Vapping banned at work, but the ignorant statements...

[DeliciousClouds]

NOTHING in our everyday lives has been tested "long-term" BEFORE being released/used by the general public. Not even medicines.

The ONLY way to make a proper "long-term" study is to let a LARGE population use a certain item, for a LARGE time period.

True, but of course there are no long-term studies because e-cigs are a fairly new invention. Doesn't mean a large, long-term study can't be setup though. My point is that it's incredulous to draw any sort of real conclusions from short-term studies. And the cardiovascular study was about as short and as small as it gets.

The comparison to medicines.. Eh, I suppose it could be made. But medicines are extensively tested for multiple years, and -if there's no corruption involved- only released to the general public when regarded as safe enough to use. That doesn't eliminate all threat, but testing a medicine for decades before a market release would simply be economically nonviable in the vast majority of cases. That's the sad reality when companies are involved.

 

[jpargana]

True, but of course there are no long-term studies because e-cigs are a fairly new invention. Doesn't mean a large, long-term study can't be setup though. My point is that it's incredulous to draw any sort of real conclusions from short-term studies. And the cardiovascular study was about as short and as small as it gets.

The comparison to medicines.. Eh, I suppose it could be made. But medicines are extensively tested for multiple years, and -if there's no corruption involved- only released to the general public when regarded as safe enough to use. That doesn't eliminate all threat, but testing a medicine for decades before a market release would simply be economically nonviable in the vast majority of cases. That's the sad reality when companies are involved.

Yes. That's really my point. Apart from medicines (and even those we see sometimes taken off the shelves after 10, 15, 20 years), all items we use everyday are tested "long-term" after they have been released.

The trouble is, I see people whining abou the non-existance of long-term studies about the e-cigs, while carelessly using other stuff that has also not be tested long-term: preservatives in our food, colourings and flavourings in our beverages, radiation from cell phones and WI-FI... that does not bother those people a bit. Only when it comes to the e-cigarette. And this coming from vapers, of all people...

I know the e-cig is not safE, but I have no doubt it must be safER than tobacco, given what we know so far.

No short-term study on TOBACCo would make a scientist think "Well, this smoke SEEMS safe so far, but we need long-term studies". No way. Smoke harm can be readily detected on a very short-term study: just a simple analisys will tell us that the cocktail of chemichals will not be, by any chance, "probably safe".

The fact that those short-term studies about the e-cig are favourable, gives us at least a clue the we SEEM to be heading the right way.

But defending insane e-cig bans (insane even for tobacco; the "no smoking not even outside" rule for example) because "we need long-term studies to allow those things" seems overkill to me.

By the examples I gave above, the e-cig seems to be the ONLY product that needs "long-term studies" to be widely accepted as normal and safe.

 

[DeliciousClouds]

I have nothing more to add as it seems like we're pretty much in agreement. Good points, especially about short-term tobacco versus short-term e-cig studies.

 

[faile]

*snip*
The article is a non scientific harangue against Big Tobacco and Big Pharma. You only have to read half of it, actually much less than that, to realize it is more snake oil from anti government activists. The THR premise is laughable. The report admits in 20 plus places the dangers of "potential contamninants" in 2nd hand vapor. Particulary humorous was that it states that PG is used in the creation of "theatrical fog machines."
*snip*

(bolding mine) Why is this humorous?

 

[DeliciousClouds]

(bolding mine) Why is this humorous?

It's a bit of a silly example to prove why PG is harmless to inhale. But never mind that:

 

[DaveP]

Do you have any studies on 2nd hand vaporized PG, VG, flavoring, sweeteners and all possible wick materials? Please post those. Thanks.

