icon.png

“The Collective”(Pistachio Maryjane Custard) • r/DIY_eJuice


“The Collective”(Pistachio Maryjane Custard)

“The Collective”

Based on the sexiest Borg in the Delta Quadrant, I introduce a dark and addictive eliquid that brings order to chaos—“The Collective”. Part 3 in my Seven Of Nine/Borg Trilogy.

Description:

This recipe is an assimilation of really oddball & unique flavors. I mean, who the hell would make a Maryjane-Pistachio Custard? Good fresh out of the gate, but of course it begins to shine after a week or more. Personally, I prefer it fresh(weird, I know!)!

Recipe(13% flavoring/75%VG):

•TFA Mary Jane 2%

•TFA RY4 Double 2.5%

•TFA Pistachio 2%

•CAP Vanilla Custard 5%

•JF Dulce De Leche 1%

•CAP Cinnamon Danish Swirl 0.5%

Data:

My choice of TFA Mary Jane is obvious, and 2% plays very well with the other ingredients. Any more than 2% and I’m feeling like I’m vaping Scotch Tape® flavored eliquid.

I still felt as though the Mary Jane needed a counter-balance in order to become ‘fuller’/more authentic tasting. And TFA RY4 Double performed the task perfectly. This is not an RY4 mix by any means, so I kept the percentage at 2.5%.

Again, another obvious player here is TFA Pistachio. In combination with the RY4, it brings out an almost “ashy” though nutty flavor. And I just love TFAs version of pistachio above all others.

JF Dulce De Leche & CAP Vanilla Custard v1 obviously provide a nice thick custard base. At 5%, the custard’s egginess is restrained somewhat and doesn’t “bogart” the entire mix!

CAP Cinnamon Danish Swirl at 0.5% adds a bit of depth to TFA’s Mary Jane. It’s a clever magician that can perform a pretty cool disappearing act at wattages around 45-55. Increase wattage to 63 or higher and the cinnamon comes out more, but only as a supporting flavoring.

I do NOT recommend any substitutions, sweeteners nor changes in percentages.

Star Trek: Voyager & all its’ characters are the sole property of Paramount. No profit has been made on this recipe.

https://alltheflavors.com/recipes/37472

submitted by /u/Arpeggiator8472[link] [comments]

“The Collective”(Pistachio Maryjane Custard) • r/DIY_eJuice

 


Source

17453229_2052250211668262_4934563534978678784_n.jpg






Source

71893Benefits-and-side-effects-of-lavender-tea-for-Woman.jpg

Serenity


A calming floral tea, perfect for chilly spring evenings.

The tea base starts with FA Black Tea, a straightforward black tea without a lot of sweetness on it’s own. FLV Lemon Tea provides the forward tea flavor, accompanied by a warm lemon note that compliments the FA Lavender nicely.

FLV Cream and FLV Milk and Honey provide a slightly creamy background to smooth out some of the dry notes in FA Black Tea and FA Lavender, while adding some body and sweetness. Overall a very simple flavor, with enough quiet complexity to keep me coming back to it.

#serenity_by_hocuskrokus” target=”_blank”>https://alltheflavors.com/recipes/38095 #serenity_by_hocuskrokus

Serenity

A calming floral tea, perfect for chilly spring evenings. The tea base starts with FA Black Tea, a straightforward black tea without a lot of sweetness on it’s own. FLV Lemon Tea provides the forward tea flavor, accompanied by a warm lemon note that compliments the FA Lavender nicely. FLV Cream and…


Source

whyme2_1600.jpg

DNA ‘typos’ may cause 66% of cancer mutations – Futurity


DNA ‘typos’ may cause 66% of cancer mutations
Random, unpredictable DNA copying mistakes account for nearly two-thirds of the genetic changes that cause cancer—far more mutations than those triggered by heredity or by environmental factors like smoking or pollution, a study finds.

The study used a new mathematical model based on DNA sequencing and epidemiologic data from around the world.

The findings do not in any way suggest that we give up on healthy lifestyles and other strategies for minimizing the likelihood of cancer, say the researchers.

“We need to continue to encourage people to avoid environmental agents and lifestyles that increase their risk of developing cancer mutations,” says Bert Vogelstein, co-director of the Ludwig Center at Johns Hopkins University’s Kimmel Cancer Center.

