Let's inspect that statement from two angles.
#1 - the OP did not qualify "safe," so neither should we. Safe means safe. He didn't say safer, or somewhat safe. He said "safe." We don't need to make this complicated when it's, in fact, simple.
OP did say "safe alternative." You are emphasizing the safe part, and implying 100% safety.
If I brought a squirt gun into a hospital, and started shooting it (water) at people, I think some people could be happy if this was fairly new technology and declare it a 'safe alternative' to the kind of guns that shoot bullets. But you'd be saying it is incomprehensible that anyone considers shooting water at people as entirely 100% safe.
IMO, that's a very good and fair analogy. If I told you I was in a delivery room, while my wife was giving birth and I fired my gun twice, I'm thinking everyone would think it was crazy, dangerous stupid. But if I then went onto say, it was a squirt gun, I'm thinking everyone would think it funny, safe, and nothing to be even a little bit concerned about.
You'd come along and correct anyone that dared to call firing a squirt gun (in a hospital! during a delivery!) safe.
#2 - "Given the alternative"? What is the alternative, lighting up a stogie in the delivery room?
In this case, yes, but more like lighting up a stogie ANYWHERE.
No. The alternative is to not bleeping vape in the hospital at all.
That's not a bleeding alternative. That may be an option, but that would've denied a whole bunch of a trained medical personnel an opportunity to see vaping in action.
This isn't rocket science. Let's not pretend that the poster was faced with the decision of whether to vape in the delivery room or to light up in the delivery room. His choice is to do it, or not to do it at all. That's the choice being made. Now tell me the choice he made was "safer"
Why are we back to "safer" when you took that off the table in comparison to the actual alternative?
The reason this is treated like "rocket science" is because some vapers are (self)convinced that vaping poses a rather serious health danger to people around them. So even if doctors in a real medical situation conclude otherwise, these vapers are convinced that fellow vapers who do use their devices, and vape indoors are creating problems for everyone (all vapers, and non-vapers) by choosing to vape. That's half the picture and one that isn't too hard to understand but makes for interesting discussion when you realize a) no one is yet to find significant harm in short term from vaping and b) because of unknown long term effects, there are people who wish to say that (and that alone) ought to be grounds for not doing it in the short term. As in, let's wait 30 more years for evidence to come pouring in, and then we can go back to vaping based on that evidence.
The part that makes it truly like rocket science is when you realize what anti-indoor vapers are purporting, could easily be applied to all places they currently deem 'okay' or 'safe' for use, i.e. outdoors, own residence, own vehicle, etc. Cause arguably, it would be risky in all those places as well. Especially if 'third hand vapor' is a reality. And since we don't have the long term information on third hand vapor, which may not be available for another 25 or so years, then really, there is no place that is 100% safe for all people, from eCig vapor.
Therefore, some vapers have managed to construct an argument, that when taken to it's logical extreme, means there is no place to vape that is safe, and therefore it is never okay to vape anywhere.
Unless, you engage in a little rocket scientific debate and weed out philosophies of harm, risk, and safety to hopefully obtain what could be basis for reasonable discussion going forward.
regarding how to educate without making enemies.
