E-Cigarettes in the work place.

[Ace Modder]

Hi

I have a friend who is trying to quit smoking, he is using an e-ciggy, he has told me he sit smoking it in his office as it only releases water vapour, similiar to boiling a kettle.

Is this normal practise to allow these, I have seen people in my local pub with them too.

Seems they smoke more of these than when they smoked proper ciggys outside!

 

[Neutralmilk]

My work does not allow them indoors someone has asked about it before.

I tried to use them to quit and also found myself smoking it more because I could use them in places I could not smoke normally.

 

[thedoc46]

if i saw someone using one, i'd instantly assume he was gay.

 

[jamief]

if i saw someone using one, i'd instantly assume he was gay.

What a funny guy you are.

Legally you can use them in public places, but I imagine most workplaces would ban them. You don't "smoke" them btw.

 

[estebanrey]

I use mine at work in the office, but then I have my own office although I've used it with other people in there too.

Why not? There is a reason to ban smoking indoors because of passive smoking but there's no such thing as harmful second hand vapour.

 

[Shayper]

if i saw someone using one, i'd instantly assume he was gay.

Nice way to make a ****ish sweeping generalisation...

 

[PhillyDee]

I use mine at work in the office, but then I have my own office although I've used it with other people in there too.

Why not? There is a reason to ban smoking indoors because of passive smoking but there's no such thing as harmful second hand vapour.

And smoking was never harmful many many years ago. Have they actually tested the vapour? You could be putting nicotine into the air, not good for those sensitive to it.

Personally, I would ban them in the workplace as well.

 

[jamief]

And smoking was never harmful many many years ago. Have they actually tested the vapour? You could be putting nicotine into the air, not good for those sensitive to it.

Personally, I would ban them in the workplace as well.

The amounts of nicotene that are exhaled are miniscule. The rest of the vapour consists of glycerine and food quality flavourings. You inhale far more toxins walking past a bus.

 

[estebanrey]

And smoking was never harmful many many years ago.

Argument of false equivalence.

We didn't discover smoking was dangerous because it took 300 years for the symptoms to show up, we discovered it because medical science came on leaps and bounds in the 20th Century.

We now have 21st Century science looking at e-cigs. Of course it is possible there is something in the vapour that is unknown to science but you could apply that to any new invention. How do we know electric cars aren't giving off life threatening radiation for example? If you take the attitude that we can't be sure about the safety of any new product nothing would ever be invented.

Have they actually tested the vapour? You could be putting nicotine into the air, not good for those sensitive to it.

Yes they have tested it. We know more about the contents of e-cig vapour than we do about cigarette smoke which still contain numerous 'unidentified' chemicals in it.

There would no nicotine being put into the air, it is absorbed instantly by the body when inhaled.

Even if it was, nicotine isn't dangerous (in the dosages contained in cigs or e-cigs). It's addictive but it's not the nicotine that causes the health problems in cigarettes, it's the tar and carbon monoxide.

Personally, I would ban them in the workplace as well.

I can understand in customer facing roles or where a need to look professional is paramount, but banning them because you are naive to the facts and are letting the social engineering against smoking affect your view on e-cigs is just asinine.

 

[Hitman_Leon]

Depends on the % of nicotine in the mix and the need of the user, I used one to stop smoking and gradually reduced the dose. I went from using a 30ml bottle of concentrate every 2 weeks when I started out to now only using one every 8 months.

I think the level of use is also highly dependent on self discipline, you have to say to yourself ill not use it where I would not have smoked. Having to make the deliberate trip to somewhere you allow yourself to use it aids the process of removing the temptation to simply allow the e-cig replace the normal cigarette and even exceed your previous nicotine use.

The vapour although not containing the concoction of dangerous chemicals from tobacco smoke will still contain nicotine as the vapour is the delivery vehicle for that nicotine. Any health risks to people passively inhaling the vapour are not yet known although the risk is quite possibly substantially lower than smoke. I do not think anyone could safely conclude they are 100% safe as there is limited or no regulation on ingredients used. There has also been no significant research into the long term effects of e-cigs, from this point of view although offering a safer alternative to smoking any risks remain an unknown quantity.

 

[PhillyDee]

Argument of false equivalence.

We didn't discover smoking was dangerous because it took 300 years for the symptoms to show up, we discovered it because medical science came on leaps and bounds in the 20th Century.

We now have 21st Century science looking at e-cigs. Of course it is possible there is something in the vapour that is unknown to science but you could apply that to any new invention. How do we know electric cars aren't giving off life threatening radiation for example? If you take the attitude that we can't be sure about the safety of any new product nothing would ever be invented.


Yes they have tested it. We know more about the contents of e-cig vapour than we do about cigarette smoke which still contain numerous 'unidentified' chemicals in it.

There would no nicotine being put into the air, it is absorbed instantly by the body when inhaled.

Even if it was, nicotine isn't dangerous (in the dosages contained in cigs or e-cigs). It's addictive but it's not the nicotine that causes the health problems in cigarettes, it's the tar and carbon monoxide.



I can understand in customer facing roles or where a need to look professional is paramount, but banning them because you are naive to the facts and are letting the social engineering against smoking affect your view on e-cigs is just asinine.

Actually, not naive to the facts, I was genuinely asking if they had been tested, there was a sudden explosion of these contraptions, and I have read a few things about poor testing, made in china etc. Hitman Leon says it much better than I.

And as for banning them in the workplace due to social engineering? I would ban them just because I could . But then, I would personally never deny my staff reasonable smoking breaks the way some companies do, so if they wanted the could e-cig in them. I would even offer assistance to help them quit.

 

[The_blue]

There would no nicotine being put into the air, it is absorbed instantly by the body when inhaled.

Spoken like a true smoker... Are you sure of your facts??

The health effects of inhaling nicotine vapor into lungs have been a subject of uncertainty and no standard GMP procedures have been applied to the production of e-juice. The health effects of the exhaled nicotine and other substances present in the vaporous "second-hand smoke" and "third-hand smoke" is also the subject of uncertainty.

From Wikipedia

 

[estebanrey]

I think the level of use is also highly dependent on self discipline, you have to say to yourself ill not use it where I would not have smoked. Having to make the deliberate trip to somewhere you allow yourself to use it aids the process of removing the temptation to simply allow the e-cig replace the normal cigarette and even exceed your previous nicotine use.

Only if you want to quit all forms on smoking/vaping.

I don't vape because I want to quit the habit. I do it because I like the habit and want to do it safely. I have no plans to quit or cut down the e-cig.

You don't spend over £100 on a mod only to quit it

 

[Hitman_Leon]

Even if it was, nicotine isn't dangerous (in the dosages contained in cigs or e-cigs). It's addictive but it's not the nicotine that causes the health problems in cigarettes, it's the tar and carbon monoxide.

Tar and carbon-monoxide? Are you quite sure?

According to the National Cancer Institute, there are over 4,000 chemicals in most commercial brands of cigarettes, and at least 250 are known to be harmful to the human body. Of the 250 harmful chemicals, at least 50 of them are proven carcinogens, and many others are suspected carcinogens, or have been linked to other diseases and ailments.

Acetone
Acetone is a chemical typically used in solvents, and it is often sold in its pure form as a commercial-grade solvent. Acetone can cause irritation to the eyes, nose and throat, and prolonged exposure can cause serious damage to the liver and kidneys.

Cresol
Like acetone, cresol is often used in solvents as well as disinfectants and preservatives. Cresol exposure can be irritating to the skin, nose, throat and respiratory system, and prolonged exposure can lead to diseases of the upper respiratory system.

Cadmium
Cadmium is commonly used in ball bearings, batteries as well as metal paints and pigments for automotive and machine parts. Prolonged cadmium exposure can lead to cancer, liver damage, kidney damage and brain damage.