The findings do suggest, however, that medical research pay more attention to those “mistake” mutations that occur randomly as cells copy their genetic information—their DNA—when preparing to divide and create new cells.

“Many people will still develop cancers due to these random DNA copying errors,” Vogelstein says, “and better methods to detect all cancers earlier, while they are still curable, are urgently needed.”

Vogelstein and Cristian Tomasetti, assistant professor of biostatistics at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, report the findings in the journal Science.

The researchers estimate that 66% of cancer mutations result from copying errors, 29% can be attributed to lifestyle or environment, and the remaining 5% are inherited.

They say their conclusions do not conflict with epidemiologic studies showing that avoiding unhealthy environments and lifestyles can prevent about 40 percent of cancers. But cancer often strikes people who follow all the rules—not smoking, maintaining a healthy diet and weight, avoiding carcinogens—and who have no family history of the disease. That prompts the pained question, “Why me?”

In a previous study, Tomasetti and Vogelstein reported that DNA copying errors could explain why certain cancers in the United States, such as those of the colon, occur more than others, such as brain cancer. In the new research, they addressed a different question: What fraction of mutations in cancer are due to these DNA copying errors?

The scientists took a close look at the mutations that drive abnormal cell growth among 32 cancer types. They developed their new model using DNA sequencing data from the Cancer Genome Atlas and epidemiologic data from the Cancer Research UK database.

It generally takes two or more critical gene mutations for cancer to start. Tomasetti and Vogelstein used their model to show, for example, that when critical mutations in pancreatic cancers are added together, 77 percent are due to random DNA copying errors, 18 percent to environmental factors, such as smoking, and 5 percent to heredity.

In other cancer types, such as those of the prostate, brain, or bone, more than 95 percent of the mutations are due to random copying errors.

Lung cancer, they note, is different: 65 percent of mutations are due to environmental factors, mostly smoking, and 35 percent are due to DNA copying errors. Inherited factors are not known to play a role.

Looking across all 32 cancer types studied, the researchers estimate that 66 percent of cancer mutations result from copying errors, 29 percent can be attributed to lifestyle or environment, and the remaining 5 percent are inherited.

Cancer’s metabolism might be a way to kill it

The scientists say their approach is akin to sorting out why “typos” occur in a 20-volume book: being tired while typing, which corresponds to environmental exposures; a stuck or missing key in the keyboard, which represent inherited factors; and other typographical errors that randomly occur, which represent DNA copying errors.

“You can reduce your chance of typographical errors by making sure you’re not drowsy while typing and that your keyboard isn’t missing some keys,” Vogelstein says. “But typos will still occur, because no one can type perfectly. Similarly, mutations will occur, no matter what your environment is, but you can take steps to minimize those mutations by limiting your exposure to hazardous substances and unhealthy lifestyles.”

Tomasetti says random DNA errors will only get more important as populations age, prolonging the opportunity for cells to make more and more mistakes.

Funding for the study came from the John Templeton Foundation, the Lustgarten Foundation for Pancreatic Cancer Research, the Virginia and D.K. Ludwig Fund for Cancer Research, the Sol Goldman Center for Pancreatic Cancer Research, and the National Cancer Institute.

Source: Johns Hopkins University

The post DNA ‘typos’ may cause 66% of cancer mutations appeared first on Futurity.

DNA ‘typos’ may cause 66% of cancer mutations – Futurity

 


Source

81-300×169.jpg

Cola Pop Tab So let’s take a little bit to talk about something I’ve been workin…


