Opinions on vaping around children?

[Tezcatlipoca]

Fair enough.

 

[Sam Butler]

I have five kids and I do vape around them.

They used to see me smoke in the garden so i'm not going to start hiding the fact that I'm addicted to nicotine now.

We have many conversations about why I vape, and all about how I got addicted to nicotine and just what it is like to be addicted to cigarettes.

My dad was a smoker and I hated the man and never wanted to be anything like him, he told me all about the dangers of smoking and I swore I never would touch it. I did when I was 16 thinking id hate it, the thing is I enjoyed it and that was that.

I hope that my kids won't smoke.. they have seen their father battle cancer and quitting smoking in the process, and have seen me switching to vaping, I kinda hope that it will help them realise how strong the addiction of smoking is.

Either way, I'm happy to vape around them and they are just glad I quit the cigarettes. I do try not to mention all the yummy flavours as I don't want to glamourise it.

 

[Cowboy Cru]

Unfortunately I do not have time to read every post right now, however this is a Great thread and I wanted to throw my 2 cents in real quick. I never used to smoke around my kids, however, they always knew what I was doing outside. I find it impossible for them to not at least Know what you are doing. So when I moved to vaping I felt like I would be more open about it, because when it was off limits to my children they always wanted to follow me and act like they were "doing something they weren't suppose to do." The natural rebel in them! So when I switched to vaping I sat my kids down and had a show and tell of Daddy's new grown up medicine that would help him to stop smoking. And they Hate medicine when they have to take it! Immediately they had no interest in it! Now my daughter tells people when they ask if I am smoking that "no, daddy is vaporizing, smoking is bad." I believe I should be involved enough with my children to help them understand the difference between vaping, smoking, and not doing either one. It's not like I will be the only person they ever witness doing something that is or looks like smoking.
And as far as second-hand vapor goes. Man, I think we have a lot more pollutants in this world that need to be addressed before we go attacking vapor! Also, it's kind of funny that I am writing this as I watch a kid inhaling a Big Mac meal. He's probably 10 and I'm 37, and I would say he's got me beat by 20 pounds easy! Get my drift?

-CC-my avatar is Uranus

 

[Cowboy Cru]

I have five kids and I do vape around them.

They used to see me smoke in the garden so i'm not going to start hiding the fact that I'm addicted to nicotine now.

We have many conversations about why I vape, and all about how I got addicted to nicotine and just what it is like to be addicted to cigarettes.

My dad was a smoker and I hated the man and never wanted to be anything like him, he told me all about the dangers of smoking and I swore I never would touch it. I did when I was 16 thinking id hate it, the thing is I enjoyed it and that was that.

I hope that my kids won't smoke.. they have seen their father battle cancer and quitting smoking in the process, and have seen me switching to vaping, I kinda hope that it will help them realise how strong the addiction of smoking is.

Either way, I'm happy to vape around them and they are just glad I quit the cigarettes. I do try not to mention all the yummy flavours as I don't want to glamourise it.

Awesome! I couldn't have said it better myself sir!

-CC-my avatar is Uranus

 

[Tezcatlipoca]

Brilliant, Cowboy Cru! I love the "grown-up medicine" angle. You're a wise man, and no doubt an excellent father!

 

[Spazmelda]

Health New Zealand did an analysis of the nicotine content in exhaled vapor. I'm sure you can find the link on CASAA.org

I think I remember the number, but the upshot was that, with the Ruyan cartridge they used, the vapor was 0.1%, or maybe even 0.01% nicotine by weight. Two questions come to mind. First is, how much does vapor weigh? Second one is, what are the chances of anyone inhaling a significant portion of what you exhale?

Since vapor dissipates and settle fairly rapidly, it seems to me you'd have to lip lock someone for many puffs to subject them to more nicotine than is contained in a tomato.

The health new Zealand research only addressed levels of co2 in exhaled breath after smoking and after vaping, unless I'm missing it? He has a section on safety of vapor on bystanders, but most of this seems to be derived from previously published data on cigarette smoking:

5. Safety of Ruyan® e-cigarette ‘smoke’ for bystanders.
Method. Analysis of published data on nicotine absorption, and informal comments of bystanders, and observation of e-cigarette smoking indoors.
Results. Cigarette smoke is a mixture of sidestream smoke and exhaled mainstream smoke. In constrast, the e-cigarette generates no sidestream smoke from its (artificially lit) tip. Any exhaled PG mist visibly dissipates to vapor within seconds. Non-smoking bystanders do not find the mist unpleasant. The mist is odorless, and those close by quickly realize it does not have the odor of smoke or the irritating quality of tobacco cigarette smoke.
Comments. Inhaled nicotine in cigarette smoke is over 98% absorbed 6, and so the exhaled mist of the e-cigarette is composed of propylene glycol, and probably contains almost no nicotine; and no CO. (see Figure 3.5) Lacking any active ingredient or any gaseous products of combustion, the PG mist or ‘smoke’ is not harmful to bystanders. The ‘smoke’ or mist is not tobacco smoke, and not from combustion – no flame is lit – and is not defined as environmental tobacco smoke. E-cigarette “smoking” would be permitted under New Zealand’s Smoke-free Environments Act 1990.33

Sailorman- you might be remember the numbers from the study where they measured vapor directly (not exhaled). I only just skimmed over that part right now, but it seems those results very fairly inconclusive.

Here's a link to the study. http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf

 

[Spazmelda]

Oh, sorry. I didn't read the last couple of pages. Didn't realize the conversation had migrated to 'only bad parents don't vape around their kids'.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/study-finds-every-style-of-parenting-produces-dist,26452/

 

[wv2win]

I treat it like smoking when it comes to kids, I won't do it indoors with kids in the house and I try to get out of sight when outside. I agree that the vapor appears to be relatively harmless but I also don't drink alcohol around kids either. I consider both things to be things for adults to do and I prefer to minimize the exposure to kids.

That's the "modeling" theory and you're more than entitled to believe it and act accordingly.

In my experience, and there is tons of data to back this up, the more you hide something from kids, the more they're attracted to it. Behaviors that are hidden take on an air of "forbidden fruit". This has been especially well documented with behaviors involving nudity and alcohol. Countries with very low legal drinking ages have a much lower incidence of alcohol abuse. In my own family, my father, who was raised in Italy until he was a teenager, was given wine from the time he was a toddler. It wasn't very strong wine, but it was wine and it was cheaper than milk. After he was in the U.S., he was practically a teetotaler. Through my whole life, I think I saw him drink twice, once at my sister's wedding and once on a vacation. It just held little attraction to him. It was old news.

His younger brother was born here. He's been a heavy drinker since he was about 16. In fact, out of 6 children, the four raised in Italy almost never drink. The two raised here, where alcohol was kept under wraps and the drinking age enforced, are both big drinkers.

If you can hide the fact that you vape/smoke/drink/gamble, etc. at all, then that strategy might work. But if a kid knows what you do and that you're merely hiding it from him, it becomes immensely more attractive to him. It becomes something that makes them "grown up" because it's so special and secret that only grown ups can even see it, let alone partake in it.

Sailorman, I must have been reading your mind before I came to your post. I agree completely with you and have similar first hand experience. We were always light drinkers and never hid it from the kids, thus it was never a mystery to them. It was the same with my parents and me and my siblings. We did counsel them about being responsible in their behavors and the risks if one isn't responsible. Neither of my girls ever felt the need to "go wild" and are now very light, social drinkers. They both told me however of several of their friends in high school and college whose parents either hid their drinking or forbade all alcohol and they ended up being binge drinkers and several ended up with DUI's.

 

[DevilWoman]

For those of you who are interested, here are links to the abstracts of a couple of scientific studies published in journals regarding the effects of inhaled nicotine. If someone else here has information about the concentration of nicotine in exhaled vapor I'm sure that would be helpful, but a quick search for me didn't turn up any reliable information on that.

This first study was published in Pharmacology, Biochemistry, and Behavior in July 2010, and conducted by the Committee on the Neurobiology of Addictive Disorders of The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Ca. Their conclusions are that enough nicotine inhaled by even by non-smokers can induce nicotine dependence. They exposed rats to an environment that contained a nicotine concentration of .2mg per cubic meter for 7 or 14 hours per day, 7 days per week. The abstract does not state over what period of time this occured, however.
"Exposure to chronic intermittent nicotine vapor induces nicotine dependence"

This next study was published in Life Sciences in 1996 and conducted by the Department of Medicine, University Hospital, Tronheim, Norway. Their conclusions were that nicotine does not increase mortality, atherosclerosis, or tumors in rats compared to a control group which was not exposed to nicotine. The experimental group was exposed to nicotine (concentration is not given in the abstract) for 20 hours per day, 5 days per week over a period of two years. The only significant difference noticed between the experimental and control groups was reduced body weight in the exposed group.
"Long-term effects of inhaled nicotine"

 

[sailorman]

The health new Zealand research only addressed levels of co2 in exhaled breath after smoking and after vaping, unless I'm missing it? He has a section on safety of vapor on bystanders, but most of this seems to be derived from previously published data on cigarette smoking:......
Sailorman- you might be remember the numbers from the study where they measured vapor directly (not exhaled). I only just skimmed over that part right now, but it seems those results very fairly inconclusive.
Here's a link to the study. http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf

You're right. Sort of. I think I had extrapolated the amount of nicotine in exhaled vapor from the amount in inhaled nicotine. And I over-estimated the amount in exhaled nicotine. Obviously, all inhaled nicotine is not exhaled. I have read estimates of anywhere from a 30 to 60% absorption rate. If we err on the side of caution and assume a 30% absorption rate, that leaves 70% of 0.01 mg./nic/puff to be exhaled, or .007mg./puff. A negligible amount.

For those of you who are interested, here are links to the abstracts of a couple of scientific studies published in journals regarding the effects of inhaled nicotine. If someone else here has information about the concentration of nicotine in exhaled vapor I'm sure that would be helpful, but a quick search for me didn't turn up any reliable information on that.
This first study was published in Pharmacology, Biochemistry, and Behavior in July 2010, and conducted by the Committee on the Neurobiology of Addictive Disorders of The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, Ca. Their conclusions are that enough nicotine inhaled by even by non-smokers can induce nicotine dependence. They exposed rats to an environment that contained a nicotine concentration of .2mg per cubic meter for 7 or 14 hours per day, 7 days per week. The abstract does not state over what period of time this occured, however.
"Exposure to chronic intermittent nicotine vapor induces nicotine dependence"...

Those studies were trying to simulate the effect of environmental tobacco smoke, not only exhaled, but sidestream cigarette smoke, which contains way more nicotine than even exhaled smoke. They have absolutely no bearing on the level of nicotine exposure, or the risk of nicotine dependence, for bystanders in the presence of vapor from an e-cig.

In the context of vaping, the 0.2mg./cm is an absurdly high rate of nicotine. There is no conceivable way that an e-cig would generate an amount of nicotine to raise the levels that high in the surrounding air. According to the chart in the link below, the inhaled vapor they tested contained 0.01mg per puff. Assuming a conservative rate of absorption of only 40%, that leaves 60% in exhaled vapor. 60% of 0.01mg. is .006mg. Divide 0.2mg by .006 and you get 33.33 "puffs" needed to generate .2mg of exhaled nicotine. Now, somehow you need to maintain a level of vapor equivalent to 33 puffs in a cubic meter of airspace for 7 hours. Try to maintain 33 puffs of vapor in any space. Vapor does not act like smoke, lingering and accumulating in the air. To generate that concentration of vapor in any given space, you would need more vapers puffing than the space would accommodate. You could pack a room full of vapers, have them all chain-vaping and, in the presence of any ventilation or air movement, it would be difficult to generate and maintain a level of vapor in the air equivalent to 33 puffs/cm.

Even if the absorption rate was 0% and you simply blasted vapor into the air, you'd still need to somehow maintain 20 puffs of vapor per c.m. in the air. Try to maintain the vapor from a few hits of your ecig in a roughly 3 x 3 x 3' space for more that a few seconds.

I suspect that .2mg/cm of nicotine would require some pretty thick tobacco smoke. They probably couldn't even see those poor rates.

Ecigarette mist harmless, inhaled or exhaled

.... the exhaled mist of the e-cigarette is composed of propylene glycol, and probably contains
almost no nicotine; and no CO. (see Figure 3.5) Lacking any active ingredient or any
gaseous products of combustion, the PG mist or ‘smoke’ is not harmful to bystanders.
The ‘smoke’ or mist is not tobacco smoke, and not from combustion – no flame is lit –
and is not defined as environmental tobacco smoke. E-cigarette “smoking” would be
permitted under New Zealand’s Smoke-free Environments Act 1990.

http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf page 21. (emphasis mine)
I imagine they did some calculations similar to mine, assuming a reasonable absorption rate of the nicotine in inhaled vapor, to conclude that exhaled vapor contains "almost no nicotine." 0.006mg is a pretty negligible amount.

 

[Kevbro]

Thanks for the link Spazmelda.
I agree with sailorman, that pg.21 seals the deal. I found pg.6 interesting. If the effects of PG are beneficial, why is the only study noted from 1945.
Regardless, I've gained a broader perspective from all of your comments and opinions.
I trust that whatever you choose to believe, about the science or politics of this issue, we're all here to benefit the community.

 

[DevilWoman]

Those studies were trying to simulate the effect of environmental tobacco smoke, not only exhaled, but sidestream cigarette smoke, which contains way more nicotine than even exhaled smoke. They have absolutely no bearing on the level of nicotine exposure, or the risk of nicotine dependence, for bystanders in the presence of vapor from an e-cig.

Exactly. Also, consider that while .2mg/m(3) might be sufficient to create a nicotine dependence in rats it would likely take significantly more than that to have the same effect on a human considering humans, even small ones, would have a much higher body weight. If the worst effect of inhaled nicotine is nicotine dependence, if .2mg/m(3) is the equivalent of being in a room of heavy smokers every day for at least 7 hours each day, then for this effect to be observed in humans both the concentration of nicotine and the time exposed would have to be far greater. Therefore, if the nicotine present in air from exhaled vapor is a lot less this effect will not be observable. The real problem with second-hand smoke is not nicotine, but all those other nasty things involved in the combustion of real tobacco, which is the point I was hoping to make.

