Talk:Electronic cigarette

Studies on which this Newspaper Article is based

Can anyone identify the papers this Guardian article is based on and Identify if they are RS? If they are it could be a useful addition to the cessation section. Hilighting the difference in effectiveness between 1st and second gen devices. SPACKlick (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

They appear to be:

• http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.12917/abstract
• http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/04/20/ntr.ntv078.abstract

As they are both individual primary studies and we already have multiple high-quality secondary sources covering effectiveness of e-cig use for smoking cessation, they wouldn't be usable for that purpose per WP:MEDREV. Zad68 12:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I suspected it would be reporting primary data. It's a shame because we don't really have secondary data on the difference between first and second gen on cessation. Will have to wait to see if this are continues to be looked at by later studies and picked up by a review at some point. It's an aspect it would be nice to include once data is firmer. SPACKlick (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@ QuackGuru

Please explain why it's a good idea to have two very similar lists of chemicals in the lede. Please also explain this revert: why is it necessary to adhere that closely to the source? Your edit summary says "according to WP:V", but there's certainly nothing in WP:V which requires that and indeed sticking too closely to the source is contrary to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Copyright and plagiarism. (I personally began the anti-copyvio section in WP:V in 2010, in the wake of the Rlevse incident.)—S Marshall T/C 15:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The liquid usually contain 95% propylene glycol and glycerin, along with nicotine, and flavorings. Your edit reduced the list when there are more chemicals in the liquid. These are the basic ingredients in the liquid. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 23#Proposed changes to the lead. Your edit also misplaced the sentence that liquid without propylene glycol is also available. It should be after the basic ingredients in the liquid. Many companies are starting to make liquids without propylene glycol due to the concerns and to minimize risks. I summarised both sources without sticking too closely to the sources. Your edit was too vague and failed verification. Therefore, I fixed the original research. Your edit made claims not found in the sources. See WP:OR. For example, the source does not say they are as safe as other nicotine replacement products and the other source does not say they are safer than e-cigarettes. QuackGuru (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I invite comments from other editors on QuackGuru's preposterous answer.—S Marshall T/C 16:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

We had a previous discussion about shortening the lede and the basic ingredients in the liquid. Your edit altered the meaning of both sentences. Source material should be carefully summarised or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. See WP:STICKTOSOURCE. QuackGuru (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I find your contention that my edit "altered the meaning" to any substantial extent so bizarre that I'm struggling to respond to it. There are limits on WP:STICKTOSOURCE ---- we're writing an encyclopaedia. We're supposed to summarise the sources, not pick out every single detail and nuance in them and repeat them in very similar words! That's not writing an article. That's plagiarising an article.

What I'd like to do at this point, QG, is link you to the details of what Rlevse did. Unfortunately I can't ---- he was a popular former arbitrator and prolific featured article writer, and his friends have conducted a very systematic attempt to purge his name from Wiki-history so I can't find the diffs. So I need to ask you to take my word for it when I say: adhering to the sources too closely is a bad idea.—S Marshall T/C 23:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Others might disagree and believe the sentence (or sentences) are properly summarised. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 23#Removal. QuackGuru (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know Doc James agrees with you. That doesn't mean you're right. What it means is you're not the only one who's wrong. Could you stop being trenchantly obstructive now please?—S Marshall T/C 08:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with S Marshall regarding the points of paraphrasing, copyright, WP:OR, all completely obvious stuff that's been done before many times but that one editor refuses to acknowledge for whatever reason. Also the stuff about repetition, it's obvious that we don't need to state the chemicals twice. The reason I suspect for wanting to state them twice is that the second list is a sort of attempt to state a list of chemicals and obscure names as long as possible that gives the impression of being a danger or safety problem even though half of the things in that list have not been shown to actually be a safety problem. However I did realise that with the Caponnetto source, the author does not say "similar in safety to Nicotine Replacement Therapy", they say "similar to that reported for smokeless tobacco". NRT and smokeless tobacco are not the same thing (smokeless tobacco refers to things like snuff) so I have corrected it.Levelledout (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I personally think that the main ingredients belong in the lede - but not twice. There are liquids without glycerine as well, just as there are neutral liquids without flavouring and liquids without nicotine. So the "liquids without propylene glycol" is either too much information, or incomplete information. [not to mention that liquids without PG need water because pure glycerine is too thick] --Kim D. Petersen 17:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This[1] really doesn't solve it. It doesn't remove the redundancy, nor does it address the fact that completely PG free e-liquids are almost non-existing, since most flavorings are dissolved in PG in the first place, so you'll have PG in the liquid still. And of course it also doesn't address that you can get 100% VG free e-liquids. --Kim D. Petersen 18:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

