And 100% get exhaled by the bystander as well - iow, no second hand vape effect.
.... which there isn't anyway regardlessDr. Farsalinos preemptive debunk of a study uthored by an Indoor Environmental Engineering scientist from California and published by the journal Bui
- Thread starter Painter_
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
And 100% get exhaled by the bystander as well - iow, no second hand vape effect.
.... which there isn't anyway regardless
By George, I think we've invented perpetual motion! The laws of inertia and energy loss are now HISTORY!
Andria
Andria
Must be a "New Math" thing.
Heres the real math.
vaping is said to be 100 times less harmful than smoking. About 1 in 5 folks smoke. If everyone took up vaping it is still 20 times better for society as a whole. Vaping should be a requirement
Heres the real math.
Vaping is said to be 100 times less harmful than smoking. About 1 in 5 folks smoke. If everyone took up vaping it is still 20 times better for society as a whole. Vaping should be a requirement
LOL brilliant!
I wonder how the researcher found PG and nicotine but missed carbon dioxide. The exhale of a healthy person, vaping or not, contains about 4-5% carbon dioxide, an order of magnitude above the OSHA/NIOSH limits and two orders of magnitude above natural ambient exposure.
A good reason to ban breathing in public spaces, isn't it. Oh wait, we were supposed to ban vaping, not breathing.
A good reason to ban breathing in public spaces, isn't it. Oh wait, we were supposed to ban vaping, not breathing.
Last edited:
From most of the THR studies done, they're virtually identical
Except one "looks like smoking" and thus should be regulated by the Tobacco Control industry. /sarcasm
Now seriously. Any decent (i.e. not manure class) study should look at something like the effects of vaping in a reasonably ventilated space (e.g. like min 8 liters per second per person as per UK rules for office spaces). Looking exclusively at the undiluted exhale would show that it is higly toxic just based on the carbon dioxide alone period.
Last edited:
One must never let reality get in the way of an ideological movement once it's gained momentum.
Absolutely! Breathing should be regulated when the air temperature is below 40° F.
I'm imagining people walking around with snorkel-type devices fitted with catalytic convertors....
Breathalyzer attachment with strobe light would be optional of course, depending on the municipality having jurisdiction.
#notblowingsmoke interfered royally with their dishonest stillblowingsmoke campaign. I saw a funny on twitter the other day, someone posted a help wanted notice they found, for someone with a communications background to work in a "fast-paced environment," to work for the State of California health services. That's truly hilarious... as if whoever designed that stillblowingsmoke travesty got the axe. Good. Nice to know that karma is still working hard.
Andria
Obviously he meant 100% binary, which is 4% decimal. He probably didn't mean 100% hexadecimal, which equals 256% decimal, for which you need approx. 101 binary lungs.
Last edited:
OMG Hilarious. I loved the snorkel, jar, math..... Thanks for making my day. One has to laugh at their "seriousness". I guess they all think we are developmentally inept due, of course, to the nicotine. Thanks for the laughs.
This actually was an useful study. I learned that I shouldn't vape inside a plastic bag pulled over my head, as the PG and nicotine levels could attain dangerous levels. I'm glad our tax money is used for advanced science.
Actually, what they think is that we are all mentally ill.
Honestly, do a search, it's pretty amazing.
They like to insinuate it (as an ad hominem attack) but they will never firmly state it. Because at that point it would also become a disability and they would have to stop oppressing people based on such.
I think this might be the study. If it is, can anybody make sense of it? Especially, the part about figuring 70ml per puff. Is that meant like it sounds?
iee-sf.
com/pdf/ASHRAEJOffermann.pdf
also a better formed pdf at:
bookstore.ashrae
.biz/journal/download.php?file=2014June_038-047_IAQ_Offerman_rev.pdf
iee-sf.
com/pdf/ASHRAEJOffermann.pdf
also a better formed pdf at:
bookstore.ashrae
.biz/journal/download.php?file=2014June_038-047_IAQ_Offerman_rev.pdf
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
