Talk:Heated tobacco product/Archive 7

RfC on solid tobacco heated using external heat sources
This RfC is about how products that heat solid tobacco using external heat sources work, and how to explain it clearly and comprehensibly (note these are not e-cigarettes; they heat tobacco, usually to much higher temperatures).

Points on which comment is requested:
 * 1) Should charred tobacco be described as unburned?
 * 2) Should the more specific term "charred" be preferred to the more general term "heated" for things that have been heated until they charred (charring/pyrolysis cannot occur without heating)?
 * 3) Should the more specific term "smoke" be preferred to the more general term "aerosol" for the emissions of charring tobacco (but not for aerosols heated to temperatures too low to char)?
 * 4) Should Wikipedia have separate articles for products that char tobacco and those that leach it at sub-boiling temperatures (the article currently addresses only charring products)?
 * 5) How should the term "burned" be used? Does it encompass both charring and complete combustion to ash?
 * 6) Under what circumstances should terminology used to market these products be used in Wikipedia's voice (separate from sourced content on public discussion of such terms)?
 * 7) Should the more specific term "charring" be preferred to the more general term "pyrolysis" for pyrolizing complex organic materials, specifically tobacco? (added question)

For those who like pictures, here is a photo of one of these products, disassembled after use to show the heat-altered tobacco; and I've put together a pictoral guide to the thermal changes in heated organic matter (not neutral on the above questions, but attempting accuracy). HLHJ (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Votes

 * 1) Should charred tobacco be described as unburned? This question makes no sense, especially when there is no content or source presented. Before asking such questions please provide a MEDRS-compliant source.
 * 2) Should the more specific term "charred" be preferred to the more general term "heated" for things that have been heated until they charred (charring/pyrolysis cannot occur without heating)? The words are not interchangeable. The term "charred" is not a more specific term. Claiming that it is "Charred e-fluid residue in an e-cigarette mouthpiece." is original research.
 * 3) Should the more specific term "smoke" be preferred to the more general term "aerosol" for the emissions of charring tobacco (but not for aerosols heated to temperatures too low to char)?' No. They produce both. The term "smoke" is not a more specific term. All smoke is not aerosol. That is original research to make such a claim. No MEDRS-compliant source claims smoke is a type of aerosol.
 * 4) Should Wikipedia have separate articles for products that char tobacco and those that leach it at sub-boiling temperatures (the article currently addresses only charring products)? No. No MEDRS-compliant source has been presented to claim the emissions are charred tobacco.
 * 5) How should the term "burned" be used? The question is too vague. Does it encompass both charring and complete combustion to ash? No source has been presented.
 * 6) Under what circumstances should terminology used to market these products be used in Wikipedia's voice (separate from sourced content on public discussion of such terms)? No circumstance has been presented that it should not be in Wikipedia's voice.
 * 7) Should the more specific term "charring" be preferred to the more general term "pyrolysis" for pyrolizing complex organic materials, specifically tobacco? (added question) These are different terms and no MEDRS sources has been presented. Most of these questions seems to be hypothetical or too vague. This RfC is malformed because it is asking vague questions without presenting any sources or content. QuackGuru ( talk ) 05:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * comment per QuackGuru RfC is malformed because it is asking vague questions without presenting any sources...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * An RfC cannot handle the vague issues raised and I would not expect much help from the notice at WT:MED. The science ref desk would be best for anyone wanting views on the technical issues. Our opinions are irrelevant for the article since the text has to follow reliable sources. Presumably a disagreement has occurred. Any chance of summarizing the problem with a couple of diffs showing the alternate approaches? Johnuniq (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments


I think this RfC comes down to fairly non-technical questions. If you put a slice of bread in the oven at a temperature a bit over boiling, it will eventually make a smell and go completely black right through, but it will not burst into flame; this is analogous to what happens to the tobacco in these products. The question is whether the resulting blackened thing would be best described as a heated slice of bread, and whether the aerosol filling your kitchen would be smoke.

