Question for those who think we should not vape where we can not smoke...

[DC2]

I Sure Hope it Doesn't.

Because I'm sure you have heard the Expression with regards to Quantitative Analysis,

"Your Results are Only As Good as your Data."

and

Garbage In = Garbage Out

Hence the sentence that followed...
Where substantial methodological problems that precluded interpretation of analytical results were noted, these are described below.

In other words, they didn't pick and choose what to review, but...
They did pick and choose what to include in their analysis...
And then explained why results from those that were not included were not included

That's how I read it anyway.

 

[AegisPrime]

I Sure Hope it Doesn't.

Because I'm sure you have heard the Expression with regards to Quantitative Analysis,

"Your Results are Only As Good as your Data."

and

Garbage In = Garbage Out

The only report that was excluded from consideration was work of McAuley et al.[23] because of clear evidence of cross-contamination – admitted to by the authors – with cigarette smoke and, possibly, reagents. The results pertaining to non-detection of tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) are potentially trustworthy, but those related to PAH are not since it is incredible that cigarette smoke would contain fewer polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH; arising in incomplete combustion of organic matter) than aerosol of e-cigarettes that do not burn organic matter [23]. In fairness to the authors of that study, similar problems may have occurred in other studies but were simply not reported, but it is impossible to include a paper in a review once it is known for certain that its quantitative results are not trustworthy.

They simply used all the available data they had with only the above mentioned study excluded for the reasons stated. The researchers can't testify to the competence of those that performed the testing so they've erred on the side of caution which I think is probably wise.

Even so, their conclusions are that vaping is largely harmless to an individual (with the caveat being that PG/VG exposure to vapers is in excess of what would be considered acceptable in occupational health terms) and that second hand vapour is harmless to bystanders.

 

[holy_handgrenade]

One question I have when I read these threads . . . do you think second-hand vapor is completely safe?

I'm not aware of any truly conclusive study that says second-hand vapor is harmless so I tend to agree/comply with people who don't want to inhale second-hand vapor.

Casaa.org my friend. There are 56 studies that include several studying both the vapor cloud exhaled as well as air quality of confined, non-ventilated spaces. It's safe. The air left behind has only trace amounts (<100ppm a.k.a 30-35mcg which equates to 0.035mg or less than naturally occurring in diet) with slightly elevated concentrations of co2, and small concentrations of glycerin. Flavor components dont vape so well, hence the gunking up of coils, so yeah, there's quite a bit of proof that secondhand vapor doesn't exist and is safe.

 

[B1sh0p]

Isn't a healthier public bad for business? Our health care system is so flawed and the latest incarnation isn't much of an improvement. I hate to be skeptical but a few years ago there was a huge free health clinic here and most blood and urine test results were produced within half an hour of taking them. But at doctor's offices they usually make you schedule and pay for another appointment to get the results. Just furthering my point that health care is a business and doctor's have turned out to be no better than Wall Street brokers. Maybe if e-cig companies sent reps and gave kick backs to doctors they'd consider it.

Seriously? The vast majority of doctors take their Hippocratic Oath very seriously. They aren't going to publicly back a product that hasn't been FDA approved. It's irresponsible. They might tell you in private that an e cig might be a safer alternative though.

Not everything is a conspiracy.

 

[p.opus]

The one "It looks like smoking..." is if you're looking at the vapor from a distance. Once you get closer, you can plainly see it's not smoke from a burning cigarette.

I guess it's too much for people to use their noses. I don't know, but I can smell a cigarette half a block away, outside. If I see vapor at any distance and don't smell the tell tale sign of smoke, they're vaping.

 

[GeorgeIIII]

I agree with you and DC, Anjaffm. I've always taken the stance of "everything in moderation", and I've always tried to be considerate of my fellow human being. But as I get older, I see so many people who could care less about human dignity and feelings. I don't know a lot about the EU, but I know well enough what's going on here the the so-called Land of the Free. And I'm am so sick of the government prying into my life and telling me what I can and cannot do with my own body. I mean, Obamacare was pretty much the last straw for me. It doesn't matter what the government says now... the system's broke, there ain't no fixin' it. So, I'm prepared to stand up and fight for what's left, and I hope that others will start doing the same as well.
I've only been vaping for a couple of months, and I love the fact that I'm healthier and not getting sick every other week. I couldn't afford a doctor before ObamaCare, and I sure as hell can't afford one now. So, this has been a great alternative to me, and I hope Big Tobacco collapses under its own weight. Screw 'em. Their products led me into a life of misery and suffering and there is nothing good in them.
Happy Vaping!

