This half-hour radio programme http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b066zvyf
makes the claim that 'Public attitudes towards e-cigarettes are becoming more irrational, and not less.' That reminded me of this forum.
It then goes on to examine the evidence for and against them. Which sadly didn't remind me of this forum.

I'm referring to the self-righteous high emotion and lack of both evidence-based argument and any sense of proportion that comes out each of the many times the topic is raised here. Not to the recent thread in particular or to your genuine worries about your son.

Kate, thanks for replying.

Open informed debate stalled when the European Union formed. A minority without the uniforms of the past dictating how the masses should behave. This spurred the vocal minority and its unelected, single sided views becoming policy through regulation and directive.

And is Vaping truly safe? Glycerine a component of many flavours has a Work Place Exposure Limit in respect of inhalation.

Forget this as smoking is such an old battle ground - news reports indicate those with Type 2 diabetes related to poor diet and a lack of exercise are the next drain of NHS resource to become pyriahs.

Eventually we will get round to targeting any and all freedoms.

Hawking has it wrong... we should not be fearing the robot rather that we become the robot.

Not sure it's a problem, I don't smoke but I will still go outside for fresh air as many times as the smokers do. I believe that you cannot discriminate against anyone, if you let one do it to smoke then non smokers have the same rights.

One of the problems is the vast amount of disinformation peddled by the likes of the BMA or WHO.

Public Health England latest evidence update on ecigs show that the perception of risk attributable to ecigs are becoming increasingly inaccurate, quote:

"Although the majority of adults and youth still correctly perceive EC to be less harmful than tobacco cigarettes, there has been an overall shift towards the inaccurate perception of EC being at least as harmful as cigarettes over the last year, for both groups"

I would say that as a profession we have collectively been part of this problem.

A good example is when people recommend treating ecigs exactly the same as traditional cigs ( a very common view in H&S circles ), despite the unequivocal advice given by Public Health England, quote:

"EC release negligible levels of nicotine into ambient air with no identified health risks to bystanders."

Some comments also touch on the "gateway" effect, the PHE report has looked at this, quote:

"Since EC were introduced to the market, smoking prevalence among adults and youth has declined. Hence there is no evidence to date that EC are renormalising smoking, instead it’s possible that their presence has contributed to further declines in smoking, or denormalisation of smoking."

In summary ecigs should be sensibly controlled in the workplace ( as per the advice suggested by the HSE - http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_900.pdf ), this will maximise the health benefit of encouraging smokers to switch and should address the minor risks associated with ecig use, treating ecigs and tobacco exactly the same is not a sensible or proportional policy"

We have taken the stance that no smoking of any kind is allowed inside. Given the cases of chargers setting on fire, and the unknown long term effects, we treat e-cigarettes the same as normal ones. if you wish to use them, you go to the provided shelter. It's not accepted to sit indoors and use them, why should anyone else, particularly those who don't smoke, have to put up with it or see it as them getting an extra perk no-one else does.

Smokers already get enough flack as people assume they spend all day outside smoking. I see a lot of people who spend a lot of time standing at the coffee machine, so it all evens out.

The best way to deal with it is not allow it inside full stop. No arguments, no exceptions, not acceptable.

It should be treated like the habit it is, and not welcomed inside (and I am a smoker).

Coincidentally we were in our favourite local yesterday evening and there were a group pf people smoking e-cigs. I am largely in favour of e-cigs if it can wean people off the hard stuff - plus they mean that my friends don't keep disappearing outside every 5 minutes for a quick puff. I haven't been particualrly bothered by the e-cig vapour, although it can be a bit whiffy.

The amount of 'smoke' emitted by this group was phenomenal though - it was like sitting in a room with a dry-ice machine churning away and the whole pub was enveloped in a smelly, hazy fug (which had several of us coughing to try to clear our lungs - even when the windows were flung open). Not sure if they were using a new brand of e-cigs or whether there is a control function on some brands that can be set to MEGA vape.

Anyway.... that is the first negative experience I have had of e-cigs, and if someone was sitting in an enclosed office vaping away like this it would be pretty annoying, never mind the potential health effects.

There still seems to be an enormous amount of confusion within the EHS profession as to what risks vaping & nicotine pose
One poster commented that nicotine is a “really harmful drug”, at concentrations found in ecigs nicotine is probably as harmful as caffeine, the harm that arises from smoking is a result of inhaling a complex mixture of tars and other carcinogenic chemicals, not the nicotine. Vaping does not produce any of the harmful substances in tobacco smoke. The other constituents in ecigs include Propylene glycol ( as found in asthma inhalers ), glycerine ( a substance used in products such as cough medicine ) and food flavouring. A basic application of toxicology shows that ecigs are orders of magnitude less harmful.
The latest PHE report referenced 4 peer reviewed studies and concluded that passive vaping has no identified risks to bystanders, I accept that a small room filled with vaping aerosol is likely to be very unpleasant but it is not likely to cause harm according to the latest evidence.
Another poster refers to “smoking of any kind”, ecigs do not produce any SMOKE, the only thing they have in common with combustible cigs is the name and presence of nicotine.
I do not advocate a vaping “free for all”, but do recognise and value the massive health benefits for smokers who switch, this benefit is well worth having less restrictions on ecigs than for combustible ecigs ( as per the advice suggested by the HSE ). I know a site where the smokers have to stand at the gate but the vapers have their own “vaping room”, this seems an ideal solution – smokers see the practical benefit to switching and are more likely to do so and non vapers are protected from annoyance.
In summary, if your smoking colleagues switch they will benefit from a massive improvement in health. Treating ecigs exactly like combustibles is unlikely to encourage this switch, a middle ground is possible where annoyance is minimised but the health benefits are maximised.

On the surface it does indeed seem reasonable, but it is well worth looking at this post by Clive Bates, former boss of ASH - http://www.clivebates.com/?p=2523.

The WHO have been guilty of spreading disinformation about ecigs many times, this widely debunked fear about particulates is a good example

As I wrote in the thread I started recently, my son was exposed to the fumes from three people in his workplace all vaporing at once.

He developed a chest complaint with a bad cough that one docter said was a virus and the second doctor said it was a problem with one side of his chest.

She said if he was exposed to anything that caused a chest problem it could affect him later on. He is 17.

He Stayed away from work on advice of the first doctor and his cough cleared up, on returning to work the cough came back.

His employer said what the doctor said was a load of rubbish and quoted the "95% better than cogarettes" that was out in the news that day.

My son resigned his apprenticeship and is now out of work.

His cough and chest complaint have cleared up.

Not scientific research but it is enough for me to make a judgement.

Some people are susceptible to things others are not. But I would always have them smoke them outside, not becuase they make me ill it just because it annoys the hell out of them.

I am not a Doctor, but I find it hard to believe that your son developed chest problems solely due to be being exposed to vaping. It could be he is 'sensitised' for some unknown reason.

When I first started