Thought I'd give it a look just for second-hand smoke details, but it's just a paywalled abstract. No good.
- Status
Thought I'd give it a look just for second-hand smoke details, but it's just a paywalled abstract. No good.
Here's an excellent write up, with relevant links as well.
http://antithrlies.com/2014/09/16/c...sed-recommendations-re-workplace-tobacco-use/
http://antithrlies.com/2014/09/16/c...sed-recommendations-re-workplace-tobacco-use/
Are you referring to the nicotine? If the logical assumption that the exposure to everything else in the e-cigs is negligible, and the nicotine which is an even smaller percentage of the ingredients would also be negligible, isn't enough. I'll go finding it for you.
And here's Dr. F's take on the subject
http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/2014/184-passive-vape
http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/2014/184-passive-vape
As we're still debating both whether nic uptake occurs primarily in the mouth and if the lungs absorb much if any of the remainder... I'd say no, that's not a logical assumption.
Thank you for the links, I'll have a look.
Last edited:
For the Dr. F study, keep in mind that this was people who either lived with a smoker or a vaper, not passing exposure in a large box store.
This one first as it's just a short commentary.
Excerpt...
"In conclusion, the levels of nicotine absorbed from “passive vaping” are not only harmless but do not even produce any biological effect (not even heart rate acceleration). Considering the possibility that allowing e-cigarette use in public places may motivate smokers to switch to e-cigarette use, there is no scientific basis for any bans on e-cigarette use in public places."
I'm of the opinion that moderate nic use is both harmless and pleasant, so it's nice to see his measurements come in so low.
NOT "undetectable" though, and his short write-up is lacking mention of a very important datum... the vapers' MG level. It's a good start though.
So where is the evidence that 1) environmental nicotine exposure is harmful and 2) momentary contact with environmental vapor would lead to harmful exposure levels?This one first as it's just a short commentary.
Excerpt...
"In conclusion, the levels of nicotine absorbed from “passive vaping” are not only harmless but do not even produce any biological effect (not even heart rate acceleration). Considering the possibility that allowing e-cigarette use in public places may motivate smokers to switch to e-cigarette use, there is no scientific basis for any bans on e-cigarette use in public places."
I'm of the opinion that moderate nic use is both harmless and pleasant, so it's nice to see his measurements come in so low.
NOT "undetectable" though, and his short write-up is lacking mention of a very important datum... the vapers' MG level. It's a good start though.
It is usually easier to show a harm than an absence of harm, so surely there must be some data that shows this.
I think everybody needs to remember that there is reality, and then there is perception. When discussing people who are ignorant on a particular subject, you're dealing with perception. To the uninitiated masses, vaping is just no different than smoking. Whether that fact is true or not is completely irrelevant. Don't poke the bear.
End of line.
End of line.
So, further perpetuate the lies?
When your insurance charges you a surcharge for being a "tobacco user" don't question it?
When they start taxing e-liquid at the 95% rate that they do cigarettes, just accept it?
Or, when someone says something untrue about vaping, call them on it.
I am a vaper. I hope by now I am well-educated in vaping issues.
However I would hate to see somebody vaping around me in public places. Even in cereal aisle. Even in Walmart.
Now let's not take this to an extreme. Fighting for your rights and standing up for yourself is all well and good, but were talking about things that will make that fight so much harder. Pick your battles. Going against a private corporation that has every right to dictate what is, and is not, allowed on their property is not a fight that you're going to win. Doing our best to make sure that the... Vaping not allowed... sign never goes up, will be a lot easier than finding a way to bring it down once it does.
End of line.
I wasn't talking about fighting walmart. If they choose to have a policy that bans vaping in their stores, that is their right as a business. I'm referring to the general public's, and some vaper's, notion that environmental vapor exposure could be harmful. Letting that "slide" is inviting indoor bans, which is a step on the path to in depth regulation and taxation.
You're confused, who's making that claim? It's certainly not me. I like the stuff.