And now we're enhancing the problem[2] with repeating ourselves, because QG has realized that there is no single ingredient that is always present in an e-liquid. Why not just state that "E-liquids usually contain a mixture of propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, and flavorings", since the "usually" encompasses that all ingredients are optionally there. KISS (keep it short and simple) please. --Kim D. Petersen 19:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The sentence explaining they are sometimes available without flavoring is not repetitive of any other sentence in that section. Not every liquid contains flavoring. Only some are made without flavoring. QuackGuru (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• I intend to restore this edit soon, unless someone other than QuackGuru has an objection.—S Marshall T/C 09:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Other editors believed the main list of the e-liquid should remain in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Would you prefer to merge the other list of chemicals into that one, then? You can't have two very similar lists of chemicals in the lede, but I don't mind you choosing which one to keep.—S Marshall T/C 15:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Please also see Talk:Electronic_cigarette#List_of_emissions. The 2nd list is WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR as detailed in that section and needs to be changed. Therefore I suggest we keep the PG, VG, nicotine and flavours in the 1st list and follow my suggested change in the 2nd.Levelledout (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

In the talk page section Talk:Electronic_cigarette#List_of_emissions I suggested the compromise:

"E-liquids contain glycerin, flavorings and usually propylene glycol and nicotine. E-cigarette vapor has also been found to contain these ingredients. In addition, e-cigarette vapor has been found to contain tiny amounts of TSNAs and heavy metals, and other chemicals. E-cigarette vapor consists of ultrafine particles."

However according to QG it's "poorly worded and misplaced".Levelledout (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I love the new intro

I never thought I would say this, but apart from an extraneous "limited" and a few much more minor quibbles, I think the new intro is almost ideal. Good job, editors! EllenCT (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I clarified the wording a bit and added some details such as "They are available as one-time use products or as reusable products.[4]" I also mentioned in the lede that e-liquid that does not contain propylene glycol is available for obvious reasons. I also added a second image to the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. A vaporizer fluid with and without propylene glycol seems to me as much as a (non) distinction as "low tar" cigarettes compared to the difference between smoke inhalation and breathing vapor without the pyrolytic combustion products. EllenCT (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Read the review. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lary.24750/full Most EC manufacturers are starting to move away from propylene glycol because of the concerns. QuackGuru (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

"some studies claim that propylene glycol (PG) vapor can induce respiratory irritation and increase chances for asthma" -- so can dust. I stand by my characterization of the relative risk differences. EllenCT (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

In the very same paragraph that QG gets the "most" manufacturers part from it also states that "At worst, PG was found to be irritating to the throat upon constant inhalation. Some users reported upper airway irritation following short-term use of EC, claiming this was due to excessive exposure to propylene glycol. Current FDA-approved Nicotrol Inhalers also have this side effect on users." - as an anecdotal sidenote i'll note that this "throat irritation" is actually one of the reasons that many chose PG liquids, because it reminds them of the feel of tobacco (aside from the fact that PG is a better flavor carrier than VG) --Kim D. Petersen 23:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it would it appear that whilst it says that "most EC manufacturers are moving away from PG due to concerns" (loose quote) it doesn't say what the concerns are but does say give some specific evidence about PG being relatively safe. Thus if we are going to quote it we should also say that the concerns appear to be unfounded, which is basically what the source says. Surprised that the researcher does not seem aware of the basic manufacturing process and thinks that EC manufactures produce e-liquids. Would also like to see evidence of this alleged moving away from PG of EC manufacturers, who do not manufacture e-liquids.Levelledout (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Well if it says it that way then it is plain wrong. First of all because most e-liquids aren't made by "EC manufacturers", and secondly because of the "most" part. Most producers of e-liquids also produce VG only liquids, but primarily because of the dripper market. --Kim D. Petersen 22:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent change to lede

