MFS SubJuice Sample Pack

FDA On e-Liquid: Considers Warning Labels, Child Resistant Packaging

FDA On e-Liquid: Considers Warning Labels, Child Resistant Packaging

OK, So it’s been a while (2012 I think) since I’ve gotten political about e-cigarettes and e-liquid but an article I read this morning from the Washington Post got me a little fired up. Thought maybe it was time I got back into the politics of it all. It appears the FDA on e-liquid is still poking it’s head in the world of e-cigarettes and now wants to put some kind of warning labels and protective packaging on e-liquid. Well, you know what I have to say about that?


That’s right, I think it’s an awesome idea to put warning labels on e-liquid and I also think it’s a great idea to put e-liquid in tamper resistant bottles. Guess what though….all of the e-liquid I’ve ever bought to this point in time was already sold in tamper resistant bottles. That’s right folks, the industry is already protecting the children all by itself without the help of the federal big heads. Believe it or not, we can all be more responsible than we are given credit for.

MFS SubJuice Sample Pack

Try out a SubJuice Sample Pack! Just CLICK THE PIC!

FDA On e-Liquid Poisoning and The Washington Post Article

The article cited claims that calls to poison control centers are on the rise as a result of children ingesting liquid Nicotine or e-liquid. As I stated before, no purchase of e-liquid I’ve ever made since 2009 came in anything but a tamper resistant bottle. This brings into question how these kids are ingesting the e-liquid and exactly who is being irresponsible with the e-liquid in question. That is…if the claims are in fact true at all in the first place. Who knows? Not I!

If calls to poison control centers have been on the rise as of late as a result of children ingesting e-liquid from what I can only assume would be tamper resistant bottles then why the need for the FDA to poke it’s head into the matter at all? The industry (vendors, manufacturers, etc.) are already doing their part by putting the e-liquid into tamper resistant bottles and containers so why do we need for the FDA to make some bogus legislation or regulation to tell them to do what they are already doing of their own free will? Does this really make any sense to anyone at all?

One thing I will say that I haven’t seen much of is labels on e-liquid bottles. Oh, I’ve seen labels stating the Nicotine content but not many warning labels to keep out of reach of children. However I am quite certain and in fact without much doubt that most, if not all vendors and manufacturers would happily put such a label on their bottles if simply asked to do so…without the need for FDA regulation! Regardless of what the ANTz keep trying to force down our throats, the vast majority of us adult vapers DO NOT want vaping materials in the hands of children. Especially so when it comes to e-liquid being in the mouths of very young children.

I Call BullShit!

That’s right, you can quote me on it! I said it here and eCignificant will take the brunt of it. I call bullshit on the claim that more and more young children are ingesting e-liquid over the past couple of years. I say that whether poison control center calls are being made or not, it’s not something that’s actually happening…it’s smoke and mirrors. That’s my firm belief on the matter. Show me some emergency room visits and I may…I say MAY…change my tune, but calls to a poison control center do not in the slightest bit convince me that anything is happening.

If I should happen to be wrong and panicked parents are calling poison control centers after their children popped open tamper resistant bottles of e-liquid and ingested some of the juice then I say shame on the parents for their irresponsibility! Perhaps the FDA should consider some heavy regulations on the parents who make such calls to these poison control centers!

OK…time to bring it back down a notch…

Still…in the end…I honestly have no real issue with putting warning labels on tamper resistant bottles of e-liquid. The vendors and manufacturers have pretty much taken it upon themselves to do that already anyway. It’s just the responsible thing to do and I like to think that the majority of us vapers are responsible adults who want the best and safest atmosphere for our children.

Please leave a comment whether you agree or disagree with my stance. I would love to hear from you no matter where you stand on the issue.

Don’t forget to visit our DIY e-Liquid Tutorial

Innokin iTaste Mini 134 Variable Wattage Electronic Cigarette Starter Kit

Innokin iTaste Mini 134 Varible Wattage Electronic Cigarette Starter Kit

The iTaste 134 Mini Variable Wattage Electronic Cigarette Starter Kit is one of the latest designs from Innokin. This one is sure to be a popular item throughout the vaping community. The Gatling Gun styling is sure to please most electronic cigarette enthusiasts. Innokin is known for quality, durable mods and this sleek model holds true to that standard. Whether you’re a newbie to vaping, need a new mod or just adding to your collection of bad-assed personal vaporizers this one is definitely a must-buy!

iTaste Mini 134 Variable Wattage Electronic Cigarette Starter Kit Features:

Scale Display Wattage Scale display

  • wattage offers more intuitive control and more accurate performance

Variable Wattage

  • The wattage adjusted with the rotational wheel to 6.5W, 7W, 8W, 9W, 10W, 11W, 12W, and 12.5W

Battery Level Indicator

  • The iTaste mini 134 battery capacity is displayed via green, yellow, and red LED lights.
  • Green = Fully Charged     Yellow = Half Discharged     Red = Charge Needed

High compatibility 510 connector

  • Will fit iClear10, iClear16, and iClear30 clearomizers, as well as standard 510 accessories

ON/OFF Battery Switch

  • Quickly clicking the power button three times will enable or disable the battery. Once enabled, holding down the button will activate the device.

