Talk:Pod mod

Notability?

How are these independently notable from the (vast) array of other vaping devices on the market? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

After looking at all the articles, I am finding quite a bit referring to specifically this type of device as separate from e-cigarettes due to the different delivery mechanism of nicotine (and the higher content delivered). There are a ton of blogs in the middle of this but mainstream news sites are reporting on them. Usually the Juul system but there are others mentioned in the articles as well. spryde | talk 20:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of notability. Sources that discuss Juul are being used in this article for claims about pod mods in general. For instance, see "Pod mods contain a disposable cartridge and are different from e-cigarettes and vapes as the coils are not removed or changed.[1]" When a source is about Juul it should not be used to make a broader claim about pod mods in general. QuackGuru (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Heat-not-burn?

QuackGuru has twice now removed the categorization Category:Heat-not-burn products from this article with no justification other than "wrong" and "Pod mods are not HNT products." I don't know what a "HNT" product is.

Yet pod mods clearly use heating (butane or electric) and are a lower temperature than combustion of tobacco. Products from Ploom, developers of the pod mod, are even noted in the heat-not-burn product article. As a form of e-cigarette technology, it remains unclear why e-cigarette itself is categorized here, but QuackGuru believes that pod mods should not be. Please explain. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Pod mods are different than heat-not-burn products. The heat-not-burn product article does not mention pod mods. Ploom and Pax also make heat-not-burn products. QuackGuru (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thankyou for finally replying.

Why is a pod mod not a heat-not-burn product? What is the difference? They use heat to produce an aerosol. They do not combust the source liquid. Why do you exclude them? Where is your source which says that pod mods are not heat-not-burn products?

Which are the Ploom / Pax products which you are happy to include and which are not? Why are they different? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Where is your reliable source that says "pod mods" are heat-not-burn products? There is a reason pod mods are not mentioned in the heat-not-burn product article. QuackGuru (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLUESKY, same as all the other synonyms given for it at Heat-not-burn_product#cite_note-33. The citations there are not stating "Electric cancer stick is a synonym for heat-not-burn product", yet WP is happy to use them, on the basis of shared technical features (the low-temperature heating of nicotine-containing liquids to produce an aerosol), rather than on any linguistic claim. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

This article does not mention heat-not-burn products. A pod mod is not a synonym or a type of heat-not-burn product. I asked for a reliable source that says "pod mods" are heat-not-burn products. QuackGuru (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

There are forty synonyms listed at Heat-not-burn_product#cite_note-33. This is no different. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Are you instead limiting "heat-not-burn" to the non-liquid systems alone? i.e. those with dry shredded tobacco in a solid short-use cartridge, rather than the liquid-supplied vaping systems? That would indeed exclude pod mods, but it also excludes half of the synonyms which heat-not-burn is currently listing. What is your basis for that narrowing? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• There was no basis for narrowing. It was not about narrowing. No source indicates pod mods are heat-not-burn products. You have refused to provide a source stating that pod mods are heat-not-burn products. QuackGuru (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, the term "heat-not-burn" is a marketing term which seems to have initially been used by Phillip Morris for devices that char solid "tobacco sticks", which are basically short, specialized cigarettes, or aluminum-wrapped capsules of solid tobacco. However, vendors in this market seem to want to obscure the distinctions between such devices and e-cigarettes (releasing them with similar branding and packaging), and the term is used very inconsistently. The term has been criticized in MEDRS as inaccurate for charring products, as charring is commonly called burning in English (burned toast, for instance). HLHJ (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

"Resembles USB" - Failed Verification

Why the "failed verification" tag when the article clearly states "resemble USB devices". spryde | talk 18:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

See "Pod mods come in varying shapes and sizes and some resemble USB devices.[11][failed verification]" See "The palm-sized device resembles a USB flash drive..."[1] That is only about Juul and it does not verify "varying shapes and sizes". "Juul resembles a USB device." would be sourced content. QuackGuru (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Why the tag removed when the first source only verifies content sourced to Juul? QuackGuru (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Pod mods do not produce smoke

They produce aerosol or vapor. QuackGuru (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

So you're following the ANI discussion, but refusing to engage with it? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

This article says "Pod mods are portable devices that people use to smoke..."

This article also says "As these devices are created with the intent of replicating smoke produced from traditional cigarettes,.."[2] Which is it? They produce smoke or replace smoke? Both sentences are unsourced. That is part of the problem. QuackGuru (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

5 letters for...

