E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

[Spiny Norman]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

Well, to be fair, so are those types that can't go a day without their cup of coffee. Everything in moderation.

Most people are addicted to something.

[Medusa]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

Some hipsters just wanna be cool. I guess addicted to hipsterness?

[anunitu]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

I cop to the coffee addiction...

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

I cop to the coffee addiction...

And it cups to you. Hadda say it.

I have a cup or 2 when I get up - not sure if it's an addiction, a habit, or a preference.

[anunitu]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

My coffee cup is an all day sipping thing(Large cup)..it is cold at about the 1/4 and lasts maybe 5 hours.

[pillar]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

That would be a great if it was more like looking at an an ugly t-shirt that someone is wearing and less like having to drink water that someone else spit in.

Why is vaping the same as that. You realize the vapor is not proven to be be harmful. I think what it is, is that, people see the vapor and realize its dispersing in the room and they are breathing something that was in someones mouth/body. I hate to break it to ya but the air you breath was in someones lungs even if they don't vape. To me this attitude is a holdover from peoples attitude towards smoking. Plus, I'm sure there are many pollutants more harmful than e-cig vapor in the air you breath, you might as well tell people to stop driving cause you have to breath the air the comes out the tailpipe.

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

Nothing's proven to be harmful until enough things happen to start costing money. In my lifetime, it was considered cool to smoke cigarettes, spray DDT, give pregnant women DES, etc., etc.

[pillar]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

My point is there are plenty of things that cause pollution that everybody does and we know is harmful and nobody jumps all over people for it, but vape god forbid.

[Medusa]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

My point is there are plenty of things that cause pollution that everybody does and we know is harmful and nobody jumps all over people for it, but vape god forbid.

Well my air is crappy enough as it is. But I don't want to inhale bubblegum air. Spank you berry much.

[pillar]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

Well my air is crappy enough as it is. But I don't want to inhale bubblegum air. Spank you berry much.

First, as I said before, in public I only use unscented/unflavored e-juice, I just amazes me that people think there shouldn't be bars and restaurants that allow vaping. If you don't like it go to a non-vape place, there should be places for everybody.

[Medusa]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

First, as I said before, in public I only use unscented/unflavored e-juice, I just amazes me that people think there shouldn't be bars and restaurants that allow vaping. If you don't like it go to a non-vape place, there should be places for everybody.

Oh no no no. First. I think you are starting to sound very defensive. And I can understand that. But I don't believe anyone is attacking you personally.

The Earth is a non vape place. Clean air comes first. Then WE make space for vapers. Not the other way around. This isn't some vapopalypse. There is no vape revolution going on here. :=I:

[Spiny Norman]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

In my lifetime, it was considered cool to smoke cigarettes,

Doctors used to recommend Camel cigarettes!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-y_N4u0uRQ

[thalassa]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

Why is vaping the same as that. You realize the vapor is not proven to be be harmful. I think what it is, is that, people see the vapor and realize its dispersing in the room and they are breathing something that was in someones mouth/body. I hate to break it to ya but the air you breath was in someones lungs even if they don't vape. To me this attitude is a holdover from peoples attitude towards smoking. Plus, I'm sure there are many pollutants more harmful than e-cig vapor in the air you breath, you might as well tell people to stop driving cause you have to breath the air the comes out the tailpipe.

It gives me an asthma attack. Hey, I was all onboard for the hubby to switch to vaping, before we learned that being within 5 feet of him outdoors or in the same room as him indoors would give me an asthma attack.

A good number of vapers I've enountered want to vape as a way to get around smoking restrictions--inside offices, etc. Now, I'm pretty sure closing the garage door and running my car would give me an asthma attack (before it killed me) faster than a dude vaping on the other side of the garage (a car being bigger and producing more exhaust than a person, some of which is worse than the coponents from vaping.

But. Your very statement tells me one of 2 things--either you don't know that much about toxicology or you are being deliberately obtuse. There's no such thing as harmless (there also no such thing as "proof" in science). And just because something else is "more harmful" (a statement that is so vague and contains so many variables as to be uttlery meaningless in this context) doesn't mean that the thing that should be follow to be less harmful is harmless or actually causes less harm for some people.