However, my claim that this situation is analogous might be disputed. So I'll go into technical background; subject to contradiction, I think none of the facts in the first collapsed section are under dispute. Note that I've used "charred" in the RfC, but "pyrolyzed" is a more technical term (and also applies to non-organic materials).

In dispute are the terms "smoke" and "burn", which you may have noticed are not used in the descriptions in the first collapsed section. Note that "smoke" is a more specific term than "aerosol" because all smoke is aerosol, but some aerosols, such as wet steam, are not smoke.

Comments and criticism on any of this are welcome. HLHJ (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_smoking_system&type=revision&diff=883545729&oldid=883262556 MEDRS sources that specifically discuss an aerosol do not call an aerosol smoke. Smoke is smoke and an aerosol is an aerosol]. It should be noted that I tagged the section and tried to clean it up. But a fair amount of content I removed was restored. QuackGuru ( talk ) 02:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Firstly, these products are not e-cigarettes. E-cigarettes use a fluid. My understanding is that, in e-cigarettes, charring or pyrolysis is a fairly rare fault, producting a dry puff full of bad-tasting pyrolysis products. These tobacco products, on the other hand, are designed to pyrolyse solid, if damp, tobacco. Every puff is a "dry puff", generated at temperatures well above the vapourizing temperatures of water.
 * Returning to the topic of the RfC, I don't think I need sources for questions, nor for the meanings of English words. Adding such would have made the question non-neutral. The article has sourced information about disagreements on terminology between public health researchers and the tobacco industry, with mouseover quotes. I'm asking what editors think these words convey, not to scientists or medics or tobacco marketers, but to ordinary English speakers. Your own views are also valid. Do you think that the tobacco in this photo is charred? What do you think "charring" and "smoke" mean, if not something like "blackening due to thermal breakdown" and "aerosol of thermal breakdown products"? How would you describe what is going on in that fire photo? What would you call the thermal breakdown of molecules? HLHJ (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that smoke is always an aerosol, by definition; if you disagree please provide a counter-example. This MEDRS source uses "smoke" but not "aerosol" for the emissions of pyrolyzing tobacco, and this RS source says that smoke is an aerosol in which pyrolysis products are present. HLHJ (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * See content from the same MEDRS source you quoted: "À forte concentration (50 μg/L de nicotine dans l’aérosol de la THS2.2), les effets sont cependant mesurables sur tous les paramètres étudiés. De nombreux effets persistent à la concentration de nicotine présente dans la fumée des cigarettes conventionnelles (23 μg/L)." That translates to "At high concentrations (50 μg/L of nicotine in the HRT 2.2 aerosol), however, the effects are measurable on all parameters studied." An aerosol is not smoke. The other source you presented in not a MEDRS source. You can also read the article on aerosol and smoke. There are very different things. QuackGuru ( talk ) 16:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * You're right, there is one use of the word "aerosol" in that article; I missed it, and wrongly said the article did not use the word. Searching the article for "fumé*" (smoke*) turns up 54 hits.
 * I'm saying that smoke is a type of aerosol, not that they are the same; in the same way, dogs and vertebrates aren't the same, and I think Wikipedia should say "dog", not "vertebrate", when referring to vertebrates that are dogs. The aerosol article says that smoke is an aerosol (and disputes whether to call it a natural or man-made one): "Aerosols can be found in urban ecosystems in various forms, for example: -Dust -Cigarette smoke". The smoke article says "Smoke is an aerosol".
 * I've added a question about charring and pyrolysis. I do not think that it is possible for tobacco, or any complex organic material, to pyrolyse without charring; if you do, please give an counter-example (for instance, a picture of some pyrolysed but uncharred tobacco). HLHJ (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * These products produce both aerosol and smoke. We should not try to change that fact. QuackGuru ( talk ) 21:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Smoke is an aerosol containing  pyrolysis products, not one consisting exclusively of pyrolysis products, which would be really hard to make. All smoke contains some particles which are also present in non-smoke aerosols. Water droplets, for instance, are present in steam, but also in almost all smoke.
 * The tobacco in these charring cigarettes is mixed with lots of moisture-holding humectants, more than in a regular cigarette. I suspect that a cigarette with that amount of moisture in the tobacco would go out as soon as you took the lighter away from it; but these things have an external heat source, so that doesn't matter (apart from battery life). As a result, the smoke from the most common brand has three to four times the amount of water droplets (steam) found in the smoke of conventional cigarettes, according to filter collection. But hiding the smoke in a large amount of steam and calling it "vapour", or "aerosol" (as tobacco companies have), does not make it non-smoke. It just makes it wet smoke. Burning damp leaves makes damper smoke than burning dry leaves in the woods, too, but we still call it smoke. HLHJ (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is misleading to claim up to four times the amount and it is misleading to claim it was the most common product. The draft has content on water and tar content about two different IQOS products. The content is accurate in the draft. There is no reason to hide they contain both aerosol and smoke. We don't write articles to try to counter what tobacco companies are doing. QuackGuru ( talk ) 23:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * See The MEDRS Dauzenberg review says that the aerosol is smoke and the products are not smokeless. The Washington Post and other RS say that PMI claimed otherwise, and that the independent researchers explicitly disagree with PMI's claim. HLHJ (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In this thread you wrote in part on 19:48, 23 February 2019, You're right, there is one use of the word "aerosol" in that article; I missed it, and wrongly said the article did not use the word.
 * Before you were stating the MEDRS Dauzenberg review says that the aerosol is smoke, but now you state that you missed it where it says aerosol from the same source. The content was misleading and failed verification content. QuackGuru ( talk ) 17:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * the problems can't be summarized with a couple of diffs. A signification portion of content is under dispute. See Talk:Electric_smoking_system and other following subsections. QuackGuru ( talk ) 18:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)




