The myth of second hand vape

[Uma]

Hm... long term effects.. not 100% safe.. implying the possibility of injury or death .. hm..... now that reminds me of something:

I wonder about the long-term effects of skiing. That activity most certainly is not "100% safe". Far from it.
.

Excellent point. Everything has risk, be it short, medium or long term or a combo thereof like skiing, swimming, etc.

Unfortunately, Skiing, is also on the soon to be banned list too according to the "plan".
Agenda 21 EXPLAINED, full version - YouTube

Oh it's probably in this video come to think of it
http://youtu.be/mddeW_1FxEs

 

[p.opus]

Here's an earlier post by you.



Do you have evidence that vaping is completely safe, without risks whatsoever? No. So therefore, vaping does have some risks, many of which are currently unknown, or at least that's what I pick up as the general consensus here on the forum.

Diogenes: Perhaps you should turn your concern to WiFi. There is no evidence that WiFi is completely safe either. Yet WiFi hotspots are going up without restriction. I can't escape WiFi. Even if I don't own a WiFi router, all my neighbors do... And unlike vape I can't keep out wifi with windows and walls

The electomagnetic radiation used in WiFi HAS been shown to be hazardous, but not in the concentrations as experienced in WiFi. Unlike Vape, which has been shown in higher concentrations to be GRAS or generally regarded as safe.

I fully expect you now to rail against the use of WiFi until studies show that long time exposure to WiFi is safe. Otherwise, your arguments are nothing but arguments.

It's time for you to put up. Either you are against both second hand vape and WiFi because of the lack of studies to show them as safe, or if you accept WiFi as being without significant risk, then you must use the same criteria when looking at second hand vape.

Anything other than that makes your actions hypocritical. (Note I am attacking the action, not the person....)

 

[Diogenes]

blah blah blah, attack on people who's viewpoint is different, blah blah blah

I fixed your post for you. See, I can take attacks by people who have been here from the start of the thread. You are simply carrying a grudge from a previous thread. If you came into this thread without the attacks, I'd actually listen to what you might have to say. But now, everything you post is simply bovine refuse.

 

[Robino1]

I *think* it's just Orb Skewer being silly. He was trying to break fights up with margueritas for a while.

When that didn't work, he started mentioning The Dukes, for reasons I don't fully comprehend.

But I didn't see it anywhere before that...

Ahhh so it was Orb!

Orb, please put Mr. Edd out of his misery and explain. * pleading eyes*



In other news:

The Drexel Study is going to be published in BM Public Health!

That should quiet down the naysayers about that study.

 

[zoiDman]

The point I believe she was trying to make, is that there are many activities that have been shown to be more hazardous to both the participant and non-participant that are "accepted" as normal risk associated with life and are not scrutinized.

...

That's all Well and Good, and think I think there is a Place for the Philosophical Discussion Comparing the Relative Safety of One Things to the Relative Safety of a Completely Non-Related Item.

But if I stand before a Board of Regents who are making a Policy Decision regarding whether or Not to Allow e-Cigarettes to be used and Mention Ski Helmets and or Wi-Fi, soon than Later someone is going to raise their hand and stop me saying...

"We are discussing the Merits of e-Cigarette use here and not whether or not Skiing should be allowed on Campus."

It can be a Fallacy of Inclusion to try an Equate that just because One thing is Considered Safe (or Unsafe) based on the way it was Evaluated that the Same Logic should be Used in Evaluating Another.

e-Cigarettes should be Judged on their Merits and their Merits Only.

 

[Diogenes]

Anjaffm may ruffle some feathers and offend our politically correct sensitivities, but she is fighting for a right that those of us in the United States are taking for granted. She is on the front lines of this battle and we have no right to criticize her, unless we've walked a mile in her shoes. I pray to God we don't need to.

So, because of that, those of us with viewpoints that are different than hers should just sit here and take her abuse?

