NHS stop-smoking service 'a success'

platypus · 22 Aug 2013 at 11:10

Devrij said:
If someone asks me to not vape near them, I'll gladly oblige. If they ask me not to vape in their house, I'll begrudgingly oblige

Why that distinction?

Devrij · 22 Aug 2013 at 11:15

platypus said:
Why that distinction?

One is because they don't want my vapour in their face (fine), the other is because they think it'll leave some kind of trace/stain upon their abode, which is incorrect (the vapour dissipates quickly and leaves no smell). I do, of course, abide by the rules of the house without question, but inside I think they should just let me vape and stop worrying about their place.

platypus · 22 Aug 2013 at 11:31

Devrij said:
One is because they don't want my vapour in their face (fine), the other is because they think it'll leave some kind of trace/stain upon their abode, which is incorrect (the vapour dissipates quickly and leaves no smell). I do, of course, abide by the rules of the house without question, but inside I think they should just let me vape and stop worrying about their place.

If it's their house, why should they? I understand what you're trying to say about Vapour not affecting things, but it's a moot point if you ask me.

Devrij · 22 Aug 2013 at 20:57

platypus said:
If it's their house, why should they? I understand what you're trying to say about Vapour not affecting things, but it's a moot point if you ask me.

Oh I know, I would never say anything if they didn't want me to vape. It's their place! I would just inwardly feel their reason for not wanting me to vape in their house was misinformed. That's all I meant.

Angilion · 23 Aug 2013 at 02:32

estebanrey said:
Again, based on what evidence? You do know that PG is an ingredient in Asthma inhalers and we have 50+ years of evidence showing it is safe right?

Except that we don't. Evidence showing that it's safe for ingestion, yes. Safe for inhalation when heated, no.

Bulls hit. Let me guess, you found an article where one rogue factory in China released one dodgy bottle of e-liquid?

There are no metals in 99.9999999.....% of e-liquids.

And I never claimed that there were. Your guess is wrong and created from your own imagination. You are making things up and yet you're throwing accusations of bovine fecal matter about. You are an evangelist who is not interested in any evidence that in any way contradicts your advocacy.

You are making yourself look bad.

Try this study, for example:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0057987

Also you do know that we know every single chemical that is contained in mass produced e-juices. Whereas there are still unidentified chemical in tobacco smoke despite it being in existence for well over 500 years?

You're obviously in such an evangelical frenzy that it's affecting both your ability to think and your ability to write. You're writing irrelevant nonsense in broken English, arguing furiously with someone who doesn't exist outside of your imagination and pretending that they're me.

I never said it is obvious that it is safe [..]

Yes you did. "pretty obvious" were the words you used (in post 14).

Castiel · 23 Aug 2013 at 02:46

Theophany said:
I actually wasn't trying to be a peen that time, I genuinely didn't know that there was such a high incidence of pancreatic cancer with smokers. I know that as a smoker, cancer is an eventuality, but I guess I get blase about it.

Smoking is one of the major contributors to pancreatic cancer.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/pancreaticcancer/detailedguide/pancreatic-cancer-risk-factors

Cigarette smoking

The risk of getting pancreatic cancer is at least twice as high among smokers compared to those who have never smoked. Scientists think this may be due to cancer-causing chemicals in cigarette smoke that enter the blood and damage the pancreas. About 20% to 30% of exocrine pancreatic cancer cases are thought to be caused by cigarette smoking. Cigar and pipe smoking also increase risk. Quitting smoking helps lower risk – 10 years after quitting, former smokers have the same risk as those who never smoked.

People who use smokeless tobacco are also more likely to get pancreatic cancer.

Freakbro · 23 Aug 2013 at 07:27

Children, Children...come on now, play nicely.

Theophany · 23 Aug 2013 at 08:52

Freakbro said:
Children, Children...come on now, play nicely.

I'm only playing.

estebanrey · 23 Aug 2013 at 09:48

Angilion said:
Except that we don't. Evidence showing that it's safe for ingestion, yes. Safe for inhalation when heated, no.

Again, you are wrong. PG has been inhaled in various medical forms for decades. If it wasn't safe for inhalation, it wouldn't have been approved by numerous medical bodies for use in things like diazepam would it?

Even if we had no evidence for the long term effects of inhaling PG (which we do), there is no reason to jump to the conclusion that it must be bad anyway. You cannot get long term evidence until something has been used long term by lots of people by definition.

But what we can do is use what we know now to try and predict the long term effects and there is no evidence at all to suggest it should be negative.

Angilion said:
And I never claimed that there were. Your guess is wrong and created from your own imagination. You are making things up and yet you're throwing accusations of bovine fecal matter about. You are an evangelist who is not interested in any evidence that in any way contradicts your advocacy.

You are making yourself look bad.

Try this study, for example:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0057987

It is you that is making yourself look bad by not understanding basic science. You claimed that.....

"There are also other substances in the vapour that are potentially dangerous by inhalation, such as microscopic particles of metal."

That is just untrue. The vapour contains the ingredients of the liquid because it can vapourize under the relatively low heat being provided. The 'study' you point to is trying to say "because the coils are made from metal some of that must be getting into the vapour" but that doesn't make sense given none of the metals used can vaporise under the conditions.

Do you really think that you can reach the evaporation point of nickel under the power of a 3.7 volt battery? Really?

Sadly you seem to be falling victim to scaremongering that doesn't hold up under scrutinization. I'd bet my bottom dollar that 'study' was ultimately issued by groups who have financial interests in the pharmaceutical or tobacco industries.

Angilion said:
You're obviously in such an evangelical frenzy that it's affecting both your ability to think and your ability to write. You're writing irrelevant nonsense in broken English, arguing furiously with someone who doesn't exist outside of your imagination and pretending that they're me.

And you are obviously someone who thinks attacking the messenger instead of the message is a debate winning tactic. I prefer to stick to the facts.

Angilion said:
Yes you did. "pretty obvious" were the words you used (in post 14).

The use of 'pretty obvious' bit wasn't the contention here though. You claimed that I made the claim I knew it was safe. I never said that, I said we know it isn't dangerous which isn't the same thing.

It's the same with mobile phones, we don't KNOW that in the future we won't find out they are dangerous. However no current evidence we do have suggests they should be, so we don't ban or place unnecessary red tape on them 'just in case' which seems to be your position with e-cigs.

As I posted above, e-cigs and their juices are already covered by numerous regulation. If someone really was selling a juice with 'metal particles' in it or a dodgy coil they are already falling foul of the law and can be prosecuted.