Inspirational post OP, I've been racking my brains for a New Years Resolution-you guided me to finding one.
The myth of second hand vape
- Thread starter p.opus
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
For PG / VG / nicotine / water / ethanol, I'd submit that in the concentrations we're talking about, and with any decent ventilation at all, it's a non-issue.
For the other ingredients of e-liquid, as many and varied as they are, I think it's an entirely legitimate question.
Here are some studies on PG:
National Vapers Club - Meeting Place for lovers of e-cigarettes, personal vaporizers and all things "fog" producing!
although I think at very high concentrations fog machines have been linked to asthma in stage hands.
Last edited:
Traveled back home and had some time with my cousin. Showed him my thingy and he said," I heard of those no second hand smoke." I smiled. Goodness, not every one believes the drama junk.
Look, It's not my intent to start a flame war here over this issue. It's just that I read on this forum day in and day out how safe vaping is, and again, I agree it is much safer than smoking. But there are people here who come off as vaping crusaders, saying that it's 100% safe, and anyone who says differently is a trouble maker, an ANTZ, a stool for BT/BP. They quote the Drexel study, which was just a review of other studies, not a study onto itself, (and yes, I did read it). Doesn't the FDA do something like that, just review other studies too? And everybody rants on the FDA for doing that. Huh.
Anyway, from Dow Chemical website :
Proof of no harm? Impossible. However, you are certainly free to think what you want once you read the scientific literature.
But to answer your question, this is what I find to be conclusive enough for me to say so...
Peering through the mist: What does the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tell us about health risks
Electronic cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy for tobacco control: A step forward or a repeat of past mistakes?
You don't seem to be familiar with the smear campaign that the FDA started years ago with their false reporting of their own study results.
If you need links they can be provided free of charge.
The first study, the Drexel study, starts off with this :
Make predictions. 'Nuff said there.
The second study you provided :
Yes, ecigs are much safer than analogs. I've already agreed to this point three or four times in this thread already. You said that the health risk is none. Then you give me studies which make predictions, which predictions can be wrong, (ie, people once predicted that the sun revolved around the earth), and a study that says further studies are needed. 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.
P.S. Yes, I am familiar with the FDA smear campaign. That's why I'm not using any of their "studies" in my posts.
Inhalation of the PG vapors appears to present no significant hazard in ordinary applications. However, limited human experience indicates that inhalation of PG mists may be irritating to some individuals. Therefore inhalation exposure to mists of these materials should be avoided. In general, Dow does not support or recommend the use of PG in applications where inhalation exposure or human eye contact with the spray mists of these materials is likely, such as fogs for theatrical productions or antifreeze solutions for emergency eye wash stations."
Glycerin (VG) and Propylene Glycol (PG) are ingredients in some eye drops (and I must say are approved by the FDA):
Lubricant Eye Drops opht : Uses, Side Effects, Interactions, Pictures, Warnings & Dosing - WebMD
So far, you haven't shown any evidence that the risk is higher than "none".
And unless you're going to tell me that you've never been in an automobile, never ridden a bicycle, and never taken a shower, then I'm going to point out that for almost everything else in the world, the acceptable risk level isn't "none". You are setting unrealistically high standards for vaping.
This is true. When anyone dare question possible side effects from vaping, they become ANTS or pariahs. Fact is, just because ingredients have been deemed relatively safe to eat, they haven't been proven to be safe to inhale. There is a difference. Is vaping safer than smoking? No question. Is vaping safer than not vaping? I don't think so.
These threads are basically pointless, in my opinion.
This is a thread about second-hand vapor.
It's safe.
This is not a thread about first-hand vapor.
That is something that at least can be reasonable debated.
I'm sorry, I thought you read the original post. My calculations were based on some pretty outlandish assumptions, such as the vaper himself not absorbing any vapor, the room being ridiculously small, the amount vaped (1ml in an hour) being significantly high, and no ventilation.
And still the exposure of a 100% PG mixture would be on the order of 4 parts per 100 Million.
When dow was releasing it's guidance it was doing so with exposures in orders of magnitude greater than 4 parts per 100 million and even then it stated that it appears to present no significant hazard. It also stated that inhalation may be irritating. Yes it is. It's part of the "throat hit" we seek. But the throat hit does not apply to concentrations of 4 parts per 100 million.
100% safe is never something that can be logically argued nor is it a practical goal.
However, the standard is does second hand vape add any significant ADDITIONAL risk to the health of the surrounding individuals and the answer to that has to be a resounding no.
By the way, the study listed below was performed in 1947. So I would say there are long term studies on the toxicity or lack there of inhalation of propylene glycol.
TESTS FOR THE CHRONIC TOXICITY OF PROPYLEXE GLYCOL AND TRIETHYLENE GLYCOL ON MONKEYS AND RATS BY VAPOR INHALATION AND ORAL ADMINISTRATION
Last edited:
And people have said that it was in the range of 100% safe. They've provided their studies, which I've pointed out the flaws of the studies, one makes predictions, the other says more studies are needed. The bar has already been set by others, not me. I'm simply asking them to show their proof, that's all.
I had to reread your post, I was shocked! You've somehow read my mind, I was going to post the same thing about ingestion vs inhalation.
Hey Diogenes, you ever expose yourself to the sun?
Sunshine is carcinogenic, you know! 8-o
It's also necessary in humans for the synthesis of Vitamin D, a very necessary substance for human health.
Toxicology 101: The poison is in the dose. Hence the OP's initial post.
Sunshine is carcinogenic, you know! 8-o
It's also necessary in humans for the synthesis of Vitamin D, a very necessary substance for human health.
Toxicology 101: The poison is in the dose. Hence the OP's initial post.
Inhalation???? Great...
Here you go.
TESTS FOR THE CHRONIC TOXICITY OF PROPYLEXE GLYCOL AND TRIETHYLENE GLYCOL ON MONKEYS AND RATS BY VAPOR INHALATION AND ORAL ADMINISTRATION
It was done in 1947. Why? Because Proplylene Glycol is used for decontamination of air.....
Ok, then please, please, pretty please, provide some links that say that second-hand vape is safe. And preferably studies that don't include words or phrases like "predictions" or "more studies are needed." If it is safe, the study should unequivocally say so.
You should read through some of the threads about cotton wicks. The common theme is that if cotton is used for surgical applications, then it must be safe to use as a wick.
The fallacy of the arguments in so many of these threads is that if there are worse things, so and so should be safe. That's like saying JimBob killed one person, but since BillyBob killed 2, what JimBob did was all right.
- Status
Similar threads
