Secondhand Exposure to Vapors From Electronic Cigarettes

[wv2win]

Hard to Argue with that Kent.

But there can be a Break Down in Logic when Comparing two things. And that is If the Way you Evaluated "A" is Wrong, it Doesn't make the way you Evaluated "B" Correct.

Every study should be Peer Reviewed and It's Scientific Merit Evaluated in Isolation.

If it was evaluated by 1000 qualified "Peers", and found that the amount of nicotine present in exhaled vapor was at or below the "Trace Levels" (as several studies have shown), there would be those on ECF that would still have doubts and make comments that we still can't be sure. That should sound familiar to you.

 

[Kent C]

Yeah... That is a Great Topic for Debate. And Many Shades of Gray can be Considered verses a Pure Black and White Position.

But the Issue of Tax Revenues complicates things.

It is One thing to Stand Back and watch someone Hurt Themselves. It is Another to Tax them while they Do It. And EVERYONE know that e-liquids in whatever form they are going to sold Will Be Taxed.

It Also becomes Problematic if the Justification for a Tax is to Spend Money on those who were Harmed because of Passive Vapor if Passive Vapor is shown to be Relatively Harmless.

The idea that there are only shade of gray is just as absolute as black and white ;-) But regardless of that, it's more about why this country and gov't were created - to protect individual rights rather than protecting someone against themselves. That may be a concept upon what other gov'ts were created, but not ours. If enough people want to change that they should have a Constitutional convention rather than worming their way around it or outright violating it.

If there truly is no harm in 'second hand vapor', not some made up lie about how it affects children, then any attempt to regulate or tax should be resisted.

 

[zoiDman]

The CASAA website has several studies, I suggest you spend some time reviewing them. The latest one is the Burstyn/Drexel study which recently has been peer-reviewed.

Just for Clarity.

Has the Drexel "Paper" been Reviewed? Or is it Being Reviewed?

 

[zoiDman]

The idea that there are only shade of gray is just as absolute as black and white ;-) But regardless of that, it's more about why this country and gov't were created - to protect individual rights rather than protecting someone against themselves. That may be a concept upon what other gov'ts were created, but not ours. If enough people want to change that they should have a Constitutional convention rather than worming their way around it or outright violating it.

If there truly is no harm in 'second hand vapor', not some made up lie about how it affects children, then any attempt to regulate or tax should be resisted.

I think a Reasonably Educated and somewhat Emotional Devoid Person like Yourself can see that there are Many Viable Arguments that could be made to ANY Level of Government Involvement or Regulation.

I don't want Diacetyl in my e-liquids. Or Red #4 Colorants. But as it stands right Now, you can put Anything you want into an e-liquid. Anything under any Hygienic Conditions.

Are some Regulations needed to Ensure Public Health? I thought that was the Entire Concept of e-Cigarettes? A Healthier Choice.

Without some type of Regulations, things like this start to Pop Up with a Laundry List of Questionable Chemical Ingredients.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...gel-paste-eliquid-concentrate-back-again.html


To me, It all get's back to that Why is there Not more Excepted Information and Peer Reviewed Studies regarding e-Cigarettes/e-Liquid.

It would be Nice if People could Hang their Hats on something without Having to rely on One or Two Studies or a bunch of "Grey Literature".

 

[Kent C]

zoiDman:I think a Reasonably Educated and somewhat Emotional Devoid Person like Yourself can see that there are Many Viable Arguments that could be made to ANY Level of Government Involvement or Regulation.

I'd opt for private consumer agencies - UL listed, Consumer Reports and others - they're success and profits would depend on how well they did the job (unlike gov't).

I don't want Diacetyl in my e-liquids. Or Red #4 Colorants. But as it stands right Now, you can put Anything you want into an e-Liquid. Anything under any Hygienic Conditions.

Again, with the communication within this forum, it 'acts' like a consumer protection. Anyone who even knows about diacetyl, knows what ejuices to avoid. For those not as interested - sorry - liberty and your health depend on 'eternal vigilance'. Otherwise you get Darwin awards, or eventually you get it right.

