So then it's a self control issue? You don't *think* second hand vapor is harmful. You don't know. You can't show me a single study on long term side effects. It's a risk we are taking because we assume that it's healthier, and not harmful. But to the uninformed public especially, it can be a cause of concern. And I don't think that we should take that freedom away from them, to choose whether or not it's safe, because some of us refuse to show even a marginal amount of self control.
It was our decision to smoke. It was our decision to become addicted. It's not a disease that we picked up. We picked up smoking cigarettes knowing they were harmful. Well, unless you're so old that 3 out of 4 doctors recommended Kool. So with that in mind, be considerate of others. Everybody for in store vaping throws out other inconsiderate actions of others, but is that really the answer? I want to, and other people do other things? That's not a defense, thats an excuse. And a poor one at that.
No, it's not a self control issue. It's an issue of restricting behavior without valid reasons.
From:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ort_commissioned_by_Public_Health_England.pdf
"Passive vaping: Nicotine from e-cigarette use in ambient air
Four studies examined nicotine exposure from passive vaping. Long et al., 2014 measured nicotine content of EC exhalations. EC exhalations contained eight times less E-cigarettes: an evidence update 65 nicotine than cigarette exhalations [78]. Estimating environmental nicotine exposure, however, has to take into account the fact that side-stream smoke (ie the smoke from the lighted end of the cigarette, which is produced regardless of whether the smoker is puffing or not) accounts for some 85% of passive smoking and there is no side-stream EC vapour. A study measuring nicotine residue on surfaces in houses of smokers and vapers reported only negligible levels from vaping, 169 times lower than from smoking [79].
Colard et al., 2015 describe a model for estimating environmental workplace exposure [80]. The model predicts much lower nicotine exposure from vaping than from smoking, at levels negligible in health terms.
Goniewicz and Lee 2014 found that nicotine from EC vapour gets deposited on surfaces, but at very low levels [81]. This poses no concerns regarding exposure to bystanders. At the highest concentration recorded (550 μg/m2 ), an infant would need to lick over 30 square metres of exposed surface to obtain 1mg of nicotine.
Ballbe et al., 2014 provide the most informative data collected to date as this study measured the actual levels of airborne nicotine in homes of ex-smokers who live either with smokers (N=25) or with vapers (N=5) and also in 24 control homes [82]. The study also measured salivary and urinary cotinine in partners of smokers and vapers. As expected, there was little nicotine in non-smokers’ homes. The air in the homes of vapers contained six times less nicotine than the air in the homes of smokers. There was less of a difference between cotinine levels of partners of vapers and smokers (1.4 to 2 fold difference), most likely due to some ‘ex-smokers’ still occasionally smoking, but even with this possible contamination, the nicotine levels absorbed via passive vaping were negligible. Partners of vapers had mean cotinine concentrations of 0.19 ng/ml in saliva and 1.75 ng/ml in urine, which is about 1,000 times less than the concentrations seen in smokers and similar to levels generated by eating a tomato [83].
Summary
EC release negligible levels of nicotine into ambient air with no identified health risks to bystanders."
Now, those aren't long term studies, and they focus on nicotine, but if environmental vapor leads to negligible nicotine exposure, it stands to reason that exposure to anything else in the vapor would also be negligible, except maybe the PG/VG.
Of course there's preliminary work, showcased in the most recent FDA workshop on biomarkers, in which a company created a pg isotope so that they could specifically measure how much pg bystanders were exposed to directly from being in the same room as people vaping. Their results showed that the non-vapers had levels of exposure 5,000 times less than the vapers themselves.