The myth of second hand vape

[zoiDman]

Only a Tomnoddy...err...Attercop...errr....ANTZ....errr....Vapor Policeman would argue with that premise, Zoid.

Good Point

My New Years Resolution is to Always wear a Ski Helmet while in a Canoe while trying to Avoid Wi-Fi Hot Spots.

 

[bluecat]

I like the wifi comparison. Just because a good reply to "is that second-hand vapor safe as I walk through your little cloud?" I can reply, "Safer than wifi."

As your walking down the street, someone smacks you on the gluts with a piece of wood. It stings just a little. No harm to you....

Guess that is fine too. It isn't harmful. Just a little sting that you will get over in a min.

It is safer than wifi too.

 

[EddardinWinter]

Ten pages back and I got so sick of seeing the term "ANTz" in every other post so I'm just going to say it. I don't give a damn about ANTZ. The term is thrown out so much I wonder it's an emotional ploy to drum up support through an us vs. them mentality. As far as I'm concerned there is only the path of the curious and objective. Cheerleaders from either side should have no bearing on that path. They're noise to be filtered out.

What have you got against cheerleaders?

You can "filter" those two right over to me, sir.

 

[zoiDman]

Only a Tomnoddy...err...Attercop...errr....ANTZ....errr....Vapor Policeman would argue with that premise, Zoid.

“They made for his noise far quicker than he had expected. They were frightfully angry. Quite apart from the stones no spider has ever like being called Attercop, and Tomnoddy of course, is insulting to anybody

 

[bluecat]

Good Point

My New Years Resolution is to Always wear a Ski Helmet while in a Canoe while trying to Avoid Wi-Fi Hot Spots.

How do I drink my beer then? I wonder what the river police would say.

 

[EddardinWinter]

Good Point

My New Years Resolution is to Always wear a Ski Helmet while in a Canoe while trying to Avoid Wi-Fi Hot Spots.

Don't forget about those Machiavellian, death-dealing rafts!

 

[EddardinWinter]

“They made for his noise far quicker than he had expected. They were frightfully angry. Quite apart from the stones no spider has ever like being called Attercop, and Tomnoddy of course, is insulting to anybody

Excellent pick up, Zoid. I am still ...... off at Peter Jackson for leaving that bit out of the movie.

 

[Anjaffm]

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.

What a wonderful analogy with the Wifi!
You rock, p.opus

Yes, there seem to be those who apply double standards. And twist and turn when called out on their behavior.

Ohhhh did you see where the Drexel Study is going to be published by BMC Public Health? Winning!

That is good news indeed!
A nice, peer-reviewed study. That is great!


.... although it does make one wonder what new fabrications the antis will come up then... apart from "penis envy" (found this in another thread, from one of the antis who also post in this one, and I am still enjoying a good chuckle )

 

[bluecat]

What have you got against cheerleaders?

You can "filter" those two right over to me, sir.

Are there two more?

 

[Diogenes]

So this is your standard for a personal attack, eh?

Okay. I think the merits of your accusation of a personal attack speaks for itself.


As to the rest of your post...

His WiFi argument is compelling, since it speaks to the standards of safety a reasonable person can expect from a potential hazard. You can ignore the argument, or refute it. Simply saying you won't indulge him does not make his point invalid in my book. I believe it is both relevant and an effective argument, as I stated previously.

I'll give you that it is nicer than saying, "Anything other than that makes you an *********."

I did read your previous post about it, I just find it funny that he now needs a completely unrelated issue to solidify his point. "If you accept WiFi as being safe, then you just have to accept that second-hand vapor is safe too, otherwise you need to argue that WiFi isn't safe as well, or your actions are hypocritical" is a sad, sad way to try to "win" an argument in my book.

 

[EddardinWinter]

Are there two more?

There are always more, sir.

 

[zoiDman]

Excellent pick up, Zoid. I am still ...... off at Peter Jackson for leaving that bit out of the movie.

Yeah... A Glaring Omission if you ask Me.

“Old fat spider spinning in a tree!
Old fat spider can’t see me!
Attercop! Attercop!
Won't you stop,
Stop your spinning and look for me!

Old Tomnoddy, all big body,
Old Tomnoddy can’t spy me!
Attercop! Attercop!
Down you drop!
You'll never catch me up your tree!

Lazy Lob and crazy Cob
are weaving webs to wind me.
I am far more sweet than other meat,
but still they cannot find me!

Here am I, naughty little fly;
you are fat and lazy.
You cannot trap me, though you try,
in your cobwebs crazy.”

 

[Jay-dub]

What a wonderful analogy with the Wifi!
You rock, p.opus

Yes, there seem to be those who apply double standards. And twist and turn when called out on their behavior.



That is good news indeed!
A nice, peer-reviewed study. That is great!


.... although it does make one wonder what new fabrications the antis will come up then... apart from "penis envy" (found this in another thread, from one of the antis who also post in this one, and I am still enjoying a good chuckle )

Can't even be direct with your accusations? And still name calling. Double-cowardly. LOL! I'm an anti alright. Anti-B.S.

 

[EddardinWinter]

I'll give you that it is nicer than saying, "Anything other than that makes you an *********."

I did read your previous post about it, I just find it funny that he now needs a completely unrelated issue to solidify his point. "If you accept WiFi as being safe, then you just have to accept that second-hand vapor is safe too, otherwise you need to argue that WiFi isn't safe as well, or your actions are hypocritical" is a sad, sad way to try to "win" an argument in my book.

It speaks to standards of safety. The issue of how safe is safe has raged off and on throughout this thread. Using WiFi as an example of acceptable safety standards is certainly not an "unrelated issue" to part of the ongoing discussion in the thread.