Catechol
Catechol is an antioxidant substance commonly found in dyes, inks and automotive and house paints. Catechol can cause high blood pressure when exposed to the body, as well as contact dermatitis and upper respiratory infection and disease.

Styrene
Commonly used in insulation, fiberglass and piping, styrene may be linked to leukemia, and contact can lead to headache, eye irritation, fatigue and dizziness. Styrene is on OSHA's list of hazardous chemicals, and when used in building materials, it must be closely monitored for safety.
Acrolein

Acrolein is a chemical commonly used in tear gas and other military grade weapons. Acrolein can cause extreme eye irritation, and it can cause severe upper respiratory disorders through prolonged exposure.

Lead
Commonly used in paint, solder, bronze and other metal alloys, lead can be found in many brands of cigarettes. Exposure to lead can lead to brain damage, kidney damage, anemia, stomach problems and reproductive damage. Second-hand smoke can be particularly harmful to children because of their sensitivity to lead.

Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde is regularly used in fiberboard, particleboard, plywood and foam insulation as a resin agent. Formaldehyde can cause lung damage, skin irritation, nasal cancer and intestinal problems after prolonged exposure.

Hydrogen Cyanide
Commonly used in the production of wood resins and plastics, hydrogen cyanide is also used in gas chambers for state-ordered executions in some states in the US. Hydrogen cyanide causes nausea, headache, fatigue and lung damage, as well as death, if exposed in extremely high doses.

Nickel
Used in stainless steel, batteries and other metal alloys, nickel exposure can cause asthma, bronchitis and respiratory problems. Prolonged exposure has been linked to several types of cancer, though many studies in this area are inconclusive.

Quinoline
Quinoline is often used as a solvent for certain resinous materials, and it is similar to acetone in nature. Quinoline can cause eye damage, liver damage, and it has been linked to possible genetic mutations, though more research needs to be done in this area before it is confirmed.

Just a few you were missing from the rather substantial list.

 

[estebanrey]

Spoken like a true smoker... Are you sure of your facts??

The irony of it, you mention facts in the same sentence as accusing me of being a smoker. The irony then hits overdrive as you then link to wikipedia.

http://www.onlineprnews.com/news/26...o-risk-from-environmental-vapor-exposure.html

“This study demonstrates that the risks of secondhand vapor from electronic cigarette use are very small in comparison to those associated with secondhand tobacco smoke. While secondhand smoke must be eliminated in workplaces and public places, the current data provide no justification for eliminating electronic cigarette use in these places.”- Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University School of Public Health

 

[estebanrey]

Just a few you were missing from the rather substantial list.

Sorry but I didn't really feel like listing all 4000 so I though I'd save time and mention the well known ones. Jesus

 

[A[L]C]

I vape at work

 

[Yaayuh!]

if i saw someone using one, i'd instantly assume he was gay.

I LOL'd

Nice and simple troll post. I tip my hat to you sir.

 

[Devrij]

I have to agree with Estebanrey. Having looked into this in great depth myself (as an e-cig user, it's in my interests), and so far there are no studies indicating any harm to to passive inhalation, and very little harm to the user.

I vape in my workplace, no one cares (although it is the subject of a few jokes ), but I can understand public-facing roles not allowing it where visible. It means I don't need cigarette breaks, I'm focused on my job not my habit, and it causes no harm to anyone else. It's win-win for both myself and the company I work for.

Like Estebanrey, I am not trying to quit vaping (although I feel it would be much easier than quitting smoking), so I vape whenever I feel like it.

As for e-cigs exploding, if you put stacked battery mods together without any safety measures, then you're an idiot. Single battery mods are much safer, and amperage limits should be in place to ensure you don't overdo it (pretty much every popular variable voltage device has this, fixed voltage devices don't really need them).

I think the point made that e-cigs are being tarred with the same brush as cigarettes is valid. I get a lot of dirty looks from people when they think I'm smoking in their train station. Once I explain, they are much happier. So clearly in these cases it is a lack of knowledge that causes this backlash.

 

[oulton]

Me too it was amusing