Cola Pop Tab
So let’s take a little bit to talk about something I’ve been working on a great deal these past two months. Soda. It’s weird. It’s thick and syrupy and sticks to your taste buds for ages. But soda concentrates all fall flat (Some quite literally) I tried CAP, TFA, and FW soda types galore. And they were all weird. Some slightly fizzy, some kinda flat and stale tasting. Non quite hit the marker. Then I got FA Cola. And at first I thought I’d found it. The standalone cola king. But after about 3 hours from fresh it went to kind of a weird Gummy Cola. But I felt it had the best potential.
We’ll start our recipe base for Soda here and make additions along the way.
FA Cola is fairly strong, so I never go over 3% with it. 4% gets too effervescent to my tastes though I’ve heard that some really enjoyed it that high. For today, we’ll play it conservative at 2.5%.
By itself it’s got a nice cola flavor, a bit of fizz mouth feel, and some of the darker notes I get from a can of regular ole cola. But it’s thin and lacks body. And without some help, it steeps into a Cola gummy that, while not bad tasting, isn’t what I’m after. After hours of reading I started to pick up on some things in regular sodas that I was missing from FA Cola.
CARAMEL. It’s in basically every single dark soda on the market, some more than others. Notably anything with Vanilla, or Cherry usually has some extra caramel. I use FA Caramel for now, but I have tests going with FW and TFA as well. CAP Caramel is funky and doesn’t fit at all. FA Caramel at 1.5% has been the closest so far but FW may be creeping in.
VANILLA. Another staple in sweet soda flavors. Without adding creamy vanilla our choices start to get a little limited. I’ve been alternating between FA Vanilla Classic and TFA Vanillin. I get more realistic results with just Vanillin, but FA Vanilla Classic is an excellent choice here as well. For today’s play test we’ll go with TFA Vanillin at 2%, but feel free to mess around with FA Vanilla Classic at around 1.5% instead.
ALMOND. A strange addition at first thought, but it’s definitely in many of the darker sodas. Or at least it’s a close proximity to the nutty tones from the Kola nut which is where our delicious addictive friend gets it’s name. We can go conservative here with some FA Almond around .75% I’ve tried with other almond/nut flavors and FA Marzipan is the only other flavor that works here. Either, or, or both at half work.
So for our final work we have
FA Cola 2.5%
FA Caramel 1.5%
TFA Vanillin 2%
FA Almond .75%
The end result, after about 3-5 days steep, is a rich deeply sweet soda vape. Add your favorite fruit variations to this base, or other flavors! This also works well to develop a more nuanced Root Beer by using this base alongside 5% FW Root Beer, and some TFA Wintergreen around .5%. Feel free to mess around with the format, and let me know your thoughts!

-Kopel


Source

1200x630bb.jpg

MixLife on the App Store


If you DIY E-Juice. We have the app for you, just lowered to .99cents globally. Recipes, Flavor Notes, News, Videos, and more!

MixLife Now just $.99 for Android and Apple

Apple: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/id1204922588

Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.app.p5587EB

MixLife on the App Store



Source

tumblr_omtf1muXvu1qc8949_og.jpg

Smoking numbers hit new low as Britons turn to vaping to help quit cigarettes


Smoking numbers hit new low as Britons turn to vaping to help quit cigarettesSmoking numbers hit new low as Britons turn to vaping to help quit cigarettes

Smoking numbers hit new low as Britons turn to vaping to help quit cigarettes

 


Source

cajal.jpg

Diseases of the Will: Neuroscience Founding Father Santiago Ramón y Cajal on the Six Psychological Flaws That Keep the Talented from Achieving Greatness


Diseases of the Will: Neuroscience Founding Father Santiago Ramón y Cajal on the Six Psychological Flaws That Keep the Talented from Achieving Greatness
“Our neurons must be used … not only to know but also to transform knowledge; not only to experience but also to construct.”

“Principles are good and worth the effort only when they develop into deeds,” Van Gogh wrote to his brother in a beautiful letter about talking vs. doing and the human pursuit of greatness. “The great doesn’t happen through impulse alone, and is a succession of little things that are brought together.” But what stands between the impulse for greatness and the doing of the “little things” out of which success is woven?

That’s what neuroscience founding father Santiago Ramón y Cajal (May 1, 1852–October 17, 1934) addresses in his 1897 book Advice for a Young Investigator (public library) — the science counterpart to Rilke’s Letters to a Young Poet and Anna Deavere Smith’s Letters to a Young Artist, predating one by nearly a decade and the other by more than a century.

Although Cajal’s counsel is aimed at young scientists, it is replete with wisdom that applies as much to science as it does to any other intellectually and creatively ambitious endeavor — nowhere more so than in one of the pieces in the volume, titled “Diseases of the Will,” presenting a taxonomy of the “ethical weaknesses and intellectual poverty” that keep even the most gifted young people from ascending to greatness.