The Drexel study is the most comprehensive study I know of. Over a 5 year period they monitored and tested hundreds of volunteer vapers. The result was that they found the exhaled vapor to be below EPA accepted levels for all components of the vapor and declared sidestream vapor to be no worse for bystanders than walking down a typical city street. It's on the long side, but it's in PDF format and searchable. Every Vaper should read this study. Bosses who think they know what they are banning should read this before making their decision.

http://publichealth.drexel.edu/~/media/files/publichealth/ms08.pdf

Peering through the mist: What does the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tell us about health risks?
Igor Burstyn, PhD
Department of Environmental and Occupational Health School of Public Health Drexel University 1505 Race St., Mail Stop #1034 Philadelphia, PA 19102 USA Tel: 215.762.2909 | Fax: 215.762.8846 igor.burstyn@drexel.edu
Abstract

 

[jpargana]

The Drexel study is the most comprehensive study I know of. Over a 5 year period they monitored and tested hundreds of volunteer vapers. The result was that they found the exhaled vapor to be below EPA accepted levels for all components of the vapor and declared sidestream vapor to be no worse for bystanders than walking down a typical city street. It's on the long side, but it's in PDF format and searchable. Every Vaper should read this study. Bosses who think they know what they are banning should read this before making their decision.

http://publichealth.drexel.edu/~/media/files/publichealth/ms08.pdf

Nevermind about that... someone is bound to tell you that five years is not long enough...

 

[Stringplucker]

The ignorance stated in the policy has really ...... me off!

Electronic cigarettes (e.g “e-cigarettes”, “vapes”, etc) are battery-powered or other
devices that provide vaporized doses of nicotine, or other narcotics, to the user. Like
tobacco products, the nicotine contained within contributes to a number of adverse
health effects such as coronary artery disease and hypertension. Unlike approved
nicotine replacement therapies, such as gum or lozenges used to help the tobacco-
user quit, these devices are not a proven cessation aid according to the World Health
Organization. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has also warned that they are
unsafe, and many countries have banned these devices. For these reasons, electronic
cigarettes are also prohibited as part of this policy.


Please, somebody stop the earth, I want off. Wait, what? So the USP Nicotine in vaporizers is bad, but the USP nicotine in gum and lozenges is safe? The people in our HR dept are barely smart enough to make it to work on their own.

I highlighted the part in red and replied asking them to cite their reference. So far I have not received a response. I understand it is their building, their rules, and I respect that. However, the clear misinformation I DO NOT respect.

I see a major issue here, as they prohibit someone that is prescribed a nicotine inhaler from being able to take their medication.

Time for an educational session with HR. Prescription NICOTROL® Inhaler (nicotine inhalation system) | Safety Info

 

[WharfRat1976]

The Drexel study is the most comprehensive study I know of. Over a 5 year period they monitored and tested hundreds of volunteer vapers. The result was that they found the exhaled vapor to be below EPA accepted levels for all components of the vapor and declared sidestream vapor to be no worse for bystanders than walking down a typical city street. It's on the long side, but it's in PDF format and searchable. Every Vaper should read this study. Bosses who think they know what they are banning should read this before making their decision.

http://publichealth.drexel.edu/~/media/files/publichealth/ms08.pdf

I will read this in entirety and thanks for posting. My hopes are not up but I am teachable- I am not gullible, however.

 

[sonicdsl]

We need to keep the tone down in here please. Remember that we do not permit personal attacks. You can disagree with the post all day, just keep it civil.


Have a great day!

 

[DaveP]

Here's the CASAA blog about the Drexel study.

CASAA: New study confirms that chemicals in electronic cigarettes pose minimal health risk

 

[Jman8]

and the sampling was 36 analog smokers and 40 ecig users. It proves absolutely nothing long term or short term. 76 people sampled and 500,000 die each year from analog related cancer....but believe this since we performed some pseudo science on 76 people.

Please cite the data on 500K die from smoking each year. I look forward to skewering those sources and the scientific falsehood of said data. Not sure how it relates exactly to this thread other than to establish that the policy, in OP, isn't being made because of science, but instead due to politics that chooses to cite pseudo scientific bodies (when it comes to tobacco products).

