The myth of second hand vape

[Racehorse]

^^^^ I just felt it important to clear the air, provide a valid definition of this ANTZ word that is being bandied around, and also say that for the most part, all of us in these topics, even when we disagree, have helped each other, over the last years or months, we know it, we have talked about vaping, helped each other vape.


That is what's the GREATNESS of ECF, not name calling. And I apoligize for calling you a narcissist. Gonna do my part.

Just want to see the name calling go away, or I guess i won't enter any advocacy topics anymore, and either will a lot of other folks.

 

[Anjaffm]

I agree, although I will say that I don't buy into the "rich" part. Unless they are also powerful (ie government officials). I would like to be rich, I have nothing against rich people. But I have a problem with a government that uses the riches of the people to garner itself more power, and its people less freedom--which is what is happening.

Let me clarify, dear.
Those in power are often rich.
In many countries (for example in the US. No offense intended) a lot of money is needed to get into a position of political power.
Or, those in power feed on the money of the people to make themselves rich.
Or, as is often the case, those in power take bribes.. uhm.. contributions to make themselves rich, by doing little favors to the .. uhm.. generous contributors. And never mind the normal citizens. Who cares about them, anyway?

Take the example of the proposed ban by the EU Commission on the refillable olive oil jugs:
EU drops olive oil jug ban after public outcry - Telegraph

Now, does anybody really think that those un-elected Commission bureaucrats just suddenly woke up one morning and said "YEAH! We have to protect the people of Europe against olive oil jugs on restaurant tables!!" ? Or does anybody really believe that the industrial olive oil producers had nothing whatsoever to do with this sudden idea to "protect" consumers against some imaginary "danger" that could be averted by - surprise - precisely the products that they make? Or is it more reasonable to think of certain brown envelopes, in exchange for a little favor?

By the way, that article is well worth reading. As precisely the same reasoning is used by the EU Commission right now, to "protect" consumers from the imaginary "dangers" of refillable e-cig atomizers. Compare this sentence please:

The ban on the use of jugs, cruets or bowls to serve olive oil was justified as necessary because of alleged "frequent" fraud in restaurants but commission officials have admitted to The Daily Telegraph that they have no evidence of the practice.
"We don't have any evidence. It is anecdotal and that was enough for the committee," said an official.

The EU Commission is known for corruption

one whole Commission had to resign:
Santer Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and this guy had to resign over corruption allegations in connection with - surprise - the Tobacco Products Directive that is currently being discussed (the one that attempts to ban the availability of e-cigs):

EU health chief Dalli resigns over corruption allegations but denies wrongdoing, vows to fight | Fox News

.....
So, in many cases, it is rich = powerful. Or vice versa, first powerful and then - mysteriously - suddenly rich.

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

edit:
I might need glasses to read. Most of my generation do. But not a magnifying glass, thank you very much. *sweet smile*

 

[alisa1970]

Let me clarify, dear.
Those in power are often rich.

Oh, I am well aware--grew up with a refugee from a communist country as a parent. Capitalism vs socialism was hammered into my brain since before I had my first piggy bank.

 

[Anjaffm]

@alisa1970:

I am most certainly not a communist
However, it is interesting to see how many of the most avid Nanny Staters are.. excuse the wording.. filthy rich:

The mayor is entitled to a salary of $225,000,[4] but early 21st century mayor Michael Bloomberg, the 7th-richest[5] man in the United States, declined the salary and instead was paid $1 yearly. Bloomberg had an estimated net worth of $25 billion as of 2012.

source: Mayor of New York City - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And this filthy rich, elitist billionnaire revels in telling ordinary citizens what to do? Even what size of soda pop servings to buy?
Hm.......

Those currently in power and advocating government regulation of every facet of people's lives are rarely ordinary citizens. Never have been, never will be.

