I said "more" studies. Not "any" study. Big difference ... in this context.
Last edited:
The myth of second hand vape
- Thread starter p.opus
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I said "more" studies. Not "any" study. Big difference ... in this context.
I never thought of eating popcorn as being sexy till now;-)
BMC is a peer-reviewed journal so the study will indeed have been peer-reviewed when it's published.
And, no one here has suggested that studies shouldn't be done, only that with the evidence at hand second-hand vape can be deemed generally safe. What amazes me is that some posters here seem to be so adamant on second-hand vape being hazardous, neglecting all the evidence that we actually have (as well as the very clear, simple, and accurate math of the original post) that shows that it in fact almost certainly isn't.
I don't think so, but I'll play along.
I don't think you can find anyone saying "Don't do more studies".
You're hinting that people are opposed to studying the effects of vaping, and I simply don't see anyone who is opposed to that. Considering how many trolls have showed up, I'm supposed I can expect someone to post that they oppose it any time now, but I'm still pretty convinced that the vast majority of vapors would welcome a good in depth study of vaping and it's effects on health.
You don't have to "think so". My words are in my posts for anyone to see. You are either twisting my words on purpose or that you haven't read the entire thread.
You may wanna play but I am not going to waste my time. Go through the thread yourself!
Last edited:
I have not even remotely "hinted" or otherwise said such a thing. Read the thread. Stop twisting my words. Go back and read the thread in its entirety and come back with your apology ... I am waiting.
Last edited:
Well maybe after 60 pages of posts we agree more than we know
Do you think that vaping should be allowed in public enclosed places like resturants, bars, etc. If it is allowable by the owner?
Do you think that vaping should be allowed where smoking is not, if there are NO specific restrictions regarding vaping per se?
Ok, I know my answer isn't going to show up for quite a few pages, but.....
I have no qualms about vaping in public, either indoors or outdoors. My local bar allows it, although I have yet to vape there. I haven't vaped there mainly because when I found out it was ok to vape, the place was packed, and I just wanted a quiet evening with my friends, not lead an impromptu seminar on vaping vs smoking. But I digress.
Anyway, back on point. If an establishment allows it, fine! As for where smoking is not allowed, and no restrictions on vaping, go for it. I'm not saying that we should halt vaping, ban it until studies are done. I'm just saying that since there are very few studies done on long-term exposure, it's a known unknown situation, we know that we don't know if there are any negative side effects of long-term exposure.
It's just that it really gets under my skin when people use language that the non-educated public would take as being completely safe, when in reality, we don't know for sure. Like when asked if vaping is safe, saying yes and leaving it at that would lead someone to believe that it is entirely safe. But if we were to say that yes, it is safer than smoking, there could possibly be some risks associated with it, ie PG allergy, etc, then I'd have no issue at all. I don't believe this situation is as black or white as many make it out to be.
Like any other complaint, the HR department will have to make policy. If a woman wants to claim unsafe working conditions due to vaping, then she can take that up with OSHA, otherwise she's just being nasty.
My workplace does not have an official stand as of yet. Just like they don't have an official stand at "eating at ones desk". However should it become a problem, it would be reviewed.
I have a friend who owns a small business and bought e-cigs for all his smoking workers.
He's a vaper himself.
As far as my best, most senior member of my staff storming into my office, if she is my best and most senior member, she has proven to me he is not an idiot, and most likely would not storm into a rage.
But if she did complain, I would either move her or the vaper to another area. OR I would set up designated vaping areas indoors.
But I definitely would not succumb to an idle threat of litigation from someone who has not a shred of proof and is unlikely to get any.
That would be the same if someone came up to me and demanded I make the person next to her stop wearing perfume.
I sincerely doubt that miss priss and her lawyers are going to find any OSHA violations from someone vaping next to her desk.
Especially since no one hear has been able to provide anything showing additional risk. The same way I have not been able to produce long term studies showing no risk, no one has been able to provide such studies showing risk.
If I established a well thought out and comprehensive vaping plan in my business and was able to show through even anecdotal evidence that it increases morale, productivity without sacrificing employee safety, then it would be hard to fight that. Especially in lieu of the fact that there are no studies showing that there is appreciable risk, and what studies are out there point to there being no appreciable risk.
Would some businesses cave. Sure, but then again, as an employee, I also have the right to take my services elsewhere.
I quoted the post I was referring to. I don't think there is a "big difference" as you say between "any studies" and "many studies". But as I said, I'm not arguing semantics. I simply don't think that many vapers are opposed to those studies like you claim.
I've read the thread, for the most part. I'm sure I missed a few posts here and there.
But I'm pretty sure that what happened here is that you made a stupid argument about how nobody wants vaping to be studied, and I called you on it, so now you're all huffy.
You can deny you said it, but anyone can read it.
No, but IIRC, you were the one that said that long-term studies were impossible. As far as trolls showing up, I believe I may have just quoted one now!
If I can argue that a business can benefit the same way, but is not the case, then what is the purpose of suggesting I could argue that? I'm confused on that. I think it is same thing and same benefit to business, while plausibly same risk/lack of benefit to bystanders. It may not be same amount/percentage of customers that are attracted, but I think I speak for most vapers when I say if a business allowed it, it would bring in more customers. I feel you are assuming there would be a loss of customers in that process, thus arguing that the loss of non-vaping customers would (far) outweigh the influx of vaping customers.
And I fully believe right now, and for say last couple years, it would bring in more customers than it would lose. Get a few more anti-vaping articles, reports and sensationalized news stories that make it easy to shame vapers in society, and I'd agree that it would likely be more customers lost than those coming in. Yet, I don't see that magically getting better in next few years, especially if, or as, usage bans become widespread. The shaming factor is undoubtedly going to go up, even if science comes along as says what we all already pretty much think/know.
