Probao i vrlo sam zadovoljan  :D Elektronska cigareta mi se jako sviđa zato jer ne smrdi  :D

dosta sam zbavio textova o duvanu..sto na netu sto iz casopisa i ostalih knjizurina..uglavnom o uzgoju...
imam namjeu sam sebi da sadim duvancinu....u sticicima...kraj kolibe..i duvan i papricice i hren..i tako to....
mislim da je to daleko zdravije...i od cigaresina ovih zaoprave i tih kancerogenih ko fol cigareta...

ne znam...ja puno o tpj elektonici...imao sam priluku da vidim sta je..ne svidja mi se...ne volim ja vjestacko nista ba...

ja ne jedem ni povrce ni voce...ovo po maxijima ...msm kad ne moram...a kamoli te neke zamjene..poput secera zamjenskog i slicne budalastine...pa tako imam slicno misljenje i o el.cigarama...
no vrreme ce pokazati...zdravo sigurno nje...onakvog ujusa ...nije sigurno..zdravo...
a sto se tice pusenja...ja to i ne konzumiram puno..meni kutija cigara...bude tri dana...

i vise volim duvan pusiti nego cigarete...

mislim daoipet nije toliko opasno ni toel.cudo kao ni duvan kao na primjer neki prljav i danima neopran budjav ku*** koji malo danfa... pa opet i to pusi neko..pa mu/joj nije nista...

Sutra cu Malo vise vremena posvetiti temi i kopiracu par novijih istrazivanja koja govore drugacije od ovih negativnih à nez navoda o kojoj i cijim se istrazivanjima radi i sta su tacno istrazivali, koje proizvode, kojoj proizvodjaca i kojoj sirovinskih sastava.

kuleru....gdje su ta novija  istrazivanja..   

Vest koju je preneo B92 a zatim i komentar na to istrazivanje:

Elektronske cigarete su kancerogene?

Elektronske cigarete nisu bezopasne kako ih predstavljaju njihovi proizvođači i mogu da sadrže potencijalno kancerogene elemente, navodi jedan francuski potrošački magazin. 

Elektronske cigarete opasnije su nego što ljudi misle i one mogu uzrokovati rak. Ti zaključci doneseni su nakon istraživanja i testiranja 10 modela e-cigareta.

"One su daleko od bezopasnih uređaja. To nije razlog za njihovu zabranu, ali ih je potrebno bolje kontrolisati", navodi Tomas Lorenso, urednik magazina "60 Million Consumers".

Lorenso je kritikovao određene modele zbog sigurnosnih nedostataka, jer nivo nikotina u tečnosti koja se nalazi u cigaretama može biti smrtonosan za decu. U istraživanju su korišćene najnovije metode za otkrivanje značajne količine kancerogenih molekula u isparenjima cigarete, a koje se do sada nisu primećivale.

"Kod tri od deset modela nivo formaldeihida, koji je kancerogen, bio je blizu onog kod konvencionalnih cigareta", rekao je Lorenso.

U Francuskoj, oko milion ljudi koristi e-cigarete, gde je pušenje na javnom mestu zabranjeno od 2007. godine. U maju 2013. godine ministarka zdravlja Marisol Turen je najavila da će se zabrana pušenja na javnim mestima od sada odnositi i na e-cigarete.

Oko 73.000 ljudi samo u Francuskoj umre svake godine zbog bolesti povezanih s pušenjem.

Za razliku od ostalih evropskih zemalja, broj pušača u Francuskoj je ostao isti, uprkos visokim cenama duvanskih proizvoda i kampanjama za podizanje svesti o štetnosti pušenja.

Izvor: B92


Komentar dr. Konstantina Farsalinosa na objavljeno istrazivanje:

Created on Tuesday, 27 August 2013 17:53

A new “study” on chemical analysis of e-cigarette: nothing new but huge negative publicity and intimidation

By Dr Farsalinos

There is a lot of discussion all over the world about a new chemical analysis of e-cigarette liquids that was presented in an article of a consumers magazine in France. The article titled “Pas si inoffensive, la cigarette électronique”, which means “not so innocent, the electronic cigarette” or “not so harmless, the electronic cigarette” was subsequently reproduced all over the world with titles like “E-cigarettes are as harmful as cigarettes and could cause cancer, claims study” (Daily Mail) or “Cancer from electronic cigarettes” (greek newspaper Espresso). Such titles came from the fact that the original French comment (it is a comment about the study, not a true presentation of the study) mentioned that some of the chemicals were found in amounts higher compared to tobacco cigarettes and this is a cause for major concern. There was no mention of the laboratory which performed the analysis, no mention on the methodology, no mention on the results in numbers. Is this called science?

