does that mean i win?
I give up.
seriously,
i just got peeved at the being called untruthful and
lying to myself.
if anything from your perspective we would both
be liars. tha'ts not true of either of us.
regards
mike
Secondhand vapor....
- Thread starter Cuddles17
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
seriously,
i just got peeved at the being called untruthful and
lying to myself.
if anything from your perspective we would both
be liars. tha'ts not true of either of us.
regards
mike
does that mean i win?
seriously,
i just got peeved at the being called untruthful and
lying to myself.
if anything from your perspective we would both
be liars. tha'ts not true of either of us.
regards
mike
Excuse me?
Please quote the specific, or apologize.
I do not lie ever. I'm older, and don't compromise my integrity like kids today do.
I never play fast and loose with facts.
"Excuse me?
Please quote the specific, or apologize.
I do not lie ever. I'm older, and don't compromise my integrity like kids today do.
I never play fast and loose with facts."
apparently you haven't been following the thread
either.
a little context.
to re phrase what i said.
using your own logic in the above quotes i could say you are lying
to yourself about something you admit is not known.
that would make us both liars.
did you miss the part where i said,
mike
Please quote the specific, or apologize.
I do not lie ever. I'm older, and don't compromise my integrity like kids today do.
I never play fast and loose with facts."
apparently you haven't been following the thread
either.
a little context.
to re phrase what i said.
using your own logic in the above quotes i could say you are lying
to yourself about something you admit is not known.
that would make us both liars.
did you miss the part where i said,
regards
mike
We do not know long term effects yet.
That is not a lie.
It's a fact.
I do not lie. Ever.
I'm older and live my life with self respect.
I do not twist facts to win arguments.
Read my previous posts.
Honesty and integrity are extremely important to me.
I do not play games with honesty, or the truth.
Everything I said was 100% easily verifiable fact.
Do not insult my integrity again.
now your just obfuscating the issue.
no long term studies is a fact.
what they will show is not known,ergo,not fact.
i can say with complete moral,ethical and,scientific
certainty judging from what it known right now that
the long term study's if and when they are ever done
will vindicate what the facts support now.
you are the one insulting peoples integrity by implying
i am lying to myself for taking a positive view instead of your
negative view.
lastly please reread what i said in previous posts.
i never called you a liar. your the one that brought up
the subject.
regards
mike
This is exactly what I said.
We do not know what they will show because there isn't enough long term data.
You can SAY what you want but you do not have the long term data to be certain.
If you do, please submit it for peer review so we can a be certain, and end the global research on long term effects of vaping.
no,you imply with the lack of long term data we all should tow the we don't know that line and
take a negative out come perspective. if we do not take the negative out look we are lying to ourselves.
i say the evidence is sufficient enough to take a positive outlook.
i can say what i want because long term peer reviewed study's equal exactly squat.
it does not exist and has no basis in reality.
being sixty years old i don't have 20 years to make up my
mind.
why don't you start your own precious peer reviewed long term
study and get back to me in 20 years if i am around?
better yet tell me what the peer reviewed long term studies
will show and why i should be concerned.
i base my decisions on fact not conjecture.
regards
mike
Government throughout America and many countries in the world apparently think second hand vapor is not just water vapor, given laws and legislation; the justification being not enough is known...
And how does the lack of long-term studies bother you when it comes to cellphone or wi-fi radiation, for example?
Have you been avoiding using those for lack of long-term studies? Are you willing to keep avoiding those for the next 20 years?
The first sentence and first part of second sentence are either inaccurate assertions, or are lies. If the point of this post above was only to note the obvious, that there is no long term data, then the other words, all of them are the type of thing that deception is made of.
I actually limit my use of mobile devices; I don't need a brain tumor and don't like talking on the phone. I also don't use my Airport Extreme as a pillow...
I'm just wondering what being "older" has to do with being honest. My mother is 74 yrs old, and continues to lie to herself daily that eating sugar is not harmful to her godawful diabetes.
Age has nothing whatever to do with integrity or self-delusion.
Andria
Age has nothing whatever to do with integrity or self-delusion.
Andria
What I thought exactly.
Cellphones *must* cause tumors until proven othewise.
I'm not going to chance it when it comes to brain tumors. I know Nokia did a study and found the radiation harmless, however...
