Why do vapers expect to be treated differently than smokers?

[ennagizer]

"Why do vapers expect to be treated differently than smokers?"

I think the question should be "Why do some vapers expect to be treated differently than smokers?" I don't expect to be treated differently and I also don't expect that I can act differently because I'm vaping rather than smoking. It's still a habit and it is not my position to intrude on anyone else's space with my vapor. I choose to vape and I choose to do it where it's not going to bother anyone else. To me it's just the courteous thing to do.

 

[VapinWolf]

Since some of the research HAS determined that at least some forms of vaping do cause cell harm and cell death, I believe any debate here is pointless. Unless we are regulated to a single 'known safe' formula (read as basic flavorless medical dosage) then there is no argument anyone can make to justify putting non-vapers into harm's way by second hand vape.

 

[Phatlip]

"Why do vapers expect to be treated differently than smokers?"

I think the question should be "Why do some vapers expect to be treated differently than smokers?" I don't expect to be treated differently and I also don't expect that I can act differently because I'm vaping rather than smoking. It's still a habit and it is not my position to intrude on anyone else's space with my vapor. I choose to vape and I choose to do it where it's not going to bother anyone else. To me it's just the courteous thing to do.

I agree with this.

 

[tonetoocrazy]

I usually won't vape around allot people, unless someone is smoking then i have no problem chain vaping my but off i think if you go in a restaurant our something if that nature and start blowing huge clouds back to back, it will get foggy and that is just rude. No matter If it isn't harmful or having a fruity smell

 

[mkbilbo]

Since some of the research HAS determined that at least some forms of vaping do cause cell harm and cell death, I believe any debate here is pointless. Unless we are regulated to a single 'known safe' formula (read as basic flavorless medical dosage) then there is no argument anyone can make to justify putting non-vapers into harm's way by second hand vape.

Whoa there. As they say on the Wiki, "Citation needed".

I know of no research that "second hand vaping" is even a thing. I know the ANTZ have made such claims, usually making them up on the spot but I haven't seen any actual research yet.

So where are you getting this?

Oh and I have no interest in anybody's protestations about safety so long as this civilization keeps crapping all over the atmosphere. When people stop driving, then they can talk about trace elements and parts per billion in vapor. Not before.

 

[mkbilbo]

CAUTION: Long rant ahead! I've given more thought to this topic than I'd care to admit, in my many years as a smoker. I have to add that I am also a nurse (a high percentage of whom smoke) and a professor of psych nursing, thus behavior is a topic I know a bit about. I am old enough to recall the days when people commonly smoked in their offices, and even remember a physician who was notorious for having a cig dangling from his mouth as he was stitching people up in a local hospital ER (this was only in the late 70's, not so long ago as one might suspect.) I live in the north woods of Michigan, and though I consider myself a liberal, have a bit of a "Don't Tread On Me" attitude when it comes to personal liberties (I like to shoot skeet in my back yard.) The reason for all this background, is that I view smoking bans with very mixed feelings, and now that I'm a 3 month non-smoker/vaper, this gets added to the equation. Personally, I have long felt that the "science" of second hand smoke information is sketchy at best. While I can readily understand the potential for harm of high concentrations of second hand smoke in a closed environment, expanding that risk to include wafts of smoke in an outdoor environment seems neither logical, nor would I suspect, are there any sound scientific studies to verify this danger. I live in an area where the air is remarkably clean, and everytime I have lived in, or more recently visited a city, I am appalled by the air quality. Further, given the amount of auto exhaust and industrial pollution present in our cities, where the majority of people live, I find it truly amazing that people will complain about second hand smoke! The only sense I can make of this is that people are helpless, or feel helpless, to address real problems, so they get a sense of control over taking steps against perceived problems which are on a scale they can address. Thus the ire towards smokers. Does it fix the all too real problem of poor air quality which the vast majority of Americans live with? Not in the least. Does it give them someone to point a finger at, to feel that they are trying to make things better? Unfortunately, yes. I believe that all of the devisivness in this country is a form of lateral violence. We feel helpless to fix real problems, so we lash out at those around us to maintain a sense of control. I think it is inevitable that ecigs are going to be lumped in with real cigs for this reason. The ire towards smokers is not based on logic or facts, but is a knee-jerk reaction of people in need of a scapegoat.

