Email I got from my manager

[tj99959]

A thought just popped up in my mind. Smoking a cigarette (a lit cigarette) and exhaling vapor from an ecig is banned. What about if you just hold an unlit cigarette in your hand, or carry it on your ear like in the old movies without lighting/exhaling? Is that banned too?

How would an unlit cigarette affect others?

The OP is in the Navy. Me thinks he should just let that trick stay in the WWII movies.

 

[tj99959]

It can also ...... brain development in fetal growth, correct me if I'm wrong.

There is a link to cigarette smoking, but nicotine being the culprit would only be conjecture.

 

[wv2win]

You debated the fact that they aren't harmful in any way, and from the studies done that you told me to go look up, you have proved yourself incorrect. I enjoy vaping and plan to stand behind it as a great alternative for smoking.

A group of scientists from the United States, Poland and UK set out to evaluate the chemical nature of electronic cigarette vapor, concentrating on four groups of potentially toxic and carcinogenic compounds: carbonyls, volatile organic compounds, nitrosamines and heavy metals. Before we dive deeper into the details of this research, it’s worth noting that this was an independent study funded by Poland’s Ministry of Science and Higher Education and the National Institutes of Health, which adds credibility and objectivity.

To test chemical levels in exhaled vapor, researchers used 12 different brands of electronic cigarettes, and a medical nicotine inhaler as reference product. Testing was done in controlled conditions using a modified smoking machine, and the toxic compounds were extracted from vapors into a solid or liquid phase and analysed with chromatographic and spectroscopy methods. Test results showed levels of selected toxic compounds found in tobacco cigarette smoke were between 9 and 450 times higher that the levels found in e-cig vapor. Quantities of acrolein, a known oxidant and respiratory irritant believed to also contribute to various cardiovascular conditions associated with smoking, were found to be 15 times lower in e-cigarette vapor compared to tobacco smoke.

However, there was some concerning data regarding the level of formaldehyde found among the 12 brands of electronic cigarettes, which ranged from just 3.2 micrograms per 150 puffs to 56.1 micrograms per 150 puffs. While the minimum amount overlaps with that found in medicinal inhalers, the considerable difference between the tested brands is somewhat concerning. Formaldehyde may result from the heating of propylene glycol or the oxidation or hydrolysis of glycerin, and while it doesn’t pose significant danger in low levels, it can be lethal in high concentrations. As Doctor Michael Siegel notes on his blog, this study presents the FDA with the opportunity “to examine the reasons for these significant differences and hopefully, to find ways to produce e-cigarette liquid that does not produce high levels of formaldehyde”. It’s important to understand that while this international study clearly demonstrates that e-cigarettes are safer than analogs, it also proves they are not safe in an absolute sense.

And Dr Siegel also noted in his Tobacco Analysis web site, that those levels were of "no concern" for those near by a vaper, due to the low "trace" levels and how vapor dissapates. Again, no harm to others from a "second hand" vapor standpoint. One gets more formaldehyde by walking in any city in America. You are "making a mountain out of a molehill" and just feeding the ANTIZ's aim to ban/severely restrict vaping. This "sheep" mentality gets very old.

 

[jerzi]

And Dr Siegel also noted in his Tobacco Analysis web site, that those levels were of "no concern" for those near by a vaper, due to the low "trace" levels and how vapor dissapates. Again, no harm to others from a "second hand" vapor standpoint. One gets more formaldehyde by walking in any city in America. You are "making a mountain out of a molehill" and just feeding the ANTIZ's aim to ban/severely restrict vaping. This "sheep" mentality gets very old.

I've read over most of his blogs and only see him stating that active and passive vaping needs to be studied more in long term real world enviroments, before a risk assesment is given. He does state at this time it is a lower risk alternative to smoking.

This isn't a sheep mentality, it's being well armed when proponents attack my healthier alternative to smoking traditional analogs.

If you could, point me to that article on vapor dissipating, I couldn't find it.

Thanks.

Edit: I have received an email back from Dr. Siegel that answers the questions to this debate.

I appreciate you replying to my posts wv.

 

[wv2win]

I've read over most of his blogs and only see him stating that active and passive vaping needs to be studied more in long term real world enviroments, before a risk assesment is given. He does state at this time it is a lower risk alternative to smoking.

This isn't a sheep mentality, it's being well armed when proponents attack my healthier alternative to smoking traditional analogs.

If you could, point me to that article on vapor dissipating, I couldn't find it.

Thanks.

Edit: I have received an email back from Dr. Siegel that answers the questions to this debate.

I appreciate you replying to my posts wv.

This is an excerpt from Dr Seigel in response to an article written in Utah and posted on his web site in February:

"How can the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, Action on Smoking and Health, and the American Legacy Foundation justify their calls for a ban on electronic cigarettes -which have not been shown to pose any carcinogenic hazard - while they remain silent about the risks of oral NRT use - which has now been shown to pose a significant carcinogenic hazard in a substantial proportion of users?.............................