 * , ; here is a table of claims and sources. The tobacco industry has made a series of claims about these products, which are very similar to historic claims made for other "Modified risk" products.


 * Most of these claims take the form of terminology using common English words. While common English words are often a bit imprecise, I think that the marketing use of these words has stretched them outside their normal meaning. For instance, I don't think many people would say that the pizza pictured here is heated, not burned.




 * The tobacco industry's marketing terms are widely contested in the medical literature, including, in some cases, MEDRS. The medical literature tends to use very clearly-defined technical terminology, perhaps partly because the tobacco companies have responded forcefully, with legal staff, to academics writing papers directly contradicting plain-English industry terminology.


 * Medical literature often uses obscure terminology ("patella"/"kneecap", "mortality event"/"death", and "metatarsalgia"/"pain in the arch of the foot"). This presents problems for the lay reader, which is not an new issue for Wikipedia. I'd like to describe the technical terms in common English, and use common English equivalents where they are not less appropriate to the meaning. Unfortunately, QG insists that I can only talk about common English terms while citing sources that
 * a) are WP:MEDRS
 * b) mention these tobacco products
 * I could easily find RS for describing the technical terms, but it's hard to find a medical paper that defines technical terms which the academic audience is expected to know already. It's even harder to find one that is MEDRS. And there's not much literature on these products yet.


 * QG also insists that the terms used in each sentence must be the terms used in the source supporting the sentence, and there can be no generally accepted equivalent terms, or standard terms for the article. A few other editors have previously objected to these ideas on these talk pages.


 * Journalistic sources seem to copy their terminology from the industry press package a depressing amount of the time.