User:Levelledout, I noticed this change to the lede. The source also explains the difference between e-cigs and nicotine replacement products. See "and ...comparable in toxicity to conventional nicotine replacement products[28]."[3] QuackGuru (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't actually find that quote in the source. But I can see one that is very close to it that says:

The data noted above suggests that electronic cigarettes are safer than tobacco cigarettes [28] and comparable in terms of tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) levels to conventional nicotine replacement products [37]. Despite these important results, large and well conducted long-term studies will be required before a complete answer regarding the safety of electronic cigarettes can be formulated [20].

In other words the levels of TSNAs are similar to NRT. But I don't think that's the same as the overall toxicity being similar to NRT. TSNAs are just one class of carcinogens that are specific to tobacco, e-cigarettes contain ingredients that tobacco doesn't and therefore wouldn't be covered under the umbrella of TSNAs even if they did turn out to be toxic. Either way the author does not explicitly state that their overall toxicity is similar to NRT, so if we were to state it ourselves then it would be WP:OR, so we shouldn't. In the conclusion of the study the only thing that the author(s) mention of any relevance is that e-cigarettes are likely to be similar in risk to smokeless tobacco.Levelledout (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

So what do you think is sourced for the safety/toxicity compared to nicotine replacement products or do you think the source was too ambiguous to summarise. QuackGuru (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what question you're asking but I don't think that the source is in the least bit ambiguous. The source clearly says that TSNA levels in e-cigarettes are similar to those in NRT but that their overall risk is likely to be less than smoked tobacco and similar to smokeless tobacco.Levelledout (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a further note that I'm going to add into the article also that the study says that having a similar safety profile to smokeless tobacco equates to about 1% of the risk of conventional cigarettes. I think this is important as many people will not know the risks of smokeless tobacco.Levelledout (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Smokeless tobacco

This has been recently added:

• One review approximated their safety risk to that of smokeless tobacco which has about 1% of the mortality risk of conventional cigarettes. (my emphasis)

Does the source say "smokeless tobacco which has about 1% of the mortality risk of conventional cigarettes" or is this a clear-cut case of WP:SYNTH? It seems that smokeless tobacco has a large variance in its health risks, so I don't believe it's acceptable to use just one figure to illustrate its mortality risk. I also believe that the lead should summarise the body of the text, but the lead now contains more detail than the single sentence in the Safety section that it purports to summarise:

• One review found, from limited data, that they are similar in safety to smokeless tobacco.

This needs to be sorted out. --RexxS (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Please read the section directly above this one. The source says:

"Although the reduction in health risks for people who use electronic cigarettes has not been quantified, we estimate it as similar to that reported for smokeless tobacco, which has approximately 1% of the death risk of smoking"

That's what it says and that's what we report, regardless of editor opinions. I would have updated the body as well as the lead only I wasn't sure exactly where the equivalent section in the body was to update. Can you please point it out to me? Previously we said "similar in safety to nicotine replacement therapy" so perhaps there is an equivalent sentence in the body somewhere, but I couldn't find it.Levelledout (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

OK sorry I see you did point out where in the body needs updating.Levelledout (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

You added extra details to the lede that does not belong in the lede or the body. QuackGuru (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Please explain with respect to WP:PAG what your issue is with it instead of asserting that it shouldn't be there. The material is accurately sourced, directly relevant to e-cigarettes and to material that was already in the article so for you to say that it "doesn't belong" in the article is bizarre. I already explained why I added it in the section above.Levelledout (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Also see the full edit summary I provided, not given in the diff above.Levelledout (talk) 05:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I moved the extra details to the body. QuackGuru (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Well I think that the more important point is that the review found that they carry 1% of the mortality risk of smoking. Many people will not know the risks of smokeless tobacco, even from following the Wikilink. Here in the UK for instance smokeless tobacco is practically unheard of, in fact I think it's banned by the EU if I remember correctly. Maybe we should remove the bit about smokeless tobacco from the lead and just say that the review found that e-cigs likely have 1% the mortality risk of smoking?Levelledout (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The 1% mortality risk of smoking was the minor point the source made. I think they were just making a guess without hard evidence. We don't know yet if this is true. I think it should be deleted from the body. QuackGuru (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

