This is an old revision of this page, as edited by QuackGuru (talk | contribs) at 23:27, 24 February 2019 (→Article length: Please see Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes#Consensus for merge. See Talk:Composition_of_electronic_cigarette_aerosol/Archive_2#Proposed_merge_to_focus_specifically_on_electronic_cigarette_aerosol.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:27, 24 February 2019 by QuackGuru (talk | contribs) (→Article length: Please see Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes#Consensus for merge. See Talk:Composition_of_electronic_cigarette_aerosol/Archive_2#Proposed_merge_to_focus_specifically_on_electronic_cigarette_aerosol.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Text and/or other creative content from Safety of electronic cigarettes was copied or moved into Nicotine. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
| Text and/or other creative content from Safety of electronic cigarettes was copied or moved into Nicotine poisoning. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Health effects of electronic cigarettes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
 | Medicine Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 Archives | |||||
|
|||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Discussion
Consensus for merge
See diff. QuackGuru (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleting all the content against the RfC is not acceptable. See Talk:Composition_of_electronic_cigarette_aerosol/Archive_2#Proposed_merge_to_focus_specifically_on_electronic_cigarette_aerosol.
There was a RfC to merge content from another article and I put that in my edit summary. QuackGuru (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
No reviews yet
See http://www.ocregister.com/articles/cigarette-716541-eye-cavins.html
See http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/03/21/new-concerns-about-e-cigarettes-after-kids-drink-nicotine
Unable to find reviews for the above. QuackGuru (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Citation
References
- Rehan, Harmeet Singh; Maini, Jahnavi; Hungin, A PS (2018). "Vaping versus smoking: A quest for efficacy and safety of E-cigarette". Current Drug Safety. 13. doi:10.2174/1574886313666180227110556. ISSN 1574-8863. PMID 29485005.
Unable to get a copy of the source. QuackGuru (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Search tools
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=electronic+cigarette
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=electronic+cigarette+review
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=electronic+cigarette+review+2019+Jan
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=electronic+cigarette+review+2019+Feb
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=electronic+cigarette+review+2019+Mar
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=electronic+cigarette+review+2019+Apr
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=electronic+cigarette+review+2019+May
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=electronic+cigarette+review+2019+Jun
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=electronic+cigarette+review+2019+Jul
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=electronic+cigarette+review+2019+Aug
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=electronic+cigarette+review+2019+Sep
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=electronic+cigarette+review+2019+Oct
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=electronic+cigarette+review+2019+Nov
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=electronic+cigarette+review+2019+Dec
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=MMWR+Morb+Mortal+Wkly+Rep.+Electronic+Cigarette
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=nicotine+ventral+tegmental+area+review
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%CE%B14%CE%B22+receptor+nicotine+review
QuackGuru (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
PO
"Thermal degradation of propylene glycol can generate propylene oxide, which is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a class 2B carcinogen."
"When heated and vaporized, propylene glycol can form propylene oxide, an International Agency for Research on Cancer class 2B carcinogen,"
"As propylene glycol in EC solution is heated and aerosolized, it can be converted to propylene oxide, which is considered a possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) ."
"E-cig heated PG can be converted to propylene oxide (1,153), which is an irritant and an International Agency for Research on Cancer group 2b carcinogen (possibly carcinogenic to humans) (154)." QuackGuru (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
The benefits remain uncertain
See "Significant uncertainty exists about e-cigarette safety and efficacy, rendering patient discussions about these devices challenging."
See "These devices are unregulated, of unknown safety, and of uncertain benefit in quitting smoking." See "Although research has improved our understanding of e-cigarettes since these initial 2011 recommendations, safety and efficacy remains uncertain. "
See "The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence on the use of ENDS for conventional smoking cessation is insufficient. Evidence is lacking and conflicting, and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined."
The WP:MEDRS compliant sources confirm that "The benefits and the health risks of e-cigarettes are uncertain." If there is disagreement among reliable sources then that confirms the benefits and risks are still uncertain. QuackGuru (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Article length
The article covers several aspects of safety. It is going to be longer then the typical article because it covers all aspects of safety related to e-cigs. There is even a section on the safety of nicotine. QuackGuru (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree. The WWII and cancer articles have readable prose size of 80 kB and 58 kB, respectively, and both are much larger topics than this is. This page has a readable prose size of 158 kB. It loads very slowly now: testing on multiple devices, it took 4-6 seconds to load on PC and a whopping 9 seconds on mobile. These times are on WiFi; one can only imagine how much of a burden the page size is for those on dial-up connections, mobile data, or with older devices. I do appreciate you including a section on nicotine safety. The changes you made to this somewhat controversial article were not discussed with anyone except for me. So...let's discuss them! Involving all editors who work on this article. In other words, I think we're in the "discuss" phase of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. Thanks, --Chumash11 (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- I need a specific proposal such as moving content to a new sub article. Just disagreeing because it is a bit too long won't help me improve the article.
- There was a discussion for the merge. A significant amount of content you deleted was against the RfC. Please see Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes#Consensus for merge. QuackGuru (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Note for new editors
See Spammers, POV-pushers, COI editors, etc., are all definitely willing to "edit for free".
WP:OR is one of Misplaced Pages's core policies. Editors do not add content based on what they say or think is WP:TRUE. Rather, content is based on reliable sources. This is explained in the policy, WP:VERIFY. The definition of a "reliable source" for content about health-related content is explained in the WP:MEDRS guideline, and for other content, is explained in the WP:RS guideline. Please be careful about adding content to Misplaced Pages that is not cited to a reliable source. Original research and failed verification content attracts those we don't speak of. It is better to remove the original research and uncited content. Thank you. QuackGuru (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Categories: