Like Tree84Likes

Anyone using iQOS here ?

Reply
Page 12 of 22 FirstFirst ... 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 20 ... LastLast
  1. #111

    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by charwee
    as long as we don't have to smell the second OR third hand smoke, i'm all for it....
    everyone knows that all kind of tobacco products are harmful to health but when it takes time to get rid of it completely so i do support on alternative that at least remove the harm to others first and eventually also cause less harm to smokers himself

  2. #112

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,217

    Chuckster007
    "Put dynamco on your IGNORE list so that his Anti everything to do with all forms of Cigarettes posts doesnt show up.
    He is on a crusade by bombarding this thread with so much data / links, like if we will read all that crap thinking it will change our minds of these products LOL"

    Well chuckster everyone has a right to choose and 'make an informed decision', in Big Tobaccos words and I am too busy working for a crusade.
    If you want to kill yourself and lose 15 years off your lifespan, that's your prerogative.
    At least you know whom to blame.

    https://archive.org/details/tobacco_uzj52b00
    Winston cigarettes advertising campaign model Dave Goerlitz.
    Here he describes the situation when an R.J. Reynolds executive told him that:

    We dont smoke that shit. We just sell it. We reserve the right to smoke for the young, the poor, the black and stupid.

    Now you know what the industry thinks about its clients, which of their four descriptors is applicable to you?

    How do you like your odds?
    2 in 3 smokers killed by their habit
    https://www.bbc.com/news/health-31600118

    As for SmythD - there is no safe level of TSNA
    NNN and NNK are created in the body during iQos use
    These are Class 1 carcinogens and cause DNA mutations which lead to cancer
    The level of tar in iQos was found by the Korean Govt Lab to be higher than in cigarettes
    http://www.tobacco-control.jp/docume...a_Kunugita.pdf

    Philip Morris hides data in plain sight on dangers of new heat-not-burn product


  3. #113

    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Kowloon
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by babyonthego
    everyone knows that all kind of tobacco products are harmful to health but when it takes time to get rid of it completely so i do support on alternative that at least remove the harm to others first and eventually also cause less harm to smokers himself
    ur statement sounds fair, particularly when the alternative product could decrease the harm to the public, including non-smokers like us.

  4. #114

    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Chai Wan
    Posts
    21

    I do think we need to look into the science when it comes to this topic but indeed when it comes to science it's always easy to cherry pick

    That said the UK Parliament recently did a review of studies (a lot of studies) and concluded that non-combustible products are def better and smokers should be encouraged to switch

    This is really an interesting and def still ongoing debate


  5. #115

    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    8

    Post Tar doesn't mean anything

    Just want to give more background information for both sides of the debate, [there's no need to go to the link unless you want to confirm what I quoted]

    Responding to the claim that iQOS has more tar than cigarettes. Tar just means nothing in terms of harmfulness.

    Quoted from ISO:

    "The quantitative measurement of nicotine-free dry particulate matter (NFDPM, sometime referred to as "tar") is, therefore, dependent on its arbitrary definition." -
    https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:4387:ed-3:v1:en

    Tar is basically everything else in the cigarette smoke (taking away the nicotine and water), it's not a measurement the amount of harmful substances.

    There can be very small amount of tar, but 100% toxic, or huge amount of tar, but very small portion toxic. I'm not an expert, and don't don't know what's the components in iQOS smoke, but no one really cares about tar, and it is not important

    WHO also recommended there's no need to regulate / measure tar, in 2015:

    "Tar need not be measured, as it is not a sound basis for regulation, and the levels can be misleading." - http://www.who.int/tobacco/publications/prod_regulation/trs989/en/ (page 73)

  6. #116

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ???
    Posts
    27,261
    Quote Originally Posted by wrongrwong
    I do think we need to look into the science when it comes to this topic but indeed when it comes to science it's always easy to cherry pick

    That said the UK Parliament recently did a review of studies (a lot of studies) and concluded that non-combustible products are def better and smokers should be encouraged to switch

    This is really an interesting and def still ongoing debate
    And where is the link to the study of studies? Please?

  7. #117

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,217

    [QUOTE=OLonrage;3593271][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Helvetica]Just want to give more background information for both sides of the debate, [there's no need to go to the link unless you want to confirm what I quoted]
    Responding to the claim that iQOS has more tar than cigarettes. Tar just means nothing in terms of harmfulness.

    Is Lonrage a tobacco company mole offering fake information?
    Tar is the common name for the resinous, partially combusted particulate matter produced by the burning of tobacco and other plant material in the act of smoking. Tar is toxic and damages the smoker's lungs over time through various biochemical and mechanical processes.
    https://www.cancer.gov/publications/...ef/tobacco-tar


    quitnow - Tar Information Sheet

    see what tar does to the lung
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/620036...g-lung-damage/

    Last edited by dynamco; 27-09-2018 at 03:41 PM.

  8. #118

    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Chai Wan
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by shri
    And where is the link to the study of studies? Please?
    Looks convincing enough to me - that no matter how harmful these products are, the harmfulness is only a small fraction of that of combustible cigarettes

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/p...vidence-review

  9. #119

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    18,591
    Quote Originally Posted by wrongrwong
    Looks convincing enough to me - that no matter how harmful these products are, the harmfulness is only a small fraction of that of combustible cigarettes

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/p...vidence-review
    I think it's very likely vaping is less harmful to human health than cigarettes. I'm much less sure the same applies to HNB products like iQos.
    Mefisto likes this.

  10. #120

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tsim Sha Tsui
    Posts
    3,885
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckster007
    Put dynamco on your IGNORE list so that his Anti everything to do with all forms of Cigarettes posts doesnt show up. He is on a crusade by bombarding this thread with so much data / links, like if we will read all that crap thinking it will change our minds of these products LOL
    Aye, he's the 1st poster to ever go onto my Ignore List, and this thread cleaned up so well with his splurge removed!

Reply
Page 12 of 22 FirstFirst ... 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 20 ... LastLast