pundy wrote: »
funny, that's exactly what YOU have done - you've been asked to back up every one of your points with links and you haven't provided a single one.
my point is, it doesnt affect you personally, even if i was to blow the vapour (which has no relation to SMOKE at all) in your face.
it's attitudes like yours that have this country ruined.
the vapour from an e-cigarette is NOT dangerous. end of the story.
sure, it says it pretty loud and clear in the Irish Rail statement - they have no interest in the fact that they are not dangerous, they are banning it for the reason that it's too hard to police (presumably because a lot of e-cigs look like the real thing).
anyway, get off your high horse, the world doesnt revolve around you or your silly opinions.
BizzyC wrote: »
Go back to post #93, I provided a link when asked about the comparison to caffeine.
Others have posted links in relation to affects of nicotine, I don't need to copy and paste their links.
"I have this country ruined" please explain how...
That's one of the dumbest and most laughable things I've ever heard.
I'm not on any high horse, I'm waiting for you to present something resembling a discussion and not some laughable reaction like you keep putting up here.
Blowing vapour in my face would increase the levels of nicotine in my system. So it would affect me.
You keep saying it's harmless, others have posted links to articles that say different.
What are you basing your opinion on?
post #71 p_1 suggested that the level of nicotine is below that which is present naturally in some food.
I conceded that his argument had merit in that case, and that my objection was based on an assumption that the vapour would be more concentrated.
I'd be interested to see the numbers, if the levels of nicotine are really that low, I'd be willing to change my opinion.
Unlike you I'm here to discuss the matter and debate different views.
I'm not here to have a go at people without paying any attention to what they've been saying.
pundy wrote: »
im not taking the bait.
go on away with ye.
P_1 wrote: »
Ok so each puff on a PV uses up roughly .05ml of e-liduid. This e-liquid usually contains between 10-20mg of nicotine per ml. So that would imply that a vaper inhales .5-1 mg of nicotine per puff and I'd guess that about 80% of that nicotine remains in the vaper's system, so you're probably looking at .1-.2mg of nicotine being released into the air after each puff.
Now according to http://www.livestrong.com/article/293186-list-of-foods-that-contain-nicotine/
Eggplant contains a nicotine concentration of .1mg per gram.
Green tomatoes contain a nicotine concentration of .04mg per gram.
Cauliflower contains a nicotine concentration of .015mg per gram.
Potatoes contain a nicotine concentration of .007mg per gram
So arguably you'd be exposing yourself to more nicotine through eating veg than by 'passive vaping'
kippy wrote: »
Irrellevant if you ask me.
stevenmu wrote: »
The really funny thing here is that the e-cigarette vapour is far less harmful than the diesel fumes produced by the train itself, which contains all kinds of nasty chemicals and carcinogens.
Bobblehead Panda wrote: »
If they're going to start banning things that smell could they not start with stinky sandwiches? Or people who seem to have a casual approach to personal hygiene?
Gongoozler wrote: »
Ive seen a page on the journal asking whether or not e-cigarettes should be banned in the workplace, according to the poll results (currently 51%) the majority are against this.
Irish Rail have banned them from their train and DART services because of people complaining of the smell.
What do you think AH? My first reaction is to say well that's ridiculous, they barely smell of anything, but there's literally thousands of flavours you can get for these things that aren't cigarette smoke.
Plus there's an awful lot of things on public transport that are more offensive, smell wise.
Phone / boards touch won't let me insert the url, sorry.
RoboRat wrote: »
I don't get why employers would ban it in the workplace, if someone can take a few puffs at their desk surely its more productive than having to go to the smoking area and then back again?
BizzyC wrote: »
FFS, I'm done.You're obviously just a smoker who wants nothing more than to have a go at people who have views you don't like.
At every point I tried to clarify my views and asked you to present some sort of argument, you've done nothing but made childish little quips and personal comments.
People like you are why no one is willing to listen.
The ignore function is great, I think I'll make use of it now...
cruizer101 wrote: »
I have also read that certain liquids contain various other components that are carcinogenic.
Danger! May be fatal if swallowed. May be fatal if absorbed through
the skin. Hygroscopic. This substance has caused adverse
reproductive and fetal effects in animals. May cause central nervous
system depression. Poison! May cause cardiac disturbances. May cause
digestive tract irritation with nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.
Target Organs: Central nervous system, respiratory system, muscles.
0.5 mg/m3 TWA 5
Follow the OSHA respirator regulations found in 29CFR
1910.134 or European Standard EN 149. Always use a
NIOSH or European Standard EN 149 approved respirato
darkpagandeath wrote: »
You mean like the militant anti smokers confusing vaping with smoking.
1. Nicotine is a poison in a concentrated form (but so are a lot of things)
2. Cancer, by being alive you have a 1 in 3 chance of getting it.
3. Smell... don't make me laugh that's a smoke screen, Trotted out to ban something they don't like. My children will see it as smoking and take up smoking....
4. Prove it's not harmful. That's a load of boll*x to be frank. You cannot prove something is 100% safe the world just does not work that way. So here is an idea how about the anti side prove there is any significant effect to anyone around.
list of everyday food that contain Nicotine.
Peppers and Capsicums.
So i ask the anti side who are saying no level of nicotine is safe what will you do with those items.
olliesgirl55 wrote: »
I wanted to quit smoking and e-cigs are the only route I can go besides cold turkey. Personally I think they are a great invention for those of us who desperately want to quit tobacco. Nicotine is a drug and it is addictive however it is not as harmful as all the other ingredients in the cigarette. Nicotine becomes a poison if it is ingested in pure form as far as I know.
I have read up on some studies and so far they show to be much safer than cigarettes and in one study they found people who used e-cigs as apposed to another method were more successful in quitting smoking. The study found that subjects who used e-cigs suffered no adverse health effects. The study concluded that more research needs to be done.
I personally don't have a problem with banning e-cigs on the trains. I do have a problem with the governments trying to regulate them because I believe the only reason why they would be doing that is to raise revenue for themselves.
Almost everybody I know who uses e-cigs is a tobacco user or former tobacco user and you don't get the same hit with an e-cig as you do with a cigarette so I don't see teenagers being enticed into using them.
That being said I really do believe that they should be restricted to people over 18. I also don't think caffeine should be given to children under 18 too because that is a stimulant also.
Just my 2 cents
P_1 wrote: »
How so? It seems that one of the main concerns about vaping is people passively absorbing nicotine. I provided some examples of where the level of this perceived threat is negligible at best.
BizzyC wrote: »
There must be a difference relating to inhalation vs digestion, otherwise people would be addicted to eggplant, but I'll concede that the impact of nicotine is probably going to be negligable at those levels.
kippy wrote: »
Think about it though......its daft.....the concept. You are just replacing one habit or addiction with another. E cigs are now also becoming an option for younger people who would never have thought of smoking normal cigs and thays in no way good as a lot of them think they are safe.
rubadub wrote: »
I find it funny/odd that people seem to think they have to back up a ban with some study.
BizzyC wrote: »
Again, try reading more than one post.
I'm not "militant", I've stated more than once that the smell was not something that I was concerned with, and finally I've already conceded to P_1, in a post just a few before yours, that the level of nicotine in 2nd hand vape is probably going to have negligible effects given the level present versus foodstuffs....
Doublelime wrote: »
They should be banned imo, because of you want to smoke just get off at the next station and smoke outside.