Vaper club

e-cigarete forum
Zadnji put si ovdje bio: 16 pro 2019 04:16. Sada je: 16 pro 2019 04:16.

Vremenska zona: UTC + 01:00 [LJV]




 [ 86 post(ov)a ]  Stranica Prethodna  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Sljedeća
Autor Poruka
 Naslov: Re: Istraživanja o električnim cigaretama
PostPostano: 30 ožu 2014 13:35 
Offline
Moderator
Avatar

Pridružen: 23 svi 2013 20:01
Postovi: 4308
Lokacija: Zagreb, Šalata
Breaking News: New study shows no risk from e-cigarette contaminants

CASAA is delighted to announce that the first research study funded by the CASAA Research Fund (thanks to all of you who donated to that!) has been released. The study, by Prof. Igor Burstyn, Drexel University School of Public Health, is available at the Drexel website, here (pdf). Burstyn reviewed all of the available chemistry on e-cigarette vapor and liquid and found that the levels reported — even in those studies that were hyped as showing there is a danger — are well below the level that is of concern.

And that assessment applies to the vaper himself. The exposure to bystanders is orders of magnitude less and of no concern at all.

The paper is technical, of course, but I believe it does a great job of communicating for readers at many levels. It puts the results in very clear and useful terms — exactly what policy makers need for making decisions.

For the first time, we have a definitive study that can be used to respond to claims that contaminants in e-cigarettes are dangerous and that there is a hazard to bystanders that calls for usage restrictions. Existing individual chemistry studies have been difficult for anyone other than an expert to understand (which is why we gave a grant to an expert to understand them!), and a naive interpretation of individual studies (just reading what the authors editorialized about their results) gave the impression of “dueling studies”, with some showing a problem and some not. While many THR advocates made an effort to make sense of and use the existing literature, it was almost impossible to do so effectively. Burstyn’s analysis solves that problem and shows there is no duel: All of the studies, including the “bad” ones, show that there is no worry.

I cannot overstate it: This is a game-changer for anyone trying to respond to misinformation about the hazards of e-cigarettes. Before we had an apparently contradictory mess on this topic. Now we have clarity.

I have to say that I am genuinely surprised that the results are quite so definitive, and I assume that will be true of anyone else of was seriously trying to assess the risks, rather than just cheerleading. We were all confident that the risks were minimal, but we could not previously reach a (good news) conclusion as strong as the one in the paper.

The list of key conclusions in the paper:

Even when compared to workplace standards for involuntary exposures, and using several conservative (erring on the side of caution) assumptions, the exposures from using e-cigarettes fall well below the threshold for concern for compounds with known toxicity. That is, even ignoring the benefits of e-cigarette use and the fact that the exposure is actively chosen, and even comparing to the levels that are considered unacceptable to people who are not benefiting from the exposure and do not want it, the exposures would not generate concern or call for remedial action.
Expressed concerns about nicotine only apply to vapers who do not wish to consume it; a voluntary (indeed, intentional) exposure is very different from a contaminant.
There is no serious concern about the contaminants such as volatile organic compounds (formaldehyde, acrolein, etc.) in the liquid or produced by heating. While these contaminants are present, they have been detected at problematic levels only in a few studies that apparently were based on unrealistic levels of heating.
The frequently stated concern about contamination of the liquid by a nontrivial quantity of ethylene glycol or diethylene glycol remains based on a single sample of an early technology product (and even this did not rise to the level of health concern) and has not been replicated.
Tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNA) are present in trace quantities and pose no more (likely much less) threat to health than TSNAs from modern smokeless tobacco products, which cause no measurable risk for cancer.
Contamination by metals is shown to be at similarly trivial levels that pose no health risk, and the alarmist claims about such contamination are based on unrealistic assumptions about the molecular form of these elements.
The existing literature tends to overestimate the exposures and exaggerate their implications. This is partially due to rhetoric, but also results from technical features. The most important is confusion of the concentration in aerosol, which on its own tells us little about risk to heath, with the relevant and much smaller total exposure to compounds in the aerosol averaged across all air inhaled in the course of a day. There is also clear bias in previous reports in favor of isolated instances of highest level of chemical detected across multiple studies, such that average exposure that can be calculated are higher than true value because they are “missing” all true zeros.
Routine monitoring of liquid chemistry is easier and cheaper than assessment of aerosols. Combined with an understanding of how the chemistry of the liquid affects the chemistry of the aerosol and insights into behavior of vapers, this can serve as a useful tool to ensure the safety of e-cigarettes.
The only unintentional exposures (i.e., not the nicotine) that seem to rise to the level that they are worth further research are the carrier chemicals themselves, propylene glycol and glycerin. This exposure is not known to cause health problems, but the magnitude of the exposure is novel and thus is at the levels for concern based on the lack of reassuring data.