 

[AndriaD]

Please cite the data on 500K die from smoking each year. I look forward to skewering those sources and the scientific falsehood of said data. Not sure how it relates exactly to this thread other than to establish that the policy, in OP, isn't being made because of science, but instead due to politics that chooses to cite pseudo scientific bodies (when it comes to tobacco products).

The CDC says 480,000 - CDC - Fact Sheet - Tobacco-Related Mortality - Smoking & Tobacco Use -- but given their stupidity on the subject of e-cigarettes, I'm no longer sure how much we can rely on ANYTHING the CDC says. So skewer away, I won't mind a bit.

Andria

 

[zoiDman]

Let the Skewering Begin.

LOL

 

[Jman8]

The CDC says 480,000 - CDC - Fact Sheet - Tobacco-Related Mortality - Smoking & Tobacco Use -- but given their stupidity on the subject of e-cigarettes, I'm no longer sure how much we can rely on ANYTHING the CDC says. So skewer away, I won't mind a bit.

Andria

"The CDC says" does not equal scientific claim.
And as CDC has been shown to be biased against eCigs based on (essentially) junk science, then their credibility on all other matters, but particularly tobacco related data, is questionable. The CDC link is information about data, thus not really all that challenging to skewer. But if looking at say 2nd link cited in footnotes, I find this sort of information in that report:

The overall mortality among smokers of both sexes in the United States is about three times as high as that among otherwise similar persons who never smoked, and the smokers lose, on average, at least a decade of life.

Which is the type of info that I think is ripe for skewering. These reports aren't saying, as I think is often the understanding, that actual smokers are dying (while smoking) each year, and our data tracks that. Instead, it is tracking mortality rates of all people, and then taking data from surveys to determine how many of those people (sampled) are, or ever were, smokers (of at least 100 in their lifetime). Or as put in another part of this report:

Unlike previous analyses of NHIS results, our analyses classified former smokers who had quit within 5 years before death as current smokers.

So, think how many reading this on ECF would constitute as "current smokers" under this criteria. And my question would be is this scientific to classify in this manner? Or is it a way to cook the numbers to make the problem seem worse than it is? As this study concludes with recommendation for cessation (via political means), it ought to be noted that a bias is inherent.

Moreover, I would just note what I previously alluded to which is this is actually tracking rates of deaths (of any sort) and suggesting that "current smokers" are equal in risk to those rates. It is really (really really) about risk of premature death (from several causes) and then matching up data that chooses to classify who is a smoker and who is not with that risk (and not necessarily with actual mortality).

Thus, also not too challenging to skewer in light of soundbite rhetoric that wants to suggest hundreds of thousands of people die each year from smoking (and smoking alone).

 

[zoiDman]

"The CDC says" does not equal scientific claim.
And as CDC has been shown to be biased against eCigs based on (essentially) junk science, then their credibility on all other matters, but particularly tobacco related data, is questionable. The CDC link is information about data, thus not really all that challenging to skewer. But if looking at say 2nd link cited in footnotes, I find this sort of information in that report:



Which is the type of info that I think is ripe for skewering. These reports aren't saying, as I think is often the understanding, that actual smokers are dying (while smoking) each year, and our data tracks that. Instead, it is tracking mortality rates of all people, and then taking data from surveys to determine how many of those people (sampled) are, or ever were, smokers (of at least 100 in their lifetime). Or as put in another part of this report:



So, think how many reading this on ECF would constitute as "current smokers" under this criteria. And my question would be is this scientific to classify in this manner? Or is it a way to cook the numbers to make the problem seem worse than it is? As this study concludes with recommendation for cessation (via political means), it ought to be noted that a bias is inherent.

Moreover, I would just note what I previously alluded to which is this is actually tracking rates of deaths (of any sort) and suggesting that "current smokers" are equal in risk to those rates. It is really (really really) about risk of premature death (from several causes) and then matching up data that chooses to classify who is a smoker and who is not with that risk (and not necessarily with actual mortality).