Ayup. I grew up rural, lived in LA a decade, bounced a bit between Texas, SoCal, and Louisiana. The most rabid about "second hand" anything are people living in cities where the air quality is hideous. Go figure?

 

[stevegmu]

Since some of the research HAS determined that at least some forms of vaping do cause cell harm and cell death, I believe any debate here is pointless. Unless we are regulated to a single 'known safe' formula (read as basic flavorless medical dosage) then there is no argument anyone can make to justify putting non-vapers into harm's way by second hand vape.

From what I have read on the forums here, vaping is completely safe, no one is bothered by it, there is no second hand vapor, smell or nicotine and it is everyone's right to vape anywhere and everywhere. All the studies showing the contrary are false, sponsored by big tobacco, the pharmaceutical industry, men in black called 'ANTZ' and the government. Anyone in disagreement with groupthink is a plant.

 

[paige350z]

Also, the "appeal to authority" fallacy is especially dangerous with "the *Scientific Community." Especially when (in the US at least) that amounts to the FDA; an overreaching bureaucracy proven to favor the interest of big business over science and plain old common sense in almost every case. Remember, this "Scientific Community" approved tobacco in the first place.

*You should always capitalize the names of deity so as not to offend their worshipers.

Anyone who claims vaping isn't "big business" must not have seen what I've spent on vaping in the last 4 months since I've been doing it. Cigarettes were way cheaper for me, and I knew exactly what to budget for them. At the rate that I vape, a 10ml bottle at $6 per bottle lasts me three days or less, and that's if I LIKE it. Not to mention all the dozens of flavors I've purchased that I haven't been crazy about. Four PVs later, I finally know what I like, and I'm looking at a 5th one to round out the minor features I'm still searching for.

And as to the last sentence.... That was effing hilarious!!!!!!! LMAO!!!!!! Sorry to go off-topic!!

 

[agt7575]

Howdy ECF,

I was thinking of posting this as part of my reply to another thread, but I didn't want to take things too far off topic, so I thought I'd start my first thread with it. I realize, even before getting started with this post, that my POV probably won't be too popular here, but I'd like to share it here anyway because I honestly don't have anywhere else to share it.

Though I understand the reasoning behind it, it's puzzling to me that vapers expect to be treated differently than smokers when it comes to their (our) right to vape. Yes, I understand that it's just vapor (that is, after all, why I traded smoking for vaping), and that it is, as far as current studies have shown, harmless as second-hand. No harm, no foul, right? I agree. But even so, why should we expect to be allowed to vape in places that we weren't allowed to smoke? Let's face it, a lot of vapers (I'm inclined to say most/all, but I could very well be wrong about that) on this forum are/were smokers--it's not as though we're being treated any differently since picking up the "vaper" label. There certainly aren't additional restrictions being placed on us because we partake in a vape instead of a smoke.

The way I look at it: we get to enjoy something that is a very close approximation of smoking that isn't as harmful as actually smoking. That we can even have that is enough for me. I'll keep it outdoors, 25 feet away from doors and operable windows, away from dining areas, away from schools, away from children and pregnant women, etc. to be able to have that one thing. Vaping at it's core, to me, is about being able to stop smoking tobacco while keeping up the act of smoking at less risk to my health (that and it makes for a heck a tinkerer's hobby )--not about being able to have nicotine when- and wherever I want. As awesome as that would be, I don't ever expect that to become reality. It's kinda crazy to me that so many vapers do expect that reality. Especially when so little research has been done to determine what, if any, health risks there are to vaping and to secondhand vapor. Until the scientific community says there are no risks, I really don't think that it's realistic to expect that we'll be treated differently than smokers. There's just no way the non-vaping public will make a distinction between vaping and smoking until it is becomes scientifically accepted fact that secondhand vapor is harmless. And honestly, I'm ok with that. I know that many of you aren't, and I respect that we have differing opinions on the matter.