It is worth expanding on the observation about propylene glycol and glycerin a bit: While there is no affirmative reason to believe that the level of exposure experienced by vapers is hazardous, we have never before had a situation where millions of people had such a high level of exposure. Thus it is worth gathering data on what happens, just to make sure there is no small subtle effect. This contrasts with the levels of the much-hyped contaminants, which pose no concern at all. It is also important to remember that this refers to the vaper herself; there is no such caution for bystanders, who have far far lower levels of exposure.

This paper should immediately become a central point in all political advocacy to stop anti-e-cigarette regulations, as well as trying to encourage smokers to adopt THR. The key talking point that should be used is this (my words, not Burstyn’s):

The only expert review of all of the studies found that there was no risk from the chemicals to vapers, let alone bystanders. This took into consideration the studies that you are referring to [note: assuming this is being used as a rebuttal to some claim of chemical hazards]. Indeed, even the results of the studies that have been used to generate alarm represented levels of chemicals that were too low to be of concern.

For those of you who have any comments for the author, particularly peer review (or even non-peer review) comments for improving on the working paper before it is submitted to a journal[*], please use the comments section of this post. The author has agreed to monitor one page (this one), but will probably not see it if you post a comment at another blog, on ECF, etc.

[*Footnote: To head off a concern I have heard a few times, no, there is not a problem with the author releasing a working paper before submitting to a journal. A handful of medical and general-science journals -- those that are trying to sell copies as if they were a glossy magazine -- like to have "exclusives" of previously secret studies (which, by the way, is why they publish far more papers that are shown to be wrong than do more serious journals). Serious science journals generally prefer that the paper is circulated and commented on before they are asked to deal with it. Indeed, in several of the more serious sciences (public health will catch up in a few decades -- perhaps), working paper versions are considered the key source of scientific communication, and the eventual appearance in a journal is more of an afterthought and happens long after everyone has already read the paper. Real peer review is what starts now (here) when every interested expert can read and comment, rather than at a journal where a couple of people with their limited knowledge are the only ones reviewing it.

[Of course, that knowledge does not help you if you are dealing with people who do not understand how science works and are not likely to listen long enough to learn. There will be retorts of "that is not a peer-reviewed publication" (which is actually not true -- it was reviewed before the author released it). Your best talking point in response to that is something like, "So are you saying that in a few months, when the paper appears in a journal, you will agree that it is all correct and change your position?" If you are responding to someone who claims to be an expert, you can add "So, why don't you just review it like other expert readers have done, or are you admitting that you are not expert enough to do so?"

_________________
There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot. ><((((º>-------------------------------------------

slika
slika
slika Modovi, akrilni stalci i 3D printanje


Povratak na vrh
  
 
 Naslov: Re: Istraživanja o električnim cigaretama
PostPostano: 30 ožu 2014 23:32 
Offline
Avatar

Pridružen: 25 stu 2013 15:53
Postovi: 602
Lokacija: Šibenik
Max_ZG je napisao:
Breaking News: New study shows no risk from e-cigarette contaminants

CASAA is delighted to announce that the first research study funded by the CASAA Research Fund (thanks to all of you who donated to that!) has been released. The study, by Prof. Igor Burstyn, Drexel University School of Public Health, is available at the Drexel website, here (pdf). Burstyn reviewed all of the available chemistry on e-cigarette vapor and liquid and found that the levels reported — even in those studies that were hyped as showing there is a danger — are well below the level that is of concern.

And that assessment applies to the vaper himself. The exposure to bystanders is orders of magnitude less and of no concern at all.

The paper is technical, of course, but I believe it does a great job of communicating for readers at many levels. It puts the results in very clear and useful terms — exactly what policy makers need for making decisions.

