The myth of second hand vape

[KenD]

If you put 200 people in a 10x10x10 room without ventilation, you have more to worry about than 40 micrograms of nicotine

How many cubic feet is a normal sized person? At least five, which means that you could just about fit 200 people in a 10x10x10 room if you first run them through a meat grinder and then pack it all really tight. Might be difficult to get an 18650 mod in there though, perhaps a cigalike

Edit: no room for air though

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

 

[Robino1]

Realistically, the only times there would be that many vapers in any room, would be at vape meets. How many of have actually seen other vapers while out? I have not encountered one. Whoops! I forgot that I saw 2 at baggage claim one time.

 

[The Suit]

Book. Marked.

Thank you, sir, I'll be reusing this post to educate some friends

 

[p.opus]

Realistically, the only times there would be that many vapers in any room, would be at vape meets. How many of have actually seen other vapers while out? I have not encountered one. Whoops! I forgot that I saw 2 at baggage claim one time.

Well said.... And again, as you read my original post, All my numbers were WITHOUT VENTILATION. With the modern ventilation systems that are in most public indoor places, then you have to add the rate of air exchange.

Of course that doesn't matter to those who just want to argue.

 

[bcalvanese]

If you put 200 people in a 10x10x10 room without ventilation, you have more to worry about than 40 micrograms of nicotine

I know that. My point is that we need to use real world examples as there are so many variables to consider.

You definately have a valid point, but if studies are done, and it is found that the levels of the 1 or 2 bad things are above a safe level (especially in public places where children may be), the same rules will be put in place as that of smoking.

And, "until" studies are done, the same rules will probably apply as that of smoking too.

I know it sucks, and I'm not bashing your point. I'm just being realistic.

 

[Diogenes]

Stupid job, it makes me miss all the good posts! But first and foremost, I am a man. A guy. Dude. Not a s/he. Or at least that was true the last time I checked. I only crossdress on the third Sunday of every odd month. Old habits are hard to break.

No study can be perfect, especially not an animal model. But from where I'm sitting this looks like an 'until evidence provided to the contrary, can be reasonably presumed safe' situation (with regard to the primary ingredients. The flavourings are another matter entirely).

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. As I've stated in numerous posts thus far, no long-term studies have been done. Therefore, just because we can prove that there is minute amounts of stuff in second-hand vapor doesn't mean that long-term exposure safe. Even the numbers that p.opus have provided only cover short-term exposure. Another poster brought up questions regarding how the monkey test was done, as different dispersal methods can change a substance on a molecular level.

I appreciate you playing devil's advocate, a role I often enjoy myself.
but to demand absolutes that is just not going to happen. When I play
the role I usually try to come up with evidence to buttress my case or position,
you have not done that, but request it of others to satisfy your doubt.
So what do you have for me to create doubts about my vaping

BTW most of us are content that we have given up a very deadly habit
with one that in all probability is much healthier for us.

I didn't realize it at the time, but looking back, I was asking for data that doesn't exist as of yet. Many say that second-hand vapor is safe, etc, etc, but only cite short-term studies, or provide numbers for a 3 hour exposure. But how can anyone know with any certainty other than a best guess that in the long-term second-hand vapor exposure is safe?

Ok, that is fair, you don't think it is safe with all the links provided, no problem, Don't Vape, Don't be around anyone that Vapes, real simple. Vaping has been around for a short time compared to smoking, and how can all the effects be known in such a short time. Is it better than smoking, I say 100%, coughing stopped, I breath easier, have more energy, yes it is better for me. Is it going to be shown down the road to have some harmful effect, I have no idea, and neither do you. To say something is bad because you don't have PROOF it is not just makes you an ***. Get a life and live it.

Rant Over

Time for some and get ready for the mayhem.

Vape On

I'm glad that you feel better about yourself by calling me names, (or in this case asterisks). And I feel better that I flagged your post as a personal attack. See, it's a win-win situation. And now, I've wasted all the time I care to with this response to you.

And finally, p.opus, I'm not about to quote your whole post, I'll just shoot from the hip here. Your numbers only took into account an exposure of 3 hours. 3 hours is not long term. Yes, you proved your position that a 3 hour exposure in a 10x10x10 room sealed room would pose no significant risk. On second thought, I will quote...

I'm tired of arguing. I provided my position. Which was always about concentrations of second hand vape in public places. and all I get back in response are even more absurd suppositions.

Your position was on exposure to concentrations for 3 hours. Not long-term. Frankly I find it absurd that you assume that second-hand vapor is harmless long-term when studies have not been done as of yet.

