Second Hand Vapor or Third Hand Vapor?

[jozef-3d]

Is Second Hand or Third Hand Vapor exists? I was asked this question today and didn't really know the answer. Anyone have good answers on this subject matter? I'm hoping to be educated about it a little more than just "No".

 

[jozef-3d]

anyone know?

 

[Vapoor eyes er]

Here's some studies:
The study has now been completed, peer reviewed and accepted for the 2012 meeting of SRNT in Helsinki. The experiment concludes that within the limits of the observed parameters, has underlined that passive vapor does not produce detectable amounts of toxic and carcinogenic substances in the air of an enclosed space."

Utah Vapers - Clearstream Air Results

Second Hand Vapor - Project:Vape
Hope this helps.

 

[hytek]

anyone know?

As of yet there is no scientific acceptance as to either side. Do some research, use your own judgement. So far it seems that vapor is a much safer alternative to smoking cigarettes. As such lets say the concentration of harm causing ingredients in cigarettes is 100% and lets say vapor is .001 percent.

For cigarettes lets say second hand is 20% of 100%, thats a 1/5 of the damage of the primary smoker. In vapor if we apply this same proportion we end up with 20% of .001 of 1/1000th of a percent * .20. Which is a negligible amount.

That is what most research points to, just not with those exact numbers. However note that vapor is also not the best delivery method for nicotine. We only vaporize a small percentage of the actual nicotine in the liquid, after second hand smoke, that number is even smaller.

 

[gthompson]

There's no question as to whether it exists, the question is is it harmful.

 

[jozef-3d]

Thanks so much just the kind of info I wanted to know. I looked around the interwebs and they all just blew past my head.

 

[Vapoor eyes er]

Thanks so much just the kind of info I wanted to know. I looked around the interwebs and they all just blew past my head.

You're welcome. You may want to wander over to CASAA - The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association and peruse the info they have. A good idea also to join.
Best of Luck.

 

[Kabooma]

more likely there are worse things in the air right outside of the whatever building you are in right now. Such as diesel particles, airborne mercury vapors, general smog, carbon monoxide, and on and on..

 

[peakcomm]

However note that vapor is also not the best delivery method for nicotine. We only vaporize a small percentage of the actual nicotine in the liquid

I don't want to get too caught up in semantics and I don't have my sources right at hand, but I believe these statements are misleading.

It's true that vapor is not the most efficient nicotine delivery method, but as I understand it, that's a matter of time and pathway rather than quantity. Inhaling the tiny particulates of combusted tobacco (smoke) into the lungs allows nicotine to follow the same very direct path to the brain that oxygen follows, so it "hits" within about 5 seconds. Vapor suspensions, on the other hand, deliver most of the nicotine through the mouth and nasal passages, more like nicotine gum or lozenges. A much smaller amount actually reaches the lungs. This slower pathway means vaporized nicotine takes as long as 30 seconds to reach the brain.

However, the liquid nicotine is very efficiently vaporized -- if it weren't, it would still be either liquid or residue left in your tank or atomizer. (We all know that a very small but visible amount of "gunk" builds up over time on an atomizer and must presume that some minute portion of that gunk is not-quite-vaporized nicotine. But compared to the residue of smoking -- the contents of an ashtray -- vaporizing is obviously much more efficient.)

The question is, how efficient is our body is extracting nicotine from vapor? In other words, how much nicotine is still present in exhaled vapor? Every study I've seen or heard of suggests that the amount is so small as to be insignificant.

If I've misstated any facts here, I hope some veteran/scientist will step in and offer corrections.

 

[hytek]

I don't want to get too caught up in semantics and I don't have my sources right at hand, but I believe these statements are misleading.

It's true that vapor is not the most efficient nicotine delivery method, but as I understand it, that's a matter of time and pathway rather than quantity. Inhaling the tiny particulates of combusted tobacco (smoke) into the lungs allows nicotine to follow the same very direct path to the brain that oxygen follows, so it "hits" within about 5 seconds. Vapor suspensions, on the other hand, deliver most of the nicotine through the mouth and nasal passages, more like nicotine gum or lozenges. A much smaller amount actually reaches the lungs. This slower pathway means vaporized nicotine takes as long as 30 seconds to reach the brain.

However, the liquid nicotine is very efficiently vaporized -- if it weren't, it would still be either liquid or residue left in your tank or atomizer. (We all know that a very small but visible amount of "gunk" builds up over time on an atomizer and must presume that some minute portion of that gunk is not-quite-vaporized nicotine. But compared to the residue of smoking -- the contents of an ashtray -- vaporizing is obviously much more efficient.)

The question is, how efficient is our body is extracting nicotine from vapor? In other words, how much nicotine is still present in exhaled vapor? Every study I've seen or heard of suggests that the amount is so small as to be insignificant.

If I've misstated any facts here, I hope some veteran/scientist will step in and offer corrections.

No you are correct, I was keeping it simple, like the broad and outlandish numbers. I probably shouldnt keep it simple because that leads to bad or misinformation, but sometimes its easier to reach someone with the simple information and then they do the research on their own to find out the truth.