The myth of second hand vape

[Diogenes]

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, I stand corrected. Thank you for providing something substantial. Something like this was all I was ever asking for. If people want to argue their point, to the death it seems, providing a study like that would have been beneficial from the start, instead of studies that make predictions and the like.

 

[p.opus]

Censoring myself.......

 

[DC2]

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.

Good luck with that. That's not how science works.

 

[stevegmu]

Ok, I stand corrected. Thank you for providing something substantial. Something like this was all I was ever asking for. If people want to argue their point, to the death it seems, providing a study like that would have been beneficial from the start, instead of studies that make predictions and the like.

I really don't trust abstracts, so here is a more detailed paper-

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp189.pdf

 

[Jay-dub]

I love how people attack the FDA on one hand and then cite the FDA to support their conclusions. This is the same FDA that vapist's rail against for being ignorant, unfair and corrupt right? Besides, no matter how insistent we are, until the scientific community collects enough data to produce conclusive findings, all we offer is considered hearsay. But overall, I agree. Nothing is one hundred percent safe and comparing the known chemical compositions of the two products would leave a reasonable person to come to the conclusion that vaping is relatively safe when compared to many other hobbies, addictions and past-times. We don't know how many people are susceptible to problems due to PG breaking down into lactic acid. Don't even know if it's a problem. It'll be nice to gather enough info to know the ins and outs.

 

[EleanorR]

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.

Yoo-hoo, you dodging my post, or what?

I'm really interested in your personal resolution of the sunshine conundrum.

 

[Diogenes]

Good luck with that. That's not how science works.

Great way to defend your viewpoint.

 

[Orb Skewer]

And then there are the ...... who grow their own organic cotton in the greenhouse, while thats growing they use dirty Chinese attys (which the workers lick the fragmented silica wicks to feed them into the rusted kanthal), they only stick to e-juice that they have personaly supervised being made in a high spec clean room environment, and contains only personaly sourced propylene glycol (they watched being manufactured), VG (same personal supervision as before) and nic and flavouring they made themselves in a sterilised smoothie maker-
It makes you cringe that some people leave all that to chance and just buy stuff from well established vendors-crazy !

 

[Orb Skewer]

This is how you should roll-safatee first !

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/general-e-smoking-discussion/497430-raw-cotton-vaping.html

 

[DC2]

Great way to defend your viewpoint.

As your quote below shows, you are asking for something unequivocal.
That's not how science works, it's just not.

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.

Science presents findings that can hopefully be duplicated, and lead to an increase in knowledge of the subject matter.

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.

You choose to believe second-hand vapor may someday prove harmful in some way.

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

 

[Diogenes]

Yoo-hoo, you dodging my post, or what?

I'm really interested in your personal resolution of the sunshine conundrum.

Yeah, I'm not dodging it. It just has nothing to do with the matter being discussed. When I read it, I honestly flashed back to the movie Billy Madison,

Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

 

[EleanorR]

Yeah, I'm not dodging it. It just has nothing to do with the matter being discussed. When I read it, I honestly flashed back to the movie Billy Madison,

In fact, it has EVERYTHING to do with the matter being discussed, i.e.: toxicology.

As in, the toxicology of "second-hand vapor."

It's pretty revealing that you don't get that.

 

[Diogenes]

As your quote below shows, you are asking for something unequivocal.
That's not how science works, it's just not.



Science presents findings that can hopefully be duplicated, and lead to an increase in knowledge of the subject matter.

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.

You choose to believe second-hand vapor may someday prove harmful in some way.

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

I'll give you that unequivocal might have been a stretch. But we can site studies that say both ways that vaping is good for you, and that vaping is bad for you. And in many of those studies, there is no predictions, no statements on further studies needed, they just set out to examine one point, and do just that.

I have asked you repeatedly to provide something other than the two studies you use to defend your viewpoint. So far, you haven't. At this point I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your view.

 

[Diogenes]

In fact, it has EVERYTHING to do with the matter being discussed, i.e.: toxicology.