Where the truth lies

            Some more things about this “study” were revealed today. Some information about the methodology was released in a French website. They took 3-seconds puffs, once every 30 seconds. They did not tell us how many puffs they took overall. They provide no information about whether a tobacco cigarette was also tested. What seems strange is that between puffs they were aspirating air from the laboratory (instead of just inactivating the vacuum pump). Moreover, we have no information about what devices were tested. This is very important because not every device has the same liquid content or atomiser efficiency. And it is obvious that the devices were not tested by vapers in order to determine their efficiency and whether their protocol is representative of pragmatic use.

            However, I will assume that the methodology was absolutely perfect and everything was done in a scientifically proper way. Today, the consumer journal released more information about the results, including the amounts of chemicals found. The results are SHOCKING, not because of the concern about the health of consumers but because it once again shows how a study can be mis-presented and how much fear and intimidation it has produced to the public (in particular to e-cigarette users) for almost no reason.

            The same chemicals were tested in 12 brands of e-cigarettes in a study by Goniewicz and coworkers that was published earlier this year. So, nothing new was tested in the French study. More importantly, the results of the French study are almost identical to those of Goniewicz. Below is the table of the results of both analyses.



For nickel, the French study found 0.2-12 nanograms per 15 puffs. Goniewicz had found even more than that, however he also found that a pharmaceutical nicotine inhaler had 190 nanograms of nickel per cartridge! For chrome, the French study found 1.0-6.7 nanograms. However, they fail to report if that was hexavalent chromium (chromium VI), which is the only chromium form to have carcinogenic properties. Still, the tobacco cigarette may have up to 500 nanograms.

It is obvious that the amount of chemicals found in e-cigarette vapor is lower compared to tobacco by orders of magnitude (even if we accept that the methodology was perfect and the results are absolutely credible). Of course, I am not supporting that e-cigarettes are absolutely safe. We don’t know that yet, and most probably they cannot be as safe as clean air. However, there is no doubt that the potential risk is significantly lower. So, how can all these articles reproduce this study as something new and “revolutionary”?

            The biggest problem with such articles is the intimidation of e-cigarette users. Every time such an article is published, there are vapers all over the world who throw away their e-cigarette devices and relapse to smoking. I have seen it happening to people I know, it is happening every time such “news” are reproduced with such impressive titles and without the slightestreservation from the writers. This French study in fact gives us no new information about the chemical composition of e-cigarette vapor and does not change in any way our knowledge about the potential risks of e-cigarette use and the benefits compared to smoking tobacco cigarettes. I cannot explain why worldwide media refer to this study as if it is the most important discovery about e-cigarettes.

            On Saturday August 31, during the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, I will present a study about the immediate effects of e-cigarette use on coronary circulation (blood flow to the heart muscle). In that study I found that e-cigarette use had no adverse effects on coronary blood flow compared to an almost 30% reduction in blood flow caused by smoking tobacco cigarettes. This is a study that has never been done before, it provides completely new information about the effects of e-cigarette on the cardiovascular system, but certainly it does not mean that e-cigarettes cannot cause cardiovascular disease or heart attacks in the long-term. Similarly, simply the presence of some chemicals cannot be presented with titles like “E-cigarettes cause cancer” or anything similar. Scientists, consumer advocates and journalists should understand that this is a sensitive issue and that their reports and articles have a direct and immediate impact on the health of millions of people all over the world.

I would like to thank Michele Briot for the translation of the protocol of the French study and Clive Bates for the insight on the Daily Mail article.

Dr Farsalinos is a researcher at Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center in Athens-Greece and at Medical Imaging Research Center, University Hospital Gathuisberg in Leuven-Belgium. He is actively involved in research on e-cigarettes’ safety and risk profile.

Izvor: http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/126-a-new-study-on-chemica

Vest preneta na B92 o kancerogenim materijama u stvarima koje koristimo u svakodnevnom zivotu, pa i u e-cigaretama... izvod iz vesti koji se tice e-cigarete:

Elektronske cigarete
Opasna hemikalija: Nitrozamin

Nivo pretnje: 3

Elektronske cigarete mogu predstavljati rizik za kancer gotovo jednako kao “prave”. Nitrozamin, kancerogeni sastojak duvana, nalazi se i u nekim brendovima elektronskih cigareta.