 

[wv2win]

Those of you that work in hospitals can correct this if wrong:

Aren't hospitals the most equipped to deal with vaping? The ventilation systems are anti-microbial, the lights often have special UV (in some areas, anyway). If anyone had a reaction to vaping....they are in the right place for it! I suppose it would depend on where you were. But...

Just thought that was a bit ironic that everyone is so freaked about hospitals and not some pub. lol.

In a pub, if someone had any unheard of problem with vaping (first or second hand)...it would go like this:
: poof/choke/fall over
<bartender walks over>
:Yep. He's dead, Jim.
:makes phone call anyway. 15 minutes later, EMT arrives. Takes him to hospital where he should have been while vaping.

One of my daughters is a Registered Nurse in a primarily women's and children's hospital. They permit vaping in a patient's room but not smoking. They are enlightened enough to understand the difference and promote vaping as an alternative to their patient's who smoke.

I'm sure this comes as a "shock" to the usual suspects on ECF and in this thread that believe that no one should ever vape where smoking is not allowed. They believe vaping should be restricted, banned and regulated by government, based on the possible behavior of the least respectful and most obnoxious vaper in the country. That "red herring" crops up repeatedly in these discussions.

I think DC2 provided an admirable framework for why the admonition that "one should never vape where smoking is prohibited" is patently illogical. The usual suspects who support this admonition in this thread and in many other threads, primarily resort to two tactics: either suggesting that restrictions that ban smoking to an absurd degree are not a reality or dumb down the issue to the unknown most obnoxious vaper in the country that seeks out small children in order to blow vapor in their faces. Oh, and one other tactic is that vaping openly but respectfully is the cause of all attempts to ban vaping even though bans were attempted long before anyone was vaping openly. All three tactics are weak and without merit IMO. But for the usual suspects on ECF, vaping IS the same as smoking and thus, their admonition: vape only in designated smoking areas. The fact that this admonition defies logic is irrelevant. I would like to see even one of the usual suspects just "own" their belief directly and not resort to weak examples to justify it.

 

[AegisPrime]

All three tactics are weak and without merit IMO. But for the usual suspects on ECF, vaping IS the same as smoking and thus, their admonition: vape only in designated smoking areas. The fact that this admonition defies logic is irrelevant.

I agree - vaping isn't smoking and vapers voluntarily submitting themselves to the pariah-like status smokers now have is just denormalizing vaping and helping the people that despise us the most.

I don't advocate anyone breaking the law and if there are regulations in place either on public or private property that prohibit vaping then it's better to respect them (even if they're misguided) - if no regulations are in place then either ask for permission or vape until someone tells you that you can't.

If you want to vape and there's nothing saying you can't then vape - it's your right until someone takes that right from you.

 

[zoiDman]

Even so, their conclusions are that vaping is largely harmless to an individual ...

... based on the Data they used.

I'm not calling into question the Validity of their Claim.

I'm just saying that a Paper like this will be Questioned since it appears that the Authors of the paper had Little or No Control over the Data that they Used to make their Claim.

BTW - What are you views on a product like e-Solid?

 

[DC2]

I'm just saying that a Paper like this will be Questioned since it appears that the Authors of the paper had Little or No Control over the Data that they Used to make their Claim.

I'm not sure I understand, they were doing a meta-analysis.
It seems to me they did what you are supposed to do when you do a meta-analysis.

 

[generic mutant]

One of my daughters is a Registered Nurse in a primarily women's and children's hospital. They permit vaping in a patient's room but not smoking. They are enlightened enough to understand the difference and promote vaping as an alternative to their patient's who smoke.

I'm sure this comes as a "shock" to the usual suspects on ECF and in this thread that believe that no one should ever vape where smoking is not allowed. They believe vaping should be restricted, banned and regulated by government, based on the possible behavior of the least respectful and most obnoxious vaper in the country. That "red herring" crops up repeatedly in these discussions.

I think DC2 provided an admirable framework for why the admonition that "one should never vape where smoking is prohibited" is patently illogical. The usual suspects who support this admonition in this thread and in many other threads, primarily resort to two tactics: either suggesting that restrictions that ban smoking to an absurd degree are not a reality or dumb down the issue to the unknown most obnoxious vaper in the country that seeks out small children in order to blow vapor in their faces. Oh, and one other tactic is that vaping openly but respectfully is the cause of all attempts to ban vaping even though bans were attempted long before anyone was vaping openly. All three tactics are weak and without merit IMO. But for the usual suspects on ECF, vaping IS the same as smoking and thus, their admonition: vape only in designated smoking areas. The fact that this admonition defies logic is irrelevant. I would like to see even one of the usual suspects just "own" their belief directly and not resort to weak examples to justify it.

