Question for all those "only vape where I can smoke" people.

[Lessifer]

Exactly. I don't vape in my house for the simple fact that, who knows what effects it has on others, and I have no right subjecting them to that.

So who here vapes with a child of any age in the house?

There use to be claims of cigarette smoking being good for you.

I've already said this but, I do. I feel comfortable doing so because I have read every study that has been discussed on this forum for the past two years. Not just the discussions, but the actual studies. I have come to the conclusion that "second hand vapor" poses no health risks to my family. Is it free of trace chemicals? No, but anything that could be in the vapor is at such low levels that they are barely measurable, let alone cause for concern.

 

[3mg Meniere]

Then what is that greasy stuff that collects around my home air filter?

 

[Asbestos4004]

Then what is that greasy stuff that collects around my home air filter?

what are your bathing habits? We need more information to get to the bottom of this mystery.

 

[Davect06607]

Comparison of the effects of e-cigarette vapor and cigarette smoke on indoor air quality. - PubMed - NCBI
Non-cancer risk analysis revealed "No Significant Risk" of harm to human health for vapor samples from e-liquids.

The study indicates no apparent risk to human health from e-cigarette emissions based on the compounds analyzed.


http://clearstream.flavourart.it/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CSA_ItaEng.pdf
there is one fact: 5 vapers using e-cigarettes for 5h in a small room without renewal of indoor air do not produce detectable levels of nicotine in the air.

No glycerine was detected in air during cigarette smoking. On the other hand, 72μg/m3 were detected during e-smoking. This amount is much lower than the threshold safety limit (TWA-TLV 10mg/m3) and much lower than the threshold for moderate risk.

During the traditional cigarette smoking session, 6 out of 16PAHs were identified. Nothing was identified during the e-cigarette session.

The above experiment, within the limits of the observed parameters, has underlined that e-smoking does not produce detectable amounts of toxic and carcinogenic substances in the air of an enclosed space.

IJERPH | Free Full-Text | Comparative In Vitro Toxicity Profile of Electronic and Tobacco Cigarettes, Smokeless Tobacco and Nicotine Replacement Therapy Products: E-Liquids, Extracts and Collected Aerosols
The toxicity evaluation was performed on e-liquids and pad-collected aerosols of e-cigs, pad-collected smoke condensates of tobacco cigarettes and extracts of SLT and NRT products. In all assays, exposures with e-cig liquids and collected aerosols, at the doses tested, showed no significant activity when compared to tobacco burning cigarettes. Results for the e-cigs, with and without nicotine in two evaluated flavor variants, were very similar in all assays, indicating that the presence of nicotine and flavors, at the levels tested, did not induce any cytotoxic, genotoxic or inflammatory effects. The present findings indicate that neither the e-cig liquids and collected aerosols, nor the extracts of the SLT and NRT products produce any meaningful toxic effects in four widely-applied in vitro test systems, in which the conventional cigarette smoke preparations, at comparable exposures, are markedly cytotoxic and genotoxic.


Norwegian Institute of Public Health must IMMEDIATELY retract false statements about passive e-cigarette exposure
As I calculated in my comment for the Spanish study, the level of nicotine intake from passive exposure to e-cigarettes is not only harmless but has absolutely no biological effect, even according to the strictest regulatory criteria.

Nicotine absorbed from “passive vaping” is minimal and with no health implications
Does it mean that passive vaping may lead to nicotine dependence?
Does it mean that nicotine is absorbed to such levels that it may cause harm to bystanders?
The answer to both questions is NO.

And there is a LOT more out there.

Oh, while I'm here, let me throw this at you.
World Health Organization: Outdoor Air Pollution Causes Cancer

Very informative post, thanks for posting.
I learned a few things.

 

[3mg Meniere]

what are your bathing habits? We need more information to get to the bottom of this mystery.

 

[Spidey2011]

Exactly. I don't vape in my house for the simple fact that, who knows what effects it has on others, and I have no right subjecting them to that.

So who here vapes with a child of any age in the house?

There use to be claims of cigarette smoking being good for you.

Me!

 

[chopdoc]

I will say that my cats dislike my vaping more than they did my smoking. Who knows why though they are after all cats.

Mine use to run and give me dirty looks when I blew smoke her way. Now she just gives me that "really?" look when I blow vapor her way.

 

[noway]

I feel very strongly that studies have already shown it is of no threat to others.
And I find it nearly impossible to imagine a situation in which it would be, or ever could be.

Yes, but were they clinical studies?

Sorry, I just had to. That was sarcasm btw.

 

[Katdarling]

 

[Toastyroadie]

[QUOTE="Katdarling, post: 15765510, member: [/QUOTE]
Excellent!

 

[Robino1]

Exactly. I don't vape in my house for the simple fact that, who knows what effects it has on others, and I have no right subjecting them to that.

So who here vapes with a child of any age in the house?

There use to be claims of cigarette smoking being good for you.

