You sound like you have memorized the anti-smoker manual, my friend. It is difficult to see why you ever became a smoker/vaper if these are your beliefs about it. Perhaps you are not really either but are here to spout more of those memorized lines from anti-smoker training programs. It looks as if you have been successfully indoctrinated into the demonization of smoking/vaping. Seriously, for someone like you, cold turkey quitting is your best option IF you ever smoked/vaped at all, that is.
Augusta, GA -- E-cigarettes in smoking ban extension
- Thread starter Placebo Effect
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Nicotine has many medical benefits. Perhaps if we are vaping away inside a restaurant/bar/WalMart, we are saving our fellowman by providing free protection from Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, mental dysfunction, and a host of other tragic diseases. Google it and educate yourself on the plans for drug companies to research and develop new drugs with nicotine as the base.
"Researchers Investigate (Horrors!) Nicotine's Potential Benefits
By WARREN E. LEARY
Published: January 14, 1997
Sign In to E-Mail
Print
IN work that sounds a little like scientific blasphemy, medical researchers have begun paying increasing attention to some beneficial effects of nicotine that were first noticed in cigarette smokers.
After years of quiet discussion among scientists, hints that cigarettes can protect against some diseases or improve the outcome of others have led to growing interest in finding out why. This has focused attention on nicotine, tobacco's most active ingredient, as a potential treatment for several major health problems, including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases.
Without question, researchers say, cigarette smoking does far more harm than any potential good and should be strongly discouraged. Smoking is a major cause of cancer and a host of cardiovascular and other diseases that cause millions of deaths each year, they say, while draining the world's health care systems of billions of dollars.
But some researchers say efforts to stop smoking have discouraged research into the possible benefits of nicotine and related compounds in treating conditions like attention deficit disorders, an inflammatory bowel disease and a neurological condition called Tourette's syndrome." Researchers Investigate (Horrors!) Nicotine's Potential Benefits - New York Times
Recently, Israeli researchers develop Malaria-fighting tobacco
(philstar.com) Updated February 13, 2012 08:04 AM Comments (0) View comments
JERUSALEM (Xinhua) -- Israeli scientists at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem have developed genetically altered tobacco plants which contain a natural compound that can fight drug- resistant malaria.
Although cigarettes are known to kill millions of people every year, Professor Alexander Vainstein and his research team have found that tobacco plant can be altered to produce "artemisin," an active component in malaria treatment, Israel's 21C news site reported Sunday.
The natural compound artemisin comes from the sweet wormwood plant and can fight drug-resistant malaria, but due to its small quantities and high price, millions of people cannot get access to this remedy.
Israeli researchers develop Malaria-fighting tobacco - Home » Other Sections » Breaking News
I've wondered for awhile now it the takeover of BT by Pfizer and others is not simply a conspiracy to gain control of its product, facilities, research, and most of all BIG MONEY
"Researchers Investigate (Horrors!) Nicotine's Potential Benefits
By WARREN E. LEARY
Published: January 14, 1997
Sign In to E-Mail
IN work that sounds a little like scientific blasphemy, medical researchers have begun paying increasing attention to some beneficial effects of nicotine that were first noticed in cigarette smokers.
After years of quiet discussion among scientists, hints that cigarettes can protect against some diseases or improve the outcome of others have led to growing interest in finding out why. This has focused attention on nicotine, tobacco's most active ingredient, as a potential treatment for several major health problems, including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases.
Without question, researchers say, cigarette smoking does far more harm than any potential good and should be strongly discouraged. Smoking is a major cause of cancer and a host of cardiovascular and other diseases that cause millions of deaths each year, they say, while draining the world's health care systems of billions of dollars.
But some researchers say efforts to stop smoking have discouraged research into the possible benefits of nicotine and related compounds in treating conditions like attention deficit disorders, an inflammatory bowel disease and a neurological condition called Tourette's syndrome." Researchers Investigate (Horrors!) Nicotine's Potential Benefits - New York Times
Recently, Israeli researchers develop Malaria-fighting tobacco
(philstar.com) Updated February 13, 2012 08:04 AM Comments (0) View comments
JERUSALEM (Xinhua) -- Israeli scientists at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem have developed genetically altered tobacco plants which contain a natural compound that can fight drug- resistant malaria.
Although cigarettes are known to kill millions of people every year, Professor Alexander Vainstein and his research team have found that tobacco plant can be altered to produce "artemisin," an active component in malaria treatment, Israel's 21C news site reported Sunday.
The natural compound artemisin comes from the sweet wormwood plant and can fight drug-resistant malaria, but due to its small quantities and high price, millions of people cannot get access to this remedy.