Standing up to the new paternalists | Books & Essays | spiked

(long but well worth reading)

This video is great, by the way. Made by a lady vaper who is over 60.
It tells a little about highbrows and ordinary people

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEHMpvc6kIw&list=UUa1mEbki44okGnDeWwiI4Xw

 

[alisa1970]

@alisa1970:

I am most certainly not a communist
However, it is interesting to see how many of the most avid Nanny Staters are.. excuse the wording.. filthy rich:

It's a case of "I got mine". I don't care if a politician is rich, poor, or purple. It's their values and policies that I care about. Some people find the wealthy (and powerful) intoxicating and follow in lock-step, hoping they'll be their beneficiaries. In other words, they are lazy neophites. Happens in every culture.

 

[Anjaffm]

It's a case of "I got mine". I don't care if a politician is rich, poor, or purple. It's their values and policies that I care about.

I fully agree with you, dear.

However, with this "I got mine", there are two different ways to pursue this.

One is "I got mine. Let them have theirs". This is, for example, my way of thinking. And the way of thinking of most of the people I know.
The other one is "I got mine. And now, I will take away theirs". This is, unfortunately, the way of thinking of many ruling elites. See "Nanny State".

And as to "rich": well, Big Pharma is not exactly poor. How else could they pay all these grants to all these alphabet soup Tobacco Control groups who so avidly fight against the competition, i.e. e-cigs?

Oh, another big sum of money to those Tobacco Control alphabet soup groups comes out of cigarette taxes, e.g. out of the money of the people. Which is now being used to - surprise! - protect the tobacco cigarette and to keep exactly this money flowing.

Money itself is by no means evil. It can, however, be used for evil. Unfortunately.

 

[Orb Skewer]

Maybe, for the sake of confusion, or to dispel confusion we should just stick to Antis, given that ANTZ probably exist as a number of less than a dozen worldwide, and the powerfull ones, the ones that can 'really' influence or inflict damage most likely number probably less than that, in fact I'd guess that most people would struggle to even name 6 real life 'ANTZ'?,
So, is it of any use at all to even consider a number that small?, if anyone is hell bent on eradicating e-cigs/vaping (which is what this forum caters for) then they could just be referred to as 'RUNTS', R U NuTS.

 

[Coldrake]

I take it you haven't read many threads on the forums here.

Actually I've read an average of 60 to 100 threads a day since I came here 5 months ago. When I find something that really interests me, I'm an information junkie. Before you ask, yes I do have a life. I've been a speed reader for over 40 years and I'm very good at it. It doesn't take me that long to go through that many threads.

From the OP's original post :

To me, that says that second-hand vape is completely harmless, thus being 100% safe. I used reasoning and my brain to figure that one out.

I would agree that second-hand vape is as harmless as anything can be. As stated, nothing is 100% safe.

p.opus never said it was 100% safe, nor did they say anyone who says differently is a trouble maker, an ANTZ, a stool for BT/BP. I've seen a few people say second hand vape is completely safe, but not once have I seen anyone say vaping is safe. Safer yes, but not safe.

I'm still waiting for those links, which you seem to have some serious trouble providing.

Ok, I'll concede the point that people here might not use the "it's 100% safe." I have seen, however, people saying that it's completely safe, or it poses no public hazard in any way, etc, etc. It's semantics, really. To me, "completely safe," "poses no public hazard," is the same as being 100% safe.

Yes it is semantics. Believe what you will.

As far as ulterior motives, again, have you been reading any of the threads with opposing viewpoints? Those with viewpoints that differ from the majority here, such as myself, are quickly labeled trouble makers, trolls, strawman, ANTZ, and at one point, bullies.

Yes, I have been reading threads with opposing viewpoints.

I have some news for you, your differing viewpoint is not what is getting you labeled as such. I'll let you use reasoning and your brain to figure that one out.

 

[buklao]

You don't inhale a potato, so you cannot compare it to that.

As far as the math goes...

What about a room with say 20 people (say a small gathering) and 10 of those people are vaping?
would that be 4.0 mictrograms?

Or say a room with 200 people (say a night club) and 100 of them are vaping?
would that be 40.0 micrograms?

I agree that second hand vapor is probably not near as bad as second hand smoke, but is it completely safe?
We won't know that for certain until the proper studies are done.

Also, the studies should be done with large gathering scenario's because social gatherings would be more of a real world sittuation.