Hmmm. The problem is these people don't seem to exist.

We've had a few people saying they choose not to vape indoors in public, for example to avoid confrontation. That is their right, I presume you'd agree.

I don't think there's been anyone actually saying that vaping should be banned in all places smoking is (apart from those that mean that smoking should be much less restricted).

If you can't link to any posts, I'm sure you'll withdraw your post as unfounded, won't you?

 

[AegisPrime]

... based on the Data they used.

I'm not calling into question the Validity of their Claim.

I'm just saying that a Paper like this will be Questioned since it appears that the Authors of the paper had Little or No Control over the Data that they Used to make their Claim.

BTW - What are you views on a product like e-Solid?

We each make our own judgements based on the evidence available to us - certainly the Drexel study (amongst others) is sufficient for me to continue to vape in the belief that the risks suggested by other parties have been overstated and that what I'm doing now is far healthier than what I was doing.

Or to put it another way, if I can accept that vaping is much safer than smoking, I think it's fair for me to believe that second hand vapour is much safer than second hand smoke to bystanders. And since the latest findings on passive smoking indicate that there's no clear link between second hand smoke and lung cancer then I personally believe that my vaping doesn't pose a health hazard to anyone.

And re: e-Solid - I don't know enough about it to have an opinion at this point - if that changes I'll probably end up posting about it around here somewhere

 

[zoiDman]

I'm not sure I understand, they were doing a meta-analysis.
It seems to me they did what you are supposed to do when you do a meta-analysis.

What some people will Question if a person tries to make the Claim that 2nd Hand Vapor is Harmless based on this Paper is that the Analysis was based on Un-Controlled Data. And other peoples finding which May or May Not be Accurate and or Correct.

Like I said, I'm not questioning the Results or Conclusions that the Drexel makes based on what they Evaluated.

 

[AttyPops]

One of my daughters is a Registered Nurse in a primarily women's and children's hospital. They permit vaping in a patient's room but not smoking. They are enlightened enough to understand the difference and promote vaping as an alternative to their patient's who smoke.

I'm sure this comes as a "shock" to the usual suspects on ECF and in this thread that believe that no one should ever vape where smoking is not allowed. They believe vaping should be restricted, banned and regulated by government, based on the possible behavior of the least respectful and most obnoxious vaper in the country. That "red herring" crops up repeatedly in these discussions.

I think DC2 provided an admirable framework for why the admonition that "one should never vape where smoking is prohibited" is patently illogical. The usual suspects who support this admonition in this thread and in many other threads, primarily resort to two tactics: either suggesting that restrictions that ban smoking to an absurd degree are not a reality or dumb down the issue to the unknown most obnoxious vaper in the country that seeks out small children in order to blow vapor in their faces. Oh, and one other tactic is that vaping openly but respectfully is the cause of all attempts to ban vaping even though bans were attempted long before anyone was vaping openly. All three tactics are weak and without merit IMO. But for the usual suspects on ECF, vaping IS the same as smoking and thus, their admonition: vape only in designated smoking areas. The fact that this admonition defies logic is irrelevant. I would like to see even one of the usual suspects just "own" their belief directly and not resort to weak examples to justify it.

Kudos to that hospital.


He provided an admirable framework for the discussion, agreed. So Kudos for that. However, he committed an (unintentional?) fallacy by implying that the "don't vape where smoking is prohibited" crowd isn't also using the more relaxed addendum "unless vaping is permitted". Basically "Ask first". So he's really targeting the extreme absolutist end of the "Don't vape where..." crowd. If they even exist. I think.

The false equivalency attempts to erode the "Don't vape where you can't smoke" argument...by being absolutist in the interpretation. Or, by using the absolutists (all three of them) as examples of everyone. I don't find that to be the prevailing attitude.

I'm in the "ask first" camp. Occasionally in the stealth camp. And in the "Anytime when outdoors away from an entrance." camp. It's a lot easier for me to say "Don't vape where you can't smoke, or ask first" than it is to explain all the angles.

 

[zoiDman]

...

And re: e-Solid - I don't know enough about it to have an opinion at this point - if that changes I'll probably end up posting about it around here somewhere

Wasn't trying to Derail this Vape Ban thread with mention of e-Solids. But to me, e-Solid is the Best Justification even a vaper could make that Some Amount of Regulation is need regarding what can Ingredients can be put into a e-Liquid.

Or in this case, an e-Solid.