Israeli researchers develop Malaria-fighting tobacco - Home » Other Sections » Breaking News
I've wondered for awhile now it the takeover of BT by Pfizer and others is not simply a conspiracy to gain control of its product, facilities, research, and most of all BIG MONEY
I smoked for 7 years heavily. I have been vaping for 14 months now and I do thoroughly enjoy it. I am not an "anti-smoker" or demonizer of smokers. However, I am well aware of the health risks of smoking and 2nd hand smoke. To pretend that second hand smoking risks do not occur is ignorant to say the very least. It wasn't until I quit smoking that I realized just how bad it is. Of course, being around another vapor is not even close to sitting next to a cigarette smoker. But there is still nicotine present in the vapor exhaust. You can pretend that nicotine and second hand cigarette smoke do not have negative health effects if you want, but I tend to rely more on scientific research than personal beliefs. Again, you have presented links to 3rd party sources, not peer reviewed articles. Anyone in the scientific community knows that news outlets are the worst places to get science information. I am not saying the claims in those articles is false as I have not studied the data, but we all know how the news sensationalizes and exaggerates claims based on single studies.
I am not bashing ecigs at all, as I use my Reos daily and can't get enough of them. Switching from cigs to ecigs has greatly improved my health. But we should not jump to the conclusion that they are completely safe for us and others, especially since the juices are not regulated. I mix my own juices and get my nic from a trusted supplier. I then test it to make sure it is safe and pure so I don't have to worry about getting bad ready-made juice. It is true there is not a lot of significant testing done on ecigs. But scientific community does know the multitude of effects of nicotine. We should be careful when using it for ourselves and using it around others.
I am not bashing ecigs at all, as I use my Reos daily and can't get enough of them. Switching from cigs to ecigs has greatly improved my health. But we should not jump to the conclusion that they are completely safe for us and others, especially since the juices are not regulated. I mix my own juices and get my nic from a trusted supplier. I then test it to make sure it is safe and pure so I don't have to worry about getting bad ready-made juice. It is true there is not a lot of significant testing done on ecigs. But scientific community does know the multitude of effects of nicotine. We should be careful when using it for ourselves and using it around others.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
rstreet55 wrote:
In fact, Dr. Murray Laugesen at healthnz.co.nz has been a public health physician for 4 decades, he led the campaign to ban indoor smoking in New Zealand and to raise cigarette taxes, and I was the one who encouraged Ruyan to contact and contract with Laugesen back in 2006 to conduct the very first laboratory studies on e-cigarettes.
In sharp contrast, the FDA Deputy Director Josh Sharfstein held a press conference in July 22 where he intentionally misrepresented the FDA's laboratory report findings on e-cigarettes in an attempt to deceive and scare the public (and the federal judges in the DC Circuit Court who were considering the lawsuit that had just been filed by SE and NJOY against the FDA for banning the sale of e-cigarettes) and to win the lawsuit. Thankfully, all 13 federal judges who considered the case ruled that the FDA violated the law by banning e-cigarettes, and that the FDA failed to provide evidence to back up its claims that e-cigarettes are hazardous, that they were marketed to youth, or that they were marketed for therapeutic use as drug devices.
I encourage rstreet55 read some of the tens of thousands of notes posted on ECF about these issues, or some of the dozens of studies that have been published on e-cigarettes.
If rstreet55 sends me a private e-mail to smokefree@compuserve.com I'll be pleased to send him weblinks for several thousand pages of scientific studies and laboratory reports on e-cigarettes.
In fact, Dr. Murray Laugesen at healthnz.co.nz has been a public health physician for 4 decades, he led the campaign to ban indoor smoking in New Zealand and to raise cigarette taxes, and I was the one who encouraged Ruyan to contact and contract with Laugesen back in 2006 to conduct the very first laboratory studies on e-cigarettes.
In sharp contrast, the FDA Deputy Director Josh Sharfstein held a press conference in July 22 where he intentionally misrepresented the FDA's laboratory report findings on e-cigarettes in an attempt to deceive and scare the public (and the federal judges in the DC Circuit Court who were considering the lawsuit that had just been filed by SE and NJOY against the FDA for banning the sale of e-cigarettes) and to win the lawsuit. Thankfully, all 13 federal judges who considered the case ruled that the FDA violated the law by banning e-cigarettes, and that the FDA failed to provide evidence to back up its claims that e-cigarettes are hazardous, that they were marketed to youth, or that they were marketed for therapeutic use as drug devices.