Exactly what the other people are saying, it is safe, for now yes, and they have provided studies for that, for you and Diogenese who are asking for long term effects, well stop being stubborn because vaping cannot be compared to smoking in terms of how long its been present therefore no long term effects have been concluded YET for second hand vapor since the short term effects of 'vaping' is more of the government's concern since they are trying to get rid of vaping asap.

As for your challenge against the math, im no math genius but when you mentioned 20 people in the same room but only 10 are vaping or 200 people and only 100 are vaping, wouldnt it have a smaller value than what's already presented? Since only half of the people present in the same room meaning only half of the given 1:1 value before is being consumed and exhaled by vapers but the second hand smoke is still being inhaled by everyone, be it 20 or 200 people, because they are still all in the same room.

Nicotine - this one is well known, albeit the most feared of them all. Nicotine in the above referenced study was only able to find trace amounts, which is less than 100ppm. This stuff is abundant in our natural diet, and beneficial in correct dosages. However, the more research I'm seeing about both Nicotine and Caffeine - in normal suggested dosages, they are about the same; safety wise. Am I saying that Nicotine is safe? No, but I am saying tha Caffeine is an addictive drug that people dont think twice about, and is far more dangerous than most people care to understand.

So, it boils down to second hand vapor is a nuisance not a hazzard.

That is why I avoid caffeine, haven't been a coffee drinker really, I'm more of a french vanilla guy (less caffeine) and ONLY when needed lol. I usually get tea but then i don't like hot drinks so I barely go to a tea/coffee shop even if I always start my day at 5 am and where I live has twice the temperature of North Pole and is now considered to be as cold as Planet Mars LOL! Fact not lies

 

[EddardinWinter]

Ed, we need a 'Dukes of Hazzard' pic too

Okay, who are the 'Dukes of Hazzard?'.

Now, I am not asking about the personalities from TV show, I am very familiar with them, I mean are they people on ECF we are having some fun with?

 

[Anjaffm]

Hm... long term effects.. not 100% safe.. implying the possibility of injury or death .. hm..... now that reminds me of something:

I wonder about the long-term effects of skiing. That activity most certainly is not "100% safe". Far from it.

The activity is dangerous to the people who engage in it:

Michael Schumacher's condition 'stable' overnight after skiing accident injury, says manager

Dutch Prince Johan Friso dies 18 months after being buried in avalanche

And one person can even cause the death of another person, in this activity:

Ski Accident Repercussions: German Politician May Face Manslaughter Trial

Hm.... maybe skiiing should be banned?
After all, it serves no useful purpose. No useful purpose whatsoever. And it takes human lives and causes countless injuries.

Every year in the United States alone, an average of just over 40 people lose their lives on the slopes as a result of accidents in skiing and snowboarding, according to statistics compiled by the U.S. National Ski Areas Association.

It is, of course, a multi-billion dollar industry.
Hm..... nawwww... it is not that dangerous, is it now?

Never mind those fatalities. Just a few people died, actually.

"With regard to fatalities, in the U.S. during the past 10 years, about 41.5 people have died skiing/snowboarding per year on average. During the 2010/11 season, 47 fatalities occurred out of the 60.5 million skier/snowboarder days reported for the season.

And never mind those injuries.

"For snow sports, the average injury rate is 2-3 per 1000 participants on any one day. Compare that to an average game of soccer or rugby where perhaps the same number, or more are injured out of a much smaller number of players," he told CNN.
The most typical winter sports accidents would involve knee sprains, head injuries and shoulder, wrist and lower leg injuries, according to figures on his website.

Hm... if I do the math correctly, at 60.5 million skier/snowboarder days and - let's say - only 2 injuries per 1000 skiers / snowboarders per day, that is 121,000 injuries per day. - Hm... not 100% safe. Definitely not. And no ifs and buts about it. For an activity that serves no useful purpose whatsoever.

But of course, it all depends on the reporting, does it not?

Danger on the slopes: Are winter sports safe? - CNN.com

And whether the activity makes a lot of people a lot of money. Or not.

 

[zoiDman]

I must have gotten Lost in the Translation.

But what does Skiing Accidents have to do with 2nd Hand Vape?

 

[EddardinWinter]

I must have gotten Lost in the Translation.