Ok, I think that covers everyone! Yes, this post is long, but I'd rather wrap everything up in a neat little package rather than pad my post count by answering everyone individually. Wait, maybe I should answer one by one, that way I can become a super-master-ultra-godlike member!

 

[Jman8]

I agree that second hand vapor is probably not near as bad as second hand smoke, but is it completely safe?
We won't know that for certain until the proper studies are done.

What do you mean by completely safe?

 

[Diogenes]

Well said.... And again, as you read my original post, All my numbers were WITHOUT VENTILATION. With the modern ventilation systems that are in most public indoor places, then you have to add the rate of air exchange.

Of course that doesn't matter to those who just want to argue.

Valid point, if the ventilation system that does a constant 100% exchange. Outside of a clean room, I doubt many normal places have a system like that. Also valid if the place was running HEPA filtration, where a 100% exchange wouldn't be needed, as particulates would be filtered out. Those are big "if's" though, because most places just use systems that recycle the air.

 

[Orb Skewer]

You've exposed yourself to be a 'master debator' Diogenes-so the exercise wasn't completely wasted.

 

[Diogenes]

By your name and your avatar, I think you're trying to be cynical but missing the point.

Not at all, I strongly believe I nailed the point dead-on. I chose the username Diogenes after a character created by Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child. Highly intelligent, but insane. The Joker as an avatar, who is also highly intelligent, and also insane. Here's the good news. If I realize that I'm insane, then I'm okay with it. I'm not dangerous insane.

 

[Diogenes]

You've exposed yourself to be a 'master debator' Diogenes-so the exercise wasn't completely wasted.

I feel honored! I get put down twice in the same thread! I'm sure it must feel good to attack people like that.

 

[Jman8]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. As I've stated in numerous posts thus far, no long-term studies have been done. Therefore, just because we can prove that there is minute amounts of stuff in second-hand vapor doesn't mean that long-term exposure safe. Even the numbers that p.opus have provided only cover short-term exposure. Another poster brought up questions regarding how the monkey test was done, as different dispersal methods can change a substance on a molecular level.

What would be another example of something that over the course of 5 years (presumably short term) has been scientifically studied and determined relatively harmless, but then after long term consideration and further scientific study was determined harmful?

Am also curious who carries absolute authority to determine long term safety? Like say after 30 years it is still true, but another then comes along and says, we still don't know what this will do over 70 years (average lifespan of a human). Another then brings up genetics, and says, we won't know for sure (for sure) until 300 years and uses that as the 'reasonable' place to draw the line on long term safety. Who is being the reasonable person here, in terms of exposure and safety?

I didn't realize it at the time, but looking back, I was asking for data that doesn't exist as of yet. Many say that second-hand vapor is safe, etc, etc, but only cite short-term studies, or provide numbers for a 3 hour exposure. But how can anyone know with any certainty other than a best guess that in the long-term second-hand vapor exposure is safe?

Agreed, in questioning how can anyone know for certain than a best guess regarding safety. Which is why I fully believe that every physical object or phenomenon is a best guess proposition; for who has studied the effects of water on the human body for 10,000 years? Not to mention water diluted with a molecule of anything other than pure water. But more practically, all technology new to the market in last 10 years is only met with best guess proposition, and not with any knowledge of certainty regarding safety and exposure.

But I continue to wonder if it is wise to put forth ideas of undeniable and undue harm because of what amounts to best guess propositions based on how we collectively have determined 'appropriate' methods for making such determinations. I contend it is all best guess propositions and not something that fits our current assumptions or rationale for (what truly equals) knowledge. To put it bluntly, I am yet to meet a person, hear of a person, or hear from those who are well studied that actually knows whether anything here on earth is (completely) safe.

 

[Jman8]

I strongly believe I nailed the point dead-on.

Me too! I strongly believe I nailed the point dead-on that there is no knowledge, currently or historically at work, determining the complete safety of anything on planet earth.

 

[UntamedRose]

Knock it off with the personal stuff...attack the post not the poster.

 

[Diogenes]

Jman, I think I get what you're saying. I think. I agree that to some, long-term could be an insane number of years. To me, I'd be happy with a 1-, a 3-, and a 5-year study. At least that would give a better understanding of cumulative effects from exposure.

 

[bcalvanese]

What do you mean by completely safe?

Seriously?

 

[p.opus]

You've exposed yourself to be a 'master debator' Diogenes-so the exercise wasn't completely wasted.