I encourage rstreet55 read some of the tens of thousands of notes posted on ECF about these issues, or some of the dozens of studies that have been published on e-cigarettes.
If rstreet55 sends me a private e-mail to smokefree@compuserve.com I'll be pleased to send him weblinks for several thousand pages of scientific studies and laboratory reports on e-cigarettes.
Before calling someone ignorant for quoting a story from a 3rd party source, you should first ask if the story is something made up by a reporter with a desperate need for a story or if it is based upon science. Both stories did indeed come from peer-reviewed studies, so I ask you why you would take this route. Before I point you to the actual study, I ask you to show me a peer-reviewed study that has proven that exhaled nicotine poses a health risk for anyone. You should also note that the largest study of shs ever completed http://www.epi-perspectives.com/content/4/1/11was both peer-reviewed and found that shs did not present a serious danger to anyone.
Dr. Laugesen's peers had the opportunity to review Dr. Laugesen's research at the 2010 conference of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco in Dublin, 2010. Notice that 9 different laboratories, including Duke University, participated in conducting the tests.
http://www.healthnz.co.nz/DublinEcigBenchtopHandout.pdf
You may wish to peruse the abstracts of studies on which Dr. Laugesen is listed as author. Laugesen M - PubMed - NCBI[Author]
Table 2 on page 5 of the FDA report lists the micrograms of nicotine measured in 100 mL puffs. Measurements are displayed for 6 samples. Three of the 6 samples showed levels higher than the Nicotrol inhaler used as a control (15.2). One of these only barely exceeded that level at 15.7. The other three samples contained less nicotine than the Nicotrol inhaler.
I don't know anyone who used an e-cigarette to replace their Nicotrol inhaler. Everyone I know switched from inhaling smoke.
Bill has already pointed out how these results were misrepresented in the FDA's press conference. It is a fact that the quantity of "carcinogens" (Tobacco-specific nitrosamines, abbreviated TSNAs) was not presented in the FDA's lab report? Why not?
Because the public would have laughed themselves silly if the FDA had presented all the facts. Dr. Laugesen found 8 nanograms (0.008 micrograms) of TSNAs per gram in the liquid of the highest level of nicotine he tested, which was 16 mg. He pointed out that this quantity is equivalent to the amount found in a medicinal nicotine patch. See Comment 1 under Table 2.2 on page 7.
http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf
According to research conducted at the University of Minnesota, the quantity of TSNAs present in combustible cigarettes ranges from 3.4 to 6.3 micrograms per gram. You might want to read through this report, as Table 1 on page 312 lists TSNA levels for a number of products that contain nicotine, ranging from dissolvable orbs to NRT products. Notice that a 4 mg nicotine patch (I didn't even know that they come in that small a dose) contains 0.008 micrograms, which verifies Dr. Laugesen's comment. I can only guess that a standard 21 mg nicotine patch would contain about 5 times as much (perhaps 0.040 micrograms). I chew about 5 pieces a day of 4 mg Nicorette gum, which nets me slightly more TSNAs (0.002 times 5 = 0.010) than a gram of 16 mg e-liquid @ 0.008 micgrograms.
http://www.starscientific.com/404/stepanov tsna in.pdf
So, our old product, tobacco cigarettes, contains between 425 and 787.5 times the quantity of TSNAs than e-liquid. Why would the FDA decide to hide that fact from smokers? The FDA worked very hard to give the public the impression that e-cigarettes are cancer-causing. Unless FDA leaders are stupid, they must have known that their choice of how to handle the publicity would frighten some smokers who were considering switching into sticking with inhaling those much higher levels of carcinogens from their smoked cigarettes.
You are assuming that 100% of the nicotine inhaled is exhaled. The nicotine in cigarette smoke is 98% absorbed in the body of the smoker. It is likely that 98% of the nicotine in vapor is absorbed as well. Even if I inhaled the highest number posted by the FDA, 43.2 micrograms of nicotine in a 100 mL puff, I would only be exhaling 0.864 micrograms of nicotine.
A tobacco company gives us the comparative information regarding nicotine in puffs of smoke.
A Study of the Puff-by-Puff Delivery of Menthol and Nicotine in Cigarette Smoke and the Effects of Air Dilution on Delivery
So a Salem Light 85's smoker would be exhaling nearly 19 micrograms of nicotine, and the Newport Lights smoker would be exhaling ~15 micrograms -- about 21 times the nicotine exhaled by a vaper.