Anyhow, I see so much, "Our right to vape is in jeopardy," and so many opinions insisting that we should be able to vape anywhere and everywhere that I felt compelled to share a more moderate perspective: as much as it would suck if vaping wound up being no different than smoking socially and legally, it's not that big a deal. We still get to vape, and we're still better off than we were smoking analogs. I'm all for promoting our right to vape, but let's not forget why we got into vaping in the first place...as long as there isn't an outright ban we're still in pretty good shape. Thanks for reading.

Best wishes to you all,
Scott

While I do agree with most of your post, you still must remember why e-cigs were invented in the first place.. It was a way for smokers to legally take back the restrictions that were placed upon them when all of the bans took place years back. One of those bans, not being able to smoke OUTSIDE in public places, will always seem ludicrous to me.. You are OUTSIDE where you are being exposed to many other health risks (vehicular pollution as being one) other than just smoking. With vaping, you are now able to enjoy nicotine in places where smoking used to be allowed (remember bars and restaurants). The general pubic will ALWAYS look down on us smokers/vapers no matter what the evidence shows regarding the safety of exhaled vaper, or the otherwise overall benefit of vaping over smoking. You will always here the dreaded "why don't you just quit!" phrase from a non smoker no matter what we do.

With all of that being said, if you vape, its always good to show common courtesy, and overall good judgement, when deciding when and where to vape. Like in a restaurant, its probably better not to vape than to vape... even when it was allowed, I NEVER smoked in a restaurant due to common courtesy for the other patrons who are eating.. If you went outside to smoke a cigarette while dining, then why not to vape??

 

[VapinWolf]

There is a thread here on ECF linking to the FlavourArt research. Some flavor ingredients are not 'perfectly safe' like all the claims I read hear.

So, my point was/is, unless ingredients were strictly regulated (medical dosage controlled by Big Brother) any arguments to allow WHATEVER I am vaping in public are mute. There are NO long term studies that show the dangerous flavors will not hurt a bystander, so Big Brother can save that money and go with caution.

There are no regulations preventing me, or you from making and vaping the flavors that are only 70% safer than smoking cigarettes...and I am relying solely on the common sense of those who post:

1-I don't care what is in there, it's safer than smoking, and
2-I is not illegal I will vape wherever I want

not to sit behind me in a theater and fill the air with vapor KNOWN to kill lung tissue while my family is trying to breath....melodrama...but see my point?

There are posts every day telling people vaping is harmless. While I believe MOST vaping is harmless, I believe it is our responsibility not to make claims that have not been proven.

Maybe it is just how I look at things but "It's 100% safe" followed by "oops that flavor kills tissue" kinda sounds like maybe not sure what we are talking about.

 

[Jack Pappas]

A lot of opinions have been stated, I can say that I never seen vaping as an,"get out of jail free" card. Just because vaping is not as bad as cigarette smoke does not mean it is not anoying wafting by someone around you who does not vape/smoke. respect for your fellow neighbor, ya know?

For me, this is the key to being respectful of others in public places for me.
Even when it was perfectly acceptable to smoke literally ANYWHERE (and I'm talking about my youth when my doctor would smoke during the exams and once when a nurse smoking a cig helped prep me for surgery.), I found it incredibly offensive when someone sat down at the table next to me in a restaurant, or anywhere really, and fired up a cheap cigar.

And like it or not, some of the juices smell like ... to anybody not actually doing the vaping.

 

[cardboardphone]

I will leave the unabashed vaping anywhere to those who are inclined to it, because it isn't really my style.

I wouldn't light up an analog in someones home without asking, and the same would apply for a vape in a space that is not my own. While it is "harmless" there is still an aesthetic and sensory aspect to it that others may not enjoy and I don't feel its my right to infringe upon that.

 

[wv2win]

................Especially when so little research has been done to determine what, if any, health risks there are to vaping and to secondhand vapor. Until the scientific community says there are no risks, I really don't think that it's realistic to expect that we'll be treated differently than smokers. There's just no way the non-vaping public will make a distinction between vaping and smoking until it is becomes scientifically accepted fact that secondhand vapor is harmless. And honestly, I'm ok with that. I know that many of you aren't, and I respect that we have differing opinions on the matter..................

I can't agree with this statement.

