I don't know why you keep bringing up those irrelevant issues. It's sad, really....or is it....I am sad about my own hypocritical failure to bring them up?
I will get back to you on this.
The myth of second hand vape
- Thread starter p.opus
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I don't know why you keep bringing up those irrelevant issues. It's sad, really....or is it....I am sad about my own hypocritical failure to bring them up?
I will get back to you on this.
The world once did function completely fine without WiFi. In fact it functioned well without cell phones, Radio, and any other "modern convenience" we developed.
Yet we CHOSE to treat these inventions as "safe until proven otherwise". It's called risk analysis.
I was applying this same logic to second hand vape. There have been studies on all of the ingredients in e-juice, and other than nicotine, they have been shown to be safe. In the case of Nicotine, I used math and hypothetical situations to construct a worse case scenario to show that nicotine exposure would be no greater than background exposure to naturally occurring nicotine.
I have been asked to show studies for hypothetical situations and I have conceeded on many occasions that THERE ARE NO KNOWN STUDIES ON THE LONG TERM EFFECTS OF CONTINUOUS EXPOSURE TO LOW LEVELS OF PG. However, based on what studies we have performed (i.e. short term continuous exposure to HIGH levels of PG), that there is no reason to expect harm.
By the way that is EXACTLY the same logic that was used to determine the safety of Cell Phone and Wi-Fi emissions. We knew the short term effects of exposure to high levels of electromagnetic radiation, but we then used those studies to postulate the most likely effects of long term exposure to low levels of electromagnetic radiation. Based on those findings, Cell Phone and Wi-Fi use was allowed to be developed and widely adopted. This was all done without any actual studies being done. Why?!!??? Because there has not been a perceived need. We are operating on the ASSUMPTION that long term exposure to low level electromagnetic radiation is safe until we find examples otherwise. At that point studies will be funded and the actual effects known.
This is how we typically "progress". We use our past experience and what we know about something and then assume that something is safe until proven otherwise. If it is proven otherwise, we either try to modify it to make it safer, or abandon it for something safer.
Yet somehow, many people here, choose to ignore this basic human behavior because to do so would weaken their position.
NOT ONE OF THE CRITICS HERE HAS PUT FORWARD ANY RATIONAL REASON OR STUDIES THAT WOULD JUSTIFY NOT TREATING SECOND HAND VAPE AS SAFE UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE.
Yet this is all that I ask. Treat Second Hand Vape as safe until proven otherwise. Definitely perform studies. But to postulate that one must treat second vape as hazardous until studies are performed and then support the restriction of second hand vape in public places so that no such studies can be performed are simply being disengenuous.
BTW, The world can function without "drinking" but no one is calling for a complete ban of alcohol. Or if they are, they are being laughed out of existence. The necessity of one product over another does not determine whether or not something is viewed as safe or unsafe.
Last edited:
I'm willing to compare car exhaust to vaping. One is known to emit dangerous crap, and has been known to kill people. Vaping, on the other hand, hasn't.
But that doesn't keep Diogenes from wanting to run around saying "Vaping is Dangerous!".
About safety being the only factor...
It is not the only one, but it is the most important one for vapers to skewer if we are to stop the FDA/ANTZ/Vapor Police/Spiders of Mirkwood.
It is not the only one, but it is the most important one for vapers to skewer if we are to stop the FDA/ANTZ/Vapor Police/Spiders of Mirkwood.
do you mean that somebody should provide some ... uhm.. food?
Ok, here comes food:
Few dare call it bribery: OK grants, e-cigs, and another brick in the wall « Watchdog.org
I did acquiesce earlier in the thread and have dropped the 100% safe. I gave that stance up many, many posts ago. When asking for data regarding long-term exposure, and only getting data that deals with exposures in the neighborhood of 3 hours, what would you do? I dismiss because it is short-term. I agree that short-term, SHV doesn't appear to be that harmful, but we don't know what long-term exposure does.
I use big fonts because it seems that things in regular font gets missed on a constant basis. I figured if I used something larger, people would stop arguing the point that I'm answering right now because it's kind of hard to miss something that big.
No. But I'm referring specifically to Diogenes claiming "there is a risk in 2nd hand vapor". If you're going to claim there is a risk, you should have some evidence. She has repeatedly told that lie without evidence.
Yah Think?