What kind of harm are you expecting this exhaled nicotine to inflict on a bystander? I never heard of someone who was exposed to second-hand smoke becoming addicted to nicotine as a result. In fact, researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University recently published a study stating that the addiction potential of using an e-cigarette was low. So if a non-smoker who tried an e-cigarette and did not become addicted to nicotine by inhaling vapor, it seems highly improbable that the level of nicotine vapers exhale would have any effect whatsoever on the health of a bystander.
Vansickel AR, Weaver MF, Eissenberg T. Clinical laboratory assessment of the abuse liability of an electronic cigarette. Addiction. 2012 Jan 9. Clinical laboratory assessment of the abuse liabil... [Addiction. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI
OK, you are on the right track here. Now just apply that thought to what you believe you know about second-hand smoke and nicotine. Think long and hard - how did you form your opinion about those things? Read articles that reported about how this study or that study found that second-hand smoke is dangerous? Read an article about how "scientists found" that nicotine causes heart attacks? Saw a news report about what the FDA said? (The fact that you give credence to the FDA testing by calling it "science" tells me you only read the news reports and not the actual study nor the criticisms of the testing by scientists and doctors. Additionally, the FDA results were not "peer reviewed" either, if that is one of your standards for "real" science.)
Take your own advice and read the actual studies that are cited by "officials" about second-hand smoke and nicotine and not just what the newspapers and government have told you. Read opinions of scientists who didn't agree with the studies and why. Discover how any studies and researchers that don't tow the prohibitionist, anti-tobacco line either don't get published, get ignored or even lose their jobs. Most of those studies can be ripped apart as being inconclusive theory at best and downright junk science at worst. And a study being "peer-reviewed" is a joke to anyone who knows how that biased, crony system REALLY works.
If you think about it, your opinions are likely based on what you've been told to believe about the research done (by "authorities" who most people wrongly believe to be unbiased and without any conflicts of interest) and not actually seeing the research for yourself and hearing both sides of the argument. Consider too that most science isn't hard, cold facts but interpretation of evidence and theory. You can't just hear one side's agenda-based opinion and not the other side's and think you know the "truth."
Last edited:
kristin, I do not get my information from news outlets but in fact from 1st hand sources. I do not regurgitate the articles written by the mass media. Nicotine does get into the air. It can affect people, especially children and pregnant women. It can be and is absorbed by those around the smokers/vapers. Fortunately, ecigs are not as bad as regular cigarettes as they do not burn off chemicals from the other end like a lit cigarette. It may be true that 98% of inhaled nicotine is absorbed by a smoker, but remember that the cigarette is burning smoke from the other end that is not inhaled.
Secondhand smoke and nicotine exposure: A brief review
Abstract: Effect of Secondhand Smoke on Occupancy of Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors in Brain You should be able to find the full article on PubMed if I remember correctly.
Objectively Assessed Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Mental Health in Adults Another paper measuring salivary cotinine (a metabolite of nicotine) levels and how it associates to brain activity in Adults.
These are just a couple of the many peer reviewed papers I have read on the subject. Studies show that nicotine can have harmful neurological effects. I want to believe that my ecig is harmless and in fact good for me, but I do not shun evidence that says otherwise. And I like to keep the environment around me safe for others that do not intake nicotine as I do. Especially when we do not know the full extent of nicotine exposure but have a good idea that it is healthy either.
Secondhand smoke and nicotine exposure: A brief review
Abstract: Effect of Secondhand Smoke on Occupancy of Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors in Brain You should be able to find the full article on PubMed if I remember correctly.
Objectively Assessed Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Mental Health in Adults Another paper measuring salivary cotinine (a metabolite of nicotine) levels and how it associates to brain activity in Adults.
These are just a couple of the many peer reviewed papers I have read on the subject. Studies show that nicotine can have harmful neurological effects. I want to believe that my ecig is harmless and in fact good for me, but I do not shun evidence that says otherwise. And I like to keep the environment around me safe for others that do not intake nicotine as I do. Especially when we do not know the full extent of nicotine exposure but have a good idea that it is healthy either.
Co-authored by Ellen Hahn - a well known anti-tobacco and nicotine zealot who is famous for misrepresenting the facts. She accused CASAA of being shills for the tobacco industry with absolutely no evidence. I wouldn't believe anything associated with that woman.
A study of just 24 subjects? Really? And care to translate that scientific language for us? Because most people would only read the "conclusion" (which would still be over the heads of most people.) I'd want a second opinion on those "conclusions," too. This one seemed intent on finding supporting evidence for smoking bans in cars and homes. It also failed to separate the nicotine from the smoke - there is no way of knowing if nicotine alone would have the same effect.