Replaceable Batteries

  • The iTaste mini 134 supports 18650 batteries.

Other Features:

  • 10-Seconds Cutoff, Short Circuit Protection, Reverse Battery Protection Circuit, etc.

iTaste Mini 134 Starter kit:

  • 1x iTaste Mini 134
  • 1x iClear30 Dual coil Clearomizers with rotatable drip tip
  • 1x Beauty ring
Joyetech eMode

Joyetech eMode Starter Kit: Hi-Tech Vaping At It’s Finest

Joyetech eMode

The Joyetech eMode is a new hi-tech electronic cigarette that is so named for it’s multi-mode features and simple mode look. The simple, yet bold design of the Joyetech eMode give it the appearance of a basic mechanical mod but inside it houses a hi-tech vaping experience.

Unlike a traditional C style head, the newly designed, tank style atomizer allows constant 360-degree inflow of e-liquid so there’s never a dry hit. The placement of the inlet holes and the general head design prevent atomizing when e-liquid level is low or empty.

Another brand new feature in the Joyetech eMode is airflow control. An adjustable air inlet regulator allows the user to set the air intake to preference so whether you like an airy draw or low airflow, the Joyetech eMode has you covered with just a small twist of the valve.

The Joyetech eMode control head offers hi-tech control of each draw by allowing the user to set preference of variable wattage or variable voltage. The VV/VW offers the familiar option of twisting the regulator for changes in both wattage and voltage. However, the RVV/RVW settings allow the user to record specific settings for every draw taken.

If hi-tech vaping is your thing then you simply must add the new Joyetech eMode to your electronic cigarette collection!

For further information or to purchase the Joyetech eMode, please Click Here!

SmokTech ReDuX Not Wicking Well?

SmokTech ReDuX Is A Great Device But A Few Have Some Issues

I got a 5 pack of SmokTech ReDuX clearomizers when they first released because the replacement heads were cheaper than the CE5 heads. I figured it would be a cost savings over the long run so why not, especially since they are a CE5 copy and probably work just the same coming from SmokTech. Well, I don’t know if they actually do work as well as the Vision CE5 because I never tried the CE5. Most people seem happy with the ReDuX but, as with all things, a few of them have some problems with burning. These are ways I found to help what I thought was, a terrible wicking problem with the ReDuX. As it turns out, the problem wasn’t really in the wick at all!

I had problems with getting that burnt taste after only one or 2 draws. This was causing me to need to prime the wick each draw, which shouldn’t be necessary on a clearomizer. Of course my inclination was that there was a problem with the wick. I first thought it was too big and was getting pinched between the inside drum and the outside case, keeping liquid from flowing up the wick and into the coil. The first video link shows my solution to that perceived issue. When that fix didn’t really work so well I decided it must be the wicking material itself. So I made another video showing my new solution…changing the wick. I choose cotton because I feel it wicks the best of all materials I’ve tried and I like the taste it offers.

Eventually even changing the wicks proved to be a waste of time. Sure the cotton wicks worked better for a short while but only for a couple days and then the taste of burnt wick/liquid returns. Not being the type of person to throw out an otherwise perfectly good purchase, I kept searching for the solution to getting these things to work well. It also doesn’t sit well with me to be defeated by a $2 piece of metal and fiber. So back to the drawing board.

I know that these things are advertised as ‘rebuildable’, but what they really mean by rebuildable is that you can replace the heads, tips or cases. They don’t really expect the average person to go to the trouble of completely tearing them apart. I don’t think I’ve ever bought anything that I didn’t tear apart to see how it works and these clearomizers would prove to be no different. After taking the thing completely apart I got to looking at the coil inside where the wick passes through. I noticed that it’s been built to coil around the wick 9 times. Now I haven’t taken apart a lot of atomizers, at least not all the way down to the coil, but 9 wraps around the wick seems a little bit of overkill to me. When I build coils I wrap the wick 5 or 6 times.

