The myth of second hand vape

[zoiDman]

Hi Folks... Devil's Advocate here again. Hope you All are having a Happy New Year!

I wonder what things would be like if e-Cigarettes had been Banned in Non-Smoking Areas when e-Cigarettes first started to Appear? Say in 2009.

The reason I wonder is that I Smoked Long enough to see Indoor Bans come to Kalifornia and all the Rage and Controversy that accompanied them when they did.

But Today, I see no New Smokers sitting around and Complaining that they should be able to Smoking in Movie Theaters. Or in Wal-Mart. Or Where ever Smoking is not Allowed.

If Bans had been Enacted in 2009, would we even be having these Debates. Or would be Happily be going about our Business. And Probably vaping a Little Less on any Given Day?

 

[EddardinWinter]

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?

I hope so. For the record, I take no issue with your challenges. I agree that second hand vapor cannot be assumed to be 100% safe. I don't think 100% safety is required of any substance.

I find this sort of debate useful. Did you read my posts on ventilation requirements? They are quite relevant to the hazards of second hand vapor! I think when we consider the likely dilution of vapor, we can become much more comfortable with the safety level of second hand vapor. I think that starting with an assumption of 10 times more safe than tobacco smoke is a useful benchmark if we all agree to it.

 

[bcalvanese]

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?

I guess, if you say so.

Sorry but I don't know what your point is.

If you are saying... Is air completely safe?... My answer would be... probably not.

Or maybe you are just trying to make me look stupid for some reason, in which case I would say... I'm of average intelligence, but maybe you are much smarter than me.

I do have pretty good common sense though.

 

[Robino1]

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 was around here.......OH! Never mind. I think I know what you mean

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?

Whether it is completely safe for me to use or not, I'm willing to take the chance that it is well over 50% safer than smoking. As for being safe for my loved ones to be around? Yeah, I think the risk is very, very minimal. If at all.

 

[zoiDman]

BTW - You know your in a Hot Thread when after you make a Mid-Sized Post, the Elevator Bar on the Right of your Screen Free Falls for 700 Milliseconds or so and there are 10 or 12 New Posts before Yours.

LOL

 

[wv2win]

............Maybe I'm one of the only skeptics here, who would like to have solid evidence that vaping is safe. Once I see the data that it's 100% safe, I'll gladly drink the kool-aid, and start bashing newcomers who say otherwise...........

I would like to see you or any of the other Vaping Police on ECF, provide two or three examples of any substance that humans ingest either intentionally or unintentionally, that has been proven to be 100% safe. Unless you can do that, the "bar" you are erecting for the safety of vaping is irresponsibly absurd.

 

[EddardinWinter]

Hi Folks... Devil's Advocate here again. Hope you All are having a Happy New Year!

I wonder what things would be like if e-Cigarettes had been Banned in Non-Smoking Areas when e-Cigarettes first started to Appear? Say in 2009.

The reason I wonder is that I Smoked Long enough to see Indoor Bans come to Kalifornia and all the Rage and Controversy that accompanied them when they did.

But Today, I see no New Smokers sitting around and Complaining that they should be able to Smoking in Movie Theaters. Or in Wal-Mart. Or Where ever Smoking is not Allowed.

If Bans had been Enacted in 2009, would we even be having these Debates. Or would be Happily be going about our Business. And Probably Vaping a Little Less on any Given Day?

If the bans were enacted in 2009, I would not have started vaping in 2012. I would be smoking, still 45 pounds heavier, and much less healthy than I am today. The absence of bans for this time is why I vape! I would not be happily vaping at all, and you and I would have likely never met! Wouldn't that have been tragic?

 

[KenD]

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?

Yes, it certainly does. And that is in fact how actual long term studies are done (though in this case not instigated by a researcher). Long term studies of humans in a fully controlled setting cannot be done due to research ethical stipulations. An actual long term study of the effects of second hand vape would include a number of people who live with someone who vapes, checkups in 1, 3, 5, and 10 years (or so), and include a control group of people who are not subjected to second hand vape. The study of one person, as suggested here, cannot be generaliseable but is nonetheless suggestive of potential outcomes of a more comprehensive study (it could be called a pilot study). Please do this and let us know what the results are!

PS. I'm a social scientist, not a medical expert - and I primarily do qualitative not quantitative studies - but I'm well versed in research methodology and do know how studies in different fields are actually done

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

 

[Jman8]

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.

According to the Wikipedia link, the 3 years wouldn't necessarily constitute long term study. Here on this thread and just about every thread on every vaping forum that I've participated on, 3 years would not constitute long term study.

I believe, it will be studied over the long term and that it will likely never stop being studied, thus it will be ongoing.
For this to occur and be applicable to 'real world' it requires us vapers to vape now and over the duration of the foreseeable future. As the short term studies support the argument for short term risk, I believe we can proceed forward, full (ahem) steam ahead. For future generations and those wishing to conduct studies, I advocate for vaping everywhere. We can assume that in x amount of years a lab will be created where no vaping has occurred in the enclosed space and that will be the place where non-exposure will be measured and compared.

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?

This thread is concerned with any period of time, and not necessarily only long term exposure. Because as the Wikipedia link notes, and as I have noted, who decides on what is a reasonably sufficient amount of time for long term effects from exposure?

The myth of second-hand vapor is that it plausibly is causing undue harm because we don't know for sure what the ingredients are and how those ingredients (when vaped and exhaled) affect other humans. The myth further postulates that we can assume it is not (completely) safe.

 

[p.opus]

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.

I understand what you are asking for, and as you and I both know, those studies have yet to be performed.

So where do we go from here?

