list of adverse effects, where each claim is published in a source. QuackGuru (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:V is not the only policy that needs to be adhered to. WP:SYN also needs to be followed, and it isn't. --Kim D. Petersen 23:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

No editor is suggesting to add more WP:OR to the image to make it more acceptable and no editor has shown there is WP:OR in the image. KimDabelsteinPetersen, what is the OR? Please keep in mind the image is meant to be a very basic overview. The Safety of electronic cigarettes article contains the details. QuackGuru (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Why are you writing this here? The discussion is below. And Yes, someone is suggesting that: Adding more cherry-picks to an already WP:OR collection, doesn't make it less WP:OR. --Kim D. Petersen 14:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I started this thread first and the discussion was here first. Using MEDRS compliant sources is not cherry-picking and no evidence of WP:OR has been presented. If a better source is found then we can use a better source. There are other sources that can verify each claim. QuackGuru (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
You may have started this thread first - but the discussion was in another thread. As for the rest: The adverse effects are cherry-picked, since it did not include everything from all sources, and included some from sources that aren't even WP:MEDRS compliant. To summarize: Some adverse effects glanced from a variety of sources, not supported by all sources and no source contains a similar list => WP:SYN. --Kim D. Petersen 22:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Another of the adverse effects (blurry vision) is taken from a review where it is even stated that it is from a single paper, where "the extent to which these effects were attributable to ECIG use was unclear" ... And some of the more common (and better supported) adverse effects (in this review) aren't in the image..... So basically a very clear cherry-pick. --Kim D. Petersen 22:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
You said "some of the more common (and better supported) adverse effects (in this review) aren't in the image..... So basically a very clear cherry-pick." Please share what was the more common adverse effects that are missing from the image from the review. More information can be added to the image as long as it is basic information. QuackGuru (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
The adverse effects are not cherry-picked. It is impossible to include everything from all sources in an image. It is possible to include almost everything in the Safety of electronic cigarettes article. The image is a general list that includes an overview of the adverse effects. If you want a better source for any entry then you can update the list or ask me which one you want updated. In summary: The list is a basic overview of the adverse effects from various sources, which are supported by each source presented. QuackGuru (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Which is basically the same as saying: Yes! it is WP:SYN. Cherry-picked from various sources, as the list that the image-creater wanted to present WP:POV. --Kim D. Petersen 23:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I previously said "Please share what was the more common adverse effects that are missing from the image from the review."
You recently said "Isn't it remarkable that the most common adverse effects described by the article, that you quote as the source, isn't in the image?" What is missing? QuackGuru (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
How would that solve the WP:SYN issue? Or any of the many other issues with this image? --Kim D. Petersen 02:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Each entry is sourced using at least one source. There is no combining of sources or statements. Therefore, there is no SYN issue. It would help solve the accusation it is a cherry picked list. If you don't tell me what is missing from the list then I don't know what is missing or maybe nothing important is missing from the NPOV collection. We can't turn the image into a detailed paragraph and explain almost everything. But I will explain almost everything in the Safety of electronic cigarettes article.
You previously said "Isn't it remarkable that the most common adverse effects described by the article, that you quote as the source, isn't in the image?" Please tell me what is missing from the image. QuackGuru (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
You are just repeating what makes this WP:SYN. From your argument anyone can create an image that presents a synthesis of sources to present a unique combination, without having to present them according to WP:WEIGHT. Purely according to the image creator's WP:POV. Something that he/she wouldn't be able to do in article text. And of course they can't. Which is why this image is WP:SYN. --Kim D. Petersen 03:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
See WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Each entry is explicitly sourced to each source. For example, see "Less serious adverse events include throat and mouth irritation, cough, nausea, and vomiting."[5] That supports 4 entries (irritation, cough, nausea, and vomiting) in the image. Presenting a unique combination of entries is not a SYN violation. I repeatedly asked you what is missing from the image. QuackGuru (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I think you need to become more familiar with other areas of wikipedia. Since you do not seem to understand what WP:SYN is. The picture is doing exactly that: presenting a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by any of the sources. - that individual items can be referenced to individual sources and that these individual items are combined into a single conclusion is the WP:SYN. No source has this particular conclusion! --Kim D. Petersen 00:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Each source has its own specific conclusion. The individual entries are not combined into a single conclusion. Each entry is its own conclusion and each entry is supported by each source presented. For example, a 2014 review found "Less severe adverse events included sore throat, abdominal pain, headache, blurry vision, cough, and nausea/vomiting."[6] That review is being used to verify under Stomach the word "- Pain". That is a single conclusion and is not being combined with other entries to come to a new single conclusion. QuackGuru (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2018[edit]

Addition of paragraph to the 'Health Effects > Safety' heading of the article:

