Talk:Health effects of electronic cigarettes/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

College of Physicians paper

Hi Lakewolf: thanks for finding the College of Physicians paper as an additional source. In the spirit of BRD I've moved it from being a standalone point in the lead, to being an additional reference for the same point being made by other sources. It's probably a good idea to keep the lead in sumamry style, and the relative harm from e-cigarettes compared with regular cigarettes is already canvassed in the preceding sentence. If the College of Physicians paper makes additional or more nuanced points than those other sources, I reckon the best place for these to be highlighted would be in the body of the article. In passing, your edit also seemed to remove some other existing sources: no doubt unintentional, so I've put them back in. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Not a summary of body

The 95% claim is not a summary of the body and it is already in the body. See "A 2015 Public Health England (PHE) report stated that e-cigarettes are estimated to be 95% less harmful than smoking...". QuackGuru (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Failed verification

The sentence begins with "A systematic review suggests that e-cigarettes...". The source (and probably other sources) added is not a systematic review. Thus, it failed to verify the claim. It was published in April 2016 not 2018. When using a source that leads to a PDF file it is important to provide a page number to verify the claim. No such page number was presented. The source has been in the article for quite some time. See Safety of electronic cigarettes#Bibliography. QuackGuru (talk) 11:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The recently added source that FV content was removed. That's good. There are three citations after each claim. See ".[9][10][11]" There is no need for three and it looks like only one explicitly verifies the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

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

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

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

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."[8]

"When heated and vaporized, propylene glycol can form propylene oxide, an International Agency for Research on Cancer class 2B carcinogen,"[9]

"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) [38]."[10]

"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)."[11] 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."[12]

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. "[13]

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."[14]

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. I created a subpage. See the shorter adverse affects section. Now it is shorter than the previous version.

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) 03:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The current article is a better length; thanks for making those changes. --Chumash11 (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

agree w/ Chumash11--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I looked at the other sections. They are not long enough to create a new subpage. The current article is very detailed and contains a lot of content on nicotine. I moved most of the content from the e-cig page on nicotine and rewrote it without the misleading content and without the failed verification content. QuackGuru (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Nicotine content

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_cigarette#Nicotine Underweight content on main page regarding nicotine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&type=revision&diff=891247043&oldid=891201683 Content about seizures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adverse_effects_of_electronic_cigarettes&diff=prev&oldid=891246937 Content about seizures.

There is more than 10 paragraphs about nicotine content in the Safety of electronic cigarettes page. All content from the main e-cig page on nicotine was rewritten and moved to the safety and adverse affects page. QuackGuru (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Note for new editors

See Spammers, POV-pushers, COI editors, etc., are all definitely willing to "edit for free".[15]

WP:OR is one of Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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)

Why two articles?

In February, QuackGuru created a separate page called Adverse effects of electronic cigarettes. This was said to be because Safety of electronic cigarettes is too long, but I don't understand how creating a redundant page helps readers. "Safety" and "adverse effects" are in this context effectively synonymous. The difference in scope is unclear; QG removed context on respiratory failure from the adverse effects article as "off topic", whereas respiratory failure would seem to be an adverse effect. Unless a clear dividing line can be drawn, the new article is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK that must be merged back in, and the article size issue must be resolved in some other way. Fences&Windows 11:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I got reverted multiple times by different editors for over-expanding this article. See Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes#Article length. It was way too long. See Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes#2019 US outbreak of lung illness associated with vaping products for the details about the lung illness. QuackGuru (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems to be more on-topic as an adverse effect than as a safety feature, which is perhaps where the dividing line could be drawn. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

1.1 Poisoning

1.2 Risks related to e-liquid

1.3 Fires, explosions, and other battery-related malfunctions

1.4 Case reports related to health effects

The Adverse effects of electronic cigarettes article has clear protocols for including content. A dividing line has been drawn for each section and the lede summarises the body. This article contains the content on the lung effects. I recently launched 4 new nicotine-related articles. This time around I over-expanded each article before I created live articles. For example, see Electronic cigarette and e-cigarette liquid marketing. It is the longest electronic cigarette article. No editor is going to propose a merge. It is too long. QuackGuru (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Lung illness is not a type of safety, neither does it make electronic cigarettes safer. There's no way that this belongs under the heading of "Safety". It is an adverse effect. I suggest that this article be limited to the precautions or changes electronic cigarette manufacturers or regulators have taken to reduce or eliminate lung illness as a result of the use of electronic cigarettes. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with recombining these two overlapping subjects. The way that this subject has been splintered down into sub-articles is unfortunate. For sure, adverse effects and safety issues should be combined into a single article. The way to get there is to trim out the fat which makes up 80% of these walls of text. Pick out those medical reports that are most significant and report on them, rather than cramming every published article in without any context, and letting people try to figure out what is significant. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Deleting content to undo the creation of a new subarticle is a bad idea. QuackGuru (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

2019 American lung illness outbreak split

I propose that section #2019 US outbreak of lung illness associated with vaping products be split into a separate page called 2019 American lung illness outbreak or 2019 United States lung disease outbreak. This outbreak is receiving a high amount of attention, with six confirmed deaths and a government proposal to ban flavored e-cigarettes. The current article is also very lengthy. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 01:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

In another thread they want to merge content back into this article.

