Study finds no justification for banning.....

[SilentScreams]

http://observer.com/2013/01/semi-object ... 9ba444d35a

Found this on another forum and had to share



(Semi-)Objective Study Finds ‘No Justification’ for Banning E-Cigarettes Indoors, in Public Places

Good news for the vaping community! A new study, produced by the environmental health consulting firm CHANGE LLC, claims that the secondhand risks from e-cigarette vapors are minuscule, and we should all just be chill about co-workers using them in the office.


Study abstract:

Comparisons of pollutant concentrations were made between e-cigarette vapor and tobacco smoke samples. Pollutants included VOCs, carbonyls, PAHs, nicotine, TSNAs, and glycols. From these results, risk analyses were conducted based on dilution into a 40 m3 room and standard toxicological data. Non-cancer risk analysis revealed “No Significant Risk” of harm to human health for vapor samples from e-liquids (A-D).

Before we get too excited, the study was contracted for $100,000 by the National Vapers Club from solicited donations at vaping Expos. And “non-cancer risk analysis” is sort of a shady term: does that mean that checking for the risk of cancer in secondhand vapors wasn’t a factor in the study?

If we had to worry about tobacco lobbyists and spin doctors before, now we’re facing a new breed of anti-smoking, pro-vaping flack. Like the website Liberty Flights, which has a bunch of very convincing quotes from doctors saying stuff like:

“This study demonstrates that the risks of secondhand vapor from electronic cigarette use are very small in comparison to those associated with secondhand tobacco smoke. While secondhand smoke must be eliminated in workplaces and public places, the current data provide no justification for eliminating electronic cigarette use in these places.” —Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University School of Public Health

Except that Liberty Flights is a vaping company that “specialize in quality Electronic cigarettes and e liquids as well as other accessories such as atomizers, cones, batteries, chargers, cases and mods.” It also refers to the unregulated Chinese-produced nicotine liquid as “E juice,” which frankly sounds a lot funner than what it actually is.

Look, we’re not saying that this study is inherently biased. We’re just saying we’d feel better if there was a study presented by a lab that wasn’t being paid by an organization that has a stake in the outcome. It generally looks pretty good for the e-cig argument, but then again, the FCC still hasn’t been allowed to conduct its own review, which keeps the relative potential risk factors in these products pretty much a question mark.

 

[Tankman77]

Thanks for Sharing
Great info

 

[budynbuick]

We’re just saying we’d feel better if there was a study presented by a lab that wasn’t being paid by an organization that has a stake in the outcome. .

any lab has to get paid by someone. Seems everybody has an agenda. Truth has fallen to the way side being replaced by worthless fiat (monopoly) money. We have traded truth for nothing.

 

[zapped]

The reporter needs to learn how to spell and do accurate research. I honestly think my 14 year old could do a better job than that. He misspelled "miniscule" and confused the FDA with the Federal Communications Commission.

Usually Im not a spelling and grammar Nazi but when it comes to reporters I expect at least a minimum competency level.

 

[SilentScreams]

The reporter needs to learn how to spell and do accurate research. I honestly think my 14 year old could do a better job than that. He misspelled "miniscule" and confused the the FDA with the Federal Communications Commission.

Usually Im not a spelling and grammar Nazi but when it comes to reporters I expect at least a minimum competency level.

I copied it straight from the link and I didn't even notice the replacement off FCC for FDA. I guess my mind just read it as it was supposed to be. I dunno. Nice catch though.

 

[mightymen]

anything in the positive side of vaping is a good thing. Remember no studies or proof that e cigs are dangerous. Gov't wants to get a jump start on reg issues because that how gov't officials make more money. There crooks who use any reason to control us just to make more money from ??????

 

[yvilla]

The reporter needs to learn how to spell and do accurate research. I honestly think my 14 year old could do a better job than that. He misspelled "miniscule" and confused the FDA with the Federal Communications Commission.

Usually Im not a spelling and grammar Nazi but when it comes to reporters I expect at least a minimum competency level.

Sorry Zapped, but I just cannot let this one go by - "minuscule" is actually the correct spelling, and "miniscule" is the all too commonly seen mispelling, to the extent that it is actually now referred to as a "variant". See: Minuscule - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary and Miniscule - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

But otherwise, the author of the above cited Observer article is indeed a ....., as I much more politely pointed out in my comment to her on the site.

 

[zapped]

Sorry Zapped, but I just cannot let this one go by - "minuscule" is actually the correct spelling, and "miniscule" is the all too commonly seen mispelling, to the extent that it is actually now referred to as a "variant". See: Minuscule - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary and Miniscule - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

But otherwise, the author of the above cited Observer article is indeed a ....., as I much more politely pointed out in my comment to her on the site.

Webster has miniscule listed as being used 3 times more often than the much more obscure minuscule. The first use of miniscule was documented in 1897. Ill stick with the more popular and Americanized version of the word.

I appreciate the information though, you really do learn something new every day. Reading and English have always been my best subjects. I'm a voracious reader who's read every book in my house at least twice and sometimes more.Not once have I ever seen the word spelled that way before.

As far as me not being overly polite, I'll make no apologies for that. I've always been blunt and much prefer its simple honesty over sugar-coated false sweetness (oftentimes accompanied by a knife in the back) I'll at least extend the courtesy of telling someone its coming.

I dont like so-called reporters who write with such obvious bias and that's something that's become all too prevalent today

 

[DC2]

In general, I'd like to see a ratio of polite and politically correct responses versus pull-no-punches responses.

In general, I think the best way to win the public over is with the former.
And the best way to let our "opponents" know we are passionate and mean business is the latter.

I suppose maybe a 7/2 ratio would work for me.

