That's because no one ever lasted to write it in history/ or the history was all destroyed.
Secondhand smoke is harmless
- Thread starter Lilvapie
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
That's because no one ever lasted to write it in history/ or the history was all destroyed.
My father was a gentle giant, not given to quick negative reactions, but more to thoughtful response ...
Still, if I had ever come home from school suggesting that his pipe smoking was somehow harmful to his children, I'm quite certain I would have received a stern lecture on the consequences of attempting to impose my will on a stronger adversary ...
Instead, I breathed in the cherry aroma, chewed on lead paint, and followed the insecticide-spraying truck on my bicycle with the other kids ...
I'm still here ...
Did you wear your helmet?
Still no information presented that secondhand smoke or ets is harmful? Just opinions and unscientific observations?
Once smoke is exhaled the chemical structure changes dramatically. At that point it is environmental tobacco smoke, completely harmless. That is why many states in the USA choose not to ban smoking indoors because it is completely harmless and are still awaiting scientific evidence. Harmless as in- won't cause cancer, won't cause coughing, not the least bit of harm at all, just annoying, not nearly annoying as the complaining, anti smokers that have NO understanding of science at all.
Once smoke is exhaled the chemical structure changes dramatically. At that point it is environmental tobacco smoke, completely harmless. That is why many states in the USA choose not to ban smoking indoors because it is completely harmless and are still awaiting scientific evidence. Harmless as in- won't cause cancer, won't cause coughing, not the least bit of harm at all, just annoying, not nearly annoying as the complaining, anti smokers that have NO understanding of science at all.
IOW, you can't back up your claim and while I've done the research you speak of, you are pretty sure that your position is not able to be substantiated.
Not what you said earlier. You said, "I understand very well parents that will not accept a smoker or vaper around their child."
Which means even if vaper is not vaping around a child, it is understandable why a parent would not want their child around this (type of) person.
Or perhaps you care to clarify what was clearly a laughable position that you stated earlier?
Is that really what you think they meant? Or is it just for arguments sake?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say they meant a person smoking or vaping as in smoking or vaping now. If I'm wrong, then so be it..
In easier to understand terms- it becomes diluted into the atmosphere, whether in an interior
Or exterior environment. The dose, which is the characteristic that makes any compound poisonous, decreases dramatically. We all have safe levels of mercury in our body and we can die from drinking too much water...
I think he meant it the way you are stating it, but worded it in a way that was laughable and was interested in how he would defend that wording.
I think there are (intelligent) parents that allow these activities around there kids because they realize there is far too much hype around it, and rather not play into that with their kids.
I was at bowling alley over the weekend and while I am firmly in camp of "vape everywhere with respect," I was having a tough time (emotionally) vaping on the lane I was on with friends (all non vapers) as we had gone earlier in the day and the lanes to our left (about 25 feet away, were mostly family/kids. So, for a good 30 minutes, the only time I vaped was when I went to a nook along the back wall of the building (very easy to find in bowling alleys) and took a drag. Then, someone was bowling, with a kid right in front of that nook. Which I first interpreted (to myself) as better to just not vape in here. But about 15 minutes later, I just went to staff person and asked if it was okay to vape in the building and they were like "sure." And I said, I'll likely just do it here (along back wall) cause of the kids present, and she's like, "oh no problem, we've never had an issue with those things in here." Which eventually had me vaping on my lane openly and feeling respectful as there wasn't anyone within 2 lanes of us on either side.
I say all this because it really really was a non-issue to be vaping in that establishment, even while I admittedly had given into the emotional hype for a little bit when I first got in there and did the 'respectful' thing. Turns out, the respectful thing was done anyways with me freely vaping in there and not once, coming anywhere near blowing it anyone's face.
So when anyone, but especially a vaper, says to not do it around kids, I have to challenge that and discover what they are meaning / saying exactly. And the earlier comment, as it was worded, was seriously funny to me. Also disappointing, but mostly funny.
Last edited:
his study tells me that the diketones can be accurately tested for
and did not say that these levels can't be reduced to regulatory thresholds.
so i am sticking with my 98% as it also includes the whole of the bad ingredients
including diketones. the concern with diketones is not that their harmful its
how much diketones does it take to be harmful and how much if any would be in
exhaled vapor has to be considered.
the 98 % figure is not my theory,its the number most often cited in these forums
and elsewhere concerning the safety of e-cigs compared to smoking.
if what i am doing can't harm you,you don't have any right to inhibit my behavior,
children or no. you are playing more into the ANTZ by playing the chillin' card
than my argument does.
regards
mike
Just to be clear, Dr, Faralinos called diketones an ''avoidable risk'' and encouraged e-liquids vendors to clean their act.
We are slowly seeing more vendors with Diketones free e-liquids. IMO, get rid of diketones and of vendors selling this poison and we can then claim to be 98% safer than cigarettes.
.... and also, more than the right, parents have the duty to protect their children.
btw, self regulation is the ONLY way to defend vaping. IMO, It is the people who insist on their right to vape proven and documented harmful and already regulated polutants in public that really feed the Antz.
Last edited:
You are the one who started a thread proclaiming a widely accepted belief is flawed. The burden of proof is on you. The most you have presented is the claim that second hand smoke cannot be definitively linked to increased cancer rates. That wasn't your claim. The title of the thread. That doesn't proclaim no evidence has been presented. That claims second hand smoke is harmless. Where is your proof it doesn't cause the problems that many believe it causes. Keep in mind cancer (again, you have provided no proof second hand smoke doesn't cause, just presented proof it does hasn't been presented) as well as a wide variety of other issues.
There were so many lawsuits with working people such as servers at a dinner that never smoked a day in their life and ended up with lung cancer. That's why on all government property at least here in Iowa all smoking is banned. Including vaping .
.Okay. When you state it that way my head does not want to explode.
Dilution, certainly.
Changing state after exhale, no.
Absolutely.
I doubt there is any such thing as harmless smoke.
The only question that remains is the level of exposure over time.
Secondhand smoke is harmless
-
...
-
THIS JUST IN!!!!
Nuclear Explosions are only illusionary.
-
...
-
THIS JUST IN!!!!
Nuclear Explosions are only illusionary.
I was going to do a lengthy response as to why secondhand smoke is not harmless then it hit me why bother it isn't harmless most people know that there have been plenty of scientific studies and other things done to show its harmful the only purpose for starting a thread like this is was just to annoy and attempt to bait people into something. So op if you really believe its harmless fair enough whatever makes you happy but I've got nothing more to say on this ridiculous thread and am going to look for better debates on the forum shouldn't take long and I urge everyone else do the same.
i am sticking to 98% safer as it is still the most often cited figure in today's literature
diketones or not. i have no fear of microwaving popcorn nor any limited exposure
in e-juice and due to the nature of exhaled vapor the fear of possibly harming a non-user
borders on near hysteria.
mike
Last edited:
There were so many lawsuits with working people such as servers at a dinner that never smoked a day in their life and ended up with lung cancer. That's why on all government property at least here in Iowa all smoking is banned. Including vaping
Personally I think those lawsuits were a total crock. Thousands of people get lung cancer without EVER smoking or even being around smokers, add that most smokers don't ever get it and only a miniscule percentage of the millions of servers got it, and the issue seems clear enough.
As long as we are coming to conclusions and enacting laws based on simple associations we have to consider what color clothing they preferred because maybe THAT had something to do with it too.
Personally, I think "they" have a pretty good idea what the problems are and choose to point the finger at something else.
This just in! A cloud is actually a visible collection of particles of water or ice suspended in the air, usually at an elevation above the earth's surface.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