 

[Orb Skewer]

The Dukes of Hazard are the type of people that have just been described above by Anja and p.opus, the type that feverishly defend the 'there must be something harmfull about vaping/2nd hand vape'-'If we look hard enough and for long enough we will find it'.
These are the people that are doubt mongers-an Anti's dream catch, given evidence to support what we know of vaping, it's chemicals, the harm profiles of those chemicals, detection data (in µg) per cubic meter of air, 7 years of almost zero incidents, and will still and repeatedly pop up to lend a hand to the Antis who are only looking for a grain of doubt, and yet, will type these nonsensical responses, while sitting amid a cloud of their own fug, directly inhaling something they have concerns about, and say "how can we be sure"-.
Seriously, there are far more positively harmfull things going on around you 24/7, fossil fuel burning, commercial operations pumping out millions of tons of hazardous pollution, consumer driven landfills-storing up future problems, the list is endless.

It's Nicotine, PG, VG and food flavourings, vaping is only around 7 years old, these ingredients have been around and extensively used by mankind for a very, very long time. In fact our super computer brains have receptors and metabolic processors for most of it.

 

[p.opus]

e-Cigarettes should be Judged on their Merits and their Merits Only.

But is disingenuous to apply one standard to one product and not the other.

You can not use one set of standards to say one thing is safe and then use a totally different set of standards to state something else is not safe.

The truth is, the arguments for the safety or lack of WiFi are exactly the same arguments we are using to evaluate second hand vape.

But for you to admit that, you lose. And if you take the position that we should regulate wifi until it is "proven" safe, you also lose.

So now you state that it is a fallacy to use the same logiic.... Say's who? YOU? Logic is Logic, it is either faulty or not. Thus the method for determining risk for something that you expose the general public should be basically the same.

You can't simply state that is is a fallacy to use the same logic, when the same logic makes you LOSE.

Sorry, it does not work like that.

 

[zoiDman]

So, because of that, those of us with viewpoints that are different than hers should just sit here and take her abuse?

No... No you Don't Have to.

No One Does.

 

[zoiDman]

But is disingenuous to apply one standard to one product and not the other.

You can not use one set of standards to say one thing is safe and then use a totally different set of standards to state something else is not safe.

As soon as you learn that the World is Not a Perfect Place, and that there are Many Injustices such as the use of Double Standards, that you will be able to see that e-Cigarette Use is a Much More Complex than just about the Safety of people Inhaling 2nd Hand Vapor.

 

[Orb Skewer]

As soon as you learn that the World is Not a Perfect Place, and that there are Many Injustices such as the use of Double Standards, that you will be able to see that e-Cigarette Use is a Much More Complex than just about the Safety of people Inhaling 2nd Hand Vapor.

....and there are some people who like to make it all sound much more exoticaly complex than it actualy is.

 

[p.opus]

As soon as you learn that the World is Not a Perfect Place, and that there are Many Injustices such as the use of Double Standards, that you will be able to see that e-Cigarette Use is a Much More Complex than just about the Safety of people Inhaling 2nd Hand Vapor.

Oh so now when your logic breaks down you go "The world is not a perfect place....blah...blah...blah...Double standard."

The ultimate expression of defeat. You can always break out ...Well life's not fair. Yep, I used that same argument on my children when I could not provide an adequate retort.

Had you simply opened with the "life's not fair" argument, or "there are double standards" argument initially, I might have respected your viewpoint a little more. To which I would reply, that is why it is important that we attempt to educate.

But no, you attack my methodology and findings until your attacks break down in front of irrefutable logic, and then you fall back on the well, the world's not perfect....

Nice......

For the win!!!!

 

[Diogenes]

The point I believe she was trying to make, is that there are many activities that have been shown to be more hazardous to both the participant and non-participant that are "accepted" as normal risk associated with life and are not scrutinized.

It is unknown what are the long term effects of the continual exposure to high frequency radio waves used in WiFi, but WiFi hotspots are popping up everywhere, You can't escape it. Studies may be on going, but there is no political agenda to ban the use of WiFi until it's proven safe.

Society has deemed the "convenience" of WiFi is worth any negligible risk if any. Yet, these same people who will walk into a Starbucks with it's WiFi emitters will scream holy hell if someone is caught vaping.

If you look at this article you see about the "dangers of WiFi", you will seem the exact same type of risk analysis performed for WiFi as I did for second hand vape. (Wi Fi is much less powerful than microwave ovens....Microwaves are directed, WiFi is not.... etc)

Wi-Fi: are there any health risks? | Technology | theguardian.com

I find this quote extremely interesting:


When applied to WiFi, this is perfectly fine, yet, if I were to replace the word Wi-Fi with Second Hand Vape, then all of the sudden some people in this very thread expect us to "try to prove a negative". Why are not these people working as hard to ban WiFi until the risks are determined?