There have been several studies that show their is nothing in exhaled vapor at a level that would harm others. Noted experts in the fields of Public Health and Harm Reduction, such as Dr. Murry Laugesen, Dr. Michael Siegel, Dr. Elizabeth Whelen and Bill Godshaw to name several, all have weighted in on the safety of exhaled vapor. Are you questioning their expertise or credentials?

One of the more recent studies was in the November issue of Inhalation Toxicology Journal where Dr Siegel stated on the studies results: "While secondhand smoke must be eliminated in workplaces and public places, the current data provide no justification for eliminating electronic cigarette use in these places.”- Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University School of Public Health.

When you combine the current studies, with the comments by noted experts, along with the fact that the ingredients in eliquid are considered to be safe for human consumption, your statement is baffling at best.

I'm beginning to understand that there are more people who would rather make assumptions than actually do the research. After what the FDA did in 2009 with the results of their study, you would think more of us would understand that those aligned against vaping will go to any lengths to spread disinformation. But how many who posted in this thread actually know what the FDA did with their study results or that noted experts have found exhaled vapor to be safe?? Probably very few.

 

[mkbilbo]

There is a thread here on ECF linking to the FlavourArt research. Some flavor ingredients are not 'perfectly safe' like all the claims I read hear.

So, my point was/is, unless ingredients were strictly regulated (medical dosage controlled by Big Brother) any arguments to allow WHATEVER I am vaping in public are mute. There are NO long term studies that show the dangerous flavors will not hurt a bystander, so Big Brother can save that money and go with caution.

There are no regulations preventing me, or you from making and vaping the flavors that are only 70% safer than smoking cigarettes...and I am relying solely on the common sense of those who post:

1-I don't care what is in there, it's safer than smoking, and
2-I is not illegal I will vape wherever I want

not to sit behind me in a theater and fill the air with vapor KNOWN to kill lung tissue while my family is trying to breath....melodrama...but see my point?

There are posts every day telling people vaping is harmless. While I believe MOST vaping is harmless, I believe it is our responsibility not to make claims that have not been proven.

Maybe it is just how I look at things but "It's 100% safe" followed by "oops that flavor kills tissue" kinda sounds like maybe not sure what we are talking about.

"Somewhere on a forum" is not a citation of studies.

FlavourArt is doing research on the cytotoxicity to vapers of ingesting significant quantities of the flavoring in e-liquids. Which is a wholly separate issue from whether there even is such a thing as "second hand vaping". Something which has not to this point been established.

Flavorings used in e-liquids are current food additives. That is, people are eating them every day and if there is significant toxicity to any of the flavorings we're using, we're not the ones exposing the public. The food and beverage industry is. And if they are toxic, catching a "whiff" from somebody's PV is likely less toxic than eating the flavor.

The ClearStream studies that FlavourArt got started are actually going the other direction. Such as cited here:

Utah Vapers - Clearstream Air Results

The study here: http://clearstream.flavourart.it/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CSA_ItaEng.pdf (PDF) used a 60 cubic meter closed room. 5 vapers in a session lasting 5 hours using 11mg e-liquid (from FlavourArt). Results:

"During the e-CIG session we found: TOC=0.73mg/m3 and glycerin=72μg/m3. No toluene, xylene, CO, NOx, nicotine, acrolein or PAHs were detected on room air during the e-CIG session."

Note: Toluene, xylene, CO, NOx, nicotine, acrolein, and PAHs were zero. None. Nada.

No "cell death". In fact, no "second hand vaping". There was glycerin. Which is used in consumer products such as candies, asthma inhalers, and a host of others.

Also here: Comparison of the effects of e-cigarette vapor and cigarette smoke on indoor air quality (October 2012, Vol. 24, No. 12 , Pages 850-857 (doi:10.3109/08958378.2012.724728) T. R. McAuley1, P. K. Hopke2, J. Zhao2, S. Babaian3).