For the first time, we have a definitive study that can be used to respond to claims that contaminants in e-cigarettes are dangerous and that there is a hazard to bystanders that calls for usage restrictions. Existing individual chemistry studies have been difficult for anyone other than an expert to understand (which is why we gave a grant to an expert to understand them!), and a naive interpretation of individual studies (just reading what the authors editorialized about their results) gave the impression of “dueling studies”, with some showing a problem and some not. While many THR advocates made an effort to make sense of and use the existing literature, it was almost impossible to do so effectively. Burstyn’s analysis solves that problem and shows there is no duel: All of the studies, including the “bad” ones, show that there is no worry.

I cannot overstate it: This is a game-changer for anyone trying to respond to misinformation about the hazards of e-cigarettes. Before we had an apparently contradictory mess on this topic. Now we have clarity.

I have to say that I am genuinely surprised that the results are quite so definitive, and I assume that will be true of anyone else of was seriously trying to assess the risks, rather than just cheerleading. We were all confident that the risks were minimal, but we could not previously reach a (good news) conclusion as strong as the one in the paper.

The list of key conclusions in the paper:

Even when compared to workplace standards for involuntary exposures, and using several conservative (erring on the side of caution) assumptions, the exposures from using e-cigarettes fall well below the threshold for concern for compounds with known toxicity. That is, even ignoring the benefits of e-cigarette use and the fact that the exposure is actively chosen, and even comparing to the levels that are considered unacceptable to people who are not benefiting from the exposure and do not want it, the exposures would not generate concern or call for remedial action.
Expressed concerns about nicotine only apply to vapers who do not wish to consume it; a voluntary (indeed, intentional) exposure is very different from a contaminant.
There is no serious concern about the contaminants such as volatile organic compounds (formaldehyde, acrolein, etc.) in the liquid or produced by heating. While these contaminants are present, they have been detected at problematic levels only in a few studies that apparently were based on unrealistic levels of heating.
The frequently stated concern about contamination of the liquid by a nontrivial quantity of ethylene glycol or diethylene glycol remains based on a single sample of an early technology product (and even this did not rise to the level of health concern) and has not been replicated.
Tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNA) are present in trace quantities and pose no more (likely much less) threat to health than TSNAs from modern smokeless tobacco products, which cause no measurable risk for cancer.
Contamination by metals is shown to be at similarly trivial levels that pose no health risk, and the alarmist claims about such contamination are based on unrealistic assumptions about the molecular form of these elements.
The existing literature tends to overestimate the exposures and exaggerate their implications. This is partially due to rhetoric, but also results from technical features. The most important is confusion of the concentration in aerosol, which on its own tells us little about risk to heath, with the relevant and much smaller total exposure to compounds in the aerosol averaged across all air inhaled in the course of a day. There is also clear bias in previous reports in favor of isolated instances of highest level of chemical detected across multiple studies, such that average exposure that can be calculated are higher than true value because they are “missing” all true zeros.
Routine monitoring of liquid chemistry is easier and cheaper than assessment of aerosols. Combined with an understanding of how the chemistry of the liquid affects the chemistry of the aerosol and insights into behavior of vapers, this can serve as a useful tool to ensure the safety of e-cigarettes.
The only unintentional exposures (i.e., not the nicotine) that seem to rise to the level that they are worth further research are the carrier chemicals themselves, propylene glycol and glycerin. This exposure is not known to cause health problems, but the magnitude of the exposure is novel and thus is at the levels for concern based on the lack of reassuring data.

It is worth expanding on the observation about propylene glycol and glycerin a bit: While there is no affirmative reason to believe that the level of exposure experienced by vapers is hazardous, we have never before had a situation where millions of people had such a high level of exposure. Thus it is worth gathering data on what happens, just to make sure there is no small subtle effect. This contrasts with the levels of the much-hyped contaminants, which pose no concern at all. It is also important to remember that this refers to the vaper herself; there is no such caution for bystanders, who have far far lower levels of exposure.

This paper should immediately become a central point in all political advocacy to stop anti-e-cigarette regulations, as well as trying to encourage smokers to adopt THR. The key talking point that should be used is this (my words, not Burstyn’s):

The only expert review of all of the studies found that there was no risk from the chemicals to vapers, let alone bystanders. This took into consideration the studies that you are referring to [note: assuming this is being used as a rebuttal to some claim of chemical hazards]. Indeed, even the results of the studies that have been used to generate alarm represented levels of chemicals that were too low to be of concern.

For those of you who have any comments for the author, particularly peer review (or even non-peer review) comments for improving on the working paper before it is submitted to a journal[*], please use the comments section of this post. The author has agreed to monitor one page (this one), but will probably not see it if you post a comment at another blog, on ECF, etc.