Čak i ako niste pušač, možda dolazite u dodir s njom, jer se može formirati i kada kiselina iz vašeg želuca odreaguje sa nitritima i nitratima iz brze hrane i mesnih prerađevina.

Kako da se zaštitite: Ako pušite bilo koju vrstu cigareta, vreme je da ih ostavite. Prema studiji sprovedenoj na Univerzitetu u Viskonsinu, pušači koji postepeno smanjuju broj cigareta, pre prestanka pušenja, ili pređu na elektronske cigarete, češće se vraćaju duvanu, od onih koji jednostavno “preseku”.

Smanjite i unos prerađevina ili promenite način na koji spremate hranu. Kuvanje i pečenje u rerni su mnogo bolji od prženja.

Izvor: B92

Inace, ovaj podatak o e-cigaretama je recikliran/preuzet iz istrazivanja americke FDA od pre par godina. Problem je u tome sto osim navodjenja pojedinih sastojaka u e-cigaretama (tacnije tecnostima) navode se samo procenti ali ne dozvoljene kolicine niti poredjenje koliko drugi proizvodi u sebi sadrze te iste supstance. Ne mogu da nadjem sada to FDA istrazivanje, potrazicu naknadno.

Ono sto je mnogo vaznije to je osvrt na ovo istrazivanje i pojasnjavanje podataka koji su ostali nedoreceni i stoga stvaraju zabludu i pogresnu sliku.

Komentar na istrazivanje FDA koji se ujedno moze primeniti i na izvod vesti sa B92:

Carcinogens for Real

You have probably heard over and over, About how the FDA announced to the world that they had "found detectable levels of carcinogens in Electronic cigarettes"

Because of that, many of the National Health Organizations, and most of the "Anti-Smoking" groups, began claiming that "electronic cigarettes were as dangerous as regular cigarettes!"

First, - Make note that the FDA never announced what levels they detected.  There was a good reason for that!  The reason is because the levels detected, were the same levels found in the nicotine patch, nicotine gum(per 4 pcs daily),  and in the "Nicotrol inhaler that they tested it against!

Here are a couple of tables that will help to put the announcement into perspective for the average person. Although the numbers themselves may not mean a lot to you, the comparison to the numbers for other FDA approved items speaks volumes!
 
This chart compares the nitrosamines that the FDA found in e-cigs to those found in Nicorette Gum, Nicotine patches, and a few brands of Tobacco cigarettes (Which the FDA also approves for sale)



As these data show, the level of tobacco-specific nitrosamines present in electronic cigarettes is at the trace level. It is measurable in parts per trillion (nanograms per gram). It is comparable to the nitrosamine levels in nicotine replacement products which are approved by the FDA.

In contrast, the level of tobacco-specific nitrosamines present in tobacco products are 300 to 1400 times higher. On a weight-for-weight basis, Marlboro has 1400 times higher the level of tobacco-specific nitrosamines than an electronic cigarette cartridge. And keep in mind that these represent the levels in the cartridges and cigarettes, not in the tobacco smoke or e-cigarette vapor which are directly inhaled.The FDA found only fractions of SOME carcinogens in the Vapor tested

Moreover, there are approximately 56 other carcinogens that have been identified to be present at high levels in tobacco smoke, while there are NO other carcinogens that have been identified to be present in electronic cigarettes.

Conventional cigarettes also contain at least 10,000 other chemicals, including known toxins and carcinogens...
 
Did you know - that you receive daily doses of these nitrosamines, from lots of other sources?
Some of the bigest producers are:

Your Own Body (Gastric juices)
Bacon and other cured meats
Beer
Non Fat Dry milk
Cheese
Fish and fish meal
Cosmetics
Auto Interiors (plastics and rubbers)

Below is a chart showing daily doses for various peoples lifestyles ( I converted the original chart values from Micrograms to Nanograms for better comparison with above values)

Published in the NY Times, Dec 11, 1981



Certain industries such as The rubber industry, leather tanners, and some fuel industries, can raise the exposure to as much as 250,000 ng per person per day!!!

*Gastric juices produce these nitrosamines from the nitrates found in so many things we eat, especially certain vegetables (which are full of natural nitrates from the soil.)

