P_1 wrote: » The individual components have been proven to be safe on countless occasions.
Logic dictates that the sum of the parts should also prove to be safe and recent studies have indeed suggested that they are safe to use.
What more do you want?
mardybumbum wrote: » When you structure your sentence in a grammatically correct fashion then I may be able to answer what I assume is a question. It makes no sense to me currently.
darkpagandeath wrote: » So that's a no to having an answer. As pointing out grammar is pretty petty.
mardybumbum wrote: » It is petty usually, and I detest grammar nazi's/spellcheckers as much as the next, but I actually couldn't make head nor tails of what you said. Sorry
darkpagandeath wrote: » The cry of the Think of the children brigade. How about the Anti vapers prove it has any health effects at all ? Currently most evidence says no effect. May make more sense now.
mardybumbum wrote: » Think of the Children Brigade? Why, yes I will. I'll also consider teenagers, young adults, the middle aged and OAP's also. Why would I restrict my concern to a specific age bracket.The fact that you believe that it is up to the anti vapers to prove that there is no harm to 3rd parties is ridiculous and doesn't deserve a response. Thankfully, most sensible adults would be of the position that where there is uncertainty as to the safety of a certain practice, then it should of course be up to those who partake in the practise to allay the fears of those who are concerned. A lot of talk of evidence on this thread. Anybody mind linking to some scientific literature.
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.
Jake1 wrote: » maybe they will ban Asthma Inhalers next. just in case some people dont want second hand medication.
darkpagandeath wrote: » It's not what I believe. The only papers that I have seen are generally quackery by anti groups saying it's may have some effect at some stage better ban it just in case. Plenty of papers that show individual ingredients meet current standards and present no health Risk. This is why I am saying it’s up to the other side who believe they cause problems to prove it.
mardybumbum wrote: » Have yet to meet an asthmatic who exhales their salbutamol/steroid post ingestion.
mardybumbum wrote: » No they have not.
Yes because when chemical reactions occur with benign substances they always lead to the formation of benign products. I'm being sarcastic here just in case that wasn't evident.
Just for the above to be addressed in a more convincing fashion.
cruizer101 wrote: » My problem with how this is being reported is that all articles that I read on it state: There is no evidence that the devices cause any harm to anybody standing close to them But there is also no evidence that they don't cause harm. For years there was no evidence that smoking normal cigarettes caused any harm, if anything they were advertised as being good for your health. Also just because they may no contain all the tar and other potentially harmful parts of cigarette smoke doesn't meant I want to be inhaling your nicotene from them. I have also read that certain liquids contain various other components that are carcinogenic.I wouldn't jump to any conclusions or decisions yet but there definitely does need to be some research into these and possibly legislation regarding them also
P_1 wrote: » Ingredients found in exhaled vapour. Nicotine - I think I've already explained how negligible an amount is exhaled. Flavouring - Passes the same standards that food flavourings does. You'd have as much to fear from somebody exhaling after taking a bite from a muffin. PG and VG - Commonly found in bottled water. Do you fear for your health after somebody exhales after taking a sip of Ballygowan?
RossFixxxed wrote: » In theory! However, there are other additives in the flavouring some of which are dangerous, some of which are absolutely fine. The point remains that if the muffin is regulated and held to standards, e liquid could be brewed in a lead bath tub at the moment. Also inhaling microwave popcorn flavouring (in some buttery e-liquids) damages lungs, so if a manufacturer uses it in their liquid then you're in a spot of bother potentially. Again, not saying it actually is very bad, but in some cases it may be. I don't like blanket statements like yours in relation to something we don't know enough about. Edit the chemical is called: diacetyl. Chances are that e-liquid isn't full of it, but maybe I'm a scam artist and throw it in there. Like the horrible cases of methanol poisoning that happen in places. There's simply no rules or regulation here so you need to be safe as you can.
BizzyC wrote: » the vapour from e-cigs has not been tested. until someone can state categorically that there are no adverse affects from 2nd hand exposure to the vapour, I'll be pro any ban that treats them the same as cigarettes.
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.
BizzyC wrote: » Tests have shown that the vapour from ecigs does contain nicotine. Just because it's better than 2nd hand tobacco smoke doesn't mean it should get a green light.
BizzyC wrote: » With nicotine vapour it's a stimulant to everyone who breathes it in, regardless of whether they are a smoker or not.
BizzyC wrote: » Blowing vapour in my face would increase the levels of nicotine in my system. So it would affect me.
BizzyC wrote: » 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.
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.
BizzyC wrote: » Interesting stuff. 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.
mardybumbum wrote: » The fact that you believe that it is up to the anti vapers to prove that there is no harm to 3rd parties is ridiculous and doesn't deserve a response. Thankfully, most sensible adults would be of the position that where there is uncertainty as to the safety of a certain practice, then it should of course be up to those who partake in the practise to allay the fears of those who are concerned. A lot of talk of evidence on this thread. Anybody mind linking to some scientific literature.
kippy wrote: » You've got to ask yourself why you vape if the nicotine content is "negligable". If you are getting nothing from it why not just use a piece of plastic with no vapour? I've seen people vape who are trying to give up the fags vaping through a serious amount of liquid in a week, which was meant to last for a month......is he better off vaping through this amount than going cold turkey?
rubadub wrote: » It is recognised as the most addictive substance known, more than meth, crack or heroin.
