The myth of second hand vape
- Thread starter p.opus
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I agree this is a "need" to be filled. These are quite reasonable benchmarks. I think Zoid has pointed out many times that the manufacturers have failed to help finance some of this stuff and bear a portion of the blame. I agree with that as well.
Do we all agree that second hand vapor is at least 10 times safer than second hand smoke? I think the number is much, much higher, but I think maybe if we all agreed what range of safety we were debating over it might help clarify a few things. Thoughts?
IMO, what we are up against is:
If I am exposed just one time for 1 minute to second-hand vapor, what will the long term effects be on me from that exposure, even assuming I never encounter second-hand vapor again?
The myth perpetuates the idea that:
a) no one knows (for sure) what that effect will be
b) for now, we can assume, you will not be completely safe from undue harm from such exposure
c) therefore, it is best to always avoid second-hand vapor
Enter the anti-vaper with a few other choice considerations of why it is never a good thing to vape anywhere.
Hmm a one year study. Does living with a non vaping, non smoking spouse qualify?
I've been vaping in the house, car, hotel rooms, bedroom (with door closed) with him by my side for well over a year. Funny thing.....he had a cold last March that never fully developed. He is starting to get a cold (sick lady in the seat behind us in the plane :blink). I will keep you posted if that fully develops.
He is a good boy and goes to his doctor to have his blood work done regularly. Ya know....that pesky cholesterol number. I should go with him next time and have them check for nic.....also to have his lungs looked at. Not a bad idea!
I've been vaping in the house, car, hotel rooms, bedroom (with door closed) with him by my side for well over a year. Funny thing.....he had a cold last March that never fully developed. He is starting to get a cold (sick lady in the seat behind us in the plane :blink). I will keep you posted if that fully develops.
He is a good boy and goes to his doctor to have his blood work done regularly. Ya know....that pesky cholesterol number. I should go with him next time and have them check for nic.....also to have his lungs looked at. Not a bad idea!
Add to this that P.opus does his example in a situation with zero ventilation. This just will not happen in 95% of commercial spaces. The minimum Ashrae standard is 5 CFM per person. So each minute, five cubic feet of fresh outdoor air must be introduced into the space. Also this calculation is based on MAXIMUM occupancy. So 98% of the time, there is a much greater ventilation quantity in the space than is needed. If the space is at 50% occupancy, then 10 cubic feet of fresh air per minute is coming in to the space. Depending on the space size, you are experiencing many air changes per hour.
Simply put, the vapor you breathed out 20 minutes ago is so diluted it can be viewed as inconsequential.
Yes, that is what we're up against. And I was trying to prove how irrational that supposition is. When Cell Phones first were in use, there were concerns about increased cancer risks due to exposure from cell phones. People even bought "cell phone shields". Yet even they were brought up, they were never used to ban cell phone use in public.
Nearly every public place has free WiFi, but no one has done long term studies on my increased risk due to the exposure I have to the high frequency radio waves that I am exposed to daily exposure to WiFi hotspots.
If I were to ask for such studies, or even suggest that such studies be done, I would be laughed at as being alarmist and completely unreasonable.
Based on existing studies on PG exposure, I find the exposure risks of second hand risk to be significantly lower than my continuous exposure to cell phone and wifi radiation. But since you can't see radio waves, no one brings it up.
It is a plausible way to do a study.
Perhaps we here could do a study on how studies are done. If that meets your approval.
(the square root of the vapor (divided by the sum of the flavor (multiplied by the power of the throat hit)) equals the total vape experience)
This is in no way effected by the number of ppm of what comes out of your mouth on the exhale.
Or the amount of air displacement.
Or the number of years, decades, centuries, etc that we study this for.
Things are what they are, and we can only see how they pan out over the years , and just hope they pan out the way we hope they do.
This is in no way effected by the number of ppm of what comes out of your mouth on the exhale.
Or the amount of air displacement.
Or the number of years, decades, centuries, etc that we study this for.
Things are what they are, and we can only see how they pan out over the years , and just hope they pan out the way we hope they do.
I would also add this, with modern Energy Recovery Ventilation (ERV) units, the cost of supplying nearly 100% outside air to a space is quite affordable. These units pass the total exhaust/return leaving a space over one or more heat wheels. The wheels grab the energy from the leaving air stream and transfer it into the incoming ventilation air. A nice double wheel ERV can recover 75% of the energy in design-day conditions (extreme hot or cold) to make the energy cost of ventilation in the space quite low.