Self-portrait by Cajal at his library in his thirties, from Beautiful Brain: The Drawings of Santiago Ramón y Cajal
It should be noted that Cajal addresses his advice to young men, on the presumption that scientists are male — proof that even the most visionary geniuses are still products of their time and place, and can’t fully escape the limitations and biases of their respective era, or as Virginia Woolf memorably put it in Orlando, “It is probable that the human spirit has its place in time assigned to it.” (Lest we forget, although the word “scientist” had been coined for a woman half a century earlier, women were not yet able to vote and were decades away from being admitted into European universities, so scientists in the strict academic sense were indeed exclusively male in Cajal’s culture.) Still, when stripped of its genderedness, his advice remains immensely psychologically insightful, offering a timeless corrective for the pitfalls that keep talent and drive from manifesting into greatness, not only in science but in any field.

Considering the all too pervasive paradox of creative people “who are wonderfully talented and full of energy and initiative [but] who never produce any original work and almost never write anything,” Cajal divides them into six classes according to the “diseases of the will” afflicting them — contemplators, bibliophiles and polyglots, megalomaniacs, instrument addicts, misfits, and theorists.

He examines the superficiality driving the “particularly morbid variety” of the first type:

[Contemplators] love the study of nature but only for its aesthetic qualities — the sublime spectacles, the beautiful forms, the splendid colors, and the graceful structures.

One of Cajal’s revolutionary histological drawings
With an eye to his own chosen field of histology, which he revolutionized by using beauty to illuminate the workings of the brain, Cajal notes that a contemplator will master the finest artistic techniques “without ever feeling the slightest temptation to apply them to a new problem, or to the solution of a hotly contested issue.” He adds:

[Contemplators] are as likable for their juvenile enthusiasm and piquant and winning speech as they are ineffective in making any real scientific progress.

More than a century before Tom Wolfe’s admonition against the rise of the pseudo-intellectual, Cajal treats with special disdain the bibliophiles and polyglots — those who use erudition not as a tool of furthering humanity’s enlightenment but as a personal intellectual ornament of pretension and vanity. He diagnoses this particular “disease of the will”:

The symptoms of this disease include encyclopedic tendencies; the mastery of numerous languages, some totally useless; exclusive subscription to highly specialized journals; the acquisition of all the latest books to appear in the bookseller’s showcases; assiduous reading of everything that is important to know, especially when it interests very few; unconquerable laziness where writing is concerned; and an aversion to the seminar and laboratory.

In a passage that calls to mind Portlandia’s irrepressibly hilarious “Did You Read It?” sketch, he writes:

Naturally, our bookworm lives in and for his library, which is monumental and overflowing. There he receives his following, charming them with pleasant, sparkling, and varied conversation — usually begun with a question something like: “Have you read So-and-so’s book? (An American, German, Russian, or Scandinavian name is inserted here.) Are you acquainted with Such-and-such’s surprising theory?” And without listening to the reply, the erudite one expounds with warm eloquence some wild and audacious proposal with no basis in reality and endurable only in the context of a chat about spiritual matters.

Cajal examines the central snag of these vain pseudo-scholars:

Discussing everything — squandering and misusing their keen intellects — these indolent men of science ignore a very simple and very human fact… They seem only vaguely aware at best of the well-known platitude that erudition has very little value when it does not reflect the preparation and results of sustained personal achievement. All of the bibliophile’s fondest hopes are concentrated on projecting an image of genius infused with culture. He never stops to think that only the most inspired effort can liberate the scholar from oblivion and injustice.

Three decades before John Cowper Powys’s incisive dichotomy between being educated and being cultured, Cajal is careful to affirm the indisputable value of learnedness put to fertile use — something categorically different from erudition as a personal conceit:

No one would deny the fact that he who knows and acts is the one who counts, not he who knows and falls asleep. We render a tribute of respect to those who add original work to a library, and withhold it from those who carry a library around in their head. If one is to become a mere phonograph, it is hardly worth the effort of complicating cerebral organization with study and reflection. Our neurons must be used for more substantial things. Not only to know but also to transform knowledge; not only to experience but also to construct.

[…]

The eloquent fount of erudition may undoubtedly receive enthusiastic plaudits throughout life in the warm intimacy of social gatherings, but he waits in vain for acclamation from the great theater of the world. The wise man’s public lives far away, or does not yet exist; it reads instead of listens; it is so austere and correct that recognition with gratitude and respect is only extended to new facts that are placed in circulation on the cultural market.

Next come the megalomaniacs, who may be talented and motivated, but are bedeviled by a deadly overconfidence that ultimately renders them careless and unrigorous in their work. Cajal writes:

People with this type of failure are characterized by noble and winning traits. They study a great deal, but love personal activities as well. They worship action and have mastered the techniques needed for their research. They are filled with sincere patriotism and long for the personal and national fame that comes with admirable conquests.