Policy needs to be based on science, not pure conjecture. Let's look at the science. Based on the studies that have been done and the information about adverse effects of the product during its 3 years of use in the United States, as well as the characterization of the components in the product, what are the specific chemical exposures occurring among vapers and non-vapers that these anti-smoking groups posit may pose a significant health hazard?

If these groups cannot name a potential specific hazard, then it seems imprudent to ban the product, take it off the market, or even to ban its use in public, as this is going to result in forcing large numbers of vapers to go back to cigarette smoking……………………….

I argue that to remove the product from the market, or even to ban its use in public, would result in a known and definite public health hazard: thousands of vapers returning to cigarette smoking, which is without doubt going to cause disease and death."

It's obvious you like to "cherry-pick" your information to "try" and prove that vaping is dangerous to others. Many experts in this field do not agree with you. But ASH, Big Pharm and the FDA really do appreciate your efforts on their behalf. There have been people come on to ECF and try to spread dissent and claim that vaping is dangerous to others. They are trolls from groups like ASH.

 

[jerzi]

This is an excerpt from Dr Seigel in response to an article written in Utah and posted on his web site in February:

"How can the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, Action on Smoking and Health, and the American Legacy Foundation justify their calls for a ban on electronic cigarettes -which have not been shown to pose any carcinogenic hazard - while they remain silent about the risks of oral NRT use - which has now been shown to pose a significant carcinogenic hazard in a substantial proportion of users?.............................

Policy needs to be based on science, not pure conjecture. Let's look at the science. Based on the studies that have been done and the information about adverse effects of the product during its 3 years of use in the United States, as well as the characterization of the components in the product, what are the specific chemical exposures occurring among vapers and non-vapers that these anti-smoking groups posit may pose a significant health hazard?

If these groups cannot name a potential specific hazard, then it seems imprudent to ban the product, take it off the market, or even to ban its use in public, as this is going to result in forcing large numbers of vapers to go back to cigarette smoking……………………….

I argue that to remove the product from the market, or even to ban its use in public, would result in a known and definite public health hazard: thousands of vapers returning to cigarette smoking, which is without doubt going to cause disease and death."

It's obvious you like to "cherry-pick" your information to "try" and prove that vaping is dangerous to others. Many experts in this field do not agree with you. But ASH, Big Pharm and the FDA really do appreciate your efforts on their behalf. There have been people come on to ECF and try to spread dissent and claim that vaping is dangerous to others. They are trolls from groups like ASH.

Poor example. One is an "evil" in that it harms others. One isn't because it harms no one. Read the studies and those who have decades in the fight to stop smoking and see no problem or harm in vaping.

Fact is they do see a problem and say it is a risk you need to make for yourself, but others should not have to suffer from that.

The studies that you are quoting have long term concerns with possible second hand vapor exposure to formaldehyde and other aldehydes with long term inhalation of PG. The Doctor you keep quoting from confirms this.

Have a good one.

 

[chellemmm]

Why is it that ANYTIME ANYONE disagrees with you, you call them a "sheep" or an "ANTZ" plant, or tell them to join ASH?I feel that you only like to cite the studies that support your view, and WOE to anyone who disagrees with you. Before you tell ME to join CASAA and READ the links and studies provided, I ALREADY HAVE DONE SO. I am not a "sheep," and I am a bit tired of this bullying of other posters for their concerned opinions. NO ONE can say for sure that vaping is completely safe for second-hand vapor. The very FACT that you can SMELL VAPOR would tend to prove that SOMETHING is not completely absorbed by our lungs. A little courtesy goes a long way, in whichever "world" you may happen to find yourself in.

"It's obvious you like to "cherry-pick" your information to "try" and prove that vaping is dangerous to others. Many experts in this field do not agree with you. But ASH, Big Pharm and the FDA really do appreciate your efforts on their behalf. There have been people come on to ECF and try to spread dissent and claim that vaping is dangerous to others. They are trolls from groups like ASH.'

 

[zoiDman]

Why is it that ANYTIME ANYONE disagrees with you, you call them a "sheep" or an "ANTZ" plant, or tell them to join ASH? ...

You have Noticed that Pattern Also?

LOL

 

[retired1]

Why is it that ANYTIME ANYONE disagrees with you, you call them a "sheep" or an "ANTZ" plant, or tell them to join ASH?I feel that you only like to cite the studies that support your view, and WOE to anyone who disagrees with you.

That happens when someone can't debate the issues and has to resort to ad-hominem reasoning and attacks.

 

[wv2win]

Fact is they do see a problem and say it is a risk you need to make for yourself, but others should not have to suffer from that.

The studies that you are quoting have long term concerns with possible second hand vapor exposure to formaldehyde and other aldehydes with long term inhalation of PG. The Doctor you keep quoting from confirms this.

Have a good one.

When the good doctor states that vaping in public is not a concern, I trust his judgement instead of your twisting of a study's results and his comments, that in both instances, did not state that others will be harmed in any way from being around vapor. Your tactic is the same as the FDA's stance when they did their study. They found trace elements of TSNI's in two cartridges that they studied. The same levels found in nicotine inhalers which they deem safe. But they stated the exact opposite when it came to vaping. Manipulating the truth is the same as out right lying.