 * you said "We don't write articles to try to counter what tobacco companies are doing". We do write articles give access to knowledge, and we have a duty not to include misleading content. There are plenty of websites that give access to the world's misconceptions. HLHJ (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I did write claims and counter claims. The draft explains practically everything in a neutral manner. See Draft:Electric_smoking_system and also see Draft:Electric_smoking_system. I disagree with using the word "smoke" throughout the article. The word "tar" is discussed in the lede and body, among other things. There is way more critical content in the draft than in the current article. The difference is it is neutral in tone. QuackGuru ( talk ) 03:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yikes, this is too complex for an RfC and probably too complex for Wikipedia. I have seen QG insisting on following sources in other topics and while it can be irritating it is often best since paraphrasing that strays off the exact wording can quickly stray into spin and original research. Is there a diff showing one attempt to explain a particular term? That would at least give something concrete to look at. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * agree w/ Johnuniq--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The arguing is complex, but I think the question boils down to the first paragraph in this comments section. I've spend enough time on this article that I probably underestimate the difficulty of understanding the topic, though. For a concrete attempt at explanation, would this | old explanation of how the tobacco products work be the sort of thing you are looking for? If you have any suggestions for improvements, I'd appreciate them, as I am unable to look at this with fresh eyes.
 * I'd really like consistent terms used throughout the article; if the term used for X changes in each sentence, it will be confusing, especially if we can't explain that the terms are equivalent. I think QG agrees with me on that last, as QG's draft uses terms like "aerosol" ~throughout, even when the sources cited say something else, like "smoke". I think that if some terms are explicitly condemned in MEDRS as inaccurate, we should certainly avoid them, even if less-reliable sources use them. HLHJ (talk) 05:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * See the draft again. See "They also generate smoke.[11]" in the lede of the draft. Later on in the draft it says "The IQOS HeatSticks do not generate a flame, they are charred following use.[49] Heat-not-burn tobacco products also generate smoke.[11] Up until 2016, Phillip Morris International researchers stated their IQOS product produces smoke.[11]" I compromised and used a low quality source to get the content you wanted in the draft. I usually don't do that. You are not saying what is missing from the draft using MEDRS quality sources.
 * The draft is consistent with using terms such as aerosol and emissions.
 * You claim that WHO says "cigarettes" -World Health Organization[13] That is misleading and false. The draft says "Some use product-specific customized cigarettes.[8]" I tagged the content claiming that WHO calls them "cigarettes" as POV commentary. The current article contains numerous misleading statements. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 17:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * QuackGuru, I appreciate your efforts to resolve this, but I think you are mistaken about what I am seeking. I do not think that the article should say "aerosol" throughout, and mention in passing that they also make smoke (I have not seem any source state that these products emit two separate aerosols, only one of which is smoke; this would not make sense given the meaning of "aerosol", "solution in air"). I think it should say "smoke" throughout, and mention that smoke is an aerosol and some manufacturers disagree with MEDRS and insist that their products don't emit smoke. I also do not think it should say heat-not-burn throughout. The page move discussion was opposed to this name, and it is a misleading marketing term.
 * The WHO literally said "some make use of specifically designed cigarettes to contain the tobacco for heating". I therefore think 'the WHO says "cigarettes"' is neither misleading nor literally untrue. Cochrane also said "cigarettes".
 * If you argue that there are two aerosols, could you please describe the chemical compositions of the non-smoke aerosol and the smoke aerosol? HLHJ (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Stating "smoke" throughout is not encyclopedic. Trying to imply these products are smoking cigarettes is misleading. These products clearly produce both an aerosol and smoke. We go by what the sources describe rather than get into a debate about the chemical composition of an aerosol versus smoke. According to the French review the IQOS also produces an aerosol. WHO also says these products produce an aerosol. Mentioning that smoke is an aerosol is confusing. WHO does not simply claim they are "cigarettes". They use specialty made tobacco sticks. Cochrane also does not simply state these products are "cigarettes". Companies call them heat-not-burn tobacco products. According to the French review companies no longer use heat-not-burn in their marketing. Therefore, this is now a moot point. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 03:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , the Cochrane review says that using these products is "cigarette smoking", and I do not think it misleading. You can find the exact quotes in the table above. Do you have a source that these products produce two aerosols, and only one of the aerosols is smoke? "These products make smoke" is less confusing than "these products make an aerosol... and the aerosol which they make is smoke". Are you arguing that Wikipedia should use "heat-not-burn" terminology abandoned by tobacco company marketing as untenable? Why? HLHJ (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The Cochrane review does not simply state that these products are called "cigarette smoking". That is not the full name they used. It is misleading to misquote a source. The French review says the IQOS creates an aerosol and they say it creates smoke. They create both an aerosol and smoke. Wikipedia can use "heat-not-burn" terminology because that is the most known common name. What companies do in the marketing should not change the title. A stronger case can be made when companies no longer use the term "heat-not-burn" in their marketing. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 03:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * To add to this discussion, I'd like to pick up on some of the information from HLHJ's "technical points possibly in dispute". I'm not as familiar with HTPs outside our portfolio, but I am assuming HLHJ is right that there are HTPs that heat up only to 35 C. If so, I find it hard to believe that this creates what one would call smoke. Any HTP that heat a liquid rather than heating tobacco directly, I also find hard to believe that they could create something you'd call smoke. If we're looking for one term that can be applied equally to all products, it should be aerosol. I think we editors want to keep this in mind when someone edits one of the general sections about heated tobacco products. Cheers, Sarah at PMI (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I think your addition may cause confusion. To the best of my understanding:
 * E-cigs are like spilling tea on an electric stovetop set to simmer. The tea boils off, and you inhale the tea-y steam. PMI's product is like putting leaves on a electric stovetop set to max heat. The leaves shrivel and char to a black carbonized mass, and you inhale the smoke.
 * Referring to the temperature diagram above:
 * e-cigarettes create an aerosol by boiling (~100 Celsius, 212 Fahrenheit) a solution on a hot element. The steam mixes with air and cools to a solute-laden wet steam before being inhaled.
 * PMI's product chars solid tobacco cigarettes with a heating element; the temperature gets well above boiling, 340 Celsius (644 Fahrenheit). The tobacco chars and emits smoke (an aerosol containing pyrolysis products). It does not get hot enough to burn off the carbon, but this might actually make the smoke nastier (by retaining harmful pyrolysis products that would have broken down at a higher temperature).
 * There are some "hybrid" products that make a steamy aerosol, then pass it through solid tobacco. One of these products does not heat the tobacco above 35 Celsius, essentially body temperature. Another heats the tobacco hot enough that it seems reasonable to assume that it pyrolyses and smokes.
 * These are totally different products. Wikipedia already has separate articles for e-cigs and solid-tobacco-and-heating-element products. My point 4 suggests also splitting off what one MEDRS calls the "quasi-unheated" tobacco product. Essentially, I suggest a division into charring and non-charring products.
 * I know PMI really wants to categorize their product as a vaping device, not a smoking device. PMI could profit from the tax breaks, looser regulations, and social support that e-cigarettes enjoy (compared to regular cigarettes). But PMI's IQOS product is not an e-cigarette, it is a charring cigarette. Its mode of operation is completely different. Your strong economic incentive to call your product an e-cig does not make it one. HLHJ (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Claiming it is a charring cigarette seems to be uncited. We should avoid splitting the article up. The research is still very premature. They seem to produce a wet smoke. Therefore, it is very little smoke and mostly create an aerosol. The new hybrid IQOS MESH is an e-cig. They also sell other e-cig products. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 03:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * ***No vote*** Summoned by the bot. this RFC is too intractable and ambitious. I have reviewed this article's stages and walls of texts in the talk pages and it has become clear that certain users here are not disclosing a COI. That should be resolved. It is hard to assume good faith when the entire article is plagued with biased notes criticising the sources and its synthesis. Perhaps a new set RfCs should be submitted. Each one to address (1) the charred/burnt discussion, (2) The smoke/vapour discussion (3) the separate article discussion. Dryfee (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * there is no charred/burnt discussion in reliable MEDRS sources. There also is no dispute over smoke/vapour in reliable sources. This RfC seems more like a waste of time. Something is not adding up here. You mentioned "it has become clear that certain users here are not disclosing a COI." An undisclosed COI is possibly grounds for a topic ban IMO. What should be done? There is a related article. See Talk:Marketing of electronic cigarettes/Archive 1 for another RfC. The marketing of electronic cigarettes is still a POVFORK and is also in poor shape. I tried to clean it up and was reverted. <b style="color: #e34234;">QuackGuru</b> ( talk ) 19:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * No vote - Summoned by bot, for the first time in almost 6 months, and it's to a deep wall of text. I agree with . This needs to be more concise and summarized. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  23:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)