[*Footnote: To head off a concern I have heard a few times, no, there is not a problem with the author releasing a working paper before submitting to a journal. A handful of medical and general-science journals -- those that are trying to sell copies as if they were a glossy magazine -- like to have "exclusives" of previously secret studies (which, by the way, is why they publish far more papers that are shown to be wrong than do more serious journals). Serious science journals generally prefer that the paper is circulated and commented on before they are asked to deal with it. Indeed, in several of the more serious sciences (public health will catch up in a few decades -- perhaps), working paper versions are considered the key source of scientific communication, and the eventual appearance in a journal is more of an afterthought and happens long after everyone has already read the paper. Real peer review is what starts now (here) when every interested expert can read and comment, rather than at a journal where a couple of people with their limited knowledge are the only ones reviewing it.

[Of course, that knowledge does not help you if you are dealing with people who do not understand how science works and are not likely to listen long enough to learn. There will be retorts of "that is not a peer-reviewed publication" (which is actually not true -- it was reviewed before the author released it). Your best talking point in response to that is something like, "So are you saying that in a few months, when the paper appears in a journal, you will agree that it is all correct and change your position?" If you are responding to someone who claims to be an expert, you can add "So, why don't you just review it like other expert readers have done, or are you admitting that you are not expert enough to do so?"


Aj ti to dokaži europskim birokratima...

_________________
slika

slika


Povratak na vrh
  
 
 Naslov: Re: Istraživanja o električnim cigaretama
PostPostano: 30 ožu 2014 23:55 
Offline
Avatar

Pridružen: 19 kol 2013 16:17
Postovi: 242
Lokacija: vodnjan, Istra
Max_ZG je napisao:
Aj ti to dokaži europskim birokratima...


daš im udio od prodaje i dokazao si im da je e-cigareta najzdraviji izum u zadnjih 1000 godina


Povratak na vrh
  
 
 Naslov: Re: Istraživanja o električnim cigaretama
PostPostano: 31 ožu 2014 00:35 
Offline
Avatar

Pridružen: 25 stu 2013 15:53
Postovi: 602
Lokacija: Šibenik
manilu je napisao:
Max_ZG je napisao:
Aj ti to dokaži europskim birokratima...


daš im udio od prodaje i dokazao si im da je e-cigareta najzdraviji izum u zadnjih 1000 godina


:plus:

_________________
slika

slika


Povratak na vrh
  
 
 Naslov: Re: Istraživanja o električnim cigaretama
PostPostano: 01 tra 2014 08:00 
Offline
Moderator
Avatar

Pridružen: 23 svi 2013 20:01
Postovi: 4308
Lokacija: Zagreb, Šalata
14 Electronic Cigarette Studies That Shame the Critics

Lack of research is one of the biggest myths we hear from e-cigarette critics. Many people assume that e-cigs have not been studied in detail because the research is not heavily published by the main stream media. However, there have already been many clinical trials and research projects conducted that found promising results for e-cigarettes. Here is a look at some of the most important studies we have seen to date.

Secondhand Vapor Contains Nicotine, But No Combustible Toxins

The Oxford Journal published a study in December 2013 where scientists looked at what toxins might be in secondhand vapor. They found that e-cigs have no combustion related toxins present in the vapor and only a small amount of nicotine was found in secondhand vapor. Researchers concluded that more studies were needed to determine if there was any risk involved with secondhand nicotine exposure.

E-Cigs Do Not Stiffen the Arteries

The Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center in Greece compared the impact of e-cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes on heart function. The researchers discovered that smoking even two tobacco cigarettes will cause the aorta to stiffen, but e-cigarettes caused no difference to the aorta and no stiffening of the arteries.

Flavored E-Liquids Help Smokers Stop Using Tobacco

Dr. Konstantino Farsalinos headed up a study to determine whether flavored e-liquids had any impact on the success rate of smokers seeking to quit. He concluded that e-liquid flavoring “are important contributors in reducing or eliminating smoking consumption.”

Smoking Kills, and So Might E-Cig Regulation

Dr. Gilbert Ross, medical and executive director of the American Council on Science and Health offered a comprehensive report on e-cigarettes, concluding that e-cigarettes are much healthier than tobacco cigarettes according to common sense. He suggested that regulating e-cigs could be a deadly decision for public health.

