Another casualty

[Clouds4Days]

The dangers associated with lithium batteries are however not that obvious and as ordinary consumer batteries are known to pose little if any risk, people assume the same is the case with the high powered cells we use.

Despite safety warnings being included in product packaging, accidents still happen. We all know the saying "When all else fails, read the manual." and even if read, consumers are so desensitized to warning messages that it seldom makes the impact it should. This leaves us with two options. As with the vehicle example you mentioned, testing and licencing users. The other is only allowing the sale of safe cells and/or systems. The latter being the obvious choice and, when considered from the correct perspective, a win win situation for all concerned.

And that's about all that comes to mind at this time.

Regards

Currently the only safeguard for batteries would be to have built in batteries but even if one did that on a Mech Mod you still run risks of someone using the incorrect build so then you would have to add some sort of chip inside for protection but now it is no longer a Mech Mod.

Ok now every Mech user is angry about this so let's keep Mech the way the way they are and now we have to turn to vendors who have to make sure a buyer complies with Mech Usage and only way will be a small Test they have to fill in when buying Mechs and have the same Test when buying online.

This will solve that problem but unfortunately the China Mall down the road sells vape products and don't care much about the buyer so any Tom can buy their Mech Mods there without any knowledge whatsoever.

It's unfortunately a vicious cycle but yes everyone needs to do their bit in order to make vaping as safe as possible.
From the consumer to the vendor and to the Manufacturer.

 

[antonherbst]

The only thing i am going to add to this whole thread is. In Afrikaans we have a wonderfull word for what happened here.

Mensdom

As a safety consultant i see alot of accidents that was caused by human error and not following warning and safety signs.

We have become a human society that totally disregards warnings and rules.

 

[SHiBBY]

They should just make all mods take parallel batts and then do away with the likes of 30Q's etc. Only VTC5As in parallel. Thats as safe as a mod gets IMO. You'd be hard pressed to build something that draws more than 60A, and the low mah issue also disappears

 

[RichJB]

1: Either he built too low and took one too many puffs, sending the battery into thermal runaway; or

2: He had a torn battery wrap, inserted the battery positive down and fired; or

3: He was using an RTA/RDA with a non-protruding 510.

All three of these things are user error,

I doubt regulators would view it as user error. The first cause, they would accept that the user had some culpability by building too low. But that the industry also had some liability by allowing the user to build too low, and being reluctant to build in safeguards. Users cannot determine or change coil resistance in closed systems like JUULs, pods or cigalikes. It is the manufacturer, not the user, who determines the coil resistance of these devices. That is why regulators like closed systems, and why they are more likely to give them pre-market approval.

As @Raindance notes, consumers can be expected to know that driving at high speeds or using sharp knives or boiling water is hazardous. They cannot be expected to know that 0.1 ohms is a more hazardous resistance than 0.5 ohms. It is not intuitive for the buying public. There is also the question of necessity. You can't have a car that doesn't go fast enough to injure the driver, a kettle that doesn't boil water, a knife that doesn't have a sharp blade, a stove that doesn't get hot - because then these items aren't fit for purpose. However, a vaping device doesn't need a hazardously low resistance coil. Vaping devices remain fit for purpose with coils of higher and thus safer resistance.

Regulators would apply the same arguments to cause 2, the battery wrap issue. If the manufacturers of JUULs, pods and cigalikes can provide batteries encased in thick rigid plastic or vinyl, making them impervious to tearing and thus to dead shorts, regulators would ask why vaping manufacturers aren't following suit. Especially when the battery manufacturers themselves have stated that their products are not safe/suitable for vaping. Again, it is not intuitive for the buying public that torn wraps are hazardous. And again, making the battery wraps sturdier does not render the device unfit for purpose.

I don't think regulators would attribute any user error to cause 3, the hybrid top cap and protruding positive pin issue. Again, it's not intuitive and again, it doesn't render the device unfit for purpose. So regulators would have a really easy solution: prohibit hybrid top caps and make everything 510. And/or enforce a standard in which every atty must ship with a positive pin that protrudes by X.Ymm minimum. Sorted. The industry has had ten years to sort this out internally and hasn't done a thing. In such cases, regulators will step in and do it themselves.

It is clearly unacceptable for an industry to offer two standalone but compatible products which are hazardous when paired together. If Dell offered a mouse that worked fine with most computers, but exploded if you plugged it into an HP notebook, one or probably both products would be taken off the market. Regulators wouldn't even need to take any action, Dell and HP would immediately recall and withdraw the products, resolve the safety issue and only then allow the products to be sold again. That is what a mature and responsible industry is expected to do. In the 21st century, blaming the customer for hazardous products is unacceptable.