I've seen many "peer reviewed" studies where other researchers (without an agenda) disputed the findings. Take the "heart attack miracle" studies that the researchers claimed showed heart attacks went down where there were smoking bans, when in fact the numbers actually showed no such evidence.
14.5%? Kind of seems that one is making mountains out of molehills, but I'd have to defer to a CASAA expert to interpret that one for me and whether or not the findings are truly "significant."
Look, no one is saying that nicotine or vaping is 100% safe, but the hysteria being created over such low health risks is disproportionate to products and behaviors with similar health risks or even worse health risks. For example, no one blinks at the fact that the FDA doesn't require air freshener companies to include all of the ingredients on their products, nor does it require the company to prove that everything in the can is 100% safe for human inhalation. As a matter of fact, there are warnings about adverse side effects to exposure on the cans, because many contain known human carcinogens. Yet there is no public outcry over this fact and people complaining about a little smoke happily plop their "Glade Sense & Spray" in the middle of their living room without a second thought.
Are some people more sensitive to nicotine in the air and shouldn't be exposed? Of course. But while some people could also die from nut allergies, they don't ban nuts from all restaurant foods or peanuts from bars because someone could accidentally touch or eat one. Let's not forget that nicotine is found in vegetables, as well. How do those so sensitive to it cope with that even if public smoking is banned.
The fact of the matter is that they have never produced one death that could be shown to have been caused by second-hand smoke exposure let alone second-hand smoke-free nicotine exposure and the vast majority of illnesses from second-hand smoke (short term, public exposure) are very minor and not permanent. Second-hand smoke, like many household cleaning products, is simply an annoying irritant and an allergen, but is not deadly or even dangerous for the vast majority of the public. "There is no safe level of smoke exposure." Well, there is no safe level of ammonia exposure, either, but health organizations don't tell people to quit using it.
On a final note, bear in mind that all of this "science" isn't just being used to stop you from smoking or vaping in public. There is a committee in California right now discussing a ban on smoking in your own yard. California municipalities have been happy to include vaping in the definition of smoking. One banned smoking and vaping in government housing. How much are you willing to let them use this flimsy, tacked-together "scientific" evidence against you? Because you give them an inch and next thing you know, you're only vaping in your basement in your government-mandated smoking room with $10,000 worth of required ventilation equipment. And I'm not exaggerating.
Last edited:
The point I am trying to make is that no matter how big or small the numbers are, it is getting released in the air and we have to be mindful of it as we don't know the full extent of the side effects. However, we do know how nicotine affects us physiologically and neurologically. We know that children and pregnant people are even more susceptible. I was making that point because I see a lot of ecig users blowing it off as if there is definitively no side effects from the vapor to them or others around.
I agree that there is a lot of disinformation floating around. Disinformation like this:
After all the studies and published papers on how dangerous secondhand smoking can be, I am shocked you think that it does not contribute to premature death or prolonged/damaging effects. That secondhand smoking is not very harmful, but more of an "irritant." It would behoove you to maybe take up a few science courses at a local college because it is apparent you are grossly misinterpreting the papers, especially with regard to secondhand cigarette smoke. Or perhaps you just choose to ignore the scientific data. If you have had children, did you smoke while pregnant? If not, is there a reason you didn't? Perhaps...for health reasons given by your doctor? I will just end my discussion here as I feel it might not be worth my time to move forward with it.
I agree that there is a lot of disinformation floating around. Disinformation like this:
After all the studies and published papers on how dangerous secondhand smoking can be, I am shocked you think that it does not contribute to premature death or prolonged/damaging effects. That secondhand smoking is not very harmful, but more of an "irritant." It would behoove you to maybe take up a few science courses at a local college because it is apparent you are grossly misinterpreting the papers, especially with regard to secondhand cigarette smoke. Or perhaps you just choose to ignore the scientific data. If you have had children, did you smoke while pregnant? If not, is there a reason you didn't? Perhaps...for health reasons given by your doctor? I will just end my discussion here as I feel it might not be worth my time to move forward with it.
Last edited:
I am shocked that you ignored the largest and longest peer-reviewed study of shs ever created. I am shocked that you did not examine Enstrom and Kabat's conclusions that shs is not responsible for much of anything other than assaulting anti-smokers' over sensitive noses. It would behoove you to look beyond the constant flow of shs studies bought and paid for by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Pfizer. I see that you have grossly neglected to read like a scientist and examine materials from both sides of the issue. Perhaps you should enroll in a couple of logic classes at a nearby university. When you do, ask why, if shs is so deadly, we are about to experience an aging crisis with the Baby Boomers living into their 90's and beyond. EVERYONE SMOKED EVERYWHERE in that generation.