4 "rules" of toxicology:
1) everything is toxic--absolutely everything, it is only the dose that makes the poison--even water will kill you if you drink enough
2) route of entry and method of delivery matters (these tend to be connected)--an inhaled mist and a ingested liquid do not always have the same result (a bit about aerosols)
3) resistance/susceptibility is individual--children, the elderly, the immune compromised, as well as general variation mean that some people react worse than others
4) sometimes results are synergistic rather than additive when combined with other factors--as an example, smokers with workplace asbestos exposure have a much higer chance of meoshtelioma or other cancers than the chance of getting either when that is their only exposure


SDS info for the two big common ingredients:
glycerin (DOW product sheet)--kills 50% of test animals @ the following doses and routes--Glycerin: ORAL (LD50): Acute: 12600 mg/kg [Rat]. 4090 mg/kg [Mouse]. DERMAL (LD50): Acute: 10000 mg/kg [Rabbit]. MIST(LC50): Acute: >570 mg/m 1 hours [Rat]; The substance may be toxic to kidneys. Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage; various time weighted averages and their determining authorities--TWA: 10 (mg/m3) from ACGIH (TLV) [United States] [1999] Inhalation Total. TWA: 15 (mg/m3) from OSHA (PEL) [United States] Inhalation Total. TWA: 10 STEL: 20 (mg/m3) [Canada] TWA: 5 (mg/m3) from OSHA (PEL) [United States] Inhalation (Respirable)
propylene glycol--kills 50% of test animals @ the following doses and routes--ORAL (LD50): Acute: 20000 mg/kg [Rat]. 22000 mg/kg [Mouse]. DERMAL (LD50): Acute: 20800 mg/kg [Rabbit]; Potential Acute Health Effects: Hazardous in case of ingestion. Slightly hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant, permeator), of eye contact (irritant), of inhalation. Potential Chronic Health Effects: Slightly hazardous in case of skin contact (sensitizer). The substance may be toxic to central nervous system (CNS). Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage; the time weighted average (exposure limit) recommended by the American Industrial Hygiene Association for workers that have airborne exposure is 10 (mg/m3); and (from the DOW product sheet) "Inhalation – At room temperature, exposure to vapor is minimal due to low volatility. Mist may cause irritation of upper respiratory tract (nose and throat)."


Propylene glycol will eventually kill. Yes, it would take alot. Yes, these ingredients are pervasive and under normal conditions, when used in small amounts are generally safe. Yes, they are compounds that are general stable. Yes, the overall health effects are mild or negligible for most people. But not for everyone. And really, at this point, the public health verdict is still out. But if one supports the precautionary principle, then it goes to follow that it should be treated (socially) as no different than smoking.

In lieu of carcinogenic tobacco, e-cigarettes typically contain three main ingredients: nicotine, a flavoring of some kind and propylene glycol—a syrupy synthetic liquid added to food, cosmetics, and certain medicines to absorb water and help them stay moist. The primary established danger of nicotine is that the stimulant is highly addictive, although emerging science also links it to an impaired immune system. Propylene glycol has been “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS (an official FDA designation), since 1997. Yet more needs to be understood before e-cigarettes can be a given a clean bill of health.

Propylene glycol, for example, is usually eaten (in cupcakes, soft drinks and salad dressings) or slathered onto the body (in soaps, shampoos and antiperspirants)—not breathed into the lungs. Many things that can be safely eaten—such as flour—can damage the lungs when inhaled. No one knows whether propylene glycol falls into that category. “We have little information about what happens to propylene glycol in the air,” the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry says on its Web site. An assessment from the agency, issued in 2008, references only a couple of studies that cover inhalation exposures—all with laboratory animals rather than people.

Beyond the three main ingredients, some researchers worry about by-products from heating electronic cigarettes and the solution inside them. Various studies suggest the vapors from e-cigarettes contain several cancer-causing substances, as well as incredibly tiny particles of tin, chromium, nickel and other heavy metals, which, in large enough concentrations, can damage the lungs. These particles likely fleck off the solder joints or metal coil in the devices when heated. Because they are so small, the tiniest bits of metal, known as nanoparticles, can travel deep into the lungs. There they could exacerbate asthma, bronchitis—an inflammation of the tubes that carry air to and from the lungs—and emphysema—a disease in which the lungs' many air sacs are destroyed, leaving patients short of breath. So far there are not enough data to say with certainty whether e-cigs worsen these disorders.

scientific american sauce

[B. de Corbin]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

This is why I never argue science with Thalassa.

If she says it is true, I just say "yup."

[Bartmanhomer]

Re: E-Cigarrettes: Are they safer? if so, is 'soft touch' regulation appropriate?

Electronics Cigarettes are no different that regular cigarettes.