But what does Skiing Accidents have to do with 2nd Hand Vape?

Not much.

Do you know who "The Dukes of Hazzard" is a reference to?

 

[Robino1]

Not much.

Do you know who "The Dukes of Hazzard" is a reference to?

That's going to bug you, isn't it? I have no idea what it means either....

Not sure how we got from how much vapor in a room to the rest of this stuff anyway.

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

 

[p.opus]

I must have gotten Lost in the Translation.

But what does Skiing Accidents have to do with 2nd Hand Vape?

The point I believe she was trying to make, is that there are many activities that have been shown to be more hazardous to both the participant and non-participant that are "accepted" as normal risk associated with life and are not scrutinized.

It is unknown what are the long term effects of the continual exposure to high frequency radio waves used in WiFi, but WiFi hotspots are popping up everywhere, You can't escape it. Studies may be on going, but there is no political agenda to ban the use of WiFi until it's proven safe.

Society has deemed the "convenience" of WiFi is worth any negligible risk if any. Yet, these same people who will walk into a Starbucks with it's WiFi emitters will scream holy hell if someone is caught vaping.

If you look at this article you see about the "dangers of WiFi", you will seem the exact same type of risk analysis performed for WiFi as I did for second hand vape. (Wi Fi is much less powerful than microwave ovens....Microwaves are directed, WiFi is not.... etc)

Wi-Fi: are there any health risks? | Technology | theguardian.com

I find this quote extremely interesting:

There have been hundreds of attempts to find out whether Wi-Fi routers or, more importantly, mobile phones represent a health risk. All we can say is that there is no known risk from Wi-Fi. After that, there's the problem of trying to prove a negative.

When applied to WiFi, this is perfectly fine, yet, if I were to replace the word Wi-Fi with Second Hand Vape, then all of the sudden some people in this very thread expect us to "try to prove a negative". Why are not these people working as hard to ban WiFi until the risks are determined?

Perhaps Diogenes could turn his attention to WiFi from which one can not escape. Even if I don't have WiFi in my home, my neighbors do, and unlike vape, walls and windows don't keep WiFi out of my home.

What this thread has TRIED to show, through mathematics, is that the concentrations of second hand vapor is low enough to be treated the same as WiFi. Safe until deemed otherwise.

 

[EddardinWinter]

That's going to bug you, isn't it? I have no idea what it means either....

Not sure how we got from how much vapor in a room to the rest of this stuff anyway.

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

It already is!! How can I pay proper homage to it if I am ignorant of the reference? I think you need to come and soothe my nerves, Ms. Robin.

 

[Diogenes]

You aren't honest about it. You are telling them "It still has risks", despite the fact that you don't have any actual evidence of risks.

Here's an earlier post by you.

So far, you haven't shown any evidence that the risk is higher than "none".

And unless you're going to tell me that you've never been in an automobile, never ridden a bicycle, and never taken a shower, then I'm going to point out that for almost everything else in the world, the acceptable risk level isn't "none". You are setting unrealistically high standards for vaping.

Do you have evidence that vaping is completely safe, without risks whatsoever? No. So therefore, vaping does have some risks, many of which are currently unknown, or at least that's what I pick up as the general consensus here on the forum.

 

[generic mutant]

It already is!! How can I pay proper homage to it if I am ignorant of the reference? I think you need to come and soothe my nerves, Ms. Robin.

I *think* it's just Orb Skewer being silly. He was trying to break fights up with margueritas for a while.

When that didn't work, he started mentioning The Dukes, for reasons I don't fully comprehend.

But I didn't see it anywhere before that...

 

[Robino1]

It already is!! How can I pay proper homage to it if I am ignorant of the reference? I think you need to come and soothe my nerves, Ms. Robin.

Poor Lion.....

It'll be ok....

Who posted that anyway? Maybe PM them to come explain..... They should never leave a Lion hanging like this! Sheer torture!

 

[EddardinWinter]

Poor Lion.....

It'll be ok....

Who posted that anyway? Maybe PM them to come explain..... They should never leave a Lion hanging like this! Sheer torture!

You are one to speak of torturing lions...

Well until I get more to work with, this is all I am doing: