American Lung Association lies about risks/benefits of different tobacco products (including e-cigs)

[the_vape_nerd]

Vocalek, Thanks for providing this link. I read about half of the 15 pages.

I guess my thoughts on this is that I really don't care so much about not being able to vape on a plane. I mean I could just head to the rest room and get in a vape anyway.

The bigger concern is that if it is allowed to go through here, it opens up a bigger problem and they'll start wanting to ban it everywhere.

 

[Vocalek]

Vocalek, Thanks for providing this link. I read about half of the 15 pages.

I guess my thoughts on this is that I really don't care so much about not being able to vape on a plane. I mean I could just head to the rest room and get in a vape anyway.

The bigger concern is that if it is allowed to go through here, it opens up a bigger problem and they'll start wanting to ban it everywhere.

Amen. If nothing else, we need to prevail on DOT to remove the erroneous statements in their rule. If they want to say that they are prohibiting use in the cabin to avoid potential compaints by other passengers, that's honest. But to claim that this is an issue about air quality is dishonest in the absense of any evidence of harmful emissions in vapor.

And if their real issue is just to avoid disturbing other passengers, then that should make discreetly using an e-cigarette in the lavatory OK, rather than making a Federal Offense out of trying to maintain your sanity!

 

[kristin]

Thanks guys - I think that's probably the most "likes" I've ever received on a single post! LOL!

I love the idea of a CASAA Book Club!!

Jerry, the fact that the ANTZ don't have any good excuses and they should be called on it was the point of the post. I don't think it gave away any tactical secrets - just asking why, if they are so concerned about public health safety, they don't actually TEST for health safety and keep doing these pointless studies?? ya'!

 

[Vap0rJay]

I would be interested in your analysis of the war tactics that are employed by the DOT in its Proposed Rule banning the use of e-cigarettes on planes.

To read the 15-page document filed by DOT, go to this page: Regulations.gov

And then click on the PDFbutton under the "View As" column heading.

I couldn't get more than a line or two in and stopped at "potential health and passenger comfort concerns that they pose in an aircraft."

I started considering the "potential for" and the ease spreading of disease/sickness airborne and/or viral disease by sitting in close closed quarters to hundreds of potential carriers -- one person on one aircraft infecting its passangers who inturn infect those at the proceeding airport is ALL it would take to start a "domino effect" chain reaction if some new deadly disease broke loose and it would go global in no time!!!

If we're concerned about "potential" before we ban water vapor and since they are already just shy of mandatory TSA .... probing for security measures... I suggest mandatory hand sanitizer for all passengers and surgical masks for anyone with so much as a sniffle. After all disease/sickness is a PROVEN "potential health concern" and e-cigs are a "may be" that "we need more data on" because "we just don't know."

I mean, the guy minding his own biz all nice n calm getting his nicotine blowing out a couple puffs of vapor PALES IN COMPARISON to the dude 2 seats over about to cough up his lung or the kid 2 seats up's nose is running like a faucet and he’s busy wiping snot on everything in arms distance... Ya know?

THOSE are "potential" health concerns... I dunno... Maybe I'm crazy

All this w/ the e-cigs when looking at everything going on in our country - no the world! I have lost all faith in people and "common sense." What's scarier thought is suggesting a what-if scenario in that what if this is all part of a more elaborate larger scheme to take our attention off those bigger matters... to push the ultimate Orwellian agenda of course.

^ Now I'm crazy !?!?

 

[DC2]

I guess my thoughts on this is that I really don't care so much about not being able to vape on a plane. I mean I could just head to the rest room and get in a vape anyway.

My main concern would be that if they ban them on airplanes, they might decide not to allow them in carry-on.

I started considering the "potential for" and the ease spreading of disease/sickness airborne and/or viral disease by sitting in close closed quarters to hundreds of potential carriers -- one person on one aircraft infecting its passangers who inturn infect those at the proceeding airport is ALL it would take to start a "domino effect" chain reaction if some new deadly disease broke loose and it would go global in no time!!!

Ironically, an electronic cigarette might just be the best thing to help prevent or reduce the impact of such a scenario.

 

[JustaGuy]

My main concern would be that if they ban them on airplanes, they might decide not to allow them in carry-on.

Ironically, an electronic cigarette might just be the best thing to help prevent or reduce the impact of such a scenario.

Can't see that since smokes are allowed in carry on, but wouldn't put anything past Big Brother.

Now that we vape and have better sense of smell, we can truly "appreciate" the recycled air in an airplane. Ugh, who got air sick in here before?

 

[nopatch]

• They are worried because??? An e-cig is so much easier for a kid to get than real tobacco? An e-cig is also soooo much easier for a kid to get than illegal stuff we cant mention here from his classmate(s)???
• The products may also allow you to fly! Ooooh! The products may also do any number of things such as sing and dance!

I can see the worry being legitimate given the suppliers of prefilled cartos never mention even todate about PEG .

ingredients • Because cynical clinical studies submitted to the FDA are always safe.

