Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AZCentral)   1970s: Don't let your baby eat your cocaine. 1980s: Don't let your baby eat your crack. 1990s: Don't let your baby eat your heroin. 2000s: Don't let your baby eat your pot. 2010s: Don't let your baby eat your e-cigarette's liquid nicotine   (azcentral.com) divider line 110
    More: Obvious, poison control center, cigarettes, electronic cigarettes, cocaine  
•       •       •

3248 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jan 2014 at 6:35 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



110 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-06 02:55:43 PM  

Firethorn: They've done it.  The listing of ingredients found has generally been innocent enough that it's a non-news story.


Have they tested for nicotine content and compared it against the label on the bottle? There is no way I'm believing the dosage is accurate to 1%, unless the mix is done in a chemical manufacturing setup with automated measuring tools. I'd bet a paycheck that if you buy 1000 bottles from reputable mixers, you're going to find many are way off. Especially if you buy at retail locations that mix-to-order.

Firethorn: Do you use an autopippetor when you're cooking dinner?  That's 'making a product human beings are ingesting'.


Don't be ridiculous, I am not mixing 1ml of poisonous nicotine into 30ml of liquid, hundreds of times a day and selling the results to people. (I understand there's other manufacturing process to do it in bulk, but they come with their own problems. Replace "auto-pippetor" with auto-mixer or other standardized chemical handling equipment).

Firethorn: Does he need 'hazmat books'?  Isn't he handling precisely ONE potentially poisonous chemical?  MSDS sheets are a standard requirement


OK, so he does, but it's a thin binder? Well if it's only a thin binder, better not to bother I guess.

Firethorn: if he's doing it right


If he's doing it right, then he's inspecting and noticing that huge batches come out farked up and need to be disposed of. I went through all this in my research. If you mix in the bottle, the amounts are so small that you need specialized equipment, but don't have to worry about disposal since you mix just-in-time. Throw the fark-ups or overstock into the garbage and cringe. If you mix large quantities, you're going to end up with a gallon or two of unusable product every now and again, so you have to worry about disposal. Or you could just dump it down the drain and shrug, like an asshole. Which is what I would bet all of these manufacturers are doing, unless they were already set up to manufacture something else.

Every manufacturing business throws away some percentage of what they make as mistakes. "Don't make mistakes" is a platitude, not a responsible policy for waste management.

Firethorn: Though if he cares about his product & customers the answer would be simple - don't use or sell contaminated product.


Platitudes again. Dude  is not doing lab inspections, so all of this is one huge shrugfest. Inspecting the product would necessitate many of the proper precautions, but nobody even knows what they're selling to people so everything seems fine. So your customer gets a little buzz or the liquid tastes "weird", so what, right? No news is good news.

Stretch this to the scale of millions of users using several times each day, and someone is gonna get sick eventually from PG stored on the floor where rats can get into it, or some other manufacturing foul-up or tampering and the tobacco lobby is going to capitalize and then party's over.

The bottles aren't even tamper-proof. We expect more from a bottle of saline solution or rubbing alcohol. Ever handle a bunch of plastic stuff you get from China? By the end of the day, your hands are filthy. That's going into peoples' bodies if you don't rinse the bottles. The list goes on and on, the profit margins are huge and the work can be done artisinally and domestically because there are no regulations in place and the product is not tested for contaminants or accuracy.

Sorry to be a Debbie Downer, but this is serious business.

HeartBurnKid: I suppose, since you seem to think my arguing for home brewers to have the ability to mix their own juice


I did misunderstand you then. I don't care what people do in their own homes, as long as they are not labeling and selling products for human internal consumption that by necessity contains some amount of toxin without taking the necessary precautions to ensure that their manufacturing process is accurate and safe, for their customers, employees and the environment.
 
2014-01-06 03:24:20 PM  

mccallcl: Have they tested for nicotine content and compared it against the label on the bottle? There is no way I'm believing the dosage is accurate to 1%, unless the mix is done in a chemical manufacturing setup with automated measuring tools. I'd bet a paycheck that if you buy 1000 bottles from reputable mixers, you're going to find many are way off. Especially if you buy at retail locations that mix-to-order.


Make up your mind; accuracy within 1% is a different standard than 'way off'.  In my mind while 'way off' varies you're generally going to have to be at least double digit percentages off - not 1%.  Roughly speaking, 1% can often be within rounding.

Don't be ridiculous, I am not mixing 1ml of poisonous nicotine into 30ml of liquid, hundreds of times a day and selling the results to people. (I understand there's other manufacturing process to do it in bulk, but they come with their own problems. Replace "auto-pippetor" with auto-mixer or other standardized chemical handling equipment).