As an amusing coincidence, today's NY Times mini crossword has, "What cigarettes produce that e-cigarettes do not" as a clue (9 Across). I quickly assumed, based on the above, that the answer was "smoke", and wrote that in. Unfortunately, that turned out to be incorrect :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Do hope the answer isn't death or someone at NY Times crossword division has some explaining to do..... Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Failed verification content

See "Research reveals potential health risks in aerosolizing nicotine salts and metal toxins that are produced.[4]" The 2018 book mentions nicotine salts in passing. It does not verify this claim. QuackGuru (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The citation was formatted but that does not solve the FV problem. QuackGuru (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The significant part of the re-formatting was including a URL from where you can download the PDF. The discussion of nicotine salts is on pages 95-96. I agree that this source does not state that there are potential health risks. It does talk about how nicotine salts (benzoate or lactate, in various brands) are produced and delivered as an aerosol, but does not specifically talk about the health risk. On the other hand, this National Center for Health Research page does talk about the health effects of benzoic acid, and that juul pods contain more benzoic acid than other brands.

This and other content FV. How much longer is the failed verification (and unsourced) content going to remain in the article? See "Pod mods contain a disposable cartridge and are different from e-cigarettes and vapes as the coils are not removed or changed.[1]" The source refers to Juul not pod mods in general. See "Many organizations including Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices aim to educate students and teachers about the health-related risks of using pod mods and such products.[13]" This also FV. See "Some companies have been required to provide information on how their products of pods will not be marketed towards young people and how they will deter these users from their products.[3]" This also FV. QuackGuru (talk) 04:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

More than half the article contains unsourced content

Is there a problem with deleting the unsourced content? QuackGuru (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a problem with all of your edits. There is a thread at WP:ANI discussing just that. Why are you ignoring it? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

There has been no specific response from others regarding the unsourced content. When can the unsourced content be deleted? Is there a reason others are not discussing the unsourced content? The article is new and there are not many editors watching this article. QuackGuru (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

So, moments after a comment is posted to the ANI thread suggesting escalation to WP:AE under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor_conduct_in_e-cigs_articles#QuackGuru_Warned because you're refusing to discuss anything, you still ignore it, but you post again here wanting to continue deleting content from the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Is there an issue with deleting unsourced challenged content? QuackGuru (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps if you would read the ANI thread, you'd see the broader issues which have been raised. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I have done some cleaning up of this article but more is needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Needs moving or gutting.

Inaccurate enough that it may be better to move it rather than fix it. A pod mod is not the same as a pod vape: it is halfway between a pod vape and vape mod.

Vape mods are the massive things that are highly customisable and produce a massive amount of smoke. Pod vapes are the juul type devices, different from the totally disposable ones as you keep the main device but replace the pods (kinda like a nespresso/keurig coffee machine). They offer very little in the way of customisation, normally operating at a set power with non-refillable pods.

A pod mod is halfway between the two. It still uses a pod but it is generally refillable and may have replaceable coils. They generally have more advanced features such as variable power. This normally wouldn’t include devices such as juul as there are no ways in which you can “mod”them. Pod mod is sometimes used as a catch all to describe both pod vapes and pod mods, technically incorrect but arguably common usage. See the CDC definition: “Pod Mods ● Pod Mod is an e-cigarette, or vaping, product with a prefilled or refillable ‘‘pod’’ or pod cartridge with a modifiable (mod) system (“Pod-Mods”) ● These are other examples of fourth generation devices. Pod Mods come in many shapes, sizes, and colors. ● Common Pod Mod brands include JUUL® and Suorin ® ● There are compatible prefilled pod cartridges that contain nicotine, THC, or CBD with or without flavoring.”

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/pdfs/ecigarette-or-vaping-products-visual-dictionary-508.pdf

This article describes pod vapes (disposable pods, non refillable, cannot replace coils). These are all features that pod mods avoid by definition. If we accept pod mods as a catch all for both mods and vapes then this definition is still inaccurate as it excludes pod mods proper!

See below sources:

https://vapejuice.com/blogs/vape-juice-news/pod-mod-vs-vape-mod https://www.ejuicedb.com/blogs/vaping-products/what-is-a-pod-mod https://breazy.com/blogs/education/what-s-a-pod-mod https://amp.wickandwireco.com.au/blogs/news/ultimate-guide-to-pod-mods https://www.innokin.com/blog/what-are-the-different-types-of-vapes https://vape.hk/what-is-a-pod-mod-intro-and-buying-guide/ https://www.wotofo.com/blogs/vape-mods/pod-mod-vape

Most of the current sources in the article only refer to pod vapes or do not mention them at all.

There are some reliable sources that refer to them as pod mods but this appears to be more confusion than anything else. Several journal articles mention pod mods but none of the sources they reference use the term. The exception is circular referencing where several appear to cite each other but no sources outside the circle use pod mod in the same context.

Going through the current sources:

Weedston, Lindsey (2019-04-09). "FDA To Investigate Whether Vaping Causes Seizures". The Fix — website down, possibly dead link.