I dont know much about FDA but i can understand a GOVT organisation screwing up repeatedly.

then there's the years and years and years of research proving the safety of PG/VG (which don't count now because the studies were done before

That is a load of BS.Check the thread i started(Some samaritans called me names before closing the thread).

(which don't count now because the studies were done before Pharma and Big Bro were losing revenue)

Just for info I have tried nicotine patch and gum and i know they didn't work for me.

 

[emus]

As said before.
Long term safety is also unknown w/ many drinks, foods, drugs and vitamins.

 

[JerryRM]

How can long term safety be known, until people use the product for the long term ? To ban or restrict something, because the long term safety is unknown, would mean that many items would be banned or restricted.

PG and VG have have been approved as being safe by the FDA (not that an FDA endorsement means much of anything). Nicotine is no more harmful than caffeine. The ANTZ are grasping at straws.

 

[nopatch]

How can long term safety be known, until people use the product for the long term ? To ban or restrict something, because the long term safety is unknown, would mean that many items would be banned or restricted.

Long term safety is not known at this point of time; and that is what people should be aware of .Switch to vaping and live happily ever after is not the sensible thing to advocate.

As far as banning goes i understand that problem doesn't exist after the court ruled against it.

I personally think there is no rational for banning ecigs as long as smoking is allowed.

PG and VG have have been approved as being safe by the FDA (not that an FDA endorsement means much of anything). Nicotine is no more harmful than caffeine. The ANTZ are grasping at straws.

PG and VG are approved for dietary consumption and also for intravenous administration.Inhalation at high concentrations on a regular basis was never studied in a scientific manner.

 

[yvilla]

PG and VG are approved for dietary consumption and also for intravenous administration.Inhalation at high concentrations on a regular basis was never studied in a scientific manner.

No. You are wrong.

Both PG and VG (glycerin in general) are approved for innumerable uses in cosmetics, foods, and drugs. As for FDA approval for use in pharmaceutical products, both are approved for the following applications, in concentrations ranging from 1% all the way to 98.09%:

Buccal
Aurricular
Transdermal Patch
Topical (Aerosol, Cream, Emulsion, Gel, Lotion, Ointment and Film)
IM and IV injection
Opthalmic
Oral (Solution, Suspension, and Tablet)
Dental (Paste and Solution)
Inhalation
Nasal
Rectal
Subcutaneous
Vaginal

You can see this yourself, by searching the FDA's inactive ingredients database, created for this purpose:

"The Inactive Ingredients Database provides information on inactive ingredients present in FDA-approved drug products. This information can be used by industry as an aid in developing drug products. For new drug development purposes, once an inactive ingredient has appeared in an approved drug product for a particular route of administration, the inactive ingredient is not considered new and may require a less extensive review the next time it is included in a new drug product. For example, if a particular inactive ingredient has been approved in a certain dosage form at a certain potency, a sponsor could consider it safe for use in a similar manner for a similar type of product."
Inactive Ingredient Search for Approved Drug Products: Frequently Asked Questions

To do this search, go here: Inactive Ingredients in FDA Approved Drugs

Then all you do is put either "propylene glycol" or "glycerin" in the search box on the above-linked to page, and you will see the very long list of approved administrations enjoyed by both substances, and the range of concentrations.

 

[yvilla]

Not to mention the use for over 50 years of propylene glycol as an air sanitizer in hospitals, major transportation centers and food establishments, among other places.
http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/REDs/propylene_glycol_red.pdf

Or the incredible number and variety of consumer and industrial air sanitizing products based on propylene glycol in use throughout the country and the world.
PROPYLENE GLYCOL -- Pesticidal Uses

 

[Vocalek]

As far as banning goes i understand that problem doesn't exist after the court ruled against it.

I wish that were true, but it isn't. CASAA is still fighting bans on sales, proposed tight control on sales (vendors have to buy a tobacco shop license), and forcing e-cig users to go stand in the smoking section to use their gadget at the state and local levels.

There are e-cig users who think that we should not fight indoor use bans. Well, as smokers we did not stand up and fight when they (tobacco control community) said, "We don't care that you business owners spent tens of thousands of dollars creating a special room for smokers that would keep smoke away from non-smokers. Now you must send the smokers outside." And now they are banning outdoor smoking. For every inch we gave, they took a mile. It was all part of a carefully laid out plan to push smokers into tighter and tighter constrictions. See: Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger

Imagine if New York City had proposed banning smoking everywhere, indoors and out, in 1985. Everyone, non-smokers alike, would have risen in protest. But like the frog put into a pot of tepid water, we stayed in the pot while the water rose to boiling temperature.

Personally, I can stand in the smoking section to use my e-cigarette without any problems (except, of course for freezing my tail off in winter or melting in the summer.) It doesn't tempt me to go back to smoking. But it does torture some of us. It doesnt' make me choke. But some people who stop smoking develop an allergy to real smoke. So IMHO, it is unreasonable to require a former smoker to stand in the smoking section, in order to use the product that is keeping him or her smoke-free.