Perhaps Diogenes could turn his attention to WiFi from which one can not escape. Even if I don't have WiFi in my home, my neighbors do, and unlike vape, walls and windows don't keep WiFi out of my home.

What this thread has TRIED to show, through mathematics, is that the concentrations of second hand vapor is low enough to be treated the same as WiFi. Safe until deemed otherwise.

If this were a WiFi forum, and I was actually concerned with WiFi emissions, then maybe I'd care. Plus, unless you know something I don't, one cannot vape WiFi.

What you have shown is concentrations for a 3 hour exposure. 3 hours. 180 minutes. 10800 seconds. In the short-term, you may be right, second-hand vapor is safer. But what about chronic cumulative exposure?

 

[zoiDman]

....and there are some people who like to make it all sound much more exoticaly complex than it actualy is.

That may be True.

But by the same token, there may be some that are making it Sound More Simple than it is.

Oh so now when your logic breaks down you go "The world is not a perfect place....blah...blah...blah...Double standard."

The ultimate expression of defeat. You can always break out ...Well life's not fair. Yep, I used that same argument on my children when I could not provide an adequate retort.

Had you simply opened with the "life's not fair" argument, or "there are double standards" argument initially, I might have respected your viewpoint a little more. To which I would reply, that is why it is important that we attempt to educate.

But no, you attack my methodology and findings until your attacks break down in front of irrefutable logic, and then you fall back on the well, the world's not perfect....

Nice......

For the win!!!!

If you want to Compare e-Cigarette Use to Ski Helmets and or Wi-Fi, then yes, your Methodology is Flawed.

 

[EddardinWinter]

I believe the WiFi analogy is a bit of a sockdolager to the "prove it safe" argument. Here is why:

1) It harms even non-participants (2nd hand WiFi)
2) It is accepted as not entirely safe but there is evidence there is some potential harm, yet it is used in most places of commerce without long-term studies.

So whether on not this thread debate rages on, it is an effective argument against the enemies of vaping. It is an excellent find p.opus. I think it could be quite a useful tool to shatter the "well we can't allow it until it is proven safe" argument that TV personalities, politicians, etc. are bound to use.

While I agree, Zoid, that e-cigarettes must stand on their own merits, standards of safety should be expected to be at some measurable and accepted level. To insist on 100% safety from one activity but to ignore potential dangers of another and permit its rampant use is capricious. The world is unfair. We must call out unfairness when we see it.

WWCJD?
What Would Captain Justice Do??

 

[Robino1]

Let's face it. Cigarettes stink. Many people have been wired to see smoke and think stink. A knee jerk reaction to be sure but nonetheless real. The objection with ecigs is that the vapor mimics smoke almost realistically. Note I did say almost. It does such a fine job that it made switching almost painless for us.

Taking a look at the other side can you see where they are coming from? I'm not talking about ANTZ, I'm talking about the regular population. Educate when and where you can. The general public is quickly viewing ecigs as NOT a bad thing. It is those that are in power that are listening to the hard core ANTZ types that are causing all this grief. Because the Hard Core ANTZ have been on a crusade since before ecigs were even available to the general public.

If we go back to my third sentence, we have all been wired, after many years, to equate that white cloud with something bad. Here is where just maybe we can think about something. Cigs continue to emit a cloud even when one is not being used and just lit. Ecigs only emit a white cloud when being exhaled. Along with our breath. I just did a large sigh....I wonder how far that traveled?

Not sure where I'm going with this. I lost my train of thought. Maybe that ecigs could be considered WAY safer than smoking simply for the fact they don't continue to expel vapor while not being used.

I truly can see the regular persons view that has no knowledge about ecigs. I don't see the other side when the other side has the information they have been given and continue to believe the ANTZ.

 

[Diogenes]

Diogenes: Perhaps you should turn your concern to WiFi. There is no evidence that WiFi is completely safe either. Yet WiFi hotspots are going up without restriction. I can't escape WiFi. Even if I don't own a WiFi router, all my neighbors do... And unlike vape I can't keep out wifi with windows and walls

The electomagnetic radiation used in WiFi HAS been shown to be hazardous, but not in the concentrations as experienced in WiFi. Unlike Vape, which has been shown in higher concentrations to be GRAS or generally regarded as safe.

