yep, just ask the expert...

Status
Not open for further replies.

mmrock

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
May 19, 2012
116
63
57
michigan, usa
My boss smokes e-cigarettes in the office. Is this safe? – - CNN.com Blogs

talk about e-cigs getting stigmatized before they even get off to a running start..

From Thien Pham, Laramie, WY
“I have a supervisor who is starting to smoke electronic cigarettes in his office. I am wondering what the secondhand smoking health effect is from electronic smoke (such as e-smoke products). Is it legal for people to smoke e-cigarettes inside? Thank you.”

Answer:


This is a great question, Thien, because the mere concept of an electronic cigarette is confusing for folks. These electronic alternatives to conventional cigarettes are touted as a safe alternative to smoking. The suggestion is that secondhand vapor from an e-cigarette might be safe too.
Well, not so fast. The safety record for e-smoke products and the vapor they emit thus far is, well, hazy. There have been no studies about safety for these products in the U.S.

.... Turns out that despite that lack of combustion, some of the most popular e-cigarette brands contain carcinogens - they could still cause cancer. The FDA has also detected a toxic chemical found in antifreeze in some leading brands. That means that although manufacturers of these e-cigarettes say they are pretty sure their product is safe, the jury is still out about the health effects (and consequently secondhand effects) with e-cigarettes.

..... Nicotine on its own is highly addictive and we do not know yet the the health effects of inhaling pure nicotine, nor do we know what could happen if those toxic substances the FDA found could harm folks in close proximity to the "e-smoker."

( and this is the "experts" conclusion ) :

In a nutshell, until we know more, you may want to - protectively - steer clear from your supervisor's office.

( this so-called "expert" says that there has been "no studies about safety for these products in the U.S." then goes on to tout the usual FDA so-called studies about safety in the U.S. .. lots of people read and hear this stuff and think e-cigs are the worst thing ever invented. its crazy. )
 

mmrock

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
May 19, 2012
116
63
57
michigan, usa
yeah. big media is creating a lot of uninformed, biased people too. check out the big debate at the bottom of the page where the article is. there are people who are afraid they will become addicted to nicotine just by inhaling the vapor from an e-cig. lol .. or a real cig for that matter.

i'm still skeptical about the whole "second-hand smoke" thing. is all that hype true? or just some more lies the FDA and big pharma invented. has there been real studies of "second-hand smoke" ? if there has been, i bet those studies are just as mis-leading and biased as the FDA "study" of e-cigs.

i'm on page 3 of the big debate. its good to see a lot of e-cig supporters chime in with actual facts, but the non-smoking nutjobs are still adamant that e-cigs are so evil.... and of course, no sign of the so-called "expert", who wrote the article to begin with.. *crickets..*
 

elfstone

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 15, 2012
2,601
3,018
OH
Well... not so fast.

Is he dead wrong? Yes. Is he credible? Very much so.

People do not care about information that can be found here and there. They want facts coming from "experts". People want hard and fast definitive answers. The media trained us to respond to the 15 second capsule, and ignore everything else.

I'm afraid that in any public debate, vaping supporters would lose. We don't have any resounding capsule. All they have to say is "FDA, carcinogens, toxic, no studies". We have a mess of disparate pieces of information. And then they just point out that most supporters are either vapers, i.e. addicts who do not think straight or manufacturers. If you try to point out FDA might be in bed with either or both Big tobacco and Big Pharma, you lose again - nutjob, consipracy theorist on top of being an addict. Even on the CASAA website, the case made is far from compelling.

All I'm saying is be realistic. No major news outlet will go campaigning for an obscure emerging trend and against big political players for no clear bottom line effect.
 

Sa Da Tay

Moved On
ECF Veteran
Nov 4, 2011
369
769
Austin, Texas
To mmrock: yes, secondhand smoke has been a studied, statistically-supported, documented carcinogen. You can read a decent synopsis along with research citations at the American Cancer Society's website here

And good points elfstone. Pro-vaping is already up against a huge wall of ignorance, bias and politics. I'd also like to point out that some vapers don't help the cause by forcing their agenda down people's throats and acting adversarial towards the uninitiated. "Ignorance" does not mean "stupid" and worthy of disdain. There is also the attitude of some, when the discussion of vaping safety comes about, to be immediately dismissive by saying "Vaping is way better than smoking and at least I'm not doing that so leave me alone". While this may be an effective psychological rationalization for an individual, it certainly doesn't help the cause of wider acceptance.
 