Wrapping 9 times seems like putting to much heating surface area on the wicks. This causes too much liquid to be burned in each draw, causing the coils/wicks to prematurely “burn out”. This was my first theory on what’s causing the burnt taste once I completely tore into the clearo. I’ve now started rebuilding all my heads right from the start by replacing both the wick and coil. I use a 5 wrap coil of 34g NiChrome wire and I haven’t had a problem since making this change.

Of course, this is not something that should need done. Judging by the reviews on the ReDuX, not everyone is having the same problem with them. It looks like a hit & miss type of thing and some people seem to be quite happy with them. However, if you happen to be one of the unlucky ones that bought several of these and now feel you’ve wasted your money, maybe changing the coil and wick will help you get your money’s worth after all. It’s not really a difficult process to change the wicks or coils, just takes a little patience (more so if you’re shaky handed like me). I will soon be posting a new video on how to perform this procedure, in the meantime you can search youtube for videos on building atomizer/clearomizer coils…there are a lot of them.

If you are not the adventurous type and don’t feel comfortable with building and using your own coils, at least try changing the wick. It isn’t the greatest solution but it will help a little. However if you do want to give it a try (it’s not really difficult at all), MFS has all the DIY supplies you will need. Of course they are a little more expensive on other items than the merchants I usually endorse, but they are one of the best places to find DIY parts for mods and rebuilds. If it’s your first time I suggest buying the 34g NiChrome wire, it’s a little thicker and easier to work with. The smaller diameter wire (36g, 38g) is difficult to use, especially for beginners, it doesn’t hold it’s memory like the heavier gauge does.

I will soon be adding an entire page about this in the Tips & Info section. I want to make a really good step-by-step instruction page with detailed pictures. It will be up in the next couple of days, also keep a watch on my Youtube channel for an instructional video to be posted soon.


‘ E-Cigarettes Cause Lung Damage ’: The Story Behind Recent Claims

‘ E-Cigarettes Cause Lung Damage ’: Or So Say Some

As might be expected, the report on the “study” that claimed e-cigarettes cause lung damage was not only highly exaggerated, it was also highly suspicious. As I pointed out in a previous post, the possible finding that e-cigarettes might cause short term airway restriction scantly confirms a diagnosis of ‘lung damage’, as the headline asserts. Lung damage would require there to actually be damage to the lung(s) such as with Emphyzema or Cancer. Results of some airway restriction immediately after puffing an e-cig isn’t even in the same ballpark with Emphysema or Cancer. Many of the things we inhale every day could cause some airway restriction as described in the announcement. Some of these things could include certain spices we use during cooking, dust, pollen, humidity, cold air, warm air or who knows what else? The ‘research’ doesn’t show comparisons to other things we all breathe in each and every day and it avoids comparisons to regular cigarettes (this should throw up red flags as to the legitimacy) so we have no way of knowing what the results actually mean.

One of the authors of the study was a professor by the name of Christina Gratziou. Professor Gratziou is the Chair of the ERS Tobacco Control Committee in reference to the report she states “We do not yet know whether unapproved nicotine delivery products, such as e-cigarettes, are safer than normal cigarettes, despite marketing claims that they are less harmful. This research helps us to understand how these products could be potentially harmful.”

It’s important to pay close attention to what Professor Gratziou said, we will see why very shortly. In this short, simple statement she makes several things quite clear about her agenda. The first thing that makes clear that she has no intention of finding the truth about e-cigarettes is when she says, “We do not yet know whether unapproved nicotine delivery products, such as e-cigarettes, are safer than normal cigarettes”. From the very start of her statement she unwittingly acknowledges that this was a bogus study. Why would the study not have compared the effects of e-cigarettes vs cigarettes on airway restriction if they were trying to find whether they are safer than cigarettes? This is huge! The truth is that tobacco cigarettes have been studied immensely over the years and she knows perfectly well whether e-cigarettes are safer than normal cigarettes in this particular circumstance. She doesn’t offer comparisons because this whole study was done with the intention of creating fear around and demonizing e-cigarettes. Right from the start of her public statement we know the purpose and intent of this “study” on the effects of e-cigarettes on the lungs.

The last part of Professor Gratziou’s statement shed even more light on the purpose of this study, again it has nothing to do with finding the truth about the potential benefits of e-cigarette use. “This research helps us to understand how these products could be potentially harmful.” Is it even necessary to point out the obvious here? Let’s go ahead anyway, for the kids sitting in the back of the class.In case you had doubts before, she wants to make it absolutely crystal clear that this research was not meant to find any potential benefit. She states it in point blank fashion…”helps us understand how these products could be potentially harmful“. Not even trying to hide the fact that this research is only aimed at fabricating the illusion of harmful effects of e-cigarettes.