I have designed a space like this for a local restaurant owner who wishes to add a "Cigar Bar" in his establishment. I guarantee a non-smoker can be in the same room as a cigar smoker and experience a higher indoor air quality than any room in his house if this system is implemented. I am going to monitor the LEED IAQ test requirements of air hazards for one year in this bar as part of my contract, and I will be happy to share with anyone interested. Probably no one...
My point is, there is no logical reason that indoor smoking should not be permitted with a properly designed ventilation system. Designing a system to accommodate vaping? I think ASHRAE minimum ventilation requirements already do.
I have designed a space like this for a local restaurant owner who wishes to add a "Cigar Bar" in his establishment. I guarantee a non-smoker can be in the same room as a cigar smoker and experience a higher indoor air quality than any room in his house if this system is implemented. I am going to monitor the LEED IAQ test requirements of air hazards for one year in this bar as part of my contract, and I will be happy to share with anyone interested. Probably no one...
My point is, there is no logical reason that indoor smoking should not be permitted with a properly designed ventilation system. Designing a system to accommodate vaping? I think ASHRAE minimum ventilation requirements already do.
I'm sorry that I wasn't explicit in my posts. Long-term experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Something that studies cumulative effects, not one time occurrences. For example, a study following staff in a vape-friendly establishment, or even people who a vape-friendly establishment with regularity, and who do not vape themselves, and the health effects after 6 months, 1 year, 3 years, etc. That is a long-term study. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear on this, although I figured it was understood what I meant.
Ok, we seem to be focusing on PG here, most likely because that was the honestly the only chemical that I could find something regarding it on short notice. But as we all know, e-liquid is made up with other components, not just PG.
Ok, we've bumped up the 3 hour figures up to 8 hour figures. My point is on a period of long-term exposure, realistically anywhere between 3 and 8 hours, for again 6 months, 1 year, 3 years, etc. Cumulative exposure, not short-duration, one time only exposure.
Well, yes, as that would make it a long-term study.
I have no idea, nor do I care about other products. I care about cumulative exposure to second-hand vape over a longer period of time. That is what this thread is about, isn't it?
What does 100 people gathering publicly have to do with possible cumulative effects of second-hand vapor? I don't really understand what you are getting at here. In your original post, you set out to debunk the myth that second-hand vapor is harmful. But you only covered a one-time exposure, not repeated exposure. You said it's absurd to see second-hand vapor as a hazard, when in all reality, you have no idea what the cumulative effects would be, because if you did, you most likely would have stated them by now, and this thread would not have dragged on this far.
But there are thousands of us out there that live in the same situation. And if he shows zero nic, doesn't that say Something?
Just had a thought... for someone that can develop phone apps... what if there was a phone app that will take a video/picture of people that would capture exhaled breath and identify whether it is "healthy" air or "unhealthy" air. Think of all the possibilities. Doctors/scientists would have a birdseye view of how contagious diseases spread.
Heck, it could even substantiate some of the claims that vapor from an ecig kills someone else's bacterial breath that is floating in the air.
Until someone comes up with something like this, and/or 30 years have elapsed since the inception of the ecig in order to determine if it is "safe" I will continue to vape while threads like this one continue to capture people's imagination.
Heck, it could even substantiate some of the claims that vapor from an ecig kills someone else's bacterial breath that is floating in the air.
Until someone comes up with something like this, and/or 30 years have elapsed since the inception of the ecig in order to determine if it is "safe" I will continue to vape while threads like this one continue to capture people's imagination.
My definition of what completely safe means equals your definition of completely safe?
And is how you have been using it thus far in this thread?
Zero nic. It says that. The absence of nicotine does not necessarily mean zero harm, Ms Robin.
Happy New Year! I wish you had been around at midnight!
I agree completely. I believe that vaping is safer than smoking, and second-hand vape is safer than second-hand smoke, but both carry risks. What gets me is when asked if first-hand and second-hand vapor is safe, many say yes, and leave it at that. There is no mention that there are unknown risks at this point, due to lack of safety data. Why can't we be honest with people regarding that fact?
You asked him "Seriously?"
He was serious. Jman was asking a serious question. Completely safe might mean one thing to you and another thing to him. What if completely safe to me meant equal to or better air quality than I expect in an indoor shopping mall in an urban environment. What if completely safe to you is equal to or better than pure air in the country. What is completely safe?
So when I say he doesn't play, I mean he asks serious questions for serious matters. He is not asking to be cute.
- Status
Similar threads
