Ed, how would an orange canoe with a black 'go-faster stripe' up the side and the number 01 on it look ?
The myth of second hand vape
- Thread starter p.opus
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
It's because he put in the little disclaimer "(Note I am attacking the action, not the person....)" right?
I read it twice. I don't see any personal attacks. Would you show me what part of his post you were responding to contained a personal attack?
It would look sexy, southern, and a conveyance fit for Daisy Duke herself.
Oh for Christs sake, the majority of studies provided were short-term exposure studies.
Short term
I dismissed them because I was asking for long-term, cumulative exposure studies, something longer than the 3 hours you gave.
Here's a question, why do you feel that your position is so unsure that you have to resort to bringing in a completely unrelated issue in order to win?
Allright then. Fell free to give an example of one consumer product (or even a medicine) that has been studied 'long-term' prior to being marketed...! How many medicines have been banned from market, because only after 10, 15, 20 years, some problem was discovered?
The lack of long-term studies has never scared other people into not using the things they use. Why should it be a problem when it comes to a product we use?
Well, we can't... but it works both ways. How can other people that use everyday products near me guarantee that it won't affect me?
Is that cologne safe long-term?
What about that cleaning product that I'm smelling right now?
What about your car exhaust? Is it going to affect me, long-term?? Stop the engine now!!
What about food colourings and preservatives in my food? Many of them may be well studied, long-term', by now... but surelly not when they started being used... and yet, people did not care about it back then.
If people can live with air pollution, surely they can breathe a little vapour from substances regarded generally as safe...
Somewhat safer than WiFi, less safe than skiing....
or is it?
Somewhat safer than skiing, less safe than WiFi....
When you say this, are you referring to 2nd Hand Vapor? Or to the Person Using an e-Cigarette? Or perhaps Both?
If I do anything other than what was requested, my actions are hypocritical.
If my actions are hypocritical, that makes me a hypocrite because the actions were mine to make. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to indulge him in this. I care about second-hand vapor. The topic was initially about the safety of second-hand vapor, not SHV and WiFi.
Ten pages back and I got so sick of seeing the term "ANTz" in every other post so I'm just going to say it. I don't give a damn about ANTZ. The term is thrown out so much that I wonder if it's an emotional ploy to drum up support through an us vs. them mentality. As far as I'm concerned there is only the path of the curious and objective. Cheerleaders from either side should have no bearing on that path. They're noise to be filtered out.
Last edited:
"I think that is scientifically well established by those that understand science."
That is the problem, right there... many uninformed folk do not understand it, and are manipulated by ANTZ's that either do not understand it themselves, or understand it well enough to spin and twist 'scientific' studies in their favour...
True story...
I like the wifi comparison. Just because a good reply to "is that second-hand vapor safe as I walk through your little cloud?" I can reply, "Safer than wifi."
Please tell me how someone in the world can avoid breathing pollution completely. One can avoid second-hand vapor if they so chose, but pollution is a global problem, and cannot realistically be avoided completely.
So this is your standard for a personal attack, eh?
Okay. I think the merits of your accusation of a personal attack speaks for itself.
As to the rest of your post...
His WiFi argument is compelling, since it speaks to the standards of safety a reasonable person can expect from a potential hazard. You can ignore the argument, or refute it. Simply saying you won't indulge him does not make his point invalid in my book. I believe it is both relevant and an effective argument, as I stated previously.
Did I already mention that you and I both know, the studies you seek are not available. I do not know of any specific studies that have tracked the long term effects of continuous exposure to low levels of second hand vape.
However, I also mentioned that based on studies that HAVE been been performed on PG and based on our experience using PG and other ingredients, and by calculating the worst case concentrations of second hand vape, then vape should be considered safe until otherwise.
It is the same logic I use for WiFi.
We do not have any studies that have determined the long term effects for WiFi. A risk analysis was done based on the intensity of the radiation emitted from these devices, and it was determined that the use of these products are "generally safe". Thus until proven otherwise, they should be considered safe.
This is one thing you and I both agree on.
Yet, when I use the same logic and methodology with Second Hand Vape, somehow you need studies proving a negative. Why is that?
I have never felt unsure of my position, I have just pointed out the fallacy of your logic, and you want studies on what I truly put down as a completely hypothetical situation. How do you "study" a hypothetical.
For the studies you seek, then the behavior has to be allowed so that the studies can be performed, but according to you, we can't allow it until the studies are done, which puts you in a Win Win scenario.
I'm calling you out on that.
You can't on one side argue that we need studies to prove something is safe, and then prohibit that behavior which prevents those studies from being performed in a real life setting.