 

[EddardinWinter]

Can't even be direct with your accusations? And still name calling. Double-cowardly. LOL! I'm an anti alright. Anti-B.S.

And a documented Anti-Cheerleaderite.

 

[bluecat]

It speaks to standards of safety. The issue of how safe is safe has raged off and on throughout this thread. Using WiFi as an example of acceptable safety standards is certainly not an "unrelated issue" to part of the ongoing discussion in the thread.

There is a difference though. One has become generally acceptable. The other has not. The world cannot function without wifi. The world can function without vaping.

I happen to agree with Dio not really two things to compare. You may as well compare car exhaust to vaping.

 

[BillyTheWild]

The trouble with this thread (and threads like this) is the unintentional – b/c they don’t read the posts carefully – and the intentional – b/c the commenters are zealots - strawman arguments that got thrown around.

One, NOBODY here has ever said the e-cig should be banned. Yet comments like, “so are you going to ban such and such because of this and that” are tossed around a lot here.

Two, NOBODY here has ever asked for the absolute which we all known is rather unrealistic. Yet comments like, “nothing is 100% safe” or “too much of anything is bad” or, “so you are going to stop living because everything carries risks” are frequently made.

Fact of the matter is throughout history a lot of things that we did, used or consumed had been considered harmless and risk-free until they turned out to be not so. Since e-cig is such a young phenomenon, it does warrant more studies. That’s all. Nobody is advocating a ban and nobody has stopped vaping – I am vaping right now as I type this post.

The irony is this:

We all know that gov’t regulation is coming sooner or later. It’s just a matter of time. Knowing this, if we really care about vaping, shouldn’t we encourage more studies to be done so that when the time comes we will have more evident to show for the argument?

We can sit here and argument all day long about how we don’t ban skiing and sun-bathing even though these activities carry risks. But really, when the time comes, are we going to Congress with this argument? I wouldn’t. Instead, I would try to arm myself with studies upon studies done by reputable scientists. That’s what we need. The attitude that “we don’t need more studies” and that “anyone who thinks otherwise should just quit vaping and go you-know-what themselves” is actually hurting instead of helping the vaping community.

 

[Diogenes]

Did I already mention that you and I both know, the studies you seek are not available. I do not know of any specific studies that have tracked the long term effects of continuous exposure to low levels of second hand vape.

However, I also mentioned that based on studies that HAVE been been performed on PG and based on our experience using PG and other ingredients, and by calculating the worst case concentrations of second hand vape, then vape should be considered safe until otherwise.

The studies have been on exposure for a very short time. Your worst case concentrations were for 3 hours, not several hours a day times X amount of days. I have repeated this fact so many times, I feel like a broken record. I bet even Hellen Keller could understand what I am saying at this point.

It is the same logic I use for WiFi.

We do not have any studies that have determined the long term effects for WiFi. A risk analysis was done based on the intensity of the radiation emitted from these devices, and it was determined that the use of these products are "generally safe". Thus until proven otherwise, they should be considered safe.

The fact that you need to use logic for an unrelated issue shows me that you will do anything to win. It's sad, really.

This is one thing you and I both agree on.

I'm too lazy to look back through my posts to see if I actually agreed that WiFi was safe or not, but honestly, who cares?

Yet, when I use the same logic and methodology with Second Hand Vape, somehow you need studies proving a negative. Why is that?

Because we were originally talking about second-hand vapor and long-term safety. Not WiFi.

I have never felt unsure of my position, I have just pointed out the fallacy of your logic, and you want studies on what I truly put down as a completely hypothetical situation. How do you "study" a hypothetical.

If you were so sure of your position, why do you bring an unrelated issue into the mix? Let your position stand or fall on it's own. You can't, so you need to bring in unrelated issues to solidify your point.

For the studies you seek, then the behavior has to be allowed so that the studies can be performed, but according to you, we can't allow it until the studies are done, which puts you in a Win Win scenario.

I'm calling you out on that.

You can't on one side argue that we need studies to prove something is safe, and then prohibit that behavior which prevents those studies from being performed in a real life setting.

My position has always been that we treat second hand vape as "generally safe" until otherwise. The WiFi arguement is something else that we do this with. This will allow the studies you ask for. But what you want to do is treat second hand vape as hazardous until proven otherwise.

Which I can ask you to provide studies that show harm...Which of course, you cannot do.

What?? I'm so dumbfounded by what you say here, I really have no idea what to say. When have I said about prohibiting behavior which prevents studies from being done? And really what behavior are you even talking about?? I have never said that people shouldn't breathe second-hand vapor, what I have said is that without more studies, we cannot accurately say that second-hand vapor is completely safe. Simply, you need to clarify what you are supposedly calling me out on.

 

[zoiDman]

There is a difference though. One has become generally acceptable. The other has not. The world cannot function without wifi. The world can function without vaping.

I happen to agree with Dio not really two things to compare. You may as well compare car exhaust to vaping.

Ding Ding Ding... We have a Winner.

 

[Anjaffm]

I'm an anti alright. Anti-B.S.

And a documented Anti-Cheerleaderite.

yes, yes... also a documented advocate of "penis envy" (posting No 190)

That .. uhm... "theory" speaks for itself. And not necessarily "for" the proponent of such an .. unscientific.. opinion. *very sweet smile*

...............

The world cannot function without wifi.

I do wonder how the world ever continued to turn, how human beings ever survived - without Wifi
Yes, yes, thousands of years, some of the greatest inventions of mankind (including the wheel), all without Wifi - yes yes, that must all be an illusion....