Thus, also not too challenging to skewer in light of soundbite rhetoric that wants to suggest hundreds of thousands of people die each year from smoking (and smoking alone).

So how many people do You think Die Prematurely every year as a Direct Result of Smoking?

Also, How many people do You think have a Severely Diminished Quality of Life as Direct Result of Smoking as a Percentage to All Smokers?

 

[Jman8]

So how many people do You think Die Prematurely every year as a Direct Result of Smoking?

As a direct result? As if smoking alone was primary factor? I would say less than 1000. And would be, in my mind, heavy abusers (like 3 PAD). I could see it being less for some people (even less than a PAD), but then not sure if that would constitute 'direct result' as I would think other factors were contributing to why this person passed early on.

I also do not subscribe to idea that smoking causes body ailments. I understand it as correlation, not causation.

Also, How many people do You think have a Severely Diminished Quality of Life as Direct Result of Smoking as a Percentage to All Smokers?

Severely? I would go with 1% to 5%. One person's version of "severe" may be another person's version of "best day of the past year."

But quality of life is another thing I think that gets lost in this premature death topic. So, you lived to be 85 years old, but lead by all accounts (including your own) a fairly boring life, while rock gods who died at age 27 (all of whom were smokers) got to suck out the marrow of life.

Not to mention the people who are on record living to 115 years of age and smoked 2 a day up until they turned 105 years old, when they realized, now might be a good time to cut that out. Ya know, now that I'm at 105 years of age.

 

[zoiDman]

As a direct result? As if smoking alone was primary factor? I would say less than 1000. And would be, in my mind, heavy abusers (like 3 PAD). I could see it being less for some people (even less than a PAD), but then not sure if that would constitute 'direct result' as I would think other factors were contributing to why this person passed early on.

I also do not subscribe to idea that smoking causes body ailments. I understand it as correlation, not causation.



Severely? I would go with 1% to 5%. One person's version of "severe" may be another person's version of "best day of the past year."

But quality of life is another thing I think that gets lost in this premature death topic. So, you lived to be 85 years old, but lead by all accounts (including your own) a fairly boring life, while rock gods who died at age 27 (all of whom were smokers) got to suck out the marrow of life.

Not to mention the people who are on record living to 115 years of age and smoked 2 a day up until they turned 105 years old, when they realized, now might be a good time to cut that out. Ya know, now that I'm at 105 years of age.

OK...

So what are you Basing this On?

You "Skewered" the CDC for not being Scientific in their Approach to Presenting Numbers. Just curious where you are Getting your Data?

 

[DaveP]

CDC: 5 things cause two-thirds of U.S. deaths - CNN.com

Editor's note: Dr. Tom Frieden is the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

(CNN) -- Five things kill more people in the United States than anything else: heart disease, cancer, lung disease such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis, stroke and unintentional injuries such as those on roads or caused by medication overdoses.

Together, these five conditions cause almost two-thirds of all deaths in the country -- nearly 900,000 each year.

Then, there's obesity. Normal weight individuals (not skinny) live longer than overweight people. I wonder what that number is for those who are above normal weight and exercise daily down to a sweat as opposed to normal people who sit on the couch all day watching TV?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...iaviewer/File:Preventable_causes_of_death.png

 

[zoiDman]

CDC: 5 things cause two-thirds of U.S. deaths - CNN.com



Then, there's obesity. Normal weight individuals (not skinny) live longer than overweight people. I wonder what that number is for those who are above normal weight and exercise daily down to a sweat as opposed to normal people who sit on the couch all day watching TV?

CDC: 5 things cause two-thirds of U.S. deaths - CNN.com

I wonder what Category they put an Overweight Smokers who has AIDS that dies in a Motor Vehicle Collision as a result of being Drunk and Accidentally Shooting Himself with a Firearm?