IMO, actual science has zero percent chance of finding vaping to be harmless. Show me this other substance / activity on the planet that science has told us is harmless.
Then consider those many things science has weighed in on to tell us it is "generally regarded as safe" only to see a few years later an ad on TV by lawyers who intend on making lots of money from that product, due to side effects that (magically) popped up and harmed people up to, and including, death.
If we were actually waiting on science to deliver us from perceived problems of undue criticism, I would call that chasing after a rainbow. I imagine science will go through so many versions of plausibly safe and unsafe over the next 500 years of vaping that it would seem quite foolish to put your eggs in that basket, as if that is the answer we are all waiting for.
Then consider those many things science has weighed in on to tell us it is "generally regarded as safe" only to see a few years later an ad on TV by lawyers who intend on making lots of money from that product, due to side effects that (magically) popped up and harmed people up to, and including, death.
If we were actually waiting on science to deliver us from perceived problems of undue criticism, I would call that chasing after a rainbow. I imagine science will go through so many versions of plausibly safe and unsafe over the next 500 years of vaping that it would seem quite foolish to put your eggs in that basket, as if that is the answer we are all waiting for.
Vaping doesn't have to be proven harmless; just harmless to bystanders when it comes to vaping in public spaces. That is the standard many governments and municipalities have set.
If Sandra wanted nicotine, she'd vape or I'd blow 'vapor' at her face. I vape around her as I would someone who is allergic to what I am vaping, even though she has repeatedly said it is ok and it doesn't bother her. Given where she lives she is exposed to second hand cigarette smoke frequently, but that doesn't mean I have to expose her to second hand vapor...
If Sandra wanted nicotine, she'd vape or I'd blow 'vapor' at her face. I vape around her as I would someone who is allergic to what I am vaping, even though she has repeatedly said it is ok and it doesn't bother her. Given where she lives she is exposed to second hand cigarette smoke frequently, but that doesn't mean I have to expose her to second hand vapor...
Oh wow; I get to trot this one out again: Are mobile phone masts bad for health? - Soronlin
And back on topic, Nicotine absorbed from “passive vaping” is minimal and with no health implications
"the levels of nicotine absorbed from “passive vaping” are not only harmless but do not even produce any biological effect (not even heart rate acceleration). Considering the possibility that allowing e-cigarette use in public places may motivate smokers to switch to e-cigarette use, there is no scientific basis for any bans on e-cigarette use in public places."
That is only nicotine and only for "normal" conditions. Having watched a few Rip Tripper videos it would not surprise me if he spends time in air full of vapour, much more than would be encountered with a single moderate vapour in a reasonable- sized room. The effects of PG on those with an allergy or the effects of a large amount of the wrong flavouring may well be significant. But it would have to be a very toxic flavouring; I doubt even diacetyl would have a second-hand vapour effect and if there was something more toxic we would almost certainly know about it. First-hand vapour is another matter.
I have said before that I would not vape around a new-born. But once their lungs etc are fully formed I wouldn't be too worried about it in moderation.
And back on topic, Nicotine absorbed from “passive vaping” is minimal and with no health implications
"the levels of nicotine absorbed from “passive vaping” are not only harmless but do not even produce any biological effect (not even heart rate acceleration). Considering the possibility that allowing e-cigarette use in public places may motivate smokers to switch to e-cigarette use, there is no scientific basis for any bans on e-cigarette use in public places."
That is only nicotine and only for "normal" conditions. Having watched a few Rip Tripper videos it would not surprise me if he spends time in air full of vapour, much more than would be encountered with a single moderate vapour in a reasonable- sized room. The effects of PG on those with an allergy or the effects of a large amount of the wrong flavouring may well be significant. But it would have to be a very toxic flavouring; I doubt even diacetyl would have a second-hand vapour effect and if there was something more toxic we would almost certainly know about it. First-hand vapour is another matter.
I have said before that I would not vape around a new-born. But once their lungs etc are fully formed I wouldn't be too worried about it in moderation.
I see zero percent chance of actual science doing this. "Harmless" is way too high of a standard to prove. I could see something along lines of "minimal harm" or "negligible" but then adversaries will take the slightest of the slightest and blow it up into "great cause for concern." Or similar to what was done with secondhand smoke.
- Status
Similar threads