Results section:

Comparisons of pollutant concentrations were made between e-cigarette vapor and tobacco smoke samples. Pollutants included VOCs, carbonyls, PAHs, nicotine, TSNAs, and glycols. From these results, risk analyses were conducted based on dilution into a 40 m3 room and standard toxicological data. Non-cancer risk analysis revealed “No Significant Risk” of harm to human health for vapor samples from e-liquids (A-D). In contrast, for tobacco smoke most findings markedly exceeded risk limits indicating a condition of “Significant Risk” of harm to human health. With regard to cancer risk analysis, no vapor sample from e-liquids A-D exceeded the risk limit for either children or adults. The tobacco smoke sample approached the risk limits for adult exposure.

I still haven't seen one study that shows any actual risk to anyone around a vaper. Not one.

Discussion of the above study here: New Study: No Evidence E-Cigs Cause Cell Damage or Death | Ecig Advanced News.

No evidence of "cell death" found.


Point remains: what our coal plants and cars are pumping into the atmosphere poses significantly greater risk to public health. The air in our cities is full of toxic waste but people are having hissies over the chance that some flavor in some vapor that may or may not be within a thousand miles of them is going to give them cooties.

By the way, one of the actually dangerous flavorings is a food flavoring used in "snack foods, baked goods, and candy" according to OSHA here: http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/flavoringlung/diacetyl_worker_alert.html. Maybe that's the one you have in mind? Because it's not being pulled off the market or anything, you're just supposed to provide employees masks and other protections.

They're going to let you eat it though. The problem was found when: "...NIOSH conducted an investigation of exposures at a microwave popcorn manufacturing plant in Missouri." So stay away from microwave popcorn?


There remains no evidence that "second hand vaping" even exists.

 

[IceRail]

Howdy ECF,

I was thinking of posting this as part of my reply to another thread, but I didn't want to take things too far off topic, so I thought I'd start my first thread with it. I realize, even before getting started with this post, that my POV probably won't be too popular here, but I'd like to share it here anyway because I honestly don't have anywhere else to share it.

Though I understand the reasoning behind it, it's puzzling to me that vapers expect to be treated differently than smokers when it comes to their (our) right to vape. Yes, I understand that it's just vapor (that is, after all, why I traded smoking for vaping), and that it is, as far as current studies have shown, harmless as second-hand. No harm, no foul, right? I agree. But even so, why should we expect to be allowed to vape in places that we weren't allowed to smoke? Let's face it, a lot of vapers (I'm inclined to say most/all, but I could very well be wrong about that) on this forum are/were smokers--it's not as though we're being treated any differently since picking up the "vaper" label. There certainly aren't additional restrictions being placed on us because we partake in a vape instead of a smoke.

The way I look at it: we get to enjoy something that is a very close approximation of smoking that isn't as harmful as actually smoking. That we can even have that is enough for me. I'll keep it outdoors, 25 feet away from doors and operable windows, away from dining areas, away from schools, away from children and pregnant women, etc. to be able to have that one thing. Vaping at it's core, to me, is about being able to stop smoking tobacco while keeping up the act of smoking at less risk to my health (that and it makes for a heck a tinkerer's hobby )--not about being able to have nicotine when- and wherever I want. As awesome as that would be, I don't ever expect that to become reality. It's kinda crazy to me that so many vapers do expect that reality. Especially when so little research has been done to determine what, if any, health risks there are to vaping and to secondhand vapor. Until the scientific community says there are no risks, I really don't think that it's realistic to expect that we'll be treated differently than smokers. There's just no way the non-vaping public will make a distinction between vaping and smoking until it is becomes scientifically accepted fact that secondhand vapor is harmless. And honestly, I'm ok with that. I know that many of you aren't, and I respect that we have differing opinions on the matter.

Anyhow, I see so much, "Our right to vape is in jeopardy," and so many opinions insisting that we should be able to vape anywhere and everywhere that I felt compelled to share a more moderate perspective: as much as it would suck if vaping wound up being no different than smoking socially and legally, it's not that big a deal. We still get to vape, and we're still better off than we were smoking analogs. I'm all for promoting our right to vape, but let's not forget why we got into vaping in the first place...as long as there isn't an outright ban we're still in pretty good shape. Thanks for reading.

Best wishes to you all,
Scott

Point taken. You (more or less) posted pretty much what I've been thinking for awhile anyway.

Well,... at least vaping doesn't smell as bad as actually smoking.