Existing: A 2014 review recommended that e-cigarettes should be regulated for consumer safety.[133] There is limited information available on the environmental issues around production, use, and disposal of e-cigarettes that use cartridges.[155]

Add following in new paragraph: A report published in 2018 in the journal Thorax highlighted important concerns regarding the impacts to human health caused by e-cigarettes. The report highlighted how macrophages, a white blood cell, were negatively impacted by e-cigarette vapor in a similar way to that caused by regular tobacco smoke. E-cigarette vapor caused the release of chemicals from the cells that cause inflammation and potential damage to surrounding tissues, and increased the amount of cell death in a dose-dependent manner. The study also showed how nicotine-containing e-cigarette fluid is more damaging than nicotine-free fluid.

Reference: Scott A, Lugg ST, Aldridge K, et al Pro-inflammatory effects of e-cigarette vapour condensate on human alveolar macrophages Thorax Published Online First: 13 August 2018. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2018-211663 Lesadmick (talk) 08:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The source is a primary source. See WP:MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
There is no ban on using primary sources, just that the information may later change - feel free to highlight the preliminary nature of the result, but it is still relevant to the safety discussion. Lesadmick (talk) 08:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: If material can be supported by either primary or secondary sources – the secondary sources should be used. Primary sources may be presented together with secondary sources.  spintendo  05:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


Wondering peoples thoughts on this source?

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

this source has already been used in this article see reference number 91
We should be asking the same question about a page like this with is fairly cut and dry but filled with information the average person will find in few other places.
Few mass media outlets, reference books and non-academic sources exist for all things electronic cigarette related regarding the technical information an average person interested in the topic might have. is an established website to look to for vaping basics and more advanced information as well as original editorial reviewing products as they are released in addition to news related to the industry. Mrphilip (talk) 11:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Spinfuel. I'll comment there; that seems a more centralized location for a discussion of the quality of Huon (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Can EC article be improved with this 2017 book?[edit]

Request for other editors input and suggestions as how and where it may be of use as information resource.

Analytical Assessment of e-Cigarettes From Contents to Chemical and Particle Exposure Profiles Published • 2017 [1]Mrphilip (talk) 06:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Poison Control Concerns, Pediatric and Adult[edit]

I do not want to mishandle the information available and ask others to review these two sources of pertinent data.

I believe this article should note the 2016 Poison Control Center numbers (next update comes out in a month so if not these numbers, we can use 2017's) on tobacco/nicotine/e-cigarette products as a single poison category and in comparison to the issue of poison control calls as a whole (transparent perspective, not alarmist editing).

There where 2,159,032 calls about human exposures in 2016. 46.4% where kids 5 and under. Changes in the number of calls between 2000 and 2016 have put this category on the list of 25 most significantly relevant substances. Of the 1,045,339 reported pediatric exposures 1.17% fall under this category representing 11,358 single substance exposures. Serious exposures have been increasing at the rate of about 11 calls a year.

We should note that after breaking this category down and only looking at electronic cigarettes and liquid nicotine the numbers are significantly lower. Such calls started to come in the 2011 and are available through September 30, 2018. In 2013 there were 1,543 calls, 2014 a spike to 4,023 then dropping to 2,478 in 2017 and so far this year 2,226.[2]
Given this information, I think it is clear that tobacco cigarettes comprise the bulk of poison center calls.

How should we present this properly? If 46% of poison calls were pediatric in 2016 and we know those 11,358 were categorized as tobacco/nicotine/e-cigarette are we misrepresenting the issue if we fail to include that specifically 2,907 calls identified e-cigarette and liquid nicotine as the substance exposure... or an estimated 1,337 pediatric exposures. What percent of the 2,159,032 total calls does this articles topic prove to be. Would that number be significant enough to include on the top 25 reported serious concerns. The larger category did not make the list of top 25 concern for those 20 and above.

[3]Mrphilip (talk) 07:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ Analytical assessment of e-cigarettes : from contents to chemical and particle exposure profiles. Farsalinos, Konstantinos E., Gillman, Gene., Thornburg, Jonathan W., Hecht, Stephen S., Polosa, Riccardo. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 2016. ISBN 9780128112427. OCLC 964326628.
  2. ^ "American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) - E-Cigarettes and Liquid Nicotine". Retrieved 2018-10-27.
  3. ^ Gummin, David D.; Mowry, James B.; Spyker, Daniel A.; Brooks, Daniel E.; Fraser, Michael O.; Banner, William (2017-11-26). "2016 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers' National Poison Data System (NPDS): 34th Annual Report". Clinical Toxicology. 55 (10): 1072–1254. doi:10.1080/15563650.2017.1388087. ISSN 1556-3650.