Yet their eagerness is rendered sterile by a fatal flaw. While they are confirmed gradualists in theory, they turn out to rely on luck in practice. As if believing in miracles, they want to start their careers with an extraordinary achievement. Perhaps they recall that Hertz, Mayer, Schwann, Roentgen, and Curie began their scientific careers with a great discovery, and aspire to jump from foot soldier to general in their first battle. They end up spending their lives planning and plotting, constructing and correcting, always submerged in feverish activity, always revising, hatching the great embryonic work—the outstanding, sweeping contribution. And, as the years go, by expectation fades, rivals whisper, and friends stretch their imaginations to justify the great man’s silence. Meanwhile, important monographs are raining down abroad on the subjects they have so painstakingly explored, fondled, and worn to a thread.

Self-portrait by Cajal at his laboratory in his thirties, from Beautiful Brain: The Drawings of Santiago Ramón y Cajal
Cajal reflects on the only remedy for the megalomaniac’s main stumbling block:

All of this happens because when they started out these men did not follow with humility and modesty a law of nature that is the essence of good sense: Tackle small problems first, so that if success smiles and strength increases one may then undertake the great feats of investigation.

He considers a special class of megalomaniac — the serial ideator who always fails to reach the stage of execution and whose rampant dreaming chronically falls short of doing. (This type, it occurs to me, has an analog in love — the serial besotter, who thrives on the thrill of infatuation, but crumbles as soon as the fantasy the beloved becomes a real relationship teeming with imperfection and the often toilsome work of love.) Cajal writes:

The dreamers who are reminiscent of the conversationalists of old might be seen as a variety of megalomaniac. They are easily distinguished by their effervescence and by a profusion of ideas and plans of attack. Their optimistic eyes see everything through rose-colored glasses. They are confident that, once accepted, fruits of their initiative will open broad horizons in science, and yield invaluable practical results as well. There is only one minor drawback, which is deplorable — none of their undertakings are ever completed. All come to an untimely end, sometimes through lack of resources, and sometimes through lack of a proper environment, but usually because there were not enough able assistants to carry out the great work, or because certain organizations or governments were not sufficiently civilized and enlightened to encourage and fund it.

The truth is that dreamers do not work hard enough; they lack perseverance.

He turns to the instrument addicts next — a class particularly prominent in our present culture of techno-fetishism. In a sentiment that applies with astonishing precision to today’s legions of failed serial entrepreneurs — the foundering founders who have fetishized the glitzy sleekness of an invention, be it a gadget or an app, over its core conceptual value proposition — Cajal writes:

This rather unimportant variety of ineffectualist can be recognized immediately by a sort of fetishistic worship of research instruments. They are as fascinated by the gleam of metal as the lark is with its own reflection in a mirror.

[…]

Cold-hearted instrument addicts cannot make themselves useful. They suffer from an almost incurable disease, especially when it is associated (as it commonly is) with a distinctive moral condition that is rarely admitted — a selfish and disagreeable obsession with preventing others from working because they personally do not know how, or don’t want, to work.

Next, Cajal turns to the misfit — though I suspect the word could have been translated better, for he doesn’t mean the visionary nonconformist who propels society forward but the person who has ended up in a vocation or environment ill-fitted to their inherent talents, thwarting them from reaching their potential. He writes:

Instead of being abnormal, misfits are simply unfortunate individuals who have had work unsuited to their natural aptitudes imposed on them by adverse circumstances. When everything is said and done, however, these failures still fall in the category of abulics because they lack the energy to change their course, and in the end fail to reconcile calling and profession.

It appears to us that misfits are hopelessly ill. On the other hand, this certainly does not apply to the young men whose course has been swayed by family pressure or the tyrannies of their social environment, and who thus find themselves bound to a line of work by force. With their minds still flexible, they would do well to change course as soon as favorable winds blow. Even those toiling in a branch of science they do not enjoy — living as if banished from the beloved country of their ideals — can redeem themselves and work productively. They must generate the determination to reach for lofty goals, to seek an agreeable line of work — which suits their talents — that they can do well and to which they can devote a great deal of energy. Is there any branch of science that lacks at least one delightful oasis where one’s intellect can find useful employment and complete satisfaction?

