The myth of second hand vape

[Diogenes]

Yes, it is semantics. When people say "Is that safe" and you answer "yes", what they mean is "Is that reasonably safe?", not "Is that 100% guaranteed to always be safe?".

Is walking across the street safe? Yes. Is riding in an automobile safe? Yes. Is eating pizza safe? Yes. Is taking a shower safe? Yes. Is vaping safe? Yes. Is second hand vapor safe? Yes.

Every one of those has some level of risk, but it's a low level of risk. And of all of those I listed, the two related to vaping and second hand vapor are probably the lowest on the risk scale. I'm sure I can find examples of people who have died crossing the street, riding in an auto, eating pizza, or showering. Can you show evidence that anyone has died from vaping?

But you want to make vaping sound dangerous, so you've been arguing semantics.

When someone asks me is vaping safe, I have no problem saying that it is safer than smoking, but still has risks due to lack of studies. At least I'm honest about it.

Again, NO LONG-TERM STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE, all we have is short-term exposure. When something like this is posted,

And you wonder why most of us think it is an absurdity to see second hand vape as a public hazard in anyway, even in a tightly confined space?

saying that second-hand vapor isn't a hazard, where is the evidence that shows it isn't a hazard in the long-term??? Even the OP's math is based on a 3 hour exposure. That is not long-term.

 

[Diogenes]

Are you playing devils advocate here...because pardon for my observation..you sound JUST like an ANTZ, really, it's very very hard to differentiate

At this point, does it really matter? No matter what my answer would be, people are going to believe what they want simply because I refuse to toe the line here, and agree with everyone else.

I'm just tired of people saying second-hand vapor is completely safe with no evidence to back up that point. In the short-term, yes, it is harmless. But there is no data on repeated exposure. I'm at a disadvantage with my viewpoint because no long-term studies have been done. I'm a skeptic, I question everything.

 

[stevegmu]

At this point, does it really matter? No matter what my answer would be, people are going to believe what they want simply because I refuse to toe the line here, and agree with everyone else.

I'm just tired of people saying second-hand vapor is completely safe with no evidence to back up that point. In the short-term, yes, it is harmless. But there is no data on repeated exposure. I'm at a disadvantage with my viewpoint because no long-term studies have been done. I'm a skeptic, I question everything.

I think many Vapers choose to bury their heads in the sand concerning possible dangers- whether it be from 2nd hand e-nic vapor, or from vaping itself.

 

[generic mutant]

I'd suggest spending a couple of days going over the studies available. Some of them have tested high concentrations over long periods (I think the monkey one in the 40s seemed particularly striking, from memory).

No study can be perfect, especially not an animal model. But from where I'm sitting this looks like an 'until evidence provided to the contrary, can be reasonably presumed safe' situation (with regard to the primary ingredients. The flavourings are another matter entirely).

 

[SissySpike]

God told me as long as you use a Provari your second hand vapor is 101% safe in fact the 1% has healing quality's.

 

[spartanstew]

Not going to get into another one of these...

But is Safety the ONLY Factor that goes into an e-Cigarette Use in Non-Smoking Area Ban?

I'd say it's rarely a factor at all.

 

[zoiDman]

I'd say it's rarely a factor at all.

We might have a Winner who Hails from Wylie Texas.

 

[p.opus]

The fact is there is only a few, one or two, studies out there that deal with second-hand vapor. There are no, repeat, no long-term studies done at all. And when I say long-term, I'd be willing to accept a study done over a 6 month, 9 month, 1 year, etc, (which is not exactly long-term, but still something like that is better than a 3 hour study), timeframe, as vaping hasn't been around all that long. But again, there are no studies like that out.

The numbers the OP had used in his theory are flawed slightly. I do know that size matters here, the size of the room, the number of vapers. 1 person vaping 1ml an hour is high, per the OP, but what about 10 people vaping .1ml in an hour? I'm pretty sure I can vape much more than .1ml an hour, and I've only been vaping for about 6mos. If you have 20 people vaping even .1ml an hour, the OP's numbers just doubled. If those 20 people vaped .2ml per hour, quadruple. Point is, you can't pick and choose the numbers you use, and expect that it won't get challenged.

The OP's theory is based on math of one person vaping in a small room, over a period of 3 hours. This is not repeated exposure, just one time occurrence. Scientifically, how can we honestly say that is an absurdity to see second hand vape as a public hazard in anyway, even in a tightly confined space in the long-term when studies have only been done short-term?

I'll be 100% honest here, you want proof from me that second-hand vapor is harmful, I can't provide that, as no studies to my knowledge have been done that cover the long-term.