In the words of another member here on the ECF, "Vaping Shoe Polish might be Safer than Vaping this e-Solid Stuff."

 

[quiter]

I would say that the burden of proof should be on the government if they want to create a ban. So far the only evidence they have is that it annoys people. Yes it does do that and because I am generally a polite person I don't go out of my way to be annoying. The more people we annoy the more people with nothing better to do will be a pain in the ... and go running to their beloved government to force their wishes upon you. Forget that their presence on Earth is annoying to me. The problem is that the squeaky wheel gets the grease and they will go running to their representatives looking for a solution to their grievance. You can't stop them from petitioning congress either they have the right to do that.

The biggest problem is the people themselves who have become accustomed to legislating their wish to live in an annoyance free zone. Your grass is too long, call the cops. Your dog barks, call the cops. Left your car unregistered for too long, call the cops. ON and ON and ON it goes. There is no end to nitwits getting what they want by using the force of government to command you to comply to their wishes.

Until We The People get it through our thick heads that we shouldn't use the government to keep us annoyance free this crap will go on.

 

[AegisPrime]

Wasn't trying to Derail this Vape Ban thread with mention of e-Solids. But to me, e-Solid is the Best Justification even a vaper could make that Some Amount of Regulation is need regarding what can Ingredients can be put into a e-Liquid.

Or in this case, an e-Solid.

In the words of another member here on the ECF, "Vaping Shoe Polish might be Safer than Vaping this e-Solid Stuff."

Lol! I'll definitely have to look into it now - just for the 'ewww' factor

 

[Uncle Willie]

Yet we have bans on toy guns in schools whether they look like guns or not. Candy cigarettes are even banned in some places. They tried to ban large soda drinks for goodness sakes. The war on a plant is another one. Laws do not have to be based on reality at all. They are based on perception. So I get what you are saying. Change people's perceptions and the battle is won. But I honestly don't think that will ever happen. People need to change how they think period.

They need to realize that LIBERTY itself is worth fighting for.

I know it's silly but fighting for the right to sell candy cigarettes is worth fighting for and so is fighting to be allowed to smoke in bars if the owners want it. But far too many people from all walks of life have no problem at all asking people to give up their Liberty if we don't see that specific thing as worth fighting for. If we don't believe in equal rights and liberties for everyone we can't expect it for ourselves.

They are already passing laws that state that vaping should be considered the same as smoking and people will go along with it. Why? Because they don't care about your liberties and unless you care about their liberty to do something that they care for why should they care about your's? Outside of libertarians I find very few people in this country who really care about Liberty for all. I see people every single day from the Right and the Left who have no problem at all curtailing the liberty of others. That is the problem and until that changes you can try and convince people until you are blue in the face that vaping isn't smoking but you might as well be banging your head against a wall.

One Nation, indivisible with Liberty and Justice for all? Don't make me laugh. Those are nothing more than quaint, outdated, pretty words for the vast majority of Americans. People have unfortunately decided that Liberty and Justice are mutually exclusive properties. Why? Because they believe that Justice means being able to tell others what to do with their own bodies and with their own property. The left does it based on the "Social Contract" and the Right all too often does it in the name of "god". Both of them Left and Right are attempting to enforce their ideas of morality by the use of the Government's monopoly on the use of Force.

Yeah .. that's the problem with living in a Democracy .. we actually elect people to represent the majority of what Society wants .. go figure ..

 

[DC2]

What some people will Question if a person tries to make the Claim that 2nd Hand Vapor is Harmless based on this Paper is that the Analysis was based on Un-Controlled Data. And other peoples finding which May or May Not be Accurate and or Correct.

I suppose? But that would mean they would have to question the technique of meta-analysis itself though, right?

From Wikipedia, I guess I can see what you are saying that some might say...
Meta-analysis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some have argued that a weakness of the method is that sources of bias are not controlled by the method: a good meta-analysis of badly designed studies will still result in bad statistics.[10] This would mean that only methodologically sound studies should be included in a meta-analysis, a practice called 'best evidence synthesis'.[10] Other meta-analysts would include weaker studies, and add a study-level predictor variable that reflects the methodological quality of the studies to examine the effect of study quality on the effect size.[11] However, others have argued that a better approach is to preserve information about the variance in the study sample, casting as wide a net as possible, and that methodological selection criteria introduce unwanted subjectivity, defeating the purpose of the approach.[12]

Certainly seems to be some debate, but it appears the Drexel study took the "best evidence synthesis" route.

 

[generic mutant]

Metaanalysis is good when you've got lots of high quality studies.

I think it's pretty clear we aren't there yet...