mmrock

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
May 19, 2012
116
63
57
michigan, usa
To mmrock: yes, secondhand smoke has been a studied, statistically-supported, documented carcinogen. You can read a decent synopsis along with research citations at the American Cancer Society's website here

And good points elfstone. Pro-vaping is already up against a huge wall of ignorance, bias and politics. I'd also like to point out that some vapers don't help the cause by forcing their agenda down people's throats and acting adversarial towards the uninitiated. "Ignorance" does not mean "stupid" and worthy of disdain. There is also the attitude of some, when the discussion of vaping safety comes about, to be immediately dismissive by saying "Vaping is way better than smoking and at least I'm not doing that so leave me alone". While this may be an effective psychological rationalization for an individual, it certainly doesn't help the cause of wider acceptance.


"There is an Internet News Group devoted to smoking (alt.smokers). Recently, a participant called the Office of Smoking or Health, in an effort to find out how the government arrives at its estimate of 450,000 annual smoking related deaths. After repeated calls to different individuals within the government, it turned out that nobody really knew how the figures are compiled. Some bureaucrat said he thought the calculations might come from a book, "Foundations of Modern Epidemiology", by David Lilienfeld. They don't. I'll discuss this and other interesting statistical manipulations, later. "

"In Defence of Smokers", by Lauren A. Colby / Chapter 2

"THE LIE: Cigarette smoke and Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) or Second Hand Smoke (SHS) Causes cancer.

THE Truth: Simply stated there is no known cause for any type of cancer. With all the testing that has been done with every type of chemical, gas, inert matter, and substances that have been altered through exposure to heat or chemical reaction, nothing has been proven to cause cancer. NOTHING! In some instances specific substances, in massive quantities, have been administered to laboratory rats. In these cases many of the animals might have developed a cancer. These sorts of tests may be considered Junk Science in that they have no relationship to a real life scenario.

The World Health Organization ran one of the most exhaustive tests on SHS ever done. After years of meticulous record keeping of all the data, their ultimate findings showed no measurable relationship of SHS to any form of cancer or other illness. The only measurable fact they did discover was that of all adult children who came from homes where both parents smoked had had a 22% better chance of NOT contracting lung cancer than did adult children who came from homes where both parents did not smoke. The W.H. O attempted to hid these facts from the public until several astute reporters forced them to make their facts public."

The Smokers Club, Inc. - The Ten Biggest Lies about Smoke & Smoking

"Fortunately, it is simply not true that even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause cardiovascular disease. Luckily, it takes many years of exposure before the process of atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries) can occur. If brief tobacco smoke exposure could cause heart disease, we would sadly see many young people in their twenties and thirties walking around with cardiovascular disease, and many dying from it at those ages. Even active smoking does not generally lead to heart disease unless you smoke for many years. Thus, it is simply untrue to assert that brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause cardiovascular disease. [Emphasis mine.]

Read more: Don’t believe the lies about secondhand smoke | The Daily Caller

this is a very interesting site: The Facts About Second Hand Smoke
(Finally) http://www.davehitt.com/facts/

from the cancer.org site Secondhand Smoke

"Secondhand smoke causes cancer

Secondhand smoke is classified as a “known human carcinogen” (cancer-causing agent) by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization. "

where does the "US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a branch of the World Health Organization" get there money from? same places the FDA does? follow the money and you'll find the truth.
 
Last edited:

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,974
San Diego
Yes, we are outnumbered.
Yes, we are under-financed.
Yes, we are fighting a system that doesn't want us around.

Actually, we are fighting a number of systems that don't want us around...
--Big Pharmacy is number one
--Big Government is number two
--The "non-profit" health advocates are number three
--The "anti-smoking" groups are number four

And all we have on our side is our passion, our will to live, and of course the truth.
I just hope that if push comes to shove we will not cower in a corner like we did when we were smokers.

Enlist the people that love and care for you.
Teach them about the war being waged against us.

Because if push does come to shove, we are going to need them to stand up for us too.

Any time I see anyone say we can't, I want to slap them.
Because we have, we are, and we damn well ought to continue doing so.

If you don't know anything about what I'm talking about, visit the following and get an education...
--http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/
--http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/media-general-news/
--CASAA - The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association
 
Last edited:

Sa Da Tay

Moved On
ECF Veteran
Nov 4, 2011
369
769
Austin, Texas
mmrock: I didn't mean to get in a debate but I suppose I asked for it. About your documentation, I have no doubt that there are in fact vast money and power-driven conspiracies which would astonish even the zaniest, paranoid theorists, but I really don't think the "Smoking/Secondhand Smoke Is Actually Harmless" argument is one of them. It's kind of like the public health version of the Birther movement, imo. As your quote states above: follow the money and you'll find the truth. One of the largest lobbying groups in the nation historically is Big Tobacco <---it's even in the name. For tobacco in today's society to be such a pariah in the face of all that money? That should tell you how bad it is. And to the point of this thread, espousing those arguments destroy your credibility when trying to argue for e-cigs.
 