My thoughts about second and third-hand smoke in public spaces is a completely different topic than first-hand and pregnancy exposure (yes I quit while pregnant.) It's not that I do not believe smoke to be dangerous, it's that I do not think it is nearly as dangerous for short term exposures in large, public spaces with commercial ventilation systems or outside on beaches and in parks as they make it out to be - not enough to ban it. If second-hand smoke is that dangerous, then they should also be banning restaurants with wood grills and smokers and BBQ grills in beaches and parks. Do you really think the smoke from those sources is magically less harmful? Yet they only want to ban cigarette smoke.
I think cigarette smoke is much more harmful first-hand and second-hand in closed, small often under-ventilated spaces such as apartments and homes - just as you wouldn't use your grill indoors. Ironically, all of the public bans are INCREASING the health risks of children of smokers who would otherwise have smoked outside of the home. Now the idiot ANTZ are going after home smoking because they finally figured out the ramifications of their public nuisance bans: Maasin City bans smoking at home | Sun.Star And they want to include e-cigarettes in bans like this, even though they don't create any smoke at all!
Additionally, the ANTZ make no move to ban cigarettes, rather they attempt to ban all of the much safer alternatives - leaving smoking as the only alternative. Gee, the one source where they get the most tax revenue and the one that causes people to buy NRTs over and over with one quit attempt after another. Those NRT profits then fund the research that "proves" second and third-hand smoke is evil and people need to be banned from public and encouraged to buy NRT. Doesn't that even make you wonder just a tiny bit?? If you think that sort of "conspiracy" is far fetched, look at at what the dairy industry did to margarine in the early days.
I am quite aware of "all the studies and papers" supporting second-hand smoke health risks. I am also aware of all of the politics behind the suppression of all the research, studies and papers which directly contradict those which claim significant health risks of public and outdoor second-hand smoke and the fact that there is a lot of money to be made in research supporting smoking bans. Also, I have seen many papers and studies where the researchers came to conclusions which were either shown to be pre-designed and/or completely contradict the evidence they found and/or were made based upon small samples and/or poorly designed. Just because those papers exist doesn't mean that they are well-done or produce significant evidence to support the conclusions made (which are usually prematurely announced to the public in an over-simplified, dramatic fashion and misrepresentative of what it all really means.)
Unfortunately, you read those studies with the assumption that they are complete, well-designed, conclusive and done by unbiased, ethical researchers without any agenda or vested interest in the publicized results. In fact, most of the studies you find on second-hand smoke in public are poorly designed, come from small samples and are inconclusive theory that are often reported as hard, cold facts. None of the studies you posted earlier really come to any firm conclusions - they were only a collection of "if's" "could's" and "might's."
As Sherid pointed out - how many studies have you read that were not paid for by groups with a vested interest in smokers trying to quit (Big Pharma)? There are respected doctors and researchers, many who even support public smoking bans and used to be a part of the anti-smoking industry, who criticize these poorly done and/or inconclusive studies as junk science. You need to hear what they have to say before you take all of those studies you have been reading at face value. Unless you have read and heard both sides of the argument, you are not in any position to make any conclusions.
Sherid, I'm sure you probably saw this but you have to wonder if this isn't the next step in the grand plan, of course from the left coast-
Rocklin Considering Banning Residents From Smoking Outside Their Own Homes « CBS Sacramento
They've started in the parks and outside public places, now they want to move onto you're own private property. If you're going to concede to not vaping anywhere smoking is banned, you may wake up and find very few places that you'll be able to vape. I can't believe they will get away with this, but I am amazed with what they've accomplished already so who knows.
Rocklin Considering Banning Residents From Smoking Outside Their Own Homes « CBS Sacramento
They've started in the parks and outside public places, now they want to move onto you're own private property. If you're going to concede to not vaping anywhere smoking is banned, you may wake up and find very few places that you'll be able to vape. I can't believe they will get away with this, but I am amazed with what they've accomplished already so who knows.
I have long thought that it may come to civil disobedience.
They fight to defeat us while we sleep.
And we need to wake up.
How can second hand smoke from a cigarette in an open park be more dangerous than the exhaust emissions from the cars around the park?
\
In Ohio there are some places that have defied the ban since day one. I try to give them all of my business for being gutsy enough to stand up for owners' rights. Some places allow smoking all the time: others at certain times of the day. Just blindly allowing these eugenists to keep encroaching on our lives is a serious error IMO.