 

[chellemmm]

Whose "truth?" REALLY?

 

[jerzi]

When the good doctor states that vaping in public is not a concern, I trust his judgement instead of your twisting of a study's results and his comments, that in both instances, did not state that others will be harmed in any way from being around vapor. Your tactic is the same as the FDA's stance when they did their study. They found trace elements of TSNI's in two cartridges that they studied. The same levels found in nicotine inhalers which they deem safe. But they stated the exact opposite when it came to vaping. Manipulating the truth is the same as out right lying.

You are the one that is leaving out data, and with this manipulating people to your point of view, just the same as the people you are accusing me of having a relationship with.

 

[zoiDman]

I sense the Prom Night Zit is About to Pop.

LOL

 

[wv2win]

This is an excerpt from Dr Seigel in response to an article written in Utah and posted on his web site in February:

"How can the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, Action on Smoking and Health, and the American Legacy Foundation justify their calls for a ban on electronic cigarettes -which have not been shown to pose any carcinogenic hazard - while they remain silent about the risks of oral NRT use - which has now been shown to pose a significant carcinogenic hazard in a substantial proportion of users?.............................

Policy needs to be based on science, not pure conjecture. Let's look at the science. Based on the studies that have been done and the information about adverse effects of the product during its 3 years of use in the United States, as well as the characterization of the components in the product, what are the specific chemical exposures occurring among vapers and non-vapers that these anti-smoking groups posit may pose a significant health hazard?

If these groups cannot name a potential specific hazard, then it seems imprudent to ban the product, take it off the market, or even to ban its use in public, as this is going to result in forcing large numbers of vapers to go back to cigarette smoking……………………….

I argue that to remove the product from the market, or even to ban its use in public, would result in a known and definite public health hazard: thousands of vapers returning to cigarette smoking, which is without doubt going to cause disease and death."

It's obvious you like to "cherry-pick" your information to "try" and prove that vaping is dangerous to others. Many experts in this field do not agree with you. But ASH, Big Pharm and the FDA really do appreciate your efforts on their behalf. There have been people come on to ECF and try to spread dissent and claim that vaping is dangerous to others. They are trolls from groups like ASH.

You are the one that is leaving out data, and with this manipulating people to your point of view, just the same as the people you are accusing me of having a relationship with.

You are really grasping at straws, here. Dr Seigel's words are quite clear and emphatic. I even bolded them for you. He's an eminent professor in the field of Public Health. You can state the exact opposite of what his words clearly state if you wish. That doesn't change their meaning.

 

[jerzi]

You are really grasping at straws, here. Dr Seigel's words are quite clear and emphatic. I even bolded them for you. He's an eminent professor in the field of Public Health. You can state the exact opposite of what his words clearly state if you wish. That doesn't change their meaning.

Just because there isn't a short term hazard or a hazard greater than analogs gives no credibility to a long term one.

That's basically all I'm saying.

 

[chellemmm]

And WHY is "Dr. Seigel" the only person you ever quote? This "eminent professor in the field of Public Health?" Are those your words, or his? Granted, he is a much quoted professor of Public Health Sciences, but he is NOT a GOD. He can be wrong, too. I think you put more people AGAINST your cause, even if they AGREE with you on some things, by the POMPOUS attitude and BULLYING tactics you employ in this forum.

 

[jerzi]

And WHY is "Dr. Seigel" the only person you ever quote? This "eminent professor in the field of Public Health?" Are those your words, or his? Granted, he is a much quoted professor of Public Health Sciences, but he is NOT a GOD. He can be wrong, too. I think you put more people AGAINST your cause, even if they AGREE with you on some things, by the POMPOUS attitude and BULLYING tactics you employ in this forum.

Actually, I really like Dr. Seigel. He wa very informative on his concerns, the risks and the benefits of vaping outweighing smoking in his reply email to me. I would want him on my side with anything related to vaping.

Sorry if I took any steam out of your post.

 

[chellemmm]

LOL, You didn't take the steam out, he just never cites anyone else. I am getting sick of this argument because, although I agree with SOME of his points, he is like a rockhead when it comes to another's point of view. My point is, NO ONE knows it "all," and there is still much more research and study to be done before a definitive answer is to be found.

 

[wv2win]

Just because there isn't a short term hazard or a hazard greater than analogs gives no credibility to a long term one.

That's basically all I'm saying.

That's why there are professionals who are experts in their fields like Dr Seigel, Dr Murray Laugesen and Bill Godshaw with years of experience to provide the analysis and expertise that we do not have. I happen to trust their research, their expertise and their statements on this topic that vaping is safe to be around. You want a 20 year study. Big Pharm agrees with you. I choose not to support that type of irrational thinking.

 

[wv2win]

LOL, You didn't take the steam out, he just never cites anyone else. I am getting sick of this argument because, although I agree with SOME of his points, he is like a rockhead when it comes to another's point of view. My point is, NO ONE knows it "all," and there is still much more research and study to be done before a definitive answer is to be found.

Big Pharm and the FDA agree with you. That's why they want vaping banned until there are 20 year studies that will confirm what most of us already know.