Do we ban indoor vaping until such studies are done? If so, how do you expect the studies to be performed? What reason do you believe that second hand vape would be any more hazardous to surrounding individuals than already existing contaminants found in the air in a typical eating establishment (perfume, cooking oils, cleaning supplies, air sanitizing products, etc. etc. etc.)

It is my belief that with the studies that HAVE been done, it is a "relatively safe" assumption to make that second hand vape poses no significant public health risk. All I ask is that second hand vape be treated the same as any other product released to the public.

Nothing in second hand vape justifies the additional scrutiny.

 

[spartanstew]

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.

No, one test subject is not a plausible way to do a study. If you honestly think it is, all of your posts just lost any weight they might have had.

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?

Thousands participating would be different, you stated just your husband. And him showing zero nic doesn't say anything in an isolated case. My grandfather smoked cigarettes for 70 years and died at the age of 92 with no signs of Cancer. So, we should deduce from that that smoking has zero risk of Cancer? No.

 

[zoiDman]

If the bans were enacted in 2009, I would not have started vaping in 2012. I would be smoking, still 45 pounds heavier, and much less healthy than I am today. The absence of bans for this time is why I vape! I would not be happily vaping at all, and you and I would have likely never met! Wouldn't that have been tragic?

So you Wouldn't have switched to Vaping if there were Bans in Effect in 2012? Why Is that?

To Me, the Health Benefits of Vaping over Smoking are the Same if I can't Vape inside Wal-Mart as if I Can. Maybe even Greater.

 

[bcalvanese]

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.

I just answered his question (at least what my impression is of what he is asking).

Seems to be a very smart person, but I think he also likes to try to make other people feel less smart than he is. At least that is what I am beginning to feel like in this thread, but I could be reading him the wrong way.

Are you his spokesman?

 

[Robino1]

So you Wouldn't have switched to Vaping if there were Bans in Effect in 2012? Why Is that?

To Me, the Health Benefits of Vaping over Smoking are the Same if I can't Vape inside Wal-Mart as if I Can. Maybe even Greater.

If bans were in place in the year 2012, I would never have entertained the thought of even trying e-cigs. Simply for the fact that bans, to my mind, would have meant that vaping was no safer than smoking. That is the message being sent with these bans.

 

[EddardinWinter]

So you Wouldn't have switched to Vaping if there were Bans in Effect in 2012? Why Is that?

To Me, the Health Benefits of Vaping over Smoking are the Same if I can't Vape inside Wal-Mart as if I Can. Maybe even Greater.

I would have seen it as a difficult transition with little/much less upside. Don't you think the greater degree of freedom vaping is a large consideration to many vapers? Maybe not all, maybe half...maybe even a third. My point is that vaping has made my life better, so if we get 33% more people into vaping because of there being more vape friendly places than smoke friendly places, it makes defense of public vaping a very important consideration.

Even if you disagree, do you follow my logic?

 

[wv2win]

...........................
If you want to wait until there are "unequivocal" findings, then you'll have to wait until the end of time.
The rest of the world takes the information they have been given and makes a reasoned judgement about what they believe...................

I think the earth is round, and revolves around the sun.
But people didn't always think so, I'll give you that.

You have hit on the crux of the issue for the Vaping Police on ECF. They appear to not believe that anyone is capable of "reasoned judgement". Thus we must resort to the lowest common denominator of ignorance, which "in action" results in "vaping = smoking" and we should never act as if it doesn't.

 

[zoiDman]

If bans were in place in the year 2012, I would never have entertained the thought of even trying e-cigs. Simply for the fact that bans, to my mind, would have meant that vaping was no safer than smoking. That is the message being sent with these bans.

That is an Interesting take on things.

I wonder what the Coming Tsunami of Bans in 2014 will do to the Trend of People Trying e-Cigarettes for the First Time?

 

[Jman8]

Sorry but I don't know what your point is.

If you are saying... Is air completely safe?... My answer would be... probably not.

Or maybe you are just trying to make me look stupid for some reason, in which case I would say... I'm of average intelligence, but maybe you are much smarter than me.

I do have pretty good common sense though.

Here, let me revisit where this tangent started. From when you said (in post #197):

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.

I was curious on what you mean by completely safe.

My point, as has already been noted on this thread, is that it will never be found to be completely safe, because a) nothing is and b) we will always have/need more time to study it, thus those who claim certainty today about it (or anything) being completely safe are ones that I, or anyone, could challenge if the bar is set to standard of completely safe.

"Proper studies" -IMO- are not what will make for vaping be deemed completely safe. Proper wisdom will, but not, so called, proper studies.

 

[EddardinWinter]

I just answered his question (at least what my impression is of what he is asking).

Seems to be a very smart person, but I think he also likes to try to make other people feel less smart than he is. At least that is what I am beginning to feel like in this thread, but I could be reading him the wrong way.

Are you his spokesman?

I was trying to make a joke and make light of the situation with my first post. Check my posts out in this thread. I use humor frequently.

I then answered YOUR follow up question to ME directly and honestly. Now you ask me a loaded question that implies that the mighty Jman needs (or would even want) my defense or spokesmanship. It seems you are taking my answers quite personally. That might be a mistake on your part.

I have no personal issue with you, nor do I want one. Fair enough?

 

[Robino1]

That is an Interesting take on things.

I wonder what the Coming Tsunami of Bans in 2014 will do to the Trend of People Trying e-Cigarettes for the First Time?

If I can take my thoughts just a bit farther, ANTZ types want those bans to send exactly that message. That vaping is just as harmful and disgusting as they think cigarette smoking is.....to them.