 

[IceRail]

Just curious,.. is there a list anywhere of what juice IS considered "safe"?

 

[mkbilbo]

I live in an area where the air is remarkably clean, and everytime I have lived in, or more recently visited a city, I am appalled by the air quality. Further, given the amount of auto exhaust and industrial pollution present in our cities, where the majority of people live, I find it truly amazing that people will complain about second hand smoke!

That's one of the ones that always gets to me as well. I was raised in rural Eastern Texas. In the woods. Out where you could see the actual stars at night. I've also lived about a decade in Los Angeles. And bounced between rural and urban areas a few times.

The air quality in our cities is, as you say, appalling. Yet it's largely people breathing in that toxic soup who are the most strident about "second hand" anything. Something I've always found deeply, deeply strange.

The most rabidly hostile anti-smoker I was around in LA drove one of the most polluting vehicles ever made and never once saw a contradiction...

 

[wv2win]

Just curious,.. is there a list anywhere of what juice IS considered "safe"?

Of the millions of people who vape, have you read or heard of anyone being harmed by vaping or being harmed by second hand vapor? Considering how many groups, with millions of dollars to spend, would like to see vaping banned, don't you think we would have known about it if someone had been harmed? If there was anything in exhaled vapor that would harm others, isn't it reasonable to expect that these same groups would have told us about it based on the studies they have done? Common sense tells me that generally, eliquid is safe since the major ingredients are all the same, at least from the major suppliers such as DeKang, Hangsen, Janty, etc. And since all of these ingredients are easy to come-by and inexpensive, there is no incentive to use some dangerous substitutes.

 

[VapinWolf]

"Somewhere on a forum" is not a citation of studies.

FlavourArt is doing research on the cytotoxicity to vapers of ingesting significant quantities of the flavoring in e-liquids. Which is a wholly separate issue from whether there even is such a thing as "second hand vaping". Something which has not to this point been established.

Flavorings used in e-liquids are current food additives. That is, people are eating them every day and if there is significant toxicity to any of the flavorings we're using, we're not the ones exposing the public. The food and beverage industry is. And if they are toxic, catching a "whiff" from somebody's PV is likely less toxic than eating the flavor.

The ClearStream studies that FlavourArt got started are actually going the other direction. Such as cited here:

Utah Vapers - Clearstream Air Results

The study here: http://clearstream.flavourart.it/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CSA_ItaEng.pdf (PDF) used a 60 cubic meter closed room. 5 vapers in a session lasting 5 hours using 11mg e-liquid (from FlavourArt). Results:

"During the e-CIG session we found: TOC=0.73mg/m3 and glycerin=72μg/m3. No toluene, xylene, CO, NOx, nicotine, acrolein or PAHs were detected on room air during the e-CIG session."

Note: Toluene, xylene, CO, NOx, nicotine, acrolein, and PAHs were zero. None. Nada.

No "cell death". In fact, no "second hand vaping". There was glycerin. Which is used in consumer products such as candies, asthma inhalers, and a host of others.

Also here: Comparison of the effects of e-cigarette vapor and cigarette smoke on indoor air quality (October 2012, Vol. 24, No. 12 , Pages 850-857 (doi:10.3109/08958378.2012.724728) T. R. McAuley1, P. K. Hopke2, J. Zhao2, S. Babaian3).

Results section:

Comparisons of pollutant concentrations were made between e-cigarette vapor and tobacco smoke samples. Pollutants included VOCs, carbonyls, PAHs, nicotine, TSNAs, and glycols. From these results, risk analyses were conducted based on dilution into a 40 m3 room and standard toxicological data. Non-cancer risk analysis revealed “No Significant Risk” of harm to human health for vapor samples from e-liquids (A-D). In contrast, for tobacco smoke most findings markedly exceeded risk limits indicating a condition of “Significant Risk” of harm to human health. With regard to cancer risk analysis, no vapor sample from e-liquids A-D exceeded the risk limit for either children or adults. The tobacco smoke sample approached the risk limits for adult exposure.

I still haven't seen one study that shows any actual risk to anyone around a vaper. Not one.