Cajal’s drawing of the medial geniculate nucleus in the thalamus of the cat, from Beautiful Brain: The Drawings of Santiago Ramón y Cajal
Next come the theorists. Marked by “a certain flaunting of intellectual superiority that is only pardoned in the savant renowned for a long series of true discoveries,” the theorist becomes so besotted with her ideas and hypotheses that she shirks from testing them against reality and instead continually narrows her lens to only factor in what supports her theories. Cajal writes:

There are highly cultivated, wonderfully endowed minds whose wills suffer from a particular form of lethargy, which is all the more serious because it is not apparent to them and is usually not thought of as being particularly important. Its undeniable symptoms include a facility for exposition, a creative and restless imagination, an aversion to the laboratory, and an indomitable dislike for concrete science and seemingly unimportant data. They claim to view things on a grand scale; they live in the clouds. They prefer the book to the monograph, brilliant and audacious hypotheses to classic but sound concepts. When faced with a difficult problem, they feel an irresistible urge to formulate a theory rather than to question nature. As soon as they happen to notice a slight, half-hidden, analogy between two phenomena, or succeed in fitting some new data or other into the framework of a general theory –whether true or false — they dance for joy and genuinely believe that they are the most admirable of reformers. The method is legitimate in principle, but they abuse it by falling into the pit of viewing things from a single perspective. The essential thing for them is the beauty of the concept. It matters very little whether the concept itself is based on thin air, so long as it is beautiful and ingenious, well-thought-out and symmetrical.

Exclaiming that “so many apparently immutable doctrines have fallen,” Cajal summarizes this particular pitfall rather bluntly:

Basically, the theorist is a lazy person masquerading as a diligent one. He unconsciously obeys the law of minimum effort because it is easier to fashion a theory than to discover a phenomenon.

Cajal takes care to note that while hypotheses have their use “as inspiration during the planning stage of an investigation, and for stimulating new fields of investigation,” the theorist’s mistake is a blind attachment to her theories not as a means to truth but as an end of intellectual labor:

One must distinguish between working hypotheses … and scientific theories. The hypothesis is an interpretative questioning of nature. It is an integral part of the investigation because it forms the initial phase, the virtually required antecedent. But to speculate continuously — to theorize just for its own sake, without arriving at an objective analysis of phenomena — is to lose oneself in a kind of philosophical idealism without a solid foundation, to turn one’s back on reality.

Let us emphasize again this obvious conclusion: a scholar’s positive contribution is measured by the sum of the original data that he contributes. Hypotheses come and go but data remain. Theories desert us, while data defend us. They are our true resources, our real estate, and our best pedigree. In the eternal shifting of things, only they will save us from the ravages of time and from the forgetfulness or injustice of men. To risk everything on the success of one idea is to forget that every fifteen or twenty years theories are replaced or revised. So many apparently conclusive theories in physics, chemistry, geology, and biology have collapsed in the last few decades! On the other hand, the well-established facts of anatomy and physiology and of chemistry and geology, and the laws and equations of astronomy and physics remain — immutable and defying criticism.

Advice for a Young Investigator is a marvelous read in its totality, exploring such aspects of science and success as the art of concentration, the most common mistakes beginners make, the optimal social and cultural conditions for discovery, and how to avoid the perilous trap of prestige. Complement it with physicist and writer Alan Lightman on the shared psychology of creative breakthrough in art and science, philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer on the crucial difference between genius and talent, and astrophysicist and writer Janna Levin on the animating force of great scientists.

donating = loving

Bringing you (ad-free) Brain Pickings takes me hundreds of hours each month. If you find any joy and stimulation here, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

newsletter

Brain Pickings has a free weekly newsletter. It comes out on Sundays and offers the week’s most unmissable reads. Here’s what to expect. Like? Sign up.

Diseases of the Will: Neuroscience Founding Father Santiago Ramón y Cajal on the Six Psychological Flaws That Keep the Talented from Achieving Greatness

 


Source

81-300×169.jpg

The Art of Steeping E-Juice and E-Liquids


Steeping E-Juice

Intro

Everyone who knows me, knows that I am a chili guy. I love me some chili whether it be from Wendy’s home made. I also love to cook my own. All of my friends and family know about my famous recipe. The last time I made a batch, it was gone almost instantly. We all know that the longer you cook and stir the chili, the better it is going to taste. Such is the concept of steeping. After all, e-liquid can be considered a food product since it uses food-grade flavoring. Think of a fine wine or bourbon that has been aged; that is why we steep. This is going to be a short guide as to how to steep your e-juice.