Do you have any additional sources for a split?

The suggested title name is too vague. The word "American" is too vague. It is missing the part "vaping products". QuackGuru (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How is "American" too vague if this is is taking place in the United States? I based this on the styling of Western African Ebola virus epidemic. And also It is missing the words "outbreak"... it's not missing the word "outbreak", the proposal is "2019 American lung illness outbreak". Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean Do you have any additional sources for a split?, because a split required discussion and consensus... not an external source. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American The word American is too vague because it has different meanings. It was a "lung illness outbreak" related to what?

"This outbreak is receiving a high amount of attention..." Prove it. Where are the additional reliable sources? If you provide two or three additional sources I could start a new article within 24 hours. QuackGuru (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Alright, then "2019 United States lung disease outbreak"? You don't need vaping in the title in my opinion, just as the article is called 2015–16 Zika virus epidemic and not 2015–16 Zika virus mosquito epidemic. You're also pinpointing "vaping" when we may as well be ridiculous and put "vitamin E acetate" in the title; it's too specific. And also the matter isn't if you start a new article within 24 hours, just a quick search of "vaping lung illness" brings up over 14,000,000+ results. Also, Secretary Azar said the FDA would soon issue regulatory guidance to remove flavored vaping products from the market. This is obviously notable enough to merit a separate article. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The title does not indicate what the illness is associated with. You had to do a search with "vaping" as part of the search: "vaping lung illness". The illness was not related to smoking. The proposed ban on flavored vaping products is not directly related to the lung illnesses unless one of the US officials state that it is. QuackGuru (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Why would the title require what it's associated with? Look at my Zika mosquito example. Also, here's "lung disease outbreak" at 1,320,000+ too. You could help by making a proposal but there's no point continuing this discussion just to convince you. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 03:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Ambiguous titles are not helpful. I noticed the titles of the news articles most often have the word "vaping" in the title. QuackGuru (talk) 05:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

How about "2019 United States counterfeit THC vape pod lung disease outbreak"? Paleking (talk) 08:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I chose "2019 United States outbreak of lung illness linked to vaping products". QuackGuru (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't just counterfeit THC vapes. The death in Oregon was traced back to a licensed cannabis shop. QuackGuru (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. We already have a problem with this subject being splintered into multiple articles. This outbreak belongs in this article, with a mention at the main article. Don't make people go hunting for it. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I launched 4 new nicotine-related articles last week. Should any of those be merged? There is concern it does not belong in any of the electronic cigarette articles. QuackGuru (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment (Here because this article is currently listed as a "hot article") How about a compromise? Have the suggested article title as redirect to the relevant section in this article. We can expand to a full article as WP:MEDRS sources become available. Little pob (talk) 08:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC) Struck as no longer relevant following split. Little pob (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • New article just launched. It is too big to merge back now. I expanded it. QuackGuru (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Content fork?

A new article called pod mod contains unsourced and failed verification content. The Construction of electronic cigarettes article discusses the different types of devices. Content about pod mods in the Construction of electronic cigarettes is 100% sourced. See Construction of electronic cigarettes#Pod mods. Having a splinter article with little sourced content seems like a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. QuackGuru (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

image

@QuackGuru: you reverted my edit to put an image the top of the article. If you dont like that image, please pick another one. The article should have another one, and there are plenty of options in the article below. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

There is an image next to lede without interfering with reading the lede. See Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes#cite_ref-48. QuackGuru (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Citation requested for summary

QuackGuru, regarding this request for a citation, do you disagree that the later sentences (which are referenced) support this summary sentence, or do you favor copying all the citation from the detail sentences to the end of the summary sentence? -- Beland (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Those citations do not verify that claim. No citation has been presented that verifies the content. QuackGuru (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

CDC images

The images copied from CDC documents are not accessible to visually impaired readers, because they are pictures of text rather than actual text. Typically this type of information is simply incorporated into the article text, and the CDC documents can be cited as a source. -- Beland (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The CDC images should be kept not deleted. No every person likes to read articles. QuackGuru (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Tag add to list of safety issues

See reason: "Issues listed in table are already covered in other sections; arguments expressed here should be merged into prose sections."

Not everyone reads the text, especially lengthy articles. The table gives readers a quick overview. I don't think it is possible to convert all the content into prose. There are 3 columns. Safety consideration, Supporting arguments, and Opposing arguments. I'd rather keep the table intact instead of losing content. QuackGuru (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

This change would be making the article shorter. The article introduction is supposed to give a quick overview of the subject, and the TOC a way to quickly navigate to more detail on specific concerns. This table is in the middle of the article, so it's likely that a reader only spending a short time skimming the topic wouldn't see it. What table content do you think is impossible to convert to prose? I can't imagine how that's even conceivable, given the table is just snippets of prose arguments. -- Beland (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)