For there to be a significant loss in customers, now or at any point, the second-hand vapor myth must be in full gear. Non-vapers must believe that standing within 5 feet of a vapor will result in undue harm and harm akin to SHS. Perhaps they'll come to know it isn't exactly the same, but is close enough that if you are near a vaper, it is going to affect you adversely and thus best to avoid all locations where vapers are present.
So, not really a nuisance, but a situation where unknown risks are perpetuated by myths spun into 'currently known facts' from anti-vapers. If same thing was done via Wifi and myths of unknown factors were spun into 'danger Will Robinson, danger!' I'm thinking majority of businesses would go route of, "sorry, no more Wifi at this location" because of risks to bystanders AND all persons present.
Instead, as it appears to me, Wifi was allowed to get over a hurdle that vaping is currently being denied for really no other reason than to perpetuate a myth and manipulate mass perception.
As I have vaped (often) within 5 feet of non-vapers (who detest smoking), it is challenging to understand how majority of general public would react differently than these people who I have experience of vaping around. Yet, it certainly helps the anti cause if we vapers believe that no one wants to be exposed to second hand vapor, with all its unknown risks and currently known level of relative harmlessness.
REALLY?
I made a stupid argument? I denied what I said? OK, let’s see:
Everyone can read that I said (Post #620)
MORE STUDIES. Now, is the font size big enough for you to see?
Everyone can read that YOU then twisted my words: (Post #655)
So, who is denying the truth? YOU.
So, who made a stupid argument? YOU
Your attempt to get out of your mistake or to take back your strawman is just so pathetic that it is so sad. I pity you.
I am not going to argue with you on this anymore. The words are immortalized in this thread in plain sight for everyone to see. YOU ARE NOT WORTH MY TIME.
Last edited:
And, I don't need that apology from you... like I said, I don't have the time nor the patience for you, just pity.
Last edited:
You haven't pointed out any of these people who are "against more studies".
I don't think they exist. I think you made that up, and that the reason you are ...... at me is that you were lying and you got caught.
I don't think they exist. I think you made that up, and that the reason you are ...... at me is that you were lying and you got caught.
And here would be one of very few places where I'm willing to vocally go out on a limb and disagree with even those who I'm fairly certain are on my side of the "vape in public, openly, and respectfully" discussion.
I say if you can vape openly and respectfully, then do it in these places. I would suggest with caution, but IMO, that's covered by "vaping respectfully."
I acknowledge there is a risk in doing this, but I contend that the real risk (causing harm to others) is remote, and chances of getting caught are low. I could perhaps spell out a few other things to help make this point a bit more solid, but I realize I'm out on a limb that OP and others who have 'liked' my posts may not agree with because of the well know guideline of "their property, their rules."
I will add that I think it is highly unlikely that non-vapers are aware of an anti-vaping policy in these sort of places, much less even know what vaping is. I also have only encountered owners/managers who's education on this, as conveyed to me, amounts to "because it looks like smoking." I further believe that my attitude and going this route has nothing to do with usage bans that are popping up.
In my experience, the policy has always been based on a myth or what I deem ignorance of what vaping/vapor is.
And while we may all agree on many avenues to overcome that myth, I do think best one currently is to demonstrate in public what it is to vape openly with respect.
When I meet a property owner who isn't basing their anti-vaping decision on ignorance / perpetuating the myth, I'll be sure to report it here on the forum, and any updated thoughts I have on how I approach vaping in public, with respect to all persons involved.
You can't study something for 60 years, as you have requested, until it has been around for 60 years. It's sad that you are so stupid you can't grasp that.
Please please please please do more studies.
And please please please don't anyone use the excuse of lack of studies as reason to not do it (anywhere).
I actually agree with you....for the most part. I understand what you are saying, but I still believe you are holding vape to an unreasonable standard compared to other activities. Let me try to explain.
There are many things, we as humans would call "safe" without knowing for sure. We step into an elevator and push a button and live as if we will arrive at our floor without incident. If someone asked us about how "safe" elevators are, we wouldn't qualify the answer with something like...Well, we don't know for sure, but it's safer than climbing outside the building....Yet that is what you are asking for in regards to vape.
If someone asked you an honest question like "Is flying safe". Would you spend 15 minutes qualifying your answer? Would you tell someone..."Well statistically, flying is safer than other modes of transportation, but there are a number of risks to flying that can not be calculated. Such as the mechanical condition of the plane you are flying, the experience and health of the pilot, etc. etc. etc...?
Perhaps you would, but most of us would go.....Yeah, it's safe. Knowing full well, there are risks involved. Man performs a risk assessment almost every moment he is alive. We have been doing so since the dawn of time.
Everyone who actively vapes has performed the same risk assessment, and when I vape in the presence of my kids, I also perform a risk assessment.
Your point, If I understand correctly is that we need to "qualify" our statements regarding the safety of vape.
My point is if I am not required to "qualify" my statements on the safety of other activities which have already been shown to be potentially more harmful than vaping but still within what is generally classified as safe, then why should vape be different.
If someone would ask me if second hand vape was safe, I wouldn't hesitate to say yes. Not because I know for sure, but because based on what I do know and what has been studied, vaping and second hand vape IS less risky than thousands of activities that are commonly recognized as "safe" that I or someone else may perform or a on a daily basis.
Wow, first you accused me of arguing that people are against having ANY study done. When this false accusation didnt work, now you change back to the phrase more studies.
Talk about a slick chameleon you are! Or is it a lying sack of you-know-what.
- Status
Similar threads