I still wouldn't recommend blowing smoke (or vapor) in the path of kids or pregnant women.
If for no more reason than I prefer to avoid kicks to the nads... especially well deserved ones.
The other link you presented is a 3000 word, overly emotional screed by CASAA. Basically a smack down to a CDC subdivision for conflating vaping and smokeless tobacco use in proposed workplace safety regulation guidelines. Meh.
The single "study" link within however, is of use.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/18
While this is a dense 20,000 word technical document, commissioned and funded by CASAA, the tone (such that I scanned) appears neutral and concerned with finding of fact rather than propaganda. Yay.
It's not an entirely clean bill of health, but the concerns center around the unprecedented quantities of PG and VG consumed more than the chemistry of properly produced e-liquids (they address the dodgy wrong glycol samples of a few years ago). There are open questions regarding not nic, but some of it's associated tobacco plant extracts. Again... detected levels are very low and not considered to be harmful.
It's conclusions do recommend further studies, it's from 2014, and I agree. But nothing pops out to make me go screaming into the night.
And pretty much none of it is widely known, which leads antis to view vaping just like smoking which, I believe... brings us back to the OP.
Thread reminds me of another Walmart vaping thread they got Locked a few weeks ago.
Perhaps a second attempt to overwork the Mods?
Personally think this should be preemptively locked
I concur; Any thread or post that has the word "Walmart" and any form of vape should be blocked and deleted by the censor-bot.
Out of curiosity, I typed the words "vaping" and "Walmart" into the search bar on the front page of the forum.
Guess what I found! Six different threads about vaping in Walmart with a combined total of 30 pages. That's about 600 posts, and 598 too many.
My post about nicotine exposure being negligible was in response to another's post about nicotine in second hand vapor.You're confused, who's making that claim? It's certainly not me. I like the stuff.
I still wouldn't recommend blowing smoke (or vapor) in the path of kids or pregnant women.
If for no more reason than I prefer to avoid kicks to the nads... especially well deserved ones.
The other link you presented is a 3000 word, overly emotional screed by CASAA. Basically a smack down to a CDC subdivision for conflating vaping and smokeless tobacco use in proposed workplace safety regulation guidelines. Meh.
The single "study" link within however, is of use.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/18
While this is a dense 20,000 word technical document, commissioned and funded by CASAA, the tone (such that I scanned) appears neutral and concerned with finding of fact rather than propaganda. Yay.
It's not an entirely clean bill of health, but the concerns center around the unprecedented quantities of PG and VG consumed more than the chemistry of properly produced e-liquids (they address the dodgy wrong glycol samples of a few years ago). There are open questions regarding not nic, but some of it's associated tobacco plant extracts. Again... detected levels are very low and not considered to be harmful.
It's conclusions do recommend further studies, it's from 2014, and I agree. But nothing pops out to make me go screaming into the night.
And pretty much none of it is widely known, which leads antis to view vaping just like smoking which, I believe... brings us back to the OP.
My point is that there is a major difference between "don't vape in stores because it is rude" and "don't expose innocent bystanders to harmful second hand vapor." One is an opinion, the other is an unsubstantiated claim.
As was yours which is why I asked for substantiation. I acknowledge that I've received it.
Now that strawman about second hand smoke, on the other hand.
Are you referring to this?As was yours which is why I asked for substantiation. I acknowledge that I've received it.
Now that strawman about second hand smoke, on the other hand.
I did not say that environmental smoke is completely harmless, but it is nowhere near as harmful as most people believe it to be.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielf...-no-link-between-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/
Our local neighborhood Walmart here in the Philippines is VERY vape-friendly.
They will alow anyone to openly vape .... You can also drink beer in the store if you like!
They will alow anyone to openly vape .... You can also drink beer in the store if you like!
You quoted exactly what I was referring to.
"Do you wanna build a strawmaaaaaannn?"
Cause... that's how you do it.
- Status
Similar threads