grindle wrote: » Here you go. It's an analytical study of all the major studies as of last summer. He was asked to be as strict as he deemed necessary so he used the standards set by the Netherlands for workplace PELs. In most cases they've exceeded what the EU requires. Choice quote:http://clearstream.flavourart.it/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CSA_ItaEng.pdfhttp://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/10/ntr.ntt203.short?rss=1 The amount was so low as to be undetectable in the first study (unfortunately funded by a company with ecig interests), the amount detected in the second study (from an institute with no ecig affiliation, actually quite skeptical of them) was (let's use the max reading here to appease the ignorant and the zealots) 6.23 µg/m3 or 0.00623mg/m3. Take note of that figure. Really? So the dose of cocaine found on a banknote has you rolling for more, does it? It's all about the dosage and the dosage of nicotine in second-hand vapour comes nowhere near enough to affect you or anybody else. Again, note the above figure. It wouldn't, read above. Blah blah blah, above. P_1's figures are actually off by a good bit here. Aubergine contains 100ng or 0.0001mg of nicotine per gram (1000 times less than what P_1 wrote). The average aubergine = 300g in weight, therefore the average aubergine contains .03mg nicotine. Five vapers in a room for a few hours produced 0.00623mg/m3 at maximum. We need 24 vapers to equal that aubergine amount per m3.The permissible exposure limit for nicotine is the same for the US and the EU, 0.5mg/m3 (I'm hoping you can already see how low the emitted second hand vapour looks in comparison - it's 80 times less in case you were wondering). Since Roswell Park's study is predictably hidden behind a paywall, let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say the vapers were in a much larger room than the Clearstream study (which found no measurable amounts of nicotine in second-hand vapour from five vapers sat in a 60m3 room for five hours). Let's really skew it in the favour of the zealots and double the volume of the room. 120m3. The average train carriage would have a volume inside of over 150m3 (3.5mx22mx2m = 154m3). We'll skew that in the favour of zealots again by saying the volume is 120m3 as miniaturising the carriage will increase the concentration of nicotine inside and thus helpfully increase the potential discomfort of our zealot. Rounds it off nicely with our kind move for Roswell Park, too! Makes calculating easy. So...if 5 vapers in one train carriage creates 0.00623mg/m3, and we need 80 times that amount of vapers to reach the PEL... Ooh, look! You'd need to fill that one carriage with 400 vapers to reach the PEL. Or 5000 aubergines. And that's with figures highly skewed in favour of zealots, it's likely the figure would be double that or more. Not at those levels. Also, the majority of nicotine from ecigs gets absorbed through the mucosae of your mouth and nose - vapour particles are ~10 times larger than smoke particles which means they can't reach into the depths of your lungs as smoke can. This is why ecigs are around 30-40% as efficient at delivering nicotine per dose as compared to cigarettes (this was measured via cotinine levels of users). Not serving a supposed 50/50 chance of cancer to yourself whilst still enjoying a drug in a form with no proven deleterious health effect is daft. Mmm. Science works by proving something to be as true as we can fathom, not by not-proving it. i.e. There has to be an effect to be measured. Meaning any effects have to be found, as opposed to your notion that we have to prove nothingness happens and you're not happy until that comes to fruition. As it stands science hasn't found any negatives, therefore they're all above board in principle. More than above board, because a potential six million people a year won't die from cigarettes if ecigs replace them. The content isn't negligible to a vaper, the second-hand vapour content is, extremely so. If someone said that a 30ml bottle was supposed to last a month, they're lying. If the person vaping is vaping more often than they smoke it's likely they're not being satisfied and need to up their dosage. I started low-ish and was vaping like a 20-a-day smoker would (I used to smoke 5-10). Upped my nic and got better devices and more than halved my liquid use. Statistically the guy you know who's vaping is better off because cold turkey is the number one method prone to failure and re-uptake of cigarettes. I agree that we need and want to know more about the ingredients but the current food safety regulations which do apply to eliquid makes brewing in a lead bath tub quite illegal. This is the FSAI's job at the moment, if they're not enforcing it you should canvass them to. It might be recognised as such by people who think nicotine is a cigarette, but it's not. Any research or (more likely) opinion piece saying that is conflating cigarettes with nicotine as cigs are the primary delivery device for nicotine, but with cigs harbouring a cocktail of MAOIs, depressants and additives designed to increase the uptake of alkaloids there isn't a comparison. Personally speaking and judging from anecdotal commentary around the world's vaping forums, nicotine is far less addictive outside of a cigarette. There is an ongoing study by Prof. Jean-Françios Etter at the moment which will bring us closer to understanding how true this is.TL;DR, and by god it needs it: Poppycock.
I agree that we need and want to know more about the ingredients but the current food safety regulations which do apply to eliquid makes brewing in a lead bath tub quite illegal. This is the FSAI's job at the moment, if they're not enforcing it you should canvass them to.
kippy wrote: » Long post so thanks for the insight. Why dont you just give em up altogether?
whiskeyman wrote: » My mates workplace has banned them, so all the people who use them (people trying to give up smoking) are forced to go out to the smoking hut with all the smokers! Talk about temptation!
Wibbs wrote: » Jesus, be careful there Sir, this is unusual in such discussions.
kippy wrote: » Why dont you just give em up altogether?
RossFixxxed wrote: » grindle knows my tumultous relationship with vaping, so I may seem anti vaping, but I'm not. I just don't think, at this stage, that claims that it is 100% safe are ill advised and that a moderate, investigative approach should be employed by BOTH sides of the argument! I know you 2 aren't saying that, don't get me wrong. But we can't wade in with: It's toally safe, 100%, nothing is lets be fair, and always further research is to be advised. It's toally evil and wrong and it's smoking and you'll all die. I'm barely talking about vaping, it's the TYPES of arguments, FROM SOME PEOPLE, that are a bit alarming.
RossFixxxed wrote: » I'd be concerned though, in the early days that a 'horse meat' type situation could be dangerous, as with any area of business the cowboys could ruin it.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/212d22e3488068a276fa24b715b3ceaa.svg)