My position has always been that we treat second hand vape as "generally safe" until otherwise. The WiFi arguement is something else that we do this with. This will allow the studies you ask for. But what you want to do is treat second hand vape as hazardous until proven otherwise.
Which I can ask you to provide studies that show harm...Which of course, you cannot do.
However, I also mentioned that based on studies that HAVE been been performed on PG and based on our experience using PG and other ingredients, and by calculating the worst case concentrations of second hand vape, then vape should be considered safe until otherwise.
It is the same logic I use for WiFi.
We do not have any studies that have determined the long term effects for WiFi. A risk analysis was done based on the intensity of the radiation emitted from these devices, and it was determined that the use of these products are "generally safe". Thus until proven otherwise, they should be considered safe.
This is one thing you and I both agree on.
Yet, when I use the same logic and methodology with Second Hand Vape, somehow you need studies proving a negative. Why is that?
I have never felt unsure of my position, I have just pointed out the fallacy of your logic, and you want studies on what I truly put down as a completely hypothetical situation. How do you "study" a hypothetical.
For the studies you seek, then the behavior has to be allowed so that the studies can be performed, but according to you, we can't allow it until the studies are done, which puts you in a Win Win scenario.
I'm calling you out on that.
You can't on one side argue that we need studies to prove something is safe, and then prohibit that behavior which prevents those studies from being performed in a real life setting.
My position has always been that we treat second hand vape as "generally safe" until otherwise. The WiFi arguement is something else that we do this with. This will allow the studies you ask for. But what you want to do is treat second hand vape as hazardous until proven otherwise.
Which I can ask you to provide studies that show harm...Which of course, you cannot do.
Last edited:
Only a
The way science works, nothing can be proven 100% safe (even if we operate with the false assumption that anything can be 100% safe), as there is no way to examine everyone everywhere in all imaginable contexts and situations (and there would in any case be contexts and situations that wouldn't be imagined. A substance can be established to be generally safe based on controlled experiments, longitudinal observation-studies, and risk assessment based on what we know of the components of the substance. Such study is, however, always limited as it derives data from a limited sample. This is how science works.
Something can be proven to be unsafe, basically it just requires a single instance of harm caused by that something. That does not, however, mean that the substance (or that particular something) is generally unsafe. Such establishing of something as unsafe is not scientific.
So, approach the matter at hand: vaping can never be established as 100% (or totally, if that wording is preferred) safe - nothing can. If the safety of second hand vape is to be assessed scientifically it must be done on the same grounds as other safety assessments - otherwise it's not scientific (the issue of fairness doesn't even come into play here). There aren't any longitudinal studies of second hand vape yet. There are studies on pg and vg, and those are established as generally safe. Then we have risk assessment based on mathematical calculation - the original post. So, vg and pg are established as generally safe, the potential nicotine that could be inhaled by a non-vapor are in negligible amounts even in an exaggerated worst case scenario. Flavourings are the most unknown factor, but most of those are used in food (established as generally safe) and the amounts a non-vaper could inhale are negligible trace amounts.
Thus, second hand vape can be established as generally safe based on the information we have today (which is much more than we have on many common medicines, foods, and technologies such as wi-fi). I now challenge anyone (Diogenes in particular, who seems to be the most vocal advocate of the potential unsafety of second hand vape) to demonstrate why and how the above is not true or valid. If this post is neglected I'm going to assume that the "second hand vape is dangerous"-advocates are not interest in any substantial discussion.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
Something can be proven to be unsafe, basically it just requires a single instance of harm caused by that something. That does not, however, mean that the substance (or that particular something) is generally unsafe. Such establishing of something as unsafe is not scientific.
So, approach the matter at hand: vaping can never be established as 100% (or totally, if that wording is preferred) safe - nothing can. If the safety of second hand vape is to be assessed scientifically it must be done on the same grounds as other safety assessments - otherwise it's not scientific (the issue of fairness doesn't even come into play here). There aren't any longitudinal studies of second hand vape yet. There are studies on pg and vg, and those are established as generally safe. Then we have risk assessment based on mathematical calculation - the original post. So, vg and pg are established as generally safe, the potential nicotine that could be inhaled by a non-vapor are in negligible amounts even in an exaggerated worst case scenario. Flavourings are the most unknown factor, but most of those are used in food (established as generally safe) and the amounts a non-vaper could inhale are negligible trace amounts.
Thus, second hand vape can be established as generally safe based on the information we have today (which is much more than we have on many common medicines, foods, and technologies such as wi-fi). I now challenge anyone (Diogenes in particular, who seems to be the most vocal advocate of the potential unsafety of second hand vape) to demonstrate why and how the above is not true or valid. If this post is neglected I'm going to assume that the "second hand vape is dangerous"-advocates are not interest in any substantial discussion.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
- Status
Similar threads