I'll play your numbers game......

I used one person, vaping 1ml/hour puts in .035 ppm in a 10x10x10 room (with no ventilation).

Lets squeeze 100 people in that room (can't do it, but lets' play...shall we?) If they were all vaping the same rate, with no ventilation that still only puts 3.5 ppm of PG in the room (again assuming none of them absorb any of the PG).

The 1947 study on monkeys used continuous concentrations to 112ppm continuously for 13 months. And there were no toxic affects found on the animals. (http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp189.pdf). It appears on the same paper, that Rats were exposed to 51ppm for 90 days, 5 days a week, 6 hours a day and some nasal hemorraging was noted).

These rates are at least 50 times more than stuffing 100 people in 10x10x10 room for 1 hour at 1ml/hour.

Let's take those 100 people and put them into a more reasonable 30x20x10 room. This is still a small bar, mind you. Oh Oh.....Now the volume has increased to 6000 cubic feet. This equals 169901.1 liters or 169901100 ml. so lets take 100ml/169901100ml and you get
1ml/1699011ml. We've now decreased our concentration back down .59 ppm

My assertion, is that there is NO mathematical formula in which you will be able to fit enough vapers into a room to produce anywhere near a continuous exposure of 1ppm PG let alone the 51ppm to 112ppm that the test subjects were exposed to.

Oh and we have YET to take into consideration ventilation....Did I mention that???!!

If you can come up with a reasonable scenario in which this occurs. Please let me know. The truth of the matter is, you would need to put so many people in such a small space that they would suffocate before they reached anywhere near the concentrations that approached the level of the test subjects.

 

[zoiDman]

...

Are you playing devils advocate here...

I don't mind Playing that Role. Some even say I'm Good at It.

OK... Here goes.

What about the Safety of the Flavorings, Artificial Sweeteners and Colorants found in e-Liquids?

Just about No Body vapes Unflavored/Unsweetened e-Liquids. How much do we Really Know about them and there Safety?

 

[p.opus]

I don't mind Playing that Role. Some even say I'm Good at It.

OK... Here goes.

What about the Safety of the Flavorings, Artificial Sweeteners and Colorants found in e-Liquids?

Just about No Body vapes Unflavored/Unsweetened e-Liquids. How much do we Really Know about them and there Safety?

Do you mean the same flavorings, artificial sweetners and colorants that are used in the food that is being served at the establishment? E-juice contains...what....1% flavoring and coloring. So I take 1ml of flavoring and release it into 169901100ml of air? Are you really going to go there?

Does OSHA worry about the use of these flavorings in the food that is being prepared in the kitchen?

You'll have to do better than that.

 

[SissySpike]

Do you mean the same flavorings, artificial sweetners and colorants that are used in the food that is being served at the establishment? E-juice contains...what....1% flavoring and coloring. So I take 1ml of flavoring and release it into 169901100ml of air? Are you really going to go there?

Does OSHA worry about the use of these flavorings in the food that is being prepared in the kitchen?

You'll have to do better than that.

While Im not picking a side other than my own. eating and breathing can have different effects. My question to the I dont buy second hand vaping is harmless dose that not make you foolish for sucking in firsthand vapor?

 

[stevegmu]

Do you mean the same flavorings, artificial sweetners and colorants that are used in the food that is being served at the establishment? E-juice contains...what....1% flavoring and coloring. So I take 1ml of flavoring and release it into 169901100ml of air? Are you really going to go there?

Does OSHA worry about the use of these flavorings in the food that is being prepared in the kitchen?

You'll have to do better than that.

There's quite a difference between eating something and inhaling something. Theres also quite a difference between casually inhaling something and repeatedly inhaling something over long periods of time. Ever hear of popcorn lung? Safe to eat artificially flavored popcorn, isn't it?

Actually, OSHA does-

https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/flavoringlung/

 

[zoiDman]

Do you mean the same flavorings, artificial sweetners and colorants that are used in the food that is being served at the establishment? E-juice contains...what....1% flavoring and coloring. So I take 1ml of flavoring and release it into 169901100ml of air? Are you really going to go there?

Does OSHA worry about the use of these flavorings in the food that is being prepared in the kitchen?

You'll have to do better than that.

Yeah... The Same Flavorings/Sweeteners that were Never Engineered to be Habitually Inhaled.

You most not do much DIY. Because 1% Flavoring isn't going to make much of an e-Liquid. Try 10~20%.

 

[stevegmu]

While Im not picking a side other than my own. eating and breathing can have different effects. My question to the I dont buy second hand vaping is harmless dose that not make you foolish for sucking in firsthand vapor?