If I'm doing it hundreds of times a day I'd probably be getting the machine simply as a labor saving measure.  Let's see, $15 per bottle(google search on prices; midline, keep in mind it's 'boutique' so higher than average price), 'obscene' profits of $10 per bottle - 16-32 bottles a day to make a living wage, not hundreds.

OK, so he does, but it's a thin binder? Well if it's only a thin binder, better not to bother I guess.

The difference between a thin binder filled with the relevant MSDS sheets and 'safety books' is several orders of magnitude.  OF COURSE you bother to have the relevant safety documentation, but there's a big difference between needing books and books of them, and a few sheets.

mccallcl: Stretch this to the scale of millions of users using several times each day, and someone is gonna get sick eventually from PG stored on the floor where rats can get into it, or some other manufacturing foul-up or tampering and the tobacco lobby is going to capitalize and then party's over.


Why would rats get into PG?  Is there something about it I don't know?

mccallcl: The bottles aren't even tamper-proof. We expect more from a bottle of saline solution or rubbing alcohol. Ever handle a bunch of plastic stuff you get from China? By the end of the day, your hands are filthy. That's going into peoples' bodies if you don't rinse the bottles. The list goes on and on, the profit margins are huge and the work can be done artisinally and domestically because there are no regulations in place and the product is not tested for contaminants or accuracy.


Tamper proof containers are mostly for product that is either a theft risk or there's fear of adulteration due to being on store shelves and what not.  Something coming from a private manufacturer delivered by mail doesn't share the same concerns.

Or do you mean child-resistant packaging?  In which case you're back to my experience as a child - mom handing me that stuff to get it open quicker than she could.

Or you could just dump it down the drain and shrug, like an asshole. Which is what I would bet all of these manufacturers are doing, unless they were already set up to manufacture something else.

Hmm...  Do you have any evidence that the nicotine/PG would harm the sewer system?  By the way I think that once you move past 'Boutique' you need to take more complicated steps.
 
2014-01-06 05:14:28 PM  

DisplacedTexan: Horrorshow: Pangea: Horrorshow: The patches and nasal stuff and gum and pills don't address a significant part of the habit, which is the rituals involved in smoking. This does.

I don't want to be labeled as an activist ex-smoker, I merely want to offer my input related to my success quitting. The key for me was to break the ritual, more than the nicotine. I went on the patch and whenever I got a craving I relied on the fact that the patch was providing the nicotine I thought I wanted.

The psychological connection between a behavior followed by an immediate result reinforced the behavior for me. That's why vaping, nasal spray, or even the gum wouldn't work for me. Having a craving? Pop a piece of gum and get the result. I became dependent on whatever thing gave me the result.

The patch separated the weaning off nicotine from the oral-fixation and immediate response to an activity. Good luck in quitting.

No worries and no offense. I've tried all the other methods over the last 30 years. Not saying it'll work for everyone, but I've had more success in two days with vaping than with any other attempt. Of course it's only day 2.... :)

Good luck, sir!  I finished my last pack of Marlboro Reds on Friday evening and have had nothing except for the eGo-CTwist (18mg) since then.  I've never made it a full day without at least 1 cigarette in previous attempts so this is the first time I've actually thought that MAYBE there's a chance to eliminate a 23 year bad habit.

At this point, I'm not worried about the fact that I'm REPLACING one habit with another.  This one's cheaper...and less offensive to my wife and kids...and some of the juices are rather tasty...and I haven't killed anyone yet.


Former pack-a-day smoker for 25 years. I've tried patches (irritated my skin too much) and gum (yuck). I've been vaping for 2 months without touching another cigarette. I started at 18mg, now I am down to 12. Love my Ego-T. First time something really is helping me quit for good.
 
2014-01-06 05:16:57 PM  

Firethorn: Make up your mind; accuracy within 1% is a different standard than 'way off'.  In my mind


So right there we can spot a logic problem: my mind is not your mind. Also, it's possible for something to be way off and also off by more than 1%, they are not mutually exclusive. But I'll entertain it: +- 1% is way off for dosage of a chemical with mood-altering effects that has a relatively low threshold for overdose or toxicity. It would be unacceptable for any manufacturing operation, and any such product off by that much would likely be destroyed if found.

But of course, all of this is strictly academic because you'd have to test the product and no one is doing that. If you aren't testing the product there's no way to know that you don't occasionally send out a bottle of pure nicotine or rat piss. Has an association of mixers been set up to fund an independent lab to test samples? Of course not, because the mixers are greedy and don't really care about quality, just like every business since the beginning of time which is why there are regulatory bodies.

Firethorn: If I'm doing it hundreds of times a day I'd probably be getting the machine simply as a labor saving measure.