Despite the fact that one of the authors of http://www.mc.uky.edu/tobaccopolicy/ResearchProduct/SecondhandsmokeandNicotine.pdf is the notorious Ellen Hahn, there is confirmation of what I stated about the fact the cigarettes emit nicotine directly from the ends the entire time they remain lit, plus a small amount of the nicotine that was inhaled by the smoker. They also offer some data regarding how much of inhaled nicotine is absorbed by the one doing the inhaling.
Dr. Laugesen's sources said that 98% of the nicotine is absorbed before the smoke is exhaled, and the older studies cited by by Okali, Kelly, & Hahn state that "roughly 82-92%" of the inhaled nicotine is absorbed. Let's take the worst case scenario. if we took the smallest estimate of absorption and applied it to the largest estimates of nicotine per puff, we end up with 18% of 103 mcg exhaled for the combusted cigarette and with 18% of 10 mcg for the e-cigarette, with no additional nicotine emitted from the end of the e-cigarette. That works out to 18.54 mcg (plus 100% of the nicotine emitted from the burning end) for a combusted cigarette versus 1.8 mcg for the e-cigarette.
According to this article from the NEJM, 10 grams of eggplant delivers 1 mcg of nicotine. MMS: Error
A 4 oz serving of eggplant is equal to 113.4 grams, which would deliver 11.34 mcg of nicotine.
Now keep in mind that if someone is using an e-cigarette in the same room as you, unless you lock lips with him or her, you are not going to inhale all of the 1.8 mcg of nicotine that they exhale. You will probably take in a tiny, tiny fraction of those 1.8 mcg because vapor does not linger on the air the way that smoke does, nor cling to surfaces as it does when attached to droplets of tar. Vapor dissipates quickly.
Now let's turn the discussion to the effects of nicotine.
Acute nicotine improves cognitive deficits in young adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
Acute nicotine improves cognitive de... [Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI
Nicotine improves working memory span capacity in rats following sub-chronic ketamine exposure.
Nicotine improves working memory spa... [Neuropsychopharmacology. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI
Effects of nicotine on attention and inhibitory control in healthy nonsmokers.
Effects of nicotine on attention an... [Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI
Nicotine effects on default mode network during resting state.
Nicotine effects on default mode n... [Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2011] - PubMed - NCBI
Effects of nicotine on novelty detection and memory recognition performance: double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of smokers and nonsmokers.
Effects of nicotine on novelty det... [Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2009] - PubMed - NCBI
Positive effects of nicotine on cognition: the deployment of attention for prospective memory.
Positive effects of nicotine on co... [Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2009] - PubMed - NCBI
Effects of transdermal nicotine on episodic memory in non-smokers with and without schizophrenia.
Effects of transdermal nicotine on... [Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2008] - PubMed - NCBI
Chronic nicotine administration improves attention while nicotine withdrawal induces performance deficits in the 5-choice serial reaction time task in rats.
Chronic nicotine administrat... [Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2007 Aug-Sep] - PubMed - NCBI
Nicotine improves cognitive deficits of dopamine transporter knockout mice without long-term tolerance.
Nicotine improves cognitive deficits... [Neuropsychopharmacology. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI
Visual and auditory alertness: modality-specific and supramodal neural mechanisms and their modulation by nicotine.
Visual and auditory alertness: modality-speci... [J Neurophysiol. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI
Acute effects of nicotine on attention and response inhibition.
Acute effects of nicotine on attenti... [Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI
Nicotine improves memory for delayed intentions.
Nicotine improves memory for delay... [Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2005] - PubMed - NCBI
Acute effects of nicotine on visual search tasks in young adult smokers.
Acute effects of nicotine on visua... [Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2005] - PubMed - NCBI
Nicotinic treatment for cognitive dysfunction.
Nicotinic treatment for ... [Curr Drug Targets CNS Neurol Disord. 2002] - PubMed - NCBI
Nicotine effects on alertness and spatial attention in non-smokers.
Nicotine effects on alertness and spatial a... [Nicotine Tob Res. 2002] - PubMed - NCBI
Nicotinic systems in central nervous systems disease: degenerative disorders and beyond.
Nicotinic systems in central nervous systems... [Pharm Acta Helv. 2000] - PubMed - NCBI
Cognitive mechanisms of nicotine on visual attention.
Cognitive mechanisms of nicotine on visual attention. [Neuron. 2002] - PubMed - NCBI
So the bottom line would appear to be that if you could take in enough nicotine merely by breathing in a room where others are using an e-cigarette that contains nicotine, you might find that your ability to concentrate and pay attention is improved, that your visual memory is improved, that your information processing abilities are improved, and that your symptoms of depression are reduced.