Honest research would have used comparisons to other items we regularly inhale. It would have focused on a larger group of people. I would have used standard scientific methods that are common with all research. This was not honest research, it was propaganda.

Studies, research, testing and observation should be done from a neutral point of view. When attempting to find the true result or effect it’s very important to study the subject as a non-related, third party. It’s the same with finding truth in anything at all whether it be Science, Mathematics, Law or whatever. Only by observing from the outside looking in, as a neutral and unbiased entity can the truth be brought to light. This research was never meant to find truth, it was meant to add credibility to an agenda. I know what you’re thinking…”but what agenda? This is a respected researcher and scientist, what agenda could she be pushing?” Well, let’s take a look at that, shall we?

If you’re a regular visitor to eCignificant then you know that there are two large and powerful entities who stand to lose much, if not all, from the rise of e-cigarette sales. The first one is obvious, the tobacco industry could potentially go completely belly up if e-cigarettes continue their rise in popularity. Companies who have everything  invested in tobacco would likely do anything in their power to see e-cigarettes disappear. Of course, there are some who understand that nothing lasts forever and make a decision to move with the changing culture instead of fighting it. One of these companies now owns Blu Cig, ok not the greatest e-cigarette, but it shows that not all tobacco giants are going to fight against the e-cigarette evolution/revolution (only time will tell).

Pharmaceuticals don’t really stand to lose as much as tobacco, however many are strongly invested in cessation aids. If e-cigarettes do one day prove to be a safer/healthier alternative to smoking there will surely be less people quitting and more people switching. Certainly pharmaceutical companies have already seen a decline in their cessation aids, no doubt future projections aren’t looking all that promising. This would be really terrible news for a company highly invested in smoking cessation. Of course pharmaceutical companies could take the high road and work toward real research on e-cigarettes and then invest in their future should they prove to be a safer tobacco alternative. That would of course mean sharing in the market instead of completely dominating it….no….no, that won’t do I’m afraid.

This is where things get really interesting. Remember our good professor Christina Gratziou? We’ve already shown that her research has little to nothing to do with discovering the truth about the effects of e-cigarettes. In one statement she made it perfectly clear that any research she would be involved in would be done in an attempt to find the hazards of using electronic cigarettes. Not only is her research dedicated to finding the hazards of use but it’s clearly designed in such a way that no proper comparisons to cigarettes will be taken into account. No sir, the research is designed to further demonize e-cigarettes in order to make regulation and legislation simpler for the the organizations with the power over such things.

But why?

It turns out that Professor Gratziou’s history with pharmaceutical companies calls any and all of her research into question. Not only is she chair of the ERS Tobacco Control Committee, but she also has some research history on a leading smoking cessation aid. The research she did for Pfizer was greatly helpful in gaining approval for Chantix. It’s no wonder that her current research on e-cigarettes is aimed at finding the hazards instead of the truth. If there’s anything I’m certain of in this world it’s that the manufacturer of a leading smoking cessation aid has no desire to see e-cigarettes proven a safer alternative to cigarettes. Suddenly the ‘breaking news’ that e-cigarettes cause ‘damage to lungs’ isn’t so newsworthy.

In a future article  we will be discovering the truth behind a global campaign to demonize and restrict access to e-cigarettes. The information provided in this article is just the proverbial tip of the iceberg in the worldwide mission to eradicate e-cigarettes. We will be uncovering the truth behind the kind of research that we’ve discussed in this article and who (or rather WHO) is behind the misinformation.

Headlines have the power to cause panic in the uninformed and ignorant. Panic leads to regulation and legislation that’s unnecessary and potentially dangerous. In this country (USA) we’ve clearly seen how ignorance and panic can lead to the loss of our rights.

When you see headlines making claims about e-cigs please try to keep a cool head. Find out all of the information before making decisions. No worse decisions were ever made than the ones that were made out of panic and ignorance!

Always check here when you see disturbing headlines surrounding the e-cigarette industry. We will always continue to search for the truth behind the headlines and bring it to the surface. Popular media sources are tainted by corporate funding and government persuasion…the news isn’t the news any more!  Keep eCignificant bookmarked and come back when you see headlines that make incredible claims against electronic cigarettes. If there’s something more to the story, we’ll have it right here!

Don’t forget to check out our DIY e-Liquid Tutorial while you’re here!