No one cares what you would hypothetically do if you felt it suited you. If you're mixing by eyeball and filling the bottles by eyeball you should be out of business, or you should have the professional pride never to go into business.

Firethorn: Tamper proof containers are mostly for product that is either a theft risk or there's fear of adulteration due to being on store shelves and what not.


Tamper-proof containers are industry-standard for almost any product consumed by human beings. It's a marginal increased cost and it's silly to argue about.

Firethorn: Or do you mean child-resistant packaging?


Yes, I also mean child-resistant packaging. And warning labels. And disclaimers about frequent use. All of that professional junk. Pennies per unit.

Firethorn: By the way I think that once you move past 'Boutique' you need to take more complicated steps.


I bet the complicated step of forming a limited liability corporation to protect the proprietor from lawsuits was a no-brainer. So, which standards are important and what levels of quality assurance are meaningful and useful? Whichever ones you coincidentally feel like doing or make economic sense?

Well great. That means the product needs to be tested and inspected to at least make sure you're selling what you say you're selling and it's not poisonous. I don't care if you make five bottles, if you don't do this you are a greedy piece of shiat, same as any other snake oil salesman.

Firethorn: Do you have any evidence that the nicotine/PG would harm the sewer system?


http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/hwtr/pharmaceuticals/pages/nicotine.h tm l

On nicotine:

Manage as a dangerous waste at a RCRA-permitted facility.  It is a violation of the  Dangerous Waste Regulations to dispose of these pharmaceuticals in the sewer, sharps container, or a regulated medical waste container.
Under the  Dangerous Waste Regulations, accumulating more than 2.2 pounds of any P-listed waste, including nicotine, will make you a large quantity generator.  See the regulations for more information: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=173-303 Chapter 173-303 WAC.

Out of curiosity, what's your angle here? Do you make e-liquids? Just an anti-regulation freak? Bored idiot?
 
2014-01-06 06:40:32 PM  

mccallcl: So I am more interested in making sure that driving to get iced cream (easily more dangerous, selfish and anti-social than smoking)


You could quibble with the CDCs methodology, but you would have to massage their numbers by over an order of magnitude to align with your world view:

U.S. Deaths per year from driving accidents: 42,000 (includes alcohol-related)
U.S. Deaths per year from smoking: 440,000 (includes second hand smoke)
U.S. Deaths per year from second hand smoke: 49,000

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908129.html
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effect s/ tobacco_related_mortality/

I would also say that sharing food is much more social than smoking tobacco, but that's a subjective opinion. One could theoretically come up with a way to measure that, but I don't have the data.
 
2014-01-06 07:39:08 PM  

LindenFark: mccallcl: So I am more interested in making sure that driving to get iced cream (easily more dangerous, selfish and anti-social than smoking)

You could quibble with the CDCs methodology, but you would have to massage their numbers by over an order of magnitude to align with your world view:

U.S. Deaths per year from driving accidents: 42,000 (includes alcohol-related)
U.S. Deaths per year from smoking: 440,000 (includes second hand smoke)
U.S. Deaths per year from second hand smoke: 49,000

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908129.html
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effect s/ tobacco_related_mortality/

I would also say that sharing food is much more social than smoking tobacco, but that's a subjective opinion. One could theoretically come up with a way to measure that, but I don't have the data.


I said more dangerous not more deadly. 3,000,000 injured per year in car accidents:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811552.pdf

Sorry you misunderstood thanks for the research though, good attempt.
 
2014-01-06 07:54:26 PM  

mccallcl: LindenFark: mccallcl: So I am more interested in making sure that driving to get iced cream (easily more dangerous, selfish and anti-social than smoking)

You could quibble with the CDCs methodology, but you would have to massage their numbers by over an order of magnitude to align with your world view:

U.S. Deaths per year from driving accidents: 42,000 (includes alcohol-related)
U.S. Deaths per year from smoking: 440,000 (includes second hand smoke)
U.S. Deaths per year from second hand smoke: 49,000

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908129.html
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effect s/ tobacco_related_mortality/

I would also say that sharing food is much more social than smoking tobacco, but that's a subjective opinion. One could theoretically come up with a way to measure that, but I don't have the data.

I said more dangerous not more deadly. 3,000,000 injured per year in car accidents:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811552.pdf

Sorry you misunderstood thanks for the research though, good attempt.


First, you're rounding 2.2 million up to 3 million. Second, the data are not useful unless you have comparable stats on smoking injuries that are not fatalities.
 
2014-01-07 11:39:45 AM  

mccallcl: But I'll entertain it: +- 1% is way off for dosage of a chemical with mood-altering effects that has a relatively low threshold for overdose or toxicity.