I fully expect you now to rail against the use of WiFi until studies show that long time exposure to WiFi is safe. Otherwise, your arguments are nothing but arguments.

It's time for you to put up. Either you are against both second hand vape and WiFi because of the lack of studies to show them as safe, or if you accept WiFi as being without significant risk, then you must use the same criteria when looking at second hand vape.

Anything other than that makes your actions hypocritical. (Note I am attacking the action, not the person....)

And perhaps you could stay on the topic you started initially. All you are doing with this WiFi stuff is deflecting, nothing more. And really, you are attacking me, because if I don't bite on the WiFi safety, I'm a hypocrite, according to you.

 

[EddardinWinter]

And perhaps you could stay on the topic you started initially. All you are doing with this WiFi stuff is deflecting, nothing more. And really, you are attacking me, because if I don't bite on the WiFi safety, I'm a hypocrite, according to you.

He was quite careful to attack the position and not you personally, Diogenes.

 

[Diogenes]

The Dukes of Hazard are the type of people that have just been described above by Anja and p.opus, the type that feverishly defend the 'there must be something harmfull about vaping/2nd hand vape'-'If we look hard enough and for long enough we will find it'.
These are the people that are doubt mongers-an Anti's dream catch, given evidence to support what we know of vaping, it's chemicals, the harm profiles of those chemicals, detection data (in µg) per cubic meter of air, 7 years of almost zero incidents, and will still and repeatedly pop up to lend a hand to the Antis who are only looking for a grain of doubt, and yet, will type these nonsensical responses, while sitting amid a cloud of their own fug, directly inhaling something they have concerns about, and say "how can we be sure"-.
Seriously, there are far more positively harmfull things going on around you 24/7, fossil fuel burning, commercial operations pumping out millions of tons of hazardous pollution, consumer driven landfills-storing up future problems, the list is endless.

It's Nicotine, PG, VG and food flavourings, vaping is only around 7 years old, these ingredients have been around and extensively used by mankind for a very, very long time. In fact our super computer brains have receptors and metabolic processors for most of it.

Is that like being almost pregnant? Either there have been incidents, or not.

For the more harmful things going on around us like pollution, that is a global problem. No matter where you or I go, we will be exposed to pollution. Second-hand vapor, on the other hand, is not in the same boat as pollution. It's not even in the same ocean as the SS Pollution. People can avoid second-hand vapor.

 

[p.opus]

If this were a WiFi forum, and I was actually concerned with WiFi emissions, then maybe I'd care. Plus, unless you know something I don't, one cannot vape WiFi.

What you have shown is concentrations for a 3 hour exposure. 3 hours. 180 minutes. 10800 seconds. In the short-term, you may be right, second-hand vapor is safer. But what about chronic cumulative exposure?

No, I can't vape WiFi. I am exposed to it 24/7. At my office, At my house (via my neighbors). Anywhere I turn on a cell phone and detect a wifi signal.

Again, you FAIL to address the question. You talk about studies...blah blah blah... Yet you ignore the potential risks of Wi-Fi, and generally regard it as safe, but don't apply the same standard to second hand vape.

This was never about numbers. It's about the assumption of something being safe using math and logic until proven unsafe. That is generally how we do things. You were the one asking for studies, and when we provided some, you dismissed them out of hand.

So, what is it Diogenes?

Should we be worried about Wi-Fi due to the lack of documentation of long term effects of WiFi usage? If so, then I will accept that same presumption for second hand vape.

However, to say that this is not a wifi forum is the ultimate avoidance. You either accept the methodology or you don't.

If you accept that WiFi should be safe until proven otherwise, you must apply the same logic to second hand vape. Especially considering that WiFi is essentially electromagnetic radiation that has been PROVEN in higher doeses to be damaging.

Sorry......you lose.

BTW.... I attacked the actions as being hypocritical, not you....I specifically put that in. Because I placed you in an indefensible position, you now ask that I stay on topic, which I have never strayed. I have always mentioned that there is no reason to assume that second hand vape is unsafe, and that it should be allowed until proven otherwise. Wi-Fi is another example of something that has been assumed as safe until proven otherwise.

You can't provide one standard to second hand vape and the other to Wifi. If you do, then you are using a double standard, and that in itself is a hypocritical activity.