E-Cigs Are Effective for Smoking Cessation and Prevent Relapse

Researchers at the University of Auckland and the University of Geneva studied the impact of e-cigarettes on former smokers. They concluded that e-cigs could prevent former smokers from relapsing into tobacco use and they could effectively help current smokers quit.

E-Cigs Are Not a Gateway to Tobacco Use Among Teens

Dr. Ted Wagener from the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center studied the impact of e-cigarette use on 1,300 college students. He discovered that only one person that first used nicotine in the form of e-cigs went on to start smoking tobacco cigarettes. He concluded that e-cigs were not a gateway to tobacco use.

E-Liquid Has No Adverse Effects on Heart Health

The International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health published a study on how e-liquids impact heart cells. After testing 20 different e-liquids, the researchers concluded that vapor had no adverse effect on cardiac cells.

E-Cig Use Has No Impact on the Oxygenation of the Heart

Dr. Konstantino Farsalinos studied how e-cig use impacted oxygenation of the heart. He concluded that vaping had no impact on oxygen supply and coronary circulation. These findings were revealed at the European Society of Cardiology Annual Congress in Amsterdam in 2013.

E-Liquids Pose No Concerns for Public Health

Professor Igor Burstyn of Drexel University School of Public Health studied e-liquids to determine if the chemicals in e-liquid could be dangerous. He concluded that e-liquids pose no health concerns whatsoever.

Health Improves After Smokers Switch to E-Cigarettes

Independent university researchers conducted a study to find out whether switching to e-cigs had any influence on health. They concluded that 91 percent of smokers that switched to electronic cigarettes had notably improved health. They also noted that 97 percent had reduced or completely eliminated chronic coughs.

E-Cigs Reduce Risk of Tobacco-Related Death

Boston University of Public Health conducted a study to see how e-cigarettes impacted mortality risks related to tobacco. Researchers concluded, “Electronic cigarettes are a much safer alternative to tobacco.”

Electronic Cigarettes Are Effective for Smoking Cessation

The University of Catania conducted a study to learn whether e-cigs would be effective as smoking cessation devices. After six months, nearly 25 percent of participants had quit smoking completely. Over 50 percent had cut cigarette use in half.

E-Cigs Cause No Major Respiratory Impact

Researchers compared first and second hand impacts of exposure to e-cigarette vapor to learn how it would impact respiratory function. The result was that secondhand exposure to tobacco smoke was more damaging to lung function than first hand exposure to vapor from e-cigarettes. They concluded that e-cigs cause no acute respiratory impact.

Second Hand Exposure to E-Cig Vapor Poses No Risks

In a French study, researchers found that e-cig vapor dissipated within 11 seconds on average. In contrast, cigarette smoke lingered for an average of 20 minutes. They concluded that secondhand exposure to e-cig vapor causes no public risk.

These studies are just the beginning. Every month, we find out about new studies all over the world to discover the true impact of electronic cigarettes. So far, research clearly shows that e-cigarettes are a better alternative to tobacco use. What are other studies that you hope to see in the future?

_________________
There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot. ><((((º>-------------------------------------------

slika
slika
slika Modovi, akrilni stalci i 3D printanje


Povratak na vrh
  
 
 Naslov: Re: Istraživanja o električnim cigaretama
PostPostano: 01 tra 2014 13:04 
Offline
Avatar

Pridružen: 07 ožu 2014 18:14
Postovi: 379
Lokacija: Velika Gorica / Pag
pametnom dosta :D

ja se prebacio na elektronicku i dobijem onu virozu.. da nisam imao elektronicku, bilo bi mi 3 puta gore. doslovno kao da se covjek pari, ono lonac vruce vode i rucnik preko glave. inace sam i asmaticar. pa ovo je ko stvoreno, osobito u ove mjesece kad dolazi pelud.. od alergija i astme se sve osusi, a ovo bas vlazi sve te disne puteve. meni je osobito kriticno bilo izac van, budem cijelu noc vani, popusim 2 kutije i vise cigareta.. pa znate sta to napravi covjeku... ovo parim cijeli dan i noc, bas bio u petak vani.. ko bebica disem. nisam jednom zakasljao ili imao neku losu pojavu. ma, samo mi je zao sta nisam ranije poceo s tim, a glavni razlog je bio neki hokus-pokus clanak u nekim lijevim novinama tipa "e-cigarete su stetnije od smrdusa".. ma mos mislit. cak citam da se neka ogromna duhanska korporacija pocela bavit tim, tj. valjda proizvode tekucine ili sta vec... a mozete si i zamislit sta bi sve te korporacije koje se bave proizvodnjom cigareta napravile da diskreditiraju i ocrne elektronicke.. jer tko normalan bi pusio smrduse kad imamo ovo??? i ja sebi racunam. pa ovo je minimalno 70% jeftinije. sve sam uracunao. znaci potrosnju tekucine, zamjenu grijaca i kupovanje novih baterija. minimalno 70% jeftinije nego pusenje cigareta koje kostaju oko 20-25kn, a i one ce uskoro bit skuplje.