Like alcohol?  I'm sure the major companies are incredibly close, but there's a lot of craft brewers out there today.  How about the tobacco people already smoke itself?  Between cigarettes, pipes, chewing tobacco, and all the other variations of extracting the nicotine from tobacco in order to get you dosage I'm SURE that doses vary more.  Either nicotine isn't that crazy of a poison or people have some sort of regulation method to control dosage.  If anything I'd think that vaporizers would allow more close control than sucking on a cigarette.

As such, I'm going to toss in my standard libertarian spiel:  Before we go expanding the government, how about you SHOW that lack of regulation is causing actual harm, as opposed to supporting regulating something that MIGHT cause harm?  Most of the regulations passed in the old days were in response to very real problems.

Tamper-proof containers are industry-standard for almost any product consumed by human beings. It's a marginal increased cost and it's silly to argue about.

The vast majority of products I consume do not come in any sort of tamper proof container.

Yes, I also mean child-resistant packaging. And warning labels. And disclaimers about frequent use. All of that professional junk. Pennies per unit.

As I pointed out earlier, I believe that 'child resistant packaging' is generally worthless.  I'll repeat: As a child mom would hand me the 'child-proof' stuff to open.  I'd get it open faster than a competent adult could, much less an arthritic one.  I'm fine with warning labels, though I wonder about the effectiveness of 'disclaimers about frequent use' seeing as how ecigs have insufficient testing yet to draft appropriate warning labels and most people are transitioning from cigarettes(much more dangerous) to them.

I bet the complicated step of forming a limited liability corporation to protect the proprietor from lawsuits was a no-brainer. So, which standards are important and what levels of quality assurance are meaningful and useful? Whichever ones you coincidentally feel like doing or make economic sense?

Easy enough - standards that are  designed to address real problems causing real harm, not potential problems that haven't been proven to cause harm that exceeds the average thresholds - Stuff like red meat, alcohol, regular tobacco, etc...

Of course, a limited liability corporation is less useful for a small business operator than you might think.  Because he's also doing the work they can still come after his assets that aren't in the corp.

mccallcl: Out of curiosity, what's your angle here? Do you make e-liquids? Just an anti-regulation freak? Bored idiot?


The libertarian comment above probably already answered your question.  Anti-regulation freak if it wasn't clear enough.  BTW, I don't use nicotine in any form(or drink for that matter), lost a grandmother to smoking(long cancer that metastasized to the brain).  From what I've seen e-cigs/vaporizers are likely not harmless, but much safer than cigarettes.  As such I'd rather go after the cigarettes.

Of course, I also campaign for legalizing 'most' drugs, including manufacturing and distribution channels, regulating them somewhere between tobacco, alcohol, and medical drugs.  IE it had better be of the stated strength and cut with safe materials.  I'll note that I support 'random' consumers lab testing products coming out of various manufacturers at different times.

All this is in pursuit balancing personal freedom with harm mitigation, as opposed to harm prevention, a much more expensive standard.  I honestly believe that we'd be better off with legal drugs which would defund the gangs to a large extent and help counter initiatives to expand police powers in response to the failing drug war.
 
2014-01-07 11:55:11 AM  

mccallcl: Manage as a dangerous waste at a RCRA-permitted facility. It is a violation of the Dangerous Waste Regulations to dispose of these pharmaceuticals in the sewer, sharps container, or a regulated medical waste container.
Under the Dangerous Waste Regulations, accumulating more than 2.2 pounds of any P-listed waste, including nicotine, will make you a large quantity generator. See the regulations for more information: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=173-303 Chapter 173-303 WAC.


Sorry, missed this earlier.  I reviewed the link you mentioned, it concerns hospitals, which will probably generate more than 2.2 pounds of waste nicotine products a month, much less 'P-listed waste'.  Washington state considers any site that produces less than 2.2 pounds of "Acutely Hazardous Waste" a month to be a small quantity generator and the rules on them are pretty lax.  I found the part about triple rinsing products to render them non-hazardous(dispose in trash as opposed to hazardous materials container), but banning dumping in sewers funny.

For example, reading through the site the Hospital is required to treat many products as hazardous waste that would simply end up in the trash for a home user - and a lot of the products are used more at home than in a hospital.  Nicotine patches, for example.

Thus my Boutique standard - If the business is so small that it's a full time job or less for only a single person, no employees, and doesn't really take up more than one room of a house, the standards are lower than if it's big enough to move outside the home and/or hire more people.
 
2014-01-07 01:04:25 PM  

stoli n coke: Incidentally, you also shouldn't let your kids take big ol' swigs of bleach, lighter fluid, drain cleaner, cough syrup, axle grease, lye, hair spray, Windex, diswashing soap, WD40, or silver polish.


Uh ... have you ever tried swigging axle grease?
 
Displayed 10 of 110 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report