I have Only posted it about as Many Times as wv2win has used the term Vaping Police, but one seems to think there is.
Kinda One Dimensional if you Ask Me.
But No Body asked me so I'll just wait another 100 Posts or so and Ask it Again.
Ok I'll ask, what are they Zoidy?
In fact, I think this would definately warrant a new thread-a stand alone.
In fact, I think this would definately warrant a new thread-a stand alone.
Last edited:
When have I said vaping is dangerous??? I did say it was safer than smoking, but not without it's own set of risks. If you get "Vaping is Dangerous" out of something like that, I don't know what to say that wouldn't come off as a personal attack.
But hey, keep making stuff up. Winning!!
Saying "We don't know" is different from "This is dangerous" or "this is risky". You don't *know* if it's risky, you don't *know* if it's dangerous. I've told people "We don't know long term, it's possible there are some negative effects on vapers, but compared to smoking, it's vastly healthier". What you tell them is "It's risky, it's dangerous". It's a very different thing, because you are trying to make it sound scary.
You want long term studies, controlled tests done over decades, done on something that's only been popular for a few years. That, by definition, can't happen. It hasn't happened with anything else, like the wifi example, because it's impossible. What you're asking for is magic.
I'll have to go back and Re-Read Diogenes Post.
Because I don't remember see that He/She posted that there was a Risk in 2nd Hand Vapor. A Potential Risk, a Possible Risk, sure.
I keep asking you to show evidence of those risks, and you keep refusing.
And no, I'm not digging through all of your lies to find the one about "vaping is dangerous".
When have I ever said that it's dangerous?? Please, stop making stuff up, it doesn't help. I'm sure that there are scientists out there that would argue that you really can do long-term studies, and even show you studies that were done. What I'm asking for does take time, but it's not impossible, and it's definitely not magic. If you search back, I did link to what long-term study means, and in the article they do provide several studies, IIRC one was even 60+ years long.
How about Risk to the User of an e-Cigarette?
Or
More Underage Vaping?
or
More People Don't Want people using and e-Cigarette in Non-Smoking Areas than People Who Do?
or
Campaign Contributions?
or
Lose of Federal Funding?
Or
Lose of Grant Money?
or
Do I need to go on?
I cut my finger Last Night taking a Flashlight apart and it is Hard to Type with a Band-Aid on my Finger.
(BTW - Notice that I didn't Use the "A" Word in my Partial List. That is the 800lb Gorilla that people here Don't like to Discuss. But that is One of the First things that is Brought up by Policy Makers.)
Last edited:
I'm sorry, I don't mean to take this out on you, but if people are going to cite my posts, please read all of them in this thread, especially the one that states...
I am MALE!
That is patently untrue, and you know this. The three hour "exposure" you mentioned was from the New England Journal of medicine which stated that a person must be exposed to an atmosphere of 1 microgram/liter concentration of nicotine in the air to get an exposure of 1 microgram of nicotine. I used that exposure rate to postulate that in a .04 microgram/liter concentration, a person would need to be exposed to that atmosphere for 3 hours.
The PG exposure studies many provided links to included monkeys that were exposed CONTINUOUSLY for 13 months in concentrations of PG of 112PPM.
The Sprague-Dawley rats, were exposed for 90 days, 6 hours a day, 5 days a week.
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/documentStore/a/a/r/aar97i00/Saar97i00.pdf
You were also provided this report which also included studies that lasted well over 3 hours
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp189.pdf
BTW, after these tests are performed the subjects are typically destroyed. This is so post mortem analysis can be performed. If they were to be left alive, then there is the possibility of another unseen or uncontrolled event from happening that may cloud the studies results.....e.g. how do we know the rat died due to PG exposure vs other natural causes....etc.
Last edited:
This is what I mean when I say you are asking for magic. You want a 60+ year long study on vaping, which hasn't existed for anything clse to 60 years. And the same would have been true of asprin when it came out - you can't study it for 60 years as soon as it comes out. The same for the wifi, the same for auto emissions, the same for whatever-the-heck thing gets invented tomorrow.
If you're saying that you want to outlaw vaping for 60 years so that it can only be done in controlled lab situations so they can study it, yes, I believe you are the kind of person that would demand that sort of thing.
"You're a liar because I don't like what you're saying!!" Good one.
- Status
Similar threads