Are some Regulations needed to Ensure Public Health? I thought that was the Entire Concept of e-Cigarettes? A Healthier Choice.

That's a personal decision and so far, the most resistance to those ideas have come from gov't or "businesses" that rely on gov't - ie fascism in economic terms.

Without some type of Regulations, things like this start to Pop Up with a Laundry List of Questionable Chemical Ingredients.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...gel-paste-eliquid-concentrate-back-again.html

To me, It all get's back to that Why is there Not more Excepted Information and Peer Reviewed Studies regarding e-Cigarettes/e-Liquid.

There should be more and most likely will be.

It would be Nice if People could Hang their Hats on something without Having to rely on One or Two Studies or a bunch of "Grey Literature".

Unfortunately, many of the studies are financed by the different 'sides' and that raises suspicions. Universities and scientist with gov't grants or grants from Tobacco or Pharma. When the aim is to control people's behavior, then it's almost axiomatic that 'the end justifies the means'. We've seen that in Climate Change studies just to note the obvious (for some) from their own internal memos/emails, etc. and from dissenters within their ranks. We'll likely see the same with ecigs... on both sides unfortunately (a nod to wv2win).

 

[DaveP]

Please tell me that the Safety and Potential Harm Reduction for the User of an e-Cigarette is Not somehow getting Lost in all this Passive Vape Issue?

I think ANTZ believes that, but they hate anything that resembles smoke! They want ALL the nicotine gone. I guess they will declare war on Nightshade plants once we are all gone to our final resting place.

 

[zoiDman]

zoiDman:I think a Reasonably Educated and somewhat Emotional Devoid Person like Yourself can see that there are Many Viable Arguments that could be made to ANY Level of Government Involvement or Regulation.

I'd opt for private consumer agencies - UL listed, Consumer Reports and others - they're success and profits would depend on how well they did the job (unlike gov't).

I don't want Diacetyl in my e-liquids. Or Red #4 Colorants. But as it stands right Now, you can put Anything you want into an e-Liquid. Anything under any Hygienic Conditions.

Again, with the communication within this forum, it 'acts' like a consumer protection. Anyone who even knows about diacetyl, knows what ejuices to avoid. For those not as interested - sorry - liberty and your health depend on 'eternal vigilance'. Otherwise you get Darwin awards, or eventually you get it right.

...

All Good Points. Let me just comment on One of them. And that is with regards to the ECF.

The ECF is a Fantastic Resource for those who want to Use it. But More so, to those who Know what it Is.

Unfortunately People who use an e-Cigarette and have Never Heard of the ECF Vastly Outnumber ECF Members. So where as a ECF Member can get some Feedback as to this or that, what about the people that have never been to the ECF?

Should we Allow e-Liquid Makers to add Diacetyl, or Whatever else they want, into e-Liquids just because ECF Members are "In the Know" and have been told to Avoid it?

That just doesn't sound right to me.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for Less Government than More Government. But when it comes to people putting Diacetyl into an e-Liquid and then Bottling it in a Polystyrene Bottle for the Purpose of Making a Buck, I think we can do Better.

 

[Kent C]

Unfortunately People who use an e-Cigarette and have Never Heard of the ECF Vastly Outnumber ECF Members. So where as a ECF Member can get some Feedback as to this or that, what about the people that have never been to the ECF?

Should we Allow e-Liquid Makers to Diacetyl, or Whatever else they want, into e-Liquids just because ECF Members are "In the Know" and have been told to Avoid it?

That just doesn't sound right to me.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for Less Government than More Government. But when it comes to people putting Diacetyl into an e-Liquid and then Bottling it in a Polystyrene Bottle for the Purpose of Making a Buck, I think we can do Better.