As in, the toxicology of "second-hand vapor."

It's pretty revealing that you don't get that.

So, what you are saying is that like sunshine, second-hand vapor is beneficial? Who is it beneficial to? What studies can you site that show that it is good for you?

Secondly, do you find it works in your favor to put down other people when trying to prove your point?

 

[EleanorR]

So, what you are saying is that like sunshine, second-hand vapor is beneficial? Who is it beneficial to? What studies can you site that show that it is good for you?



Secondly, do you find it works in your favor to put down other people when trying to prove your point?

Well, Billy Madison, when people are deaf, sometimes one has to shout.

 

[Dakota Jim]

If your state still allows it, I'd say thats Margeuritas all round.

I'm sorry but margaritas are flavored and colored to appeal to children and will need to be banned immediately


excellent post p.opus

 

[DC2]

So, what you are saying is that like sunshine, second-hand vapor is beneficial? Who is it beneficial to? What studies can you site that show that it is good for you?

I don't think that is the point that Eleanor was trying to make necessarily, but...

I personally believe that propylene glycol vaper sterilizes the air and that is beneficial to those around me.
If you want any links for that I can provide some.

I also believe that people should be lucky enough to get any nicotine from what we exhale...
Unfortunately for them, I don't think there is any appreciable amount of nicotine in what we exhale...

Nicotine improves memory, concentration, and attention.
I've got links for that as well.

But the previous links provided already show that the nicotine is negligible, unfortunately.
This is why my wife seems to gain no benefit when I blow vapor in her face.

I'll give you that unequivocal might have been a stretch. But we can site studies that say both ways that vaping is good for you, and that vaping is bad for you. And in many of those studies, there is no predictions, no statements on further studies needed, they just set out to examine one point, and do just that.

I have asked you repeatedly to provide something other than the two studies you use to defend your viewpoint. So far, you haven't. At this point I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your view.

I'm not disinclined, I just felt that the two studies I provided (being meta-analyses) were all-encompassing...
And as such more citations were not needed.

If you want I can provide links to the studies that were examined in those meta-analyses...
But those can be found in the references section of both studies.

 

[p.opus]

The point of the post was this:

Several studies have been performed regarding the safety of inhaled PG in concentrations 1000's of time greater than what could be considered achievable in a social setting.

The exposure to Nicotine in second hand vape is less than the normal exposure a non smoker would be exposed to when eating 2 oz of Potato.

As a result, I have a hard time believing anyone who can say that the risk to an individual due to exposure of second hand vape is any more significant to one who is not exposed to it.

I don't need specific studies. I can use my brain and rationally think.

Studies performed on animals with exposure rates 10's of thousands times greater than what is achievable in a social setting...Check
Exposure to Nicotine on the same level as naturally occurring in common foods....Check.
Lack of known carcinogens in e-juice...Check.

I believe these arguments carry more weight that the typical straw man response of, I can see it, it might harm me, prove to me it doesn't.

I've done my part to show you it doesn't harm you. Now it's your turn to show me it does.....

 

[Jman8]

What I'm not understanding, thus far in this thread, is OP did lay out a proof for safety of eCigs. Therefore, if I am one who still thinks or argues that it is not safe, I would say the burden is on me to disprove that.

If the goalpost gets changed to, 'what about someone exposed for more than 3 hours on a regular basis?' then that is another matter from what OP was conveying. How about we stick to, just for now, the idea of any vaper, anywhere, vaping for less than 3 hours in an enclosed space (averaged size room or larger). OP has shown that to be safe.

Let us now hear from the detractors as to why it is not safe. Where are your links and proofs?

 

[UnclePsyko]

So, what you are saying is that like sunshine, second-hand vapor is beneficial? Who is it beneficial to? What studies can you site that show that it is good for you?

Secondly, do you find it works in your favor to put down other people when trying to prove your point?

Propylene glycol in e cigarettes might keep us healthy, says researchers

It just might... but of course, it hasn't been proven... yet.