There are a lot more local levels governments than Federal. The FDA is looking into prohibition of any except face-to-face sales on all tobacco products (which could include e-cigs), and there are local governments looking into that as well.

So, you see, the urge to ban our product, as well as other smoke-free alternatives is alive and well, which is why we must be vigilent.

PS, Thank God I moved out of Minnesota before they implemented indoor smoking bans. I used to get hypothermia just walking from the parking lot into the building where I worked. It would take me 30 minutes to warm up enough to take off my coat. But I only had to go through that in the morning when I went to work and for most of the way home at night, because during the day I could smoke at my desk.

 

[JustaGuy]

The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. ~Louis D. Brandeis

and

Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. ~Abraham Lincoln

 

[CJsKee]

Snip...

...But some people who stop smoking develop an allergy to real smoke.

I don't think tobacco smoke is an allergen. Allergens are proteins and any proteins in tobacco would be burned up. Tobacco smoke may be an irritant, but would not cause allergies.

FORCES - THERE IS NO TOBACCO ALLERGY

 

[JerryRM]

It is an irritant indeed, CJ. It's been almost two years since I lit up. A while back I was out walking and two smokers passed by me. The smoke irritated my throat and I coughed for about one minute, before it cleared up. I think it's insensitive and ignorant to force people to vape with the smokers, we are not smokers !!!!!

 

[rothenbj]

It is an irritant indeed, CJ. It's been almost two years since I lit up. A while back I was out walking and two smokers passed by me. The smoke irritated my throat and I coughed for about one minute, before it cleared up. I think it's insensitive and ignorant to force people to vape with the smokers, we are not smokers !!!!!

It's funny you said that. I've never minded tobacco smoke unless it got very, very dense. The other week I was in a bar where smoking is allowed, but they have a fairly decent filtration system. My eyes started burning from the irritation of the smoke so bad I had to step outside for a few minutes until it cleared up. Went back in and a few minutes later they were being bothered again. It hasn't happened since but it was certainly different for me.

 

[nopatch]

Not to mention the use for over 50 years of propylene glycol as an air sanitizer in hospitals, major transportation centers and food establishments, among other places.

I am hard pressed to find this data regarding use in hospitals.

http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/REDs/propylene_glycol_red.pdf

Or the incredible number and variety of consumer and industrial air sanitizing products based on propylene glycol in use throughout the country and the world.
PROPYLENE GLYCOL -- Pesticidal Uses

EPA gave permission based on mousie study at less than 0.5% concentration in 1947,1978,1989 and 1995 .High concentrations(More than 10%) studies were not done.There is this one study which identified lung inflammation at high concentrations but not conclusive.some data from that study

That hospitals use PG for air sanitation is Like the myth of Propylene glycol usage in asthma inhalers.

Till todate i could neither find the Asthma inhaler that use PG nor the name of the hospital that use PG for Air sanitation.

 

[yvilla]

I am hard pressed to find this data regarding use in hospitals.

That hospitals use PG for air sanitation is Like the myth of Propylene glycol usage in asthma inhalers.

Then you didn't really look at the EPA document I cited. It is a "Reregistration Eligibility Decision" issued in 2006 (because PG had been approved and in common use for air sanitation for decades before laws enacted in the 80's and 90's required review and reapproval of such uses).

"ABSTRACT
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) has completed the human
health and environmental risk assessments for propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol and is
issuing its risk management decision and tolerance reassessment. The risk assessments, which
are summarized below, are based on the review of the required target database supporting the use
patterns of currently registered products. As a result of this review, EPA has determined that
products containing propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol alone are eligible for reregistration.
Products containing propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol in combination with other active
ingredients will be reregistered only when all of the active ingredients have been determined to
be eligible for reregistration. That decision is discussed fully in this document.
******
A. Regulatory History
Propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol were first registered in 1950 and 1959, respectively, by the FDA for use in hospitals as air disinfectants.
******
C. Use Profile
1. Propylene Glycol
The following is information on the currently registered uses of propylene glycol products and
an overview of use sites and application methods. A detailed table of the uses of propylene
glycol eligible for reregistration is contained in Appendix A.
Type of Pesticide: Bacteriostat, Fungistat
Summary of Use Sites:
Indoor Non-Food:
Propylene glycol is used on the following use sites: air treatment (eating
establishments, hospital, commercial, institutional, household, bathroom,
transportational facilities); medical premises and equipment, commercial,
institutional and industrial premises and equipment; laundry equipment;
hard non-porous surface treatments (bathroom facilities); automobiles; air
conditioning filters; pet treatment, including cats, dogs, and caged birds;
environmental inanimate hard surfaces; garbage containers/storage."

 

[nopatch]

Actual usage data; like some xyz hospital using PG to treat Air inhaled by it's inmates.