 

[sandygib]

hi,
it looks as if we are moving in the right direction, instead of banning vaping (as it looks as if you are smoking), we should be able to vape indoors, at present i have to regard my ecig as an analog and sit outside with smokers, also we are allowed here to vape in pubs and clubs here but i have had some complaints when vaping at indoor venues about the smell, i think as more research is conducted then "people" will be less inclined to object to vaping annd should feel safe around us, by people i think i mean those that have the power to ban use rather than the majority of people i mix with.

 

[yvilla]

As far as me not being overly polite, I'll make no apologies for that. I've always been blunt and much prefer its simple honesty over sugar-coated false sweetness (oftentimes accompanied by a knife in the back) I'll at least extend the courtesy of telling someone its coming.

I dont like so-called reporters who write with such obvious bias and that's something that's become all too prevalent today

Haha, I absolutely didn't mean to characterize your comment as not being polite Zapped! I was referring to myself calling her a mo ron here (but which got zapped out of my above post by the ECF automatic censor). All I meant was that my comment to her on the article was more polite than my calling her a mo ron here, even though my comment to her on the article wasn't all that nice either - but she deserved it!

 

[zapped]

Haha, I absolutely didn't mean to characterize your comment as not being polite Zapped! I was referring to myself calling her a mo ron here (but which got zapped out of my above post by the ECF automatic censor). All I meant was that my comment to her on the article was more polite than my calling her a mo ron here, even though my comment to her on the article wasn't all that nice either - but she deserved it!

No worries, I wasnt offended at all either way and didnt mean to imply that I was.Ive gotten kind of used to defending my position from people who prefer being politically correct over honesty.Doesnt sound like youre one of them though

I kind of agree with DC2 about the need for more moderate responses but I cant and wont do politically correct because I feel like that term and the word "hater" (which has absolutely no place in the English language or current vernacular) is pushed by people who don't want you to have an opinion at all unless it conforms to their way of thinking.
.

 

[BuGlen]

I tried to leave a comment on this article, but it didn't seem to work, so I'll leave it here:

Quote: "Look, we’re not saying that this study is inherently biased. We’re just saying we’d feel better if there was a study presented by a lab that wasn’t being paid by an organization that has a stake in the outcome. It generally looks pretty good for the e-cig argument, but then again, the FCC still hasn’t been allowed to conduct its own review, which keeps the relative potential risk factors in these products pretty much a question mark."

Counter: Look, I'm not saying that the Big Pharma industry is a corrupt institution that would rather we continue to buy their "smoking cessation" products with a poor rate of success over an over again, making them billions of dollars. Why would they want that? If we could simply purchase reasonably priced and commercially available products that allow smokers the choice to switch to a way to get nicotine without all the known health issues of combusted tobacco products, then why would they stand in our way? Why would an industry that stands to loose billions of dollars per annum lobby elected government officials to put pressure on the FDA to completely ignore any and all studies that show the effectiveness and relative safety of these products?

In short, what I *AM* saying is that it sure would be nice of a few journalists (or any journalist for that matter) asked the hard questions. Everyone is so wrapped up in the evils that were inflicted on us by Big Tobacco so many years ago, that they're turning a blind eye to another large industry (Big Pharma) that might be doing the same thing today. So I'll ask this one last question: When you follow the money, who has the most to lose if these personal vaporizer (e-cig) products become mainstream?

 

[River]

I've never really understood why the Environmental Protection Agency's own fact sheet never gets used during arguments on the safety of vaporized PG in an indoor setting.

Air Sanitizers | Pesticides | US EPA

Kinda funny to me the entire country is in a full on panic about the flu and one of the things that can be used as an air sanitizer is getting banned from indoor use left and right.

Oh well, pretty typical i guess.

 

[DC2]

I tried to leave a comment on this article, but it didn't seem to work, so I'll leave it here...

That's one hell of a comment.

 

[daddytwigs]

So all I have to do is continually vape during flu season?

 

[Petrodus]

I've never really understood why the Environmental Protection Agency's own fact sheet never gets used during arguments on the safety of vaporized PG in an indoor setting.

Air Sanitizers | Pesticides | US EPA

Kinda funny to me the entire country is in a full on panic about the flu and one of the things that can be used as an air sanitizer is getting banned from indoor use left and right.

Oh well, pretty typical i guess.

There's no money in the cure

 

[BuGlen]

That's one hell of a comment.

Thanks! We're starting to see some articles that aren't automatically taking the standard talking points of the past couple of years, which is a good thing. Now we just need a few of them to dig in a little deeper to ask why this industry is being targeted as it is when the studies and evidence doesn't support the "deeming" actions of the FDA. I also realize that I'm jumping the gun a bit because the FDA hasn't really finalized their regulation points, but I believe it wouldn't hurt to put some public pressure on them from every possible direction.

The comment function still doesn't seem to be working, so I don't know if they shut it down or if it's just my luck. If it's setup for comment approval, then the author is going to have about 6 identical submissions from me and hopefully they will approve one of them.

 

[kristin]

That article was clearly meant to discredit the study by questioning the source of funding. It was only pretending to be unbiased.

The ANTZ will question the industry funding of studies that counter their claims or beliefs, because they know it's not commonly known by the general public that the studies of ANTZ's beloved FDA-approved nicotine cessation drugs were also paid for by the companies that are selling them. Notice that when the makers of Chantix announced that studies showed it was safe and effective, the ANTZ weren't complaining that that the pharmaceutical company paid for the studies and even after it came out that Chantix was neither as safe nor as effective as the drug company claimed, still no one started complaining about drug companies paying for the studies.

 

[Fiamma]

Nor have the ANTZ come out and said Chantix is killing people. We must stop it. They just zip their lips and let it pass.

We all know it is killing people via suicide and heart complications. Not to mention the cases known of suicide attempts, behavior way out of the norm as far as agressiveness and mood changes.