Not quite a "master debator". Diogenes did nothing but bring up supposition. I mentioned 3 hours as it would take 3 hours of exposure to achieve a certain dosage. I don't know what diogenes wants regarding "long term studies". Do you mean long term exposure? If so, I can not imagine that ANYONE would be exposed to second hand vape that equates to being exposed to a vape saturated atmosphere of 112ppm for 13 months continuously.

If we took my assumptions, in a real world setting, lets assume something that is more likely going to be encountered real world.

Let's remember, we're talking about PG here. This stuff does not "accumulate" in the body, so it's not like other stuff where it simply accumulates over time. When you are removed from the environment, your exposure stops.

a 5000 square foot environment with 100 people vaping continuously at 1 ml/hour. I mention no ventilation because that will cause concentrations to be the most, and you don't need 100% air exchange to lower this "WORST CASE" scenario.

5000 with 10 foot celilings equates to 50000 cubic feet which equals 1415842.3 liters or 1415842300 ml (that's 1.4 BILLION) ml.

If they vaped for 8 hours, you are looking at exposure of 800ml/14815842300ml which mathematically is .53 ppm. And this is not .53ppm from time zero. This is a maximum exposure after 8 hours.

Does Diogenes actually recommend that it is necessary to perform a 5 to 10 year study of human exposure to PG in atmospheric concentrations of .53 ppm?

What other product requires that level of testing to be accepted as "safe". What other products in a typical public setting require that level of atmospheric testing?

The level of proof here is NOT 100% safe. It is a risk analysis. Does the above scenario expose individuals to any significant additional risks above that that is experienced otherwise.

There is a level of risk that one assumes when 100 people gather in a public area to eat, drink, and socialize. It's time for Diogenes to stop blabbing about studies and mention something that make me think that based on already performed studies, that exposure of .53 ppm e-juice atmosphere in an 8 hour period provides any statistically relevant possibility of enhanced risk over the inherent risks associated with 100 people gathering publicly.

 

[EddardinWinter]

Valid point, if the ventilation system that does a constant 100% exchange. Outside of a clean room, I doubt many normal places have a system like that. Also valid if the place was running HEPA filtration, where a 100% exchange wouldn't be needed, as particulates would be filtered out. Those are big "if's" though, because most places just use systems that recycle the air.

Absolutely wrong.

Most commercial spaces have an outside air ventilation requirement based on maximum occupancy. Here is the Ashrae Standard.

Vbz = RpPz + RaAz (6-1)
where:
Az = zone floor area: the net occupiable floor area of the
zone m2, (ft2).
Pz = zone population: the largest number of people
expected to occupy the zone during typical usage. If
the number of people expected to occupy the zone
fluctuates, Pz may be estimated based on averaging
approaches described in Section 6.2.5.2. Note: If Pz
cannot be accurately predicted during design, it may
be an estimated value based on the zone floor area and
the default occupant density listed in Table 6.1.
Rp = outdoor airflow rate required per person as determined
from Table 6.1. Note: These values are based on
adapted occupants.
Ra = outdoor airflow rate required per unit area as
determined from Table 6.1.

The formula is rather complex and relies on external source tables to determine final OA CFM requirments.

Not every space complies with this, but most do. One important factor in the formula is: The greater the number of occupants of the space, the more fresh air is required. Only in residential spaces is air permitted to be recycled, since it is believed infiltration will provide adequate ventilation.

Also, any building that has a kitchen has to "make up" the exhaust air taken from the hoods in the kitchen to maintain a net positive pressure in the space. So in any restaurant, there is generally ventilation that greatly exceeds the Ashrae standard.

 

[Jman8]

Jman, I think I get what you're saying. I think. I agree that to some, long-term could be an insane number of years. To me, I'd be happy with a 1-, a 3-, and a 5-year study. At least that would give a better understanding of cumulative effects from exposure.

Yet, to another your "insane number" would be "most reasonable" number.

Who decides? The reasonable person?

 

[UntamedRose]

Jman, I think I get what you're saying. I think. I agree that to some, long-term could be an insane number of years. To me, I'd be happy with a 1-, a 3-, and a 5-year study. At least that would give a better understanding of cumulative effects from exposure.

Hmm but one wouldnt really see the cumulative effects from smoking in only 1,3,5 years..... we already have 5 year vapors.

Now I fall in the camp that I am reasonably sure that ecigs are just generally safe, but especially when compared to regular cigs. However I would like, and do expect some one will do some long term studys more like..10-15-20 years.