To be fair, this data was collected in 1980. Many experts believe that because of efforts to reduce the nitrates in certain products (especially beer, and cured meats), - today we receive much fewer of these nitrosamines on a daily basis - but those reductions would not really apply (except in small amounts), to the vegetarians, smokers, and high nitrate water drinkers.
 
While I'm on the subject of water, - Tap water has been tested to contain an average of .7ng per liter (many bottled waters are much higher). Also, recent testing has found  up to 35ng/liter in the average swimming pool,(the average pool holds 70,000 liters) and for those who like "hot tubs", - most contain 350ng (or more) per liter.

That amounts to an awful lot of carciogens that many people willingly, and happily expose themselves to.
 
I find it very interesting to note that the average american ( even today) receives probably 400-500 ng of these "very dangerous" carcinogens every day Just by being alive!
 
It's also kind of humorous that a vegetarian receives almost 4 times more of these "cancer causing" nitrosamines, as a heavy bacon eater does! And about 2/3 of the amount the average "smoker" does!
 
The amount of carcinogens in a pint of beer (2 units of alcohol) is equivalent to that taken in by an average smoker in around a year.

Cola drinks contain the carcinogen formaldehyde(also found in shrimp and fresh baked bread) at 7,900 ppb
A few strips of bacon (nitrosamines) 200,000 ppb
When a pound of meat is grilled over charcoal, it can contain as much carcinogenic benzopyrene as 15 packs of cigarettes
 
And here is a good one:  Purchase one usual magazine (Times or Newsweek, or Cosmopolitan,..), or a brand new book.- Open it and smell it. (Do not smell it too long time, as you may faint or get sever headache. ) What you smell are 3-10 different carcinogen compounds  (from color, paper, glue, printing, cover...)
 
I need to point out here, that none of these "so called" carcinogenic nitrosamines,.. have EVER been proven to be so,... they are only "suspected" carcinogens!

Also, I have been doing A LOT of research lately on cancer rates, and have found that even though smoking has dropped approx. 40% since 1980, and daily nitrosamine levels have decreased since then, -According to the National Cancer Institute - The cancer rate (per capita) Has actually increased since 1975! - Some death rates are down (approx. 10%), but not the incident rate!! If you don't believe me, check it out for yourself Here
 
When the information is presented in this way, you may begin to wonder,... "why is the FDA so concerned about 8ng of nitrosamines in e-cigs,... when the average american receives (up to) 200ng just from driving back and forth to work every day?"

That's not what they're really concerned about!

Izvor: http://shopecp.com/index.php?main_page=page&id=8

Ako je neko raspolozen da cita, evo dosta linkova sa istrazivanjima, komentarima, analizama, itd. Ima toga jos ali mislim da je za pocetak i ovo vise nego dovoljno.

Izuzimanje u Engleskoj od EU zakona o duvanskim proizvodima - http://www.vapestick.co.uk/e-cigarette-blog/electronic-cigarette-uk-ban

Britanski profesori o e-cigaretama - http://www.vapestick.co.uk/e-cigarette-blog/uk-teachers-notice-benefits-electronic-cigarettes

Grcki nalazi - http://www.vapestick.co.uk/e-cigarette-blog/user-survey-finds-ecigarettes-healthier

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jun/04/e-cigarettes-health-revolution-smokers

Intervju sa Dr Konstantinosom Farsalinosom o slabom poznavanju e cigareta sa strane EU komisije - Intervju sa Dr Konstantinosom Farsalinosom o slabom poznavanju e cigareta sa strane EU komisije:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22870301

http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-06-12/decision-on-e-cigarette-control/

Istrazivanje dr. Konstantina Farsalinosa - http://www.ecigadvanced.com/blog/study-no-evidence-electronic-cigarettes-cause-cell-damage-death/

http://www.bild.de/regional/muenchen/muenchen-regional/verwaltungsrechtsstreit-ist-eine-ezigarette-30811164.bild.html

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/e-cigarettes-vogue-crossroads-220519079.html

http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3845

http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/the-mhra-kills-golden-goose.html?showComment=1371071361296

Istrazivanje dr. Rikarda Polosa - http://www.ecigarettedirect.co.uk/ashtray-blog/2013/06/professor-polosa-discusses-his-latest-quit-smoking-electronic-cigarette-study.html

ja msm da su te elektronske cigarete smece...

Misljenje strucnjaka... 

A ko je uopste strucan da proceni stetnost elek.cigareta?

Vreme ce pokazati a onda ce se pojaviti more strucnjaka