The myth of second hand vape
- Thread starter p.opus
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Well, to my mind, zoidman is trying to continue the Great American Boreout.
Going round and round and round in circles. Playing a little with semantics. And then starting to go round and round in circles again.
Until everybody is
That is his / her usual tactics.
@zoidman:
*giggles*
you do have staying power, I must say
Round and round and round it goes.....
What is this? The great American Boreout?
Just looking for Answers to Specific Questions and Not getting Any.
Not sure what you're trying to say there...
It's kinda in Inside Joke in reference to One Members Continue use of the term "Reading Comprehension".
Or more Correctly, people Other than Her selves lack there of.
Well, to my mind, zoidman is trying to continue the Great American Boreout.
Going round and round and round in circles. Playing a little with semantics. And then starting to go round and round in circles again.
Until everybody is
That is his / her usual tactics.
If your Bored, Don't let the Door Hit you on the Way Out.
Wow, you are such a phony. I guess you wanted links to your hypocrisy. I'll post them as I find them. Ha! Page two already. http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...tion-plan-thursday-1-2-14-a.html#post11746940Now let me see, Mr. P.E. :
zoidman wants studies that are "not funded by those selling tobacco"
you want links that are not given out by pharma
Hey, I have an idea: why don't you make a grant to fund a study that is not funded by either?
You see, studies do have to be funded by somebody. They do not happen out of thin air.
Oh... of course, if you fund it, then it will not be considered trustworthy either.
Because it is pretty clear what you wish to "find" *sweet smile*
I'll keep this up as long as you like. I know you've been here a while and have posted many times on your skepticism of BP + BT so it's interesting that you're now citing their research/propaganda. LOL! I just think your neat!
Well, I think I'm gonna check out from this for good now....
I made my point. It will be up for others to judge the validity of it.
I have no interest to continue to be involved in a circle-jerk.
Cheers all
Happy vaping in the new year......Where's my dang MVP???!!!???
EDIT: 61 pages and over 600 responses, who'd have thunk it...
I made my point. It will be up for others to judge the validity of it.
I have no interest to continue to be involved in a circle-jerk.
Cheers all Happy vaping in the new year......Where's my dang MVP???!!!???EDIT: 61 pages and over 600 responses, who'd have thunk it...
Last edited:
I checked out a long time ago...
I am going to continue to state, without qualification, that second-hand vapor is safe.
None of the arguments claiming that we can't really be sure of that have swayed me in the slightest.
Thanks for the math though...
I imagine I will link to it a few times in the future...
Last edited:
Found this on reddit. Link to article and will quote a few top responses.
Use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) impairs indoor air quality and increases FeNO levels of e-cigarette consumers
Use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) impairs indoor air quality and increases FeNO levels of e-cigarette consumers
A big part of that risk analysis is the reward.
People accept the potential risk of WiFi because it has great rewards.
There are no rewards for second hand vape, so there's no reason to subject people to any potential risk.
The reward is that they will learn the difference between vapor and smoke...
And then they will want to find out more about it because their husband or sister or teacher smokes...
And then perhaps another life will be saved.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-healthy-lifestyle-policy-2.html#post11690979
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...article-toxicity-nicotine-3.html#post11689897
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/eu-legislation/504116-eu-update-4.html#post11623376
Got any more links citing BP as a source of information supporting your argument? Is it a different big pharma than the ones you mention in these posts? Shall I dig more?
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...article-toxicity-nicotine-3.html#post11689897
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/eu-legislation/504116-eu-update-4.html#post11623376
Got any more links citing BP as a source of information supporting your argument? Is it a different big pharma than the ones you mention in these posts? Shall I dig more?
Last edited:
Nope, that's not a reward.
First, they might already know that.
Second, they might not know anyone that smokes (I don't) or care.
Third, the audience might be kids.
There's zero reward for exposing someone to second hand vape - that can't even be argued.
Now, you can argue/debate that it's risk free and it doesn't harm, etc., but there is no reward for bystanders.
I think the best way to get people on your side is to treat them like they're ignorant and that the FDA is a corrupt bunch of liars. Then, give them links showing your product is good because the FDA approved the ingredients for oral and topical consumption. If they look like they smell hypocrisy call them ANTz and follow them around for a couple of weeks making snide remarks. It really wins people over. I'm pro-vape but some vapists make me hope the hammer drops one way or another so they can move on to a different guise for their tribalism.
This is why it would be better if we actually exhaled an appreciable amount of nicotine.
I know a lot of people that could use a little nicotine.
I doubt you're interested in the argument that propylene glycol helps sterilize the air?
You may well be Right DC. Vapor may well be safe to both the User and to Passive Vapers.
But put yourself into the Shoes for a second of someone who has Direct Control over a Large amount of People. Say a Company CEO or a College Chancellor.
Are you willing, with the amount of Scientific Evidence both For and Against e-Cigarettes that you have, to Except the Legal Responsibility and to Assume the Risk of Massive and Multiple Litigations if you are Wrong? And Allow people to use e-Cigarettes where Smoking is Prohibited ?
As your Hypothetical Legal advisor I Strongly Suggest that you Don't.
This is why it would be better if we actually exhaled an appreciable amount of nicotine.
I know a lot of people that could use a little nicotine.
I doubt you're interested in the argument that propylene glycol helps sterilize the air?
It does. But try to no make it sound so much like a wonder product. It conjures up images of a carnival barker. That's probably just my problem. I'll just say that your positive enthusiasm makes me smile.
It continues to boggle my mind why some people are so against having more studies done on something we inhale into our bodies. More mind boggling even is why these people are so angry with those who advocate for more studies. What is the harm in having more studies done?
- Status
Similar threads