“Do you like it fast? Or do you like it good? I’m talking about e-juice, silly!” – RIP Trippers (YouTuber)

Why Steep?

Before Steeping

As far as I’m concerned, the steeping process begins as soon as the batch is mixed. The time that the juice travels to the store and sits on the shelf is when the steeping begins. However, the flavor will greatly benefit from additional steeping time. Many of you are probably thinking, “Why do I have to do this myself!? Why can’t they just sell the juice when its ready!?” The reality is that it takes some time for PG and especially VG to properly soak up all of the flavor molecules. Plus, that extra time will greatly enhance the flavor of your e-liquid. If you have ever made soup or chili then you know exactly what I mean.

After Steeping

My brother was super hungry one day after work and I was just finishing up a batch of chili but I like to let it sit for at least a half hour after it is done to cool down. Although he was starving, I strongly advised him to wait another few minutes, but he didn’t. The truth is he enjoyed the crap out of that chili. It probably tasted okay since it was already simmering on low for a good hour, but the point I am trying to make is that it could have been even better! It becomes slightly darker, thicker and richer in flavor after it sits for that half hour, much like steeping e-liquid.

If you do not have any patience whatsoever, just leave now. Steeping e-juice is for distinguished gentlemen (and women) that are trying to squeeze every last drop of flavor out of life. The word “steeping” has been used for years in reference to soup and especially tea. It takes patience, self control and a vision for a better tomorrow. Tea is not something you can throw together quickly and guzzle down. We are talking about a much more sophisticated way of life, so put that soda down.

What is Steeping E-Juice?

One of the first videos that I found when researching steeping was straight from Rip Trippers himself. I consider him to be an expert on the subject, especially because he puts out a few juice lines of his own. Mr. Trippers breaks down the subject further into three terms. Steeping, breathing and “streathing”, which is essentially a combination of the first two processes.

Steeping E-Liquid

This is when you place your closed e-juice bottles in a cool, dark place, such as a tall cigar box, for a week or two. It is also recommended that you shake your bottles as often as possible to help expedite the process. Another way to speed up the steeping is to run the bottles under warm tap water. The heat from the water will get the molecules moving around faster.

Breathing E-Liquid

This is when you take the cap off and let your e-juice bottle sit for a few hours. Rip recommends no more than 12 hours of breathing e-juice. Eventually the flavor and nicotine content begins to diminish during this process so don’t forget about it! (Many people overgeneralize the term steeping to include this process but the truth is that “breathing” is not the same thing.)

“Streathing” E-Liquid

“Streathing” in Warm Water

This is a more advanced process that Rip implements to find out when his flavors hit a peak. Start by shaking your bottles and then run them under warm tap water. Take the cap off and place them in a cool, dark place for two hours. Put the cap back on and shake well. Then squeeze the excess air out of the bottle which recycles the oxygen throughout the juice. This can only be done with a bottle that has a nipple as opposed to those that come with a dropper. Rip Trippers usually repeats this process a few times as it takes a lot more time, effort and precision than steeping or breathing e-juice.

How Long Does Steeping E-Juice take?

E-Liquid in front of a GPU Fan

This actually depends on the flavor. Fruity flavors tend to require the least amount of steeping time. Tobacco flavors need a little bit more time to steep and the more creamier, dessert flavors tend to take the longest time to reach their flavor peak. It is recommended that you steep for at least two weeks, but some flavors may take longer and some may be good right out of the bottle. Using warm water or some kind of heat source such as a slow cooker, some even use their computer’s fan vent will help to speed up the process. The whole point of steeping e-liquid is to get maximum flavor out of the juice, so if it tastes good to you, then you are done. Some people like to steep their juice for 2-3 weeks, while others might even go for months. It is all subjective, so you can steep for as long as you want, but just make sure you are not going past the expiration date on the bottle!

Conclusion

Steeping E-Liquid

Steeping is not for everyone but it is highly recommended to achieve the best flavor from your e-liquids. Vaping is becoming a big industry and many juice manufacturers can barely keep up with their rapidly expanding market. Likewise, they probably try to get their products out there to meet the demand, which means sometimes you might be getting a freshly mixed batch of e-liquid. Of course you can order from companies that sell liquid that is pre-steeped, or you can just get lucky and get a batch that has already been sitting for a sufficient amount of time. Some flavors may not even need to be steeped. On the other hand, if you have been steeping a bottle for months and it still doesn’t taste right, chances are your juice just sucks.