Discussion of the above study here: New Study: No Evidence E-Cigs Cause Cell Damage or Death | Ecig Advanced News.

No evidence of "cell death" found.


Point remains: what our coal plants and cars are pumping into the atmosphere poses significantly greater risk to public health. The air in our cities is full of toxic waste but people are having hissies over the chance that some flavor in some vapor that may or may not be within a thousand miles of them is going to give them cooties.

By the way, one of the actually dangerous flavorings is a food flavoring used in "snack foods, baked goods, and candy" according to OSHA here: http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/flavoringlung/diacetyl_worker_alert.html. Maybe that's the one you have in mind? Because it's not being pulled off the market or anything, you're just supposed to provide employees masks and other protections.

They're going to let you eat it though. The problem was found when: "...NIOSH conducted an investigation of exposures at a microwave popcorn manufacturing plant in Missouri." So stay away from microwave popcorn?


There remains no evidence that "second hand vaping" even exists.

About your last line, kinda proves my point, there is no proof or long term studies that show it is 100% perfectly safe. There are MANY different aspects of the FlavourArt research, I am sorry I don't have the time to search for the post, which was only a hyperlink, and manually type it all in for you. I can only do so much with this phone and copy/paste doesn't seem to like forums.

If I was mistaken, I was not alone, I got my first knowledge of flavors that are not 100% safe when Vapeteam reported the results of this research.

I thought I had clear up where you misunderstood my original post. My question is simple, if FIRST hanf vaping 'can' be dangerous using the wrong ingredients, is there something magical that happens to clean it up on the exhale? IF I inhale, my vapor exhale is greatly reduced. If I hold it in my mouth and release it, more vapor.

So, if I am vaping something that is known 'bad', and I DO NOT filter it with MY lungs, I am breathing that bad stuff out for YOUR lungs to filter.

I am sure someone will point out if I am wrong but I was under the impression the secondhand vape
research was done using cigalikes style ecigs ??

Does anyone know? The reason I ask is obvious, that style with factory prefills would not contain the ingredients we should avoid.

I guess the only real issue is: how can we be sure that guy/gal/huh? Is vaping something safe? If you want to do it 'everywhere' it has to be safe.

Again, sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[mkbilbo]

About your last line, kinda proves my point, there is no proof or long term studies that show it is 100% perfectly safe.

There exist no studies that anything is 100% safe. There is no such thing as 100% safe. And there has been. Nor could any such study ever be undertaken. It is not possible to determine if anything is safe for all people under all circumstances. If "100%" is your standard, you can't live in this reality anymore because "100% safe" does not exist.

There are MANY different aspects of the FlavourArt research, I am sorry I don't have the time to search for the post, which was only a hyperlink, and manually type it all in for you. I can only do so much with this phone and copy/paste doesn't seem to like forums.

And I've been reading them. Including journal papers. I find so far only research that contradicts your claim. Sorry.

If I was mistaken, I was not alone, I got my first knowledge of flavors that are not 100% safe when Vapeteam reported the results of this research.

I thought I had clear up where you misunderstood my original post. My question is simple, if FIRST hanf vaping 'can' be dangerous using the wrong ingredients, is there something magical that happens to clean it up on the exhale? IF I inhale, my vapor exhale is greatly reduced. If I hold it in my mouth and release it, more vapor.

So, if I am vaping something that is known 'bad', and I DO NOT filter it with MY lungs, I am breathing that bad stuff out for YOUR lungs to filter.

Somebody somewhere can do something that might be dangerous is not viable standard.

Somebody might hit you with a bus. So we can't have any buses?

I am sure someone will point out if I am wrong but I was under the impression the secondhand vape
research was done using cigalikes style ecigs ??

Does anyone know? The reason I ask is obvious, that style with factory prefills would not contain the ingredients we should avoid.

I guess the only real issue is: how can we be sure that guy/gal/huh? Is vaping something safe? If you want to do it 'everywhere' it has to be safe.

We know--for a fact--burning fossil fuels produces toxic chemicals which pollute the air you and I breathe every day. We know--for a fact--that those chemicals cause diseases, including cancer, and shorten life spans.

So you'll be giving up electricity, cars, planes, and trains right?