samo jasno, ovi budalasi ce udarit i po ovom... ali nema veze, snaci cemo se mi :D

redom znaci ovako:

1. neusporedivo zdravije, tj. ono ce te ubit, ovo nece
2. jednostavno bolje, imas razne arome i jednostavno neusporedivo
3. bar 70% jeftinije

es ti boga :D


Povratak na vrh
  
 
 Naslov: Re: Istraživanja o električnim cigaretama
PostPostano: 01 tra 2014 14:50 
Offline
Avatar

Pridružen: 22 pro 2013 21:45
Postovi: 396
Lokacija: Zadar
E-Cigs Are Not a Gateway to Tobacco Use Among Teens

Meni je ova zestoka..... ja neznam ko bi nakon parenja presao na analogne. Razlika je nebo i zemlja. Ja sam pusio preko 20 godina, i nako 3 dana parenja cigara mi je toliko odvratno smrdila da mi nije padalo napamet opet zapusiti.

_________________
slika slika
Yihi SX Mini M Class- Evic VT 5000mAh - Evic VTwo Mini - Zero SX 50W - iStick Pico -Wismec RX200

RDA: 3-D
RBA: The Russian 91%, Kayfun Lite Plus x 4, Aromamizer


Povratak na vrh
  
 
 Naslov: Re: Istraživanja o električnim cigaretama
PostPostano: 01 tra 2014 15:25 
Offline
Avatar

Pridružen: 11 vel 2014 07:22
Postovi: 74
Lokacija: Nedelišće
Za maslinovo ulje su tvrdili da je nešto najzravije na svijetu, pa se onda nakon par let neko sjetio i rekao da se kod termičke obrade stvaraju kancerogeni spojevi...

Ma nikom niš ne vjerujem, ni kritičarima, ni lobistima. Uzdaj se use i u svoje kljuse. Ja se (za sad) osjećam bolje sa parom neko sa čikom :-)

_________________
slika
slika
Batt.: iStick TC40W | eVic VTC mini | 2 x iPow |
Tank: 3 x PT2 mini | PT2 | Eleaf GS | Uwell Crown | Ego One


Povratak na vrh
  
 
 Naslov: Re: Istraživanja o električnim cigaretama
PostPostano: 01 tra 2014 18:43 
Offline
Avatar

Pridružen: 07 ožu 2011 11:16
Postovi: 2860
Lokacija: Slavonski Brod
Aj šta kenjate svi... da sad Sanader izađe iz zatvora, pomeo bi cijelu političku scenu... visok, markantan, gleda te u oči i laže, spika 4 strana jezika... političar tip-top!
:blond:

_________________
slika
Devils Marble EVO, Nautilus Oddy klon, Hercules...
ipv Mini, Kaya lite v2+ klon


Povratak na vrh
  
 
 Naslov: Re: Istraživanja o električnim cigaretama
PostPostano: 02 tra 2014 13:33 
Offline
Avatar

Pridružen: 25 stu 2013 15:53
Postovi: 602
Lokacija: Šibenik
Corto_1973 je napisao:
Aj šta kenjate svi... da sad Sanader izađe iz zatvora, pomeo bi cijelu političku scenu... visok, markantan, gleda te u oči i laže, spika 4 strana jezika... političar tip-top!
:blond:


:rotfl:

_________________
slika

slika


Povratak na vrh
  
 
 [ 86 post(ov)a ]  Stranica Prethodna  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Sljedeća

Vremenska zona: UTC + 01:00 [LJV]


Online

Trenutno korisnika: crawl i 0 gostiju.


Ne možeš započinjati nove teme.
Ne možeš odgovarati na postove.
Ne možeš uređivati svoje postove.
Ne možeš izbrisati svoje postove.
Ne možeš postati privitke.

Idi na:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
HR (CRO) by vaper club