Wow, that sounds really awful!
But don't worry, because it is unlikely that you could take in enough nicotine from 2nd-hand vapor to have any effect whatsoever.
Dr. Laugesen's sources said that 98% of the nicotine is absorbed before the smoke is exhaled, and the older studies cited by by Okali, Kelly, & Hahn state that "roughly 82-92%" of the inhaled nicotine is absorbed. Let's take the worst case scenario. if we took the smallest estimate of absorption and applied it to the largest estimates of nicotine per puff, we end up with 18% of 103 mcg exhaled for the combusted cigarette and with 18% of 10 mcg for the e-cigarette, with no additional nicotine emitted from the end of the e-cigarette. That works out to 18.54 mcg (plus 100% of the nicotine emitted from the burning end) for a combusted cigarette versus 1.8 mcg for the e-cigarette.
According to this article from the NEJM, 10 grams of eggplant delivers 1 mcg of nicotine. MMS: Error
A 4 oz serving of eggplant is equal to 113.4 grams, which would deliver 11.34 mcg of nicotine.
Now keep in mind that if someone is using an e-cigarette in the same room as you, unless you lock lips with him or her, you are not going to inhale all of the 1.8 mcg of nicotine that they exhale. You will probably take in a tiny, tiny fraction of those 1.8 mcg because vapor does not linger on the air the way that smoke does, nor cling to surfaces as it does when attached to droplets of tar. Vapor dissipates quickly.
Now let's turn the discussion to the effects of nicotine.
Acute nicotine improves cognitive deficits in young adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
Acute nicotine improves cognitive de... [Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI
Nicotine improves working memory span capacity in rats following sub-chronic ketamine exposure.
Nicotine improves working memory spa... [Neuropsychopharmacology. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI
Effects of nicotine on attention and inhibitory control in healthy nonsmokers.
Effects of nicotine on attention an... [Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI
Nicotine effects on default mode network during resting state.
Nicotine effects on default mode n... [Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2011] - PubMed - NCBI
Effects of nicotine on novelty detection and memory recognition performance: double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of smokers and nonsmokers.
Effects of nicotine on novelty det... [Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2009] - PubMed - NCBI
Positive effects of nicotine on cognition: the deployment of attention for prospective memory.
Positive effects of nicotine on co... [Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2009] - PubMed - NCBI
Effects of transdermal nicotine on episodic memory in non-smokers with and without schizophrenia.
Effects of transdermal nicotine on... [Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2008] - PubMed - NCBI
Chronic nicotine administration improves attention while nicotine withdrawal induces performance deficits in the 5-choice serial reaction time task in rats.
Chronic nicotine administrat... [Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2007 Aug-Sep] - PubMed - NCBI
Nicotine improves cognitive deficits of dopamine transporter knockout mice without long-term tolerance.
Nicotine improves cognitive deficits... [Neuropsychopharmacology. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI
Visual and auditory alertness: modality-specific and supramodal neural mechanisms and their modulation by nicotine.
Visual and auditory alertness: modality-speci... [J Neurophysiol. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI
Acute effects of nicotine on attention and response inhibition.
Acute effects of nicotine on attenti... [Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI
Nicotine improves memory for delayed intentions.
Nicotine improves memory for delay... [Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2005] - PubMed - NCBI
Acute effects of nicotine on visual search tasks in young adult smokers.
Acute effects of nicotine on visua... [Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2005] - PubMed - NCBI
Nicotinic treatment for cognitive dysfunction.
Nicotinic treatment for ... [Curr Drug Targets CNS Neurol Disord. 2002] - PubMed - NCBI
Nicotine effects on alertness and spatial attention in non-smokers.
Nicotine effects on alertness and spatial a... [Nicotine Tob Res. 2002] - PubMed - NCBI
Nicotinic systems in central nervous systems disease: degenerative disorders and beyond.
Nicotinic systems in central nervous systems... [Pharm Acta Helv. 2000] - PubMed - NCBI
Cognitive mechanisms of nicotine on visual attention.
Cognitive mechanisms of nicotine on visual attention. [Neuron. 2002] - PubMed - NCBI
So the bottom line would appear to be that if you could take in enough nicotine merely by breathing in a room where others are using an e-cigarette that contains nicotine, you might find that your ability to concentrate and pay attention is improved, that your visual memory is improved, that your information processing abilities are improved, and that your symptoms of depression are reduced.
Wow, that sounds really awful!
But don't worry, because it is unlikely that you could take in enough nicotine from 2nd-hand vapor to have any effect whatsoever.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