​Don’t know what liquid to buy? Check out our Best E-Juice article!

A huge thanks to reddit user nyteryder79 for his awesome e-liquid steeping pictures.

The post Steeping E-Juice appeared first on Vaping360.

The Art of Steeping E-Juice and E-Liquids

 


Source

81-300×169.jpg

Why are doctors afraid to recommend vaping to smokers? – Vaping360


Why are doctors afraid to recommend vaping to smokers?

A new survey of doctors shows the extent of the damage caused by the endless war on vaping by so-called public health groups. Presented a hypothetical scenario in which a smoking patient asks if she should try e-cigarettes to quit smoking, the majority of surveyed physicians say no.

The survey is described in a paper published in the journal Annals of the American Thoracic Society. The authors are from Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN, and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN.

The doctors were sent a survey that offered a “clinical case vignette” that described a smoking patient seeking advice on quitting who asks about vaping. “A 27-year-old woman with moderate persistent asthma presents to establish care. She is on a moderate dose of combined inhaled
fluticasone and salmeterol. Her symptoms are currently well controlled. She smokes. During your interview, she asks if she should use electronic cigarettes to help her quit smoking.”

Doctors who advise against e-cigs and only offer FDA-approved cessation products are then told, “She tells you that she has tried other medications to quit before, refuses a prescription, and asks again whether she should try electronic cigarettes to quit.”

They hated smoking so much that they eventually came to hate smokers themselves.

Believe it or not, only 27 percent of the doctors then suggest the patient try vaping. — despite being told by the patient that she will not use nicotine gum or Chantix! That is as good as telling the patient that she might as well smoke.

Who do we blame for this revolting story? The doctors who refuse this patient a consumer nicotine product that might change her life — or even save it — or the organizations that have worked so hard to twist the truth about nicotine and vaping?

Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University lays the blame squarely on the anti-nicotine zealots in the tobacco control industry. Siegel himself was once among their ranks, training with Stanton Glantz and working in the CDC Office on Smoking and Health. But what they’ve done to shape public (and medical) opinion on vaping now disgusts him.

While this is truly appalling, I do not blame the physicians. They have been misled and confused by a major campaign of deception being waged by anti-tobacco groups and some health agencies, including the FDA and the CDC. These groups have lied to physicians and deceived them about the nature of e-cigarettes, their risks, and the relative risks of smoking compared to vaping.

For example, the CDC has told physicians that e-cigarettes are simply another “form of tobacco use.” The FDA has told physicians that there is no evidence that vaping is any safer than smoking. Many anti-tobacco groups have told physicians that vaping is actually worse than smoking. Several anti-tobacco researchers have told physicians that vaping poses a higher cancer risk than smoking. Recently, some anti-tobacco researchers told physicians that vaping poses a higher risk of stroke than smoking. And many organizations have told physicians that vaping causes bronchiolitis obliterans (“popcorn lung”) without even a suggestion that smoking also causes this severe, progressive lung disease.

Interestingly, the Mayo Clinic itself (with which four of this paper’s authors are affiliated) has been a huge part of the problem. The Mayo Clinic lied to physicians about e-cigarettes, telling them that vaping is not any safer than smoking. The Mayo Clinic even went as far as to question the sanity of electronic cigarette users.

– Dr. Michael Siegel

How upside-down is the world of tobacco control that they take satisfaction in brainwashing doctors — who see the ravages of smoking every day! — to think that quitting cigarettes by vaping is worse than smoking?

Who shoulders the blame for this? Let’s name them: Matthew Myers and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the Truth Initiative, the American Cancer Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the University of California, Tom Frieden and the CDC, the FDA, and many, many others.

These groups have become a massive industry — far larger than the vaping industry, far more advanced, and absolutely unified in their anti-harm reduction message. They hated smoking so much that they eventually came to hate smokers themselves. So much that they consider it a success to turn doctors against the patients they’re sworn to care for.

The post Why are doctors afraid to recommend vaping to smokers? appeared first on Vaping360.

Why are doctors afraid to recommend vaping to smokers? – Vaping360

 


Source