White Paper: Electronic Cigarettes in the Indoor Environment - American Industrial Hygiene Association

[Painter_]

PDF here: https://www.aiha.org/government-affairs/Documents/Electronc Cig Document_Final.pdf

Basically they contain nicotine, there is not enough information, so do not allow them. Lots of old junk information, and a first time I have seen this; nut allergens.

The paper recommends that health care providers, e-cigarette companies and distributors, and the public health community understand that e-cigarettes are not emission-free, and that limited scientific information exists on their potential health risks. Risk assessment methods that look at the costs and benefits of e-cigarettes may be more useful than quantitative health risk assessments.

 

[xpl0it]

Basically they contain nicotine, there is not enough information, so do not allow them. Lots of old junk information, and a first time I have seen this; nut allergens.

I have a nut allergy and it's always a concern when in public. Even the smell causes severe discomfort which can range from restriction of the airways to vomiting. Fortunately the odor alone hasn't lead to any life threatening symptoms to this point in my life.

Even when flying I alert the airline to my allergy and they do their absolute best to make sure that passengers are not served any sort of nuts. Though this doesn't prevent someone from bringing the product along with them. Nonetheless it does minimize the risk and is very much appreciated.

I would certainly like to see more research on the subject when it comes to second hand vapor and allergens.

 

[DrMA]

This document reads very strangely. It seems to me someone was trying to make the point that no evidence of harm currently exists and that all the imaginary risks are pure unsupported speculation...

 

[csardaz]

"There is limited" data, research etc - as opposed to unlimited? Limited doesn't mean insufficient.

 

[Painter_]

Wow, I wonder if anyone proof read this before they published it. The amount of misspellings is amazing.

 

[DrMA]

I have 2 comments:
- I wonder who paid these clowns to put together this atrocity ; and
- I have a feeling Dr. Burstyn is about to be shunned by the professional association closest to his field of study.

 

[DrMA]

So what's up with tobacco controllers thinking mechanical engineering gives them medical credentials? We knew glANTZ somehow tricked or coerced his buddies to make him a prof of medicine. now Offermann (another mech eng) pretends to know health risk assessment? {MODERATED}

 

[Kent C]

I have 2 comments:
- I wonder who paid these clowns to put together this atrocity ; and
- I have a feeling Dr. Burstyn is about to be shunned by the professional association closest to his field of study.

On the last - the way they cite this:

For example, the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA), the leading consumer advocacy group promoting the availability and use of low-risk alternatives to smoking, has reported that e-cigarettes pose no health concerns and yield a significant risk reduction compared to regular cigarettes.[2,3] {note 3 is Burstyn}

Then:

On the other hand, several studies suggest that e-cigarettes may cause a variety of short- or long-term health effects, such as increased airway resistance in the lungs.[4,5,6] The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) yada yada... {notes 4,5 and 6 from Nordqvist, Vardasvas and Chen - are the type of stuff that Burstyn points out in mist as using flawed methods and conclusions. Chen's 'study' was the report of 'harms' done - likely from a Prue Talbot scanning of ECF - many generalizations and a small population, for example:
"Dr. Chen reports that "…other e-cigarette complaints include concerns about false advertising, headache/migraine, chest pain, cough/sputum, nausea/vomiting, dizziness, feeling sick, confusion/stupor, sore throat, shortness of breath, abdominal pain, pleurisy, blurry vision, and sleepy/tired." He correctly adds, "Of note, there is not necessarily a causal relationship between AEs reported and e-cigarette use, as some AEs could be related to pre-existing conditions or due to other causes not reported."

So the 'on the other hand' really doesn't address what Burstyn finds in 'peering in the mist' study, so I look at it as just 'piling on' with 'notes' to studies no one will read to give the appearance of a good journalistic job.

 

[Nate760]

The paper recommends that health care providers, e-cigarette companies and distributors, and the public health community understand that e-cigarettes are not emission-free,

Since when did "emission" and "hazardous emission" become interchangeable terms?

 

[Nate760]

On the other hand, several studies suggest that e-cigarettes may cause a variety of short- or long-term health effects, such as increased airway resistance in the lungs.

Classic weasel wording. They use the preface "short- or long-term," then list a single short-term effect.

Never mind the fact that one of the ANTZ' most dearly-held orthodoxies is that vapor products just haven't been around long enough to draw conclusions about any long-term health effects. They manage to contradict themselves even when they're constructing self-serving fallacies.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

Since when did "emission" and "hazardous emission" become interchangeable terms?

Since the desk murders decided to ignore the three large cohort studies that found little to no correlation between second hand smoke and cancer. The Netherlands study did find something that barely made it out of the statistical noise in women who lived with heavy smokers for over 30 years.

 

[Nate760]

Since the desk murders decided to ignore the three large cohort studies that found little to no correlation between second hand smoke and cancer. The Netherlands study did find something that barely made it out of the statistical noise in women who lived with heavy smokers for over 30 years.

It's annoying to hear such lazy, improper word usage from people who are supposed to be scientific professionals. Chemical emissions are the very thing that sustains our global life cycle. Animals emit carbon dioxide, plants emit oxygen, and each keeps the other alive. Using the unmodified term "emissions," with the implication that all emissions are harmful, is a mistake a 6th grader shouldn't make.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

FUD is the reason, if I pass gas it's a "chemical emission" it stinks but it won't kill you. After being on here for over 3 years I've come to the conclusion that the ANTZ/desk murders do not care if the truth has anything to do with the latest buzz words to create FUD that will further their aims.