Its vaping or cigarettes for me right now. I'll take unknown possible hazards over what I know smoking cigarettes has been proven to do.

 

[zoiDman]

There's quite a difference between eating something and inhaling something. Theres also quite a difference between casually inhaling something and repeatedly inhaling something over long periods of time. Ever hear of popcorn lung? Safe to eat artificially flavored popcorn, isn't it?

Actually, OSHA does-

https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/flavoringlung/

Damn Buzz and steve.

I gotta learn to Type Faster.

 

[zoiDman]

... Theres also quite a difference between casually inhaling something and repeatedly inhaling something over long periods of time. Ever hear of popcorn lung? Safe to eat artificially flavored popcorn, isn't it?

Actually, OSHA does-

https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/flavoringlung/

Yeah... And think of someone eating popcorn Ever Waking Hour of the day.

Oops. I meant Vaping Ever Waking Hour of the day.

 

[SissySpike]

In the bigger picture we are squabbling over vaping and smoking in the mean time Hormones in the meat we eat, Pouted air, Medications recycled in our drinking water. Is it any wonder Cancer Parkinsons and lots of other ailments we use to not see so much are becoming fairly common. I wonder what the Asthma/ Bronchitis rate is between the people of Houston vs Bellingham WA? Just a thinking out loud.

 

[SissySpike]

Yeah... And think of someone eating popcorn Ever Waking Hour of the day.

Oops. I meant Vaping Ever Waking Hour of the day.

As much as I hate to admit it vaping will most likely be like most things used in moderation it will pose little risk but over do it as with most anything it will create some sort of problem.

 

[BillyTheWild]

[…] By the way, the study listed below was performed in 1947. So I would say there are long term studies on the toxicity or lack there of inhalation of propylene glycol.

TESTS FOR THE CHRONIC TOXICITY OF PROPYLEXE GLYCOL AND TRIETHYLENE GLYCOL ON MONKEYS AND RATS BY VAPOR INHALATION AND ORAL ADMINISTRATION

First, you cite one study but then you follow it immediately to conclude that “So I would say there are long term studies [...]” It's a huge leap. Second, the study was done a long time ago, in 1947, but it is not itself a “long term study” – in the study the subjects “were exposed continuously to high concentrations of these vapors for periods of 12 to 18 months." It's more an accelerated study than a long term study in which the subjects would be exposed to regular doses for a long period (perhaps years) in a manner consistent to normal usage.

In regard to the study itself, it can hardly be used as a proof for e-cig vapor safety. It isn't even a study on e-cig at all, per se. First, it’s a study on PG and TEG, not e-cig vapor. E-cig vapor, exhaled or inhaled, contains more than just PG and none of TEG. Even if PG by itself is proved to be safe, but what about the effect, if there’s any, when all the e-cig vapor components are mixed together and inhaled?

Second, the abstract of the article doesn’t say how the air was “glycolized” in the study. Evaporation? Aerosol? Heated? Heat can change substances in the molecular level, right? So, unless they "glycolized" the air in a way closed to that of e-cig, this study is irrelevant. And what about the effect, if there’s any, of heating not just PG alone but with all the components mixed together? Would there be any reaction under such temperature and would it produce any by-product? I don't know but it should be studied.

The fact that the same few studies always got cited in this and other forums points to the fact that actually not many studies have been done. I absolutely think that the long term effect of vaping hasn’t been studied enough to date for any sensible people to proclaim that long term vaping and/or long term exposure to exhaled e-cig vapor can be safely ignored. People who raise questions on this subject should be encouraged instead of chastised.

 

[zoiDman]

I think what is Relevant about Discussions like this is it Prompts Awareness of Bigger Issues.

Sure, it is Great to have Threads that beat the drum that "Nicotine Doesn't Cause Cancer!". Cool. But what about Stroke and Heart Disease? Does Nicotine Elevate my Blood Pressure?

A study Says that Nicotine and PG/VG is Safe. Fine. What about the Rest of the Chemicals in an Average e-Liquid?

Cotton is Supposed to be Better than Silica Wicks. How Bad really are Silica Wicks?

And what about the "A" Word? If Nicotine Isn't supposed to be so Addictive, why is it that Some People Can't go 30 Minutes without Vaping in Grocery Store? Or while Pumping Gas at the Gas Station?

I don't mind getting Flamed for wanting to Ask Questions like these.

Because if there is Nothing to it, then there is No Reason why we Shouldn't be able to talk about it without people Getting Mad and calling people ANTZ.