"Can You Put Regular Vape Juice In A Salt Vape? | Vape Kits | Vaping Guides | IndeJuice (UK)". indejuice.com. Retrieved 2021-05-08 — only mentions a “pod device”

Spindle, Tory R.; Eissenberg, Thomas (19 October 2018). "Pod Mod Electronic Cigarettes- An Emerging Threat to Public Health". JAMA Network Open. Substance Use and Addiction. 1 (6): e183518. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.3518. PMID 30646245. — Only mentions “pod mods” and “non pod based” vapes. The paper it cites for its definition (“Adolescents’ and Young Adults’ Use and Perceptions of Pod-Based Electronic Cigarettes”) does not at any point reference pod mods, only discusses “pod based” e cigarettes. Appears to be confusion among the authors.

"E-cigarettes: regulations for consumer products". GOV.UK. Retrieved 2021-05-08. — no mention of pod mods.

National Academies Of Sciences, Engineering; Health Medicine, Division; Board on Population Health Public Health Practice; Committee on the Review of the Health Effects of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Eaton, D. L.; Kwan, L. Y.; Stratton, K. (2018). Stratton, Kathleen; Kwan, Leslie Y.; Eaton, David L. (eds.). Public Health Consequences of E-Cigarettes (2018). The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/24952. ISBN 978-0-309-46834-3. PMID 29894118. — 750 pages, mentions pods twice, never mentions “pod mods”

Barrington-Trimis, Jessica L.; Leventhal, Adam M. (2018). "Adolescents' Use of "Pod Mod" E-Cigarettes — Urgent Concerns". New England Journal of Medicine. 379 (12): 1099–1102. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1805758. PMID 30134127. — mentions pod mods in title, refers to juul devices. Could not find the word “pod mods” in any of the references. Appears to be confusion on part of authors.

Galstyan, Ellen; Galimov, Artur; Sussman, Steve (26 November 2018). "Commentary: The Emergence of Pod Mods at Vape Shops". Evaluation & the Health Professions. 42 (1): 118–124. doi:10.1177/0163278718812976. PMC 6637958. PMID 30477337. — discusses pod mods but the definition is inconsistent with this article. “Many types of pod mods now exist, as of 2018. Pod mods may be categorized into three different types: open system (drip; e.g., Kandypens, Suorin Drop/Air), closed system (packets or pods; e.g., JUUL, Aspire, Cue Vapor), or both (e.g., Envii FITT).” In other words their definition includes both pod vapes and pod mods as per my explanation above.

Stumacher, Richard, (21 September 2018). “Pod mods and vaping are creating a new generation of youths addicted to nicotine”. STAT. Retrieved on 12 May 2019. — unclear what definition they use, rely on a dead link to cdc and the previously mentioned article by Barrington-Trimis, Jessica L.; Leventhal, Adam M.

Becker, Rachael, (21 November 2018). “Nicotine Salts Are Dominating The Market”. The Verge Retrieved on 12 May 2019. — no mention of pod mods.

Cunningham, Amy (2018-12-19). "E-cigarettes caught fire among teens". Science News. Retrieved 2019-09-26. — mentions pod mods, however relies on references by Barrington-Trimis, Jessica L.; Leventhal, Adam M. as well as the article used by Spindle, Tory R.; Eissenberg, Thomas. Basically circular referencing, no reliable source for the definition of pod mod.

"Vaping Related Lung Illness: A Summary of the Public Health Risks and Recommendations for the Public". California Department of Public Health. 2019-09-26. Retrieved 2019-09-26 — lists pod mods as a form of e cigarette. Does not define them. John wiki: If you have a problem, don't mess with my puppy... 11:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The influences section has virtually nothing to do with pod mods. The claim that they have more nicotine than w cigarettes is incredibly dubious, first because it’s a very broad reference point and secondly because they are themselves a form of e cigarette! John wiki: If you have a problem, don't mess with my puppy... 11:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Industry regulation section appears to mostly discuss juul. It’s also very poorly written, has no clear structure, and generally makes a lot of claims that aren’t cited. John wiki: If you have a problem, don't mess with my puppy... 11:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Minor Neutrality Concerns in Pod Mod Description

Hi everyone,

I noticed a section in the Pod Mod Wikipedia article that could benefit from a more neutral tone. The specific sentence is:

"Pod mods are a type of electronic cigarette marketed to a younger crowd that does not wish to attract attention gained through regular e-cigarettes or traditional tobacco-burning cigarettes."

While the popularity of pod mods among younger users is certainly a relevant point, the wording suggests a marketing tactic rather than a neutral observation. Here's a possible revision that maintains factuality:

"Pod mods are a type of electronic cigarette that is popular with young people. They are small and discreet, which may appeal to users who prefer not to use larger e-cigarettes or traditional tobacco-burning cigarettes."

I'd appreciate any thoughts on this or alternative suggestions for a more neutral phrasing.

Thanks,

CC Copper Claws (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)