We (and the gov't btw) allow cigarettes to be made. It's a bit like - there are people who like 'unpasteurized' milk - should they be 'allowed' to drink it? I say yes. And there are many instances where gov't controlled products have been harmful - many 'ecoli' outbreaks on veggies that had USDA approval, some Mad Cow diseases, the use of thalidomide- it's that false security that tends to make people not responsible themselves but who think gov't protects them. Looking at it from this end (chronologically) is more 'cloudy' than looking at it before all the gov't regulations. People weren't dying in the streets and they knew a lot more about taking care of themselves than people do now. One might even cite the Native Americans or similar indigenous people in other areas.

About the only regulation I would agree with would be on imports and that for the common diseases that produce plagues, etc. Even the early gov't did that without being a 'big brother' to every ignorant (in the good, uninformed sense) individual.

This is going beyond the scope of the thread. You have last word, I'm outta here....

Just for your own amusement you might look into picking up "Machinery of Freedom" by David Friedman and "Defending the Undefendable" by Walter Block. I don't agree with all of that but it gives one a different frame of reference to evaluate certain concepts.

 

[zoiDman]

This is going beyond the scope of the thread. You have last word, I'm outta here....

Just for your own amusement you might look into picking up "Machinery of Freedom" by David Friedman and "Defending the Undefendable" by Walter Block. I don't agree with all of that but it gives one a different frame of reference to evaluate certain concepts.

Thanks for the Book Recommendations Kent. I got a Kindle for Christmas and have been Burning Down Pages like there's no Tomorrow.

I'll step out Also. Not because it Isn't a Good Topic. But because you are right about Going Beyond the Scope of this Thread.

Take Care Kent. I always Enjoy Talking to you and Reading your Posts.

 

[RosaJ]

Just for Clarity.

Has the Drexel "Paper" been Reviewed? Or is it Being Reviewed?

I believe it was reviewed within the last two or three weeks.

 

[zoiDman]

I believe it was reviewed within the last two or three weeks.

Here is the Timeline of the Publication Process to BMC. And notes the Comments of the 2 Reviewers.

BMC Public Health | Pre-publication history | Peering through the mist: systematic review of what the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tells us about health risks

 

[AegisPrime]

Good comments from the reviewers - nice (if unsurprising ) to see Dr. F taking an interest

 

[wv2win]

.................
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for Less Government than More Government........................

That's so funny. You really have us all fooled.

 

[zoiDman]

That's so funny. You really have us all fooled.

My Dad used to say... "It is Easy to Fool Foolish People."

 

[wv2win]

My Dad used to say... "It is Easy to Fool Foolish People."

That doesn't surprise me. I'm sure he was looking right at you when he said it.

 

[Kent C]

That doesn't surprise me. I'm sure he was looking right at you when he said it.

wv, zoidman is a more 'mixed economy' type that actually falls more on the free-market side on many issues.

Zoidman, neither of you are fools.

 

[Uma]

So in other words you're describing any party where people are vaping, right?

as was pointed out, it was a non-ventilated room. Another point, is the avg Vaper vapes 3ml a day, not 1ml an hour. The example was based on a worse case (impossible) scenario.

The Traces of nicotine that do go airborn, are rare, minimal, & random. It is not a consistent result of vaping.
0.038 (or whatever) is barely existent, as was explained.

In order to prove harmful, I would think the numbers would have to be Threshold amounts.
If 1000mg is Threshold, please do the math per nano grams that would have to be exhaled.

 

[SamNapolitanke]

I subscribe to the notion that if there's nicotine in it when it goes into your mouth, there is nicotine in it when it comes out of your mouth. That's just common sense and I'll be hard pressed to believe the findings of even the most thoroughly made study that contradicts simple common sense.

It was also common sense that the earth was flat. How can you walk on a sphere? You would fall!

 

[RosaJ]

It was also common sense that the earth was flat. How can you walk on a sphere? You would fall!

...and, people were killed because they disagreed that the earth was flat. The sun used to revolve around the earth too, that's what we see with our naked eye so it must be true!

 

[SamNapolitanke]

...and, people were killed because they disagreed that the earth was flat. The sun used to revolve around the earth too, that's what we see with our naked eye so it must be true!

same goes for germs... what germs? I cant see anything on my hands???????