If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello All, This is just a friendly reminder to read the Forum Charter where you wish to post before posting in it. :)
Hi all, The AutoSave Draft feature is now disabled across the site. The decision to disable the feature was made via a poll last year. The delay in putting it in place was due to a bug/update issue. This should serve as a reminder to manually save your drafts if you wish to keep them. Thanks, The Boards Team.
Hello all! This is just a quick reminder to ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere.

Face Facts.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,026 ✭✭✭ grindle

    jonski wrote: »
    I'm going to go with the 95% less harmful that the NHS is pushing .

    Always worth pointing out that the at least 95% safer than smoking is based around the study with the worst results where they found the highest amount of formaldehyde in the vapour because they fired a slow-wicking thinly-wired atomiser at too high a wattage which no human in their right mind would vape beyond the first puff because they'd be busting their lungs and it would taste like burnt nappies. Obviously the machine they had puffing didn't mind the taste of burnt juice - vapers aren't quite as retarded as those machines were forced to be by the scientists who carried those tests out incorrectly, either through ignorance or malice.
    If it was ignorance I would have expected a retraction from any scientist with scruples so I'd place my bet on malice.

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,612 ✭✭✭ Cordell

    Since we're facing facts: fun (or not) fact: regular fags have laser punched tiny holes all around the filter. When they are smoked by a machine to produce those numbers on the side of the pack those holes allow air to be mixed with the smoke. When they are smoked by a human, those holes will be partially obstructed by the smoker's fingers, rendering all those numbers irrelevant.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,555 ✭✭✭ youdipstick

    I have been a passive smoker since the age of zero,I upgraded to the smokes 12 years later,the next 40 years I got the usual ailments like a bypass,diabetes & my lungs were just giving up,had to carry an air bottle around with me.

    A friend from the motorcycle club in Germany sent me a box of vape goodies back in 2009 to help me to give up smoking,I laughed at it to myself & thought I will never give up fags but he was such a caring mate that he would help anybody out if they needed it.
    I agreed to try it out & we were connected by using Skype,so we had visual contact & he walked me through the procedure.
    The coil was a 3.3ohm & the Nic was 36mg,I understand the tech now but back then it was like something from outer space :D:D

    He warned me not to go higher than 4.2v,I thought,if I go higher it would give me a stronger hit or something as I was on 50 fags a day,nothing could be stronger than that,I shoved it up to 6v & the coughing & spluttering I did nearly killed me,all I could see was a couple of Germans laughing their holes off :D:D:D

    Anyway,he told me to follow his instructions & from that day I never smoked again.The vape stuff has improved 20 times since that time.
    My lungs cleared within 4 weeks of vaping & the Doctors couldn't understand it at all because nobody knew anything about vaping back then,I'm just glad I'm still alive to type this.

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,984 ✭✭✭ Venom

    UK government study on vaping as an aid to quit smoking. The conclusion and recommendations are very positive towards vaping.

    • The Government, the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) and the e-cigarette industry should review how approval systems for stop smoking therapies could be streamlined should e-cigarette manufacturers put forward a product for medical licensing.
    • There should be a wider debate on how e-cigarettes are to be dealt with in our public places, to help arrive at a solution which at least starts from the evidence rather than misconceptions about their health impacts.
    • The Government should continue to annually review the evidence on the health effects of e-cigarettes and extend that review to heat-not-burn products. Further it should support a long-term research programme overseen by Public Health England and the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment with an online hub making evidence available to the public and health professionals.
    • The limit on the strength of refills should be reviewed as heavy smokers may be put off persisting with them—and the restriction on tank size does not appear to be founded on scientific evidence and should therefore urgently be reviewed.
    • The prohibition on making claims for the relative health benefits of stopping smoking and using e-cigarettes instead has prevented manufacturers informing smokers of the potential benefits and should be reviewed to identify scope for change post-Brexit.
    • There should be a shift to a more risk-proportionate regulatory environment; where regulations, advertising rules and tax duties reflect the evidence of the relative harms of the various e-cigarettes, heat-not-burn and tobacco products available.
    • NHS England should set a policy of mental health facilities allowing e-cigarette use by patients unless trusts can demonstrate evidence-based reasons for not doing so.
    • The Government should review the evidence supporting the current ban on snus as part of a wider move towards a more risk aware regulatory framework for tobacco and nicotine products.