Why do some people think it's ok to vape indoors?

TaurenDruid wrote: »

The visibility - and the activity - bothers me indoors. I guess I've no choice but to put up with it outdoors. But no, my point was how come such a huge cloud of vapour is needed to get the same nicotine hit as someone used to be able to get from an ordinary cigarette. I guess if it's all coming from a couple of blasts as opposed to 5 minutes of smoking an ordinary cigarette the volumes would be roughly equal, though.

Ecigs are also inefficient for dosing nicotine relative to cigarettes, cotinine measures 30-40% of the typical cigarette smoker, smoke particles are smaller and get deeper into alveoli.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

What studies? Conducted by whom, published where, and what were the sample sizes? Tobacco industry studies used to claim that smoking and nicotine were good for you, then that they were harmless, and that they were certainly harmless for secondary smokers...

This "but they said this about cigarettes" argument has been done to death and negates both the facts that science & the means of chemical analysis have advanced and the amount of data collected has proliferated to an extreme extent.

Nicotine itself is a vasoconstrictor on the same level as caffeine except you can control the dosage much better so you're much less likely to get the jitters, it's addictive but relatively harmless unless you have a heart condition/very high blood pressure.

Here's a big waffle-post from back when these kinds of posts were exhaustingly regular and I had more motivation and time to waffle whenever people were spouting crap. The study linked at the beginning of that post has been lost from that original server, but I found it again!
It was funded by CASAA, a consumer advocacy group for ecigs, but the study itself is much like the Royal College of Physician's much touted (and very positive) study, an examination of many previous studies variously funded by pharmaceutical, tobacco & ecig companies, aiming to give a frame of reference re: output of ecigs and whether or not the vapour produced exceeds Public Exposure Limits.

Even when compared to workplace standards for involuntary exposures, and using several conservative (erring on the side of caution) assumptions, the exposures from using e-cigarettes fall well below the threshold for concern for compounds with known toxicity. That is, even ignoring the benefits of e-cigarette use and the fact that the exposure is actively chosen, and even comparing to the levels that are considered unacceptable to people who are not benefiting from the exposure and do not want it, the exposures would not generate concern or call for remedial action.

If you want to stay up-to-date or be informed about ecigs:
http://www.ecigarette-research.org/research/index.php
(cardiologist who approached ecigs expecting to lambast them, became a vaper)
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/
(the researcher whose studies were responsible for the world's second-hand-smoking bans and many billions being taken from tobacco companies

One of the points you bring up indirectly is the sheer quantity of juice consumed. Thanks to nicotine being vilified and conflated with the harm of cigarettes, many people (including very many vapers) think reducing nicotine to low levels but increasing volume of juice inhaled is safer for them for some reason, whereas they're introducing more of the compounds we know least about when heated and inhaled, the flavours. Still harmless and below PELs for "second-hand vapers" but it's the area that needs most study.

JustAThought wrote: »

frightening cases coming out of the US with vaping and kids getting (incurable) popcorn lung from it.

Nope.

Dr. Anne Schuchat, the CDC's principal deputy director, says this sharp spike strongly points to a single culprit for most of these cases: vitamin E acetate, an additive found in illicit cannabis-containing vapes.

CDC Finds Possible Culprit In Outbreak Of Vaping-Related Lung Injuries
SHOTS - HEALTH NEWS
CDC Finds Possible Culprit In Outbreak Of Vaping-Related Lung Injuries
"That doesn't mean that there aren't other chemicals that can or are causing lung injury," Schuchat said during a telephone news conference. But backed with additional data about vitamin E acetate found in lung samples from people who were injured after vaping, she attributes the bulk of the outbreak to that additive.

JustAThought wrote: »

Few years back several consultants got together in cork university hospital and issued a statement to say they had now directly experienced over 30 cases of lung damage done to children by vaping.

This is the closest thing I could find to whatever you're on about, so if it's what you're on about:

1. Those kids ingested as in swallowed that ejuice.
2. Dr. Chris Luke, whenever he acts as a talking head about ecigs, ignores data in favour of preventive medicine, which is not a smart way to give up smoking.

jonski wrote: »

I remembered I was done trying to justify my vaping to some random person on the internet . Maybe some of the posters here are genuinely interested but there are others that have already made up their minds based solely on headlines from the Daily Mail ( kinda unfair to name the daily mail when other more reputable news outlets have been as bad ) or the like

Yeah, bit of a banging-head>brick-wall vibe to it, but lurkers exist and are the majority so I have to pipe up every once in a while in case they're misled by people who still believe ejuice causes popcorn lung or whatever other suspiciously-sourced crap has been printed - which is generally unedited PR blurb put out on behalf of a pharma company.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

But studies funded and published by tobacco, nicotine and e-cig and vaping companies are beyond reproach?

I certainly didn't say or imply that at all, you need to keep your biases in check.

All studies no matter the source, should be, have been and are being pored over for signs of inconsistent methodology. These days ecigs have gotten well-known enough that it's become much harder for companies/lobbyist interests to outright scam results in a study or post generally favourable data yet the authors mysteriously write a negative conclusion (these studies usually have a tie to a man who used to work with Dr. Siegel named Stan Glantz, a truly revolting human being whose manipulation of truth you can read about on Siegel's blog).
Trusting an opinion espoused by a newspaper where the article's "author" has literally copy-pasted blurb from the PR company tasked with sending whichever company's study conclusion out to print is as brainless as it gets.