They are exactly the same "points" stated in two different ways, so your assertion without justification that one of them is "the minor point" is a fallacy. How about we put it into an expression:

E-cigarette risk = smokeless tobacco risk = 1% of cigarette risk

It doesn't matter which two of those you choose they both represent "e-cigarette risk" exactly the same and are exactly equal to each other. The only difference between the two is that everybody knows what "1% of cigarette risk" means and hardly anybody knows what "smokeless tobacco risk" means.Levelledout (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I clarified the wording in the lede without including the speculation. QuackGuru (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

So you are refusing to state what the source says? And have instead inserted "less harmful than smoking"? If that isn't "speculation" from the source then it must be WP:OR. By the way most of field of research currently consists of approximations and guesswork. There is no policy or guideline that says that we can't include an educated guess from a reliable source and much of the article currently consists of it.Levelledout (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I was summarising the text for the WP:LEDE. QuackGuru (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

That's not a summary, that's a dumbing down of the source's words and a refusal to portray the source as accurately as possible by saying "1% of the mortality risk of smoking". I'm also unsure as to why you made the edit and didn't wait for consensus.Levelledout (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is an "aroma transporter"?

I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of readers will have no idea what is meant by this term, it certainly confuses me. E-liquid is not designed give off aromas, so what on Earth is an "aroma transporter" and what's it doing in e-cigarette vapour? I'm fairly sure that this WP:JARGON and other terms like it should not just be left in the article, confusing the hell out of readers. By the way "aroma transporters" neither have a Wikipedia article, nor do they even turn up many Google search results.Levelledout (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The term was removed and replaced with "flavors" here by QuackGuru. I don't believe that the two mean the same thing but no doubt that's an improvement and less confusing. Unfortunately in the next edit "propylene glycol" and "glycerin" were replaced with "humectants" adding to the confusion for readers.Levelledout (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

"users exhale nicotine and some other particles, primarily consisting of flavours, aroma transporters, glycerol and PG"[4] The source also said flavours as well as aroma transporters. QuackGuru (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I changed it back to "propylene glycol" and "glycerin".[5] QuackGuru (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• How about using a piped link like agent carrier?--TMCk (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  I proposed it for discussion, not for immediate implementation or I would've done it myself.--TMCk (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• It was changed back. QuackGuru (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

List of emissions

The list in the article in the lead is as follows:

"Their emissions may contain ultrafine particles, flavors, humectants, nicotine, tiny amounts of carcinogens and heavy metals, and other chemicals."

This is WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR. Neither of the cited sources (Grana and Hajek) provides this list of chemicals and chemical classes. Hajek does not do an analysis of emissions at all and focuses more on e-liquid content. Grana does an analysis of emissions and e-liquid but provides no such list. There are problems that naturally arise out of simply making this list up by tacking things together from different parts of sources. Grana states that "E-cigarettes deliver nicotine by creating an aerosol of ultrafine particles". Or in other words Grana is saying that e-cigarette aerosol consists solely or primarily of a collection of tiny particles of undefined types. Therefore it is entirely misleading to make out that ultrafine particles are a mere component of e-cigarette emissions and either way it is WP:OR to state or imply this. The particles in fact consist of many different chemicals which could include other things in our list; as Grana states: "fine particles can be variable and chemically complex". Within their analysis of particulate matter, Grana remarks that "Williams et al found heavy metals in samples of e-cigarette liquids and aerosol". Once again, it would appear that to say that e-cigarettes contain ultrafine particles and heavy metals is misleading and either way is WP:OR as it isn't explicitly stated by the source. I can find so many problems in this list that to state them all will turn this into an even bigger WP:WALL than it already is. Can we just be sensible about this please and replace it with the following:

E-cigarettes create vapor that consists of ultrafine particles. Tiny amounts of carcinogens TSNAs and heavy metals have been found in e-cigarette vapor.

I don't think we need to mention propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin (humectants), flavours or nicotine since we already do that in the first paragraph of the lead. Similarly I don't think we need to say "other chemicals" since it's WP:WEASEL and meaningless. (edited to simplify and improve explanation)Levelledout (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I've changed "carcinogens" to "TSNAs" in order to avoid further issues. Much of the heavy metals Grana refers to are in fact carcinogenic so to say that the vapor contains heavy metals and carcinogens is again misleading.Levelledout (talk) 10:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

"They found low levels of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, isoprene, acetic acid, 2-butanodione, acetone, propanol, propylene glycol, and diacetin (from flavoring), traces of apple oil (3-methylbutyl-3-methylbutanoate), and nicotine (with differing levels depending on the specific protocols) emitted into the air. Toxins in the e-cigarette aerosol were at much lower levels compared with the conventional cigarette emissions."[6] This is about the vapor.

"users exhale nicotine and some other particles, primarily consisting of flavours, aroma transporters, glycerol and PG"[7] This is also about the vapor.

The e-liquid and vapor are two separate things. I made some changes to the wording to clarify the text. It is misleading to claim only tiny amounts of TSNAs and heavy metals are in e-cigarette vapor. QuackGuru (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It is misleading to claim that saying "Tiny amounts of TSNAs and heavy metals have been found in e-cigarette vapor." implies that nothing else has ever been found in vapor. However your edit is an improvement on what we had before and considering also the quote that you have provided, I now drop claims of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. My remaining concerns are:

• "The vapor may contain" - this is WP:WEASEL, it has either been found to contain something or it hasn't. I'll be making an adjustment to the text with regards to this. - done
• I still don't think we need an exhaustive list of chemicals that are already listed the first paragraph. We can provide this detail in the body. We don't need to list them twice in the lead simply because they appear in e-liquid and also in the vapor. The reason that they appear in the vapor is because they are in the e-liquid and it's really no surprise that pretty much every chemical in the e-liquid has been found in the vapor. That information can be provided to the reader in the body.Levelledout (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

NONE of the above mentioned studies analyzed the exhaled air of a person! They all used a smoking machine (except Schripp, who only found traces and no formaldehyde). This is important because of, for example, nicotine has a nearly 100% absorptionrate in the lungs. [1,2]--Merlin 1971 (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Both lists are different. The list for vapor is short. We are not listing all the specific chemicals. Just the main ones. QuackGuru (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes we know the lists are different but that's got nothing to do with it and ignores the fact that every chemical in e-liquid has been found in vapour. We also know that we aren't listing every chemical and instead say "other chemicals" and that also has nothing to do with the points raised thus far.Levelledout (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The reader won't know what is in the vapor without a basic list. QuackGuru (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes they will, we can tell them in the body as I already said above. But look QG, if it really matters that much then why don't we do something like this:

E-liquids contain glycerin, flavorings and usually propylene glycol and nicotine. E-cigarette vapor has also been found to contain these ingredients. In addition, e-cigarette vapor has been found to contain tiny amounts of TSNAs and heavy metals, and other chemicals. E-cigarette vapor consists of ultrafine particles.

etc...Levelledout (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

That wording is poorly written and misplaced. The information on vapor is in the correct paragraph. QuackGuru (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I give up, clearly no point in trying to compromise. I invite the opinions of other editors.Levelledout (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Removed two sentences sourced to the Daily Mail

I'm curious as to why QG would insert this first, and then later insert this second one, with the curious editcomment "If we start using the Daily Mail now as source let's at least adhere to it" - as if he hadn't inserted the first usage only 20 minutes earlier?? The Daily Mail is of course not a WP:RS in this context (or most other contexts) --Kim D. Petersen 01:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually the 2nd edit above was mine. Usually I'd remove both of QG's Daily Mail edits in a blink of an eye but since they own the page I resisted and only clarified that North Wales is not the world, not even close. Curious tho about how "high MEDRS standards" should be applied but the lowest of the lowest is ok for non medical claims.--TMCk (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a reliable source for these mundane claims. Does anyone think the text is misleading or inaccurate? QuackGuru (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)