I vape around my grandchildren. I am a moderate vaper. Actually I qualify for the Tootle Puffer club. My grandchildren stay with me for two weeks out of the summer. They range in age from 16 down to 2. I do not fear for any health issues vaping around them. I have read all the studies, negative and positive. The positive studies outweighed the negative by a landslide.

I also took into consideration who the people were running the study that I was looking at. There are well known people that have strong agendas against smoking that have transferred that hatred to nicotine. Any study done with the name of Glantz, Talbot and a few more, attached. Read with caution. They have agendas and will fabricate or twist results to suit said agendas.

If there was a niggle of doubt that what I was doing could be harming the joys of my life, I wouldn't do it. This is how strongly I feel that there is No Harm. There is no Second Hand Vapor.

 

[Lessifer]

I'm noticing a pattern in threads like these.

One side says here is what I believe, and here is why, and here are the studies that back up my view.

The other side says "what? are you crazy? use some sense, that's just wrong!"

When asked for reasons other than gut feelings, or god forbid evidence, they say where's your evidence that it's absolutely harmless?

 

[Coldrake]

I'm noticing a pattern in threads like these.

One side says here is what I believe, and here is why, and here are the studies that back up my view.

The other side says "what? are you crazy? use some sense, that's just wrong!"

When asked for reasons other than gut feelings, or god forbid evidence, they say where's your evidence that it's absolutely harmless?

That's called Willful ignorance - RationalWiki

 

[stevegmu]

Studies are pretty much worthless; they generally just find what the researcher set out to find, or end up with the results the funder of the study wanted. Professional researchers need to keep their clients happy... Every few years there's a new study reversing a previous study. One year eggs are bad; the next they are good and a year later they are bad again. Same with wine...

 

[Lessifer]

Studies are pretty much worthless; they generally just find what the researcher set out to find, or end up with the results the funder of the study wanted. Professional researchers need to keep their clients happy... Every few years there's a new study reversing a previous study. One year eggs are bad; the next they are good and a year later they are bad again. Same with wine...

I agree that "conclusions" and media interpretations are often useless. However, the great thing about science is, results don't lie. When you examine the methods used and the actual empirical findings, it's fairly easy to draw your own conclusions.

Like that horrible "formaldehyde" study. The conclusions were that e-cigs produce tons of formaldehyde. Looking at the data and the methods used though you can actually conclude that under normal operating conditions, e-cigs produce no formaldehyde releasing agents. Reading, it's FUNdamental.

 

[AndriaD]

I agree that "conclusions" and media interpretations are often useless. However, the great thing about science is, results don't lie. When you examine the methods used and the actual empirical findings, it's fairly easy to draw your own conclusions.

Like that horrible "formaldehyde" study. The conclusions were that e-cigs produce tons of formaldehyde. Looking at the data and the methods used though you can actually conclude that under normal operating conditions, e-cigs produce no formaldehyde releasing agents. Reading, it's FUNdamental.

I really really wish I could like this post about a thousand times.

Andria

 

[YoursTruli]

Tangaroav,i kindly ask that you wouldn't refer to my fellow vapers and i
as addicts. those who vape are not addicts in any legal or medical
definition of the word.
our dependency to nicotine in any degree in the form of vaping
does not have the potential of harm to ones self or others
to qualify as an addiction. what of those that use zero nicotine?
how do you classify them?
regards
mike

I would not go as far as to say "our dependency to nicotine in any degree in the form of vaping
does not have the potential of harm to ones self or others"

FAQ: Nicotine (tobaccoharmreduction.org)
Excerpt:
Neither nicotine nor coffee are completely benign (in particular, both cause a short-term increase in your blood pressure and pulse rate when you use them, which could affect your health).
Though nicotine is relatively safe for most individuals, it may have a negative effect on fetal development and as such should be avoided during pregnancy.

It is called harm reduction for a reason.

 

[C3RB3RU5]

I will say that my cats dislike my vaping more than they did my smoking. Who knows why though they are after all cats.

Mine use to run and give me dirty looks when I blew smoke her way. Now she just gives me that "really?" look when I blow vapor her way.

My cats seem to have the opposite effect. I don't storm front them or anything but if they happen to track through a cloud or they get crop-dusted they actually don't mind, they will occasionally tip their head up and check it out. Same with the dogs they like to run up to people sitting minding their own business (they are energetic pit bulls) and they see it and start licking the air.

 

[chopdoc]

My cats seem to have the opposite effect. I don't storm front them or anything but if they happen to track through a cloud or they get crop-dusted they actually don't mind, they will occasionally tip their head up and check it out. Same with the dogs they like to run up to people sitting minding their own business (they are energetic pit bulls) and they see it and start licking the air.

My pit bull has a bad food fetish but thankfully he doesnt try to lick the clouds!

 

[caramel]

Studies are pretty much worthless; they generally just find what the researcher set out to find, or end up with the results the funder of the study wanted. Professional researchers need to keep their clients happy... Every few years there's a new study reversing a previous study. One year eggs are bad; the next they are good and a year later they are bad again. Same with wine...

Your argument makes a case that smoking should not have been banned, correct?