At the start it was both the pharma and tobacco companies manipulating test methodology to get a desired result, like having your inhalation machine fire an atomiser with thin wire @ 15-20w for 10 second bursts with a few seconds between bursts which meant the juice couldn't wick fast and ended up burning, while those atomisers are meant to be fired @ 5-10w for a few seconds and vaped like a normal human would (humans wouldn't continue vaping burnt juice and charred silica, or cotton nowadays). That was the worst study that came out about ecigs (well... not really, because the methodology was broken and designed for failure, but I digress), the one which was still taken into account as a worst-case-possible when the Royal College of Physicians and took ecigs down to "only" 95% safer than cigarettes.

There was a turning point for tobacco companies and their studies once they saw the threat of ecigs to their business and decided they should control the market by lobbying for tighter regulations because they can afford to do idiotic things like paying $100k per strength per flavour for their juice (thankfully gotten around by selling nic and flavours separately) but now they want to lock down device choice more than they already have.

A majority of these studies are available for you to read through pubmed or BMJ, come to your own conclusions based on available data rather than PR blurb. As it stands you're pontificating about and vilifying something which helps to keep millions of people off of cigarettes -a known killer where the cold turkey method of quitting has a 95-97% failure rate - based on... Being suspicious of them? Not liking fruity flavours? Very incorrectly assuming they pose a grave danger to your health?
Should the cloud-chuckers be more polite? Yup, I've gotten a face full of cloud before, thought the guy was a wánker. Should vapes be considered and treated as being as dangerous as cigarettes? If you're illiterate, maybe.

Antares35 wrote: »

OH and I are both WFH and he has started vaping in the house. Am 35 weeks pregnant and I really would prefer if he didn't. He insists it's "just vapour" and I shouldn't be annoyed by it. But what if there are risks that come to light after? Is there not nicotine in vaping products?

Is second hand vapor dangerous?

Looking at the vaping studies mentioned above and others, Public Health England’s 264-page review of available evidence of vaping risks concluded that “to date there have been no identified health risks of passive vaping to bystanders.”

Igor Burstyn’s study of the dangers of second hand vaping attempted to “estimate potential exposures from aerosols produced by electronic cigarettes and compare those potential exposures to occupational exposure standards.” He concluded that “Exposures of bystanders are likely to be orders of magnitude less, and thus pose no apparent concern.”

Is Second Hand Vapor Harmful to Breathe?

If your googling, you will probably come across allot of misinformation published by the anti-vaping crowds.

Crack a window open in the room he is vaping in or request he does it in another room to you.



Edit: - [publichealthmatters blog gov uk] Clearing up some myths around e-cigarettes

MYTH 4 - Exposure to e-cigarette vapour is harmful to bystanders

The evidence is clear that exposure to second hand smoke is harmful, which is why the UK has laws prohibiting smoking in enclosed public places and workplaces. These laws do not cover vaping and organisations are free to make their own policies on the use of e-cigarettes on their premises.

E-cigarette liquid is typically composed of nicotine, propylene glycol and/or glycerine, and flavourings. Unlike cigarettes, there is no side-stream vapour emitted by an e-cigarette into the atmosphere, just the exhaled aerosol.

PHE’s 2018 evidence review found that to date, there have been no identified health risks of passive vaping to the health of bystanders.

^^^

E-cigarettes create vapor made of fine and ultrafine particles of particulate matter,[9] which contain propylene glycol and/or glycerin, usually nicotine and flavors, and small amounts of toxicants,[9] carcinogens,[10] heavy metals, metal nanoparticles, and other substances.[9] Its exact composition varies, and depends on several factors including user behaviour.[notes 2] There are also pod mod devices that use protonated nicotine, rather than free-base nicotine found in earlier generations.[11]

Above is what a vapor absorbs on vaping themselves majority of it absorbed by them and not pass on in the exhaled vapor.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

So not all, then. Thanks for proving my point.

I used to be an asshole too, I used to smoke indoors. I got better. You can too.

Seems you may still be but for a different reason. You assume that I smoke (and or vape big clouds) around people, I don't. (Maybe years ago when no bans on smoking).

But when we get to name calling, your points/post lose all meaning.

grindle wrote: »

......
Here, I made a post about this for you about 6 years ago. I'm thoughtful like that.

You shouldn't call somebody an asshole before you have facts and figures. Or at all I guess, although I fall foul of it myself when somebody's actually being an asshole. Anyway, smoking indoors is incomparable to vaping and will have zero effect on her child.

Do you honestly think, he/she(or it) will take the time and effort to click that and actually read?

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Did yer man ever finish his research into whether nicotine outside cigarettes was addictive or not?

Yip

Some e-cigarette users were dependent on nicotine when used in e-cigarettes, but these products were less addictive than tobacco cigarettes. E-cigarettes may be as addictive or less addictive than the nicotine gum, which itself is not very addictive.

The study was about how addictive it is outside of cigarettes, not about if it is at all. It's a mild stimulant, a reward to your nervous system for no work done. Stimulants are addictive.