The second study I find even more interesting. It shows that nicotine alone has practically no adverse effect on health. The only significant difference observed between rats exposed to nicotine in the air and the control group which was not exposed was a reduction in body weight, which I personally regard as a benefit.

 

[sailorman]

..... If the worst effect of inhaled nicotine is nicotine dependence, if .2mg/m(3) is the equivalent of being in a room of heavy smokers every day for at least 7 hours each day, then for this effect to be observed in humans both the concentration of nicotine and the time exposed would have to be far greater. Therefore, if the nicotine present in air from exhaled vapor is a lot less this effect will not be observable. The real problem with second-hand smoke is not nicotine, but all those other nasty things involved in the combustion of real tobacco, which is the point I was hoping to make.

The second study I find even more interesting. It shows that nicotine alone has practically no adverse effect on health. The only significant difference observed between rats exposed to nicotine in the air and the control group which was not exposed was a reduction in body weight, which I personally regard as a benefit.

I wouldn't discount the fact that dependence is a pretty nasty side effect of nicotine for a bystander. If it was shown that, under realistic circumstances, my vaping, or smoking for that matter, could cause dependence in someone, that would definitely be an issue. But I don't see how that study proves it with cigarette smoke, let alone vapor. All it shows is that someone ingesting a lot of nicotine for 7 hours a day might become addicted to nicotine. Duh!! I don't think it's reasonable to assume that anyone would be involuntarily exposed to that level of nicotine in the air, especially when it was scaled up to human proportions. I'm not even sure it's possible to create an environment with that much smoke in the air.

 

[Tezcatlipoca]

Exactly. Also, consider that while .2mg/m(3) might be sufficient to create a nicotine dependence in rats it would likely take significantly more than that to have the same effect on a human considering humans, even small ones, would have a much higher body weight.

Right. And rats have a higher metabolism than humans, which may also increase the rate at which they are effected.

 

[lettucehead]

Here's a statement that touches on your concern from the American Assoc. of Public Health Physicians.
http://www.aaphp.org/Resources/Documents/20100402AAPHPEcigLegisStatemnt.pdf

LOVE this!
Thank you so much, Sailorman!
I've bookmarked the link to show my husband.

 

[Medieval Barber]

What about the flavoring agents has any research come out about that?

 

[cindycated]

I wouldn't worry about second-hand vapor. I think I would be more concerned about the example that I'd be setting. Being around cool grown-ups that I admired that also happened to smoke has a lot to do with what got me started. Granted, vaping is not nearly as harmful as smoking, but why plant the vice in their impressionable little minds at all? Just sayin'...

 

[cmacelloman]

Fact is--there is no empirical evidence yet, but I'd say listen to Sailorman and Spaz...

 

[cmacelloman]

not yet--hey I'm looking for it too!!!

 

[sailorman]

I wouldn't worry about second-hand vapor. I think I would be more concerned about the example that I'd be setting. Being around cool grown-ups that I admired that also happened to smoke has a lot to do with what got me started. Granted, vaping is not nearly as harmful as smoking, but why plant the vice in their impressionable little minds at all? Just sayin'...

Strange, but I was just the opposite. By the time I got to an age where I thought about smoking, I couldn't have cared less what my parents did or didn't do. My father smoked and my mother didn't. It was totally irrelevant. My FRIENDS smoked. That's what convinced me. My parents didn't drink. Made no difference to me. My friends drank, so I drank. A kid no longer has an "impressionable little mind" once he's reached the age that smoking is a practical option for him. The fact that you don't smoke in front of a 10 year old is not what's keeping him from smoking, and by the time he's old enough to finagle or buy cigarettes himself, what you did in front of him when he was 10 won't make a whit of difference. Adults just can't stand to admit that their influence takes a nosedive and is supplanted by their kids' peers once the kid turns 12 or 13 or so. If they don't have a better reason not to do something than "mom and dad didn't", they're going to succumb to peer pressure. That's a guarantee.

Parents totally overestimate the impact described by the "modeling" theory on children when they're in their teens. Like it or not, by the time your kid is 13 or 14, it's a pretty done deal and your influence for the next 5 years or more will consist mainly on coercion and/or reason, not example. I was around plenty of grown ups, more than the average kid. I thought they were all cool right up to the age of 13 or 14. Then, they were all a bunch of pests and I had no interest whatsoever in their vices, or lack thereof. I was just as likely to do something because they didn't do it as I was because they did. Mostly though, it was irrelevant.

I'll say another thing. With few exceptions, if you hide your vices from your kid, you are more likely to do more harm than good. Kids aren't stupid. They'll know and that only adds to the attraction. Nothing a kid likes more than to do the things that must be so much fun they aren't even allowed to know about them.