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,974
San Diego
Is second-hand smoke harmless?
Most likely not.

Is second-hand smoke in an outdoor setting harmless.
Hell yes.

And anybody that says otherwise has an agenda, or is just ignorant.

So given that, why are they moving more and more towards eliminating smoking in public parks and such?
Oh, sorry, I already mentioned the part about agendas.
 

Sa Da Tay

Moved On
ECF Veteran
Nov 4, 2011
369
769
Austin, Texas
Is second-hand smoke in an outdoor setting harmless.
Hell yes.
And anybody that says otherwise has an agenda, or is just ignorant.

I know I'm not making many friends here by posting like this but I feel like I have to inject impartiality to this subject. As is almost always the case with Reality, there are no black and whites, only greys. So with your question "Is second-hand smoke in an outdoor setting harmless?", I would offer that either answer of "Hell No" or "Hell Yes" has an agenda or ignorance behind it, because the truth is somewhere in middle. I'm sure standing 50 feet from a smoker in an open field is pretty harmless, but what if you're in a 400 square foot partially-covered courtyard with 20 smokers? It starts to get hazy.
 

mmrock

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
May 19, 2012
116
63
57
michigan, usa
And to the point of this thread, espousing those arguments destroy your credibility when trying to argue for e-cigs.

there is NO proof that second hand smoke or second hand vapor causes any health risks ( yet the anti-smoking organizations happily tout their lies year after year and now they are pulling e-cigs into their blanket of deceit and the public eats it up, believing everything they say. ) . that is the point of this thread.

there's not even any proof that smoking is the direct cause of cancer ( and the proof of getting cancer or other "smoking related diseases" from second hand smoke is nil ) . where did people point their fingers as the cause of cancer before cigarettes was even invented? i don't know the answer to that. i do know that people can get cancer weather they smoke or not, and i'm sure if we found the statistics on that, the numbers would be pretty much even between smokers and non-smokers.

e-cigs are being lumped into the same BS the "officials" put onto smoking.
 
Last edited:

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,974
San Diego
I'm sure standing 50 feet from a smoker in an open field is pretty harmless...
I'm all for injecting impartiality, but I'm going to say that standing 2 feet from a smoker in an open field is probably harmless.
Maybe if you did that for an hour each day, it might be an issue, but I don't know anyone that does that.

...but what if you're in a 400 square foot partially-covered courtyard with 20 smokers? It starts to get hazy.
How high is the roof?
How partially covered is it?
Is there a ventilation system in place?
What is the wind speed? The airflow patterns?

If all of the above adds up to essentially trapping people with smoke for a couple of hours, then maybe.
Otherwise, I'm really going to have to say no way.

But people can make up their own minds.
 

Sa Da Tay

Moved On
ECF Veteran
Nov 4, 2011
369
769
Austin, Texas
How high is the roof?
How partially covered is it?
Is there a ventilation system in place?
What is the wind speed? The airflow patterns?

See? We're actually thinking alike. All those things you listed should occupy your mind next time someone asks you if smoking outside is harmless and you have the urge to answer "hell yes!" :)

mmrock, to be clear, I was merely stating the facts for secondhand smoke, not vapor. And you have every right to cling to your theories about tobacco.
 

mmrock

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
May 19, 2012
116
63
57
michigan, usa
See? We're actually thinking alike. All those things you listed should occupy your mind next time someone asks you if smoking outside is harmless and you have the urge to answer "hell yes!" :)

mmrock, to be clear, I was merely stating the facts for secondhand smoke, not vapor. And you have every right to cling to your theories about tobacco.

i believed all the lies just like everybody else did. all these years. you hear the same line over and over again, it gets drilled into your head and you end up believing it. then someone pointed out how flawed the "study" was that the FDA did on e-cigs and added that the FDA has been doing the same kind of flawed "studies" on tobacco for years. that's enough to make us think, hmmm, could the FDA actually have been lying all those years? lol .. yep, they were and they still continue to lie. not just about smoking and snus and other forms of tobacco products, but now they are putting e-cigs in there too and creating a public "awareness" about how "bad" e-cigs are.... and, just like the lies about smoking, the public is eating all this up, believing every word.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread