He's an idiot and wrong. Dr. Burstyn's report quite succinctly assess the impact of "second-hand" vapor:
The study found that the chemical exposures to vapers was WAY BELOW the allowances for workplace exposures, except for PG/VG exposure, which was near (but not at) workplace limits ONLY when DIRECTLY inhaled. Meaning, other than a slight concern about constant, direct inhalation of PG/VG by vapers themselves, the exposures to the ingredients in e-cigarettes, including "contaminants", is already so low risk that it's not a cause of concern for even the vapers (which is discussed in the rest of the analysis). Since exposure to bystanders would be far less than what vapers get, there is no way it poses ANY risk to bystanders. If directly inhaling something has no health risks, how could second-hand possibly have any health risks?
Put it this way as an example:
If the safe workplace exposure limit is 100 ppm and the direct exposure from vaping is 1 ppm (not a health hazard) then exposure at LESS THAN 1 ppm by bystanders couldn't possibly be a health risk. In order for a bystander to get the same exposure as a vaper, they'd have to be in a sealed room with 100 people vaping. And even then, the risk would still be well below the workplace safety levels (1 ppm). So, "extrapolation only" is pretty convincing in this case, because it's based on actual chemistry, not epidemiology.
Last edited:
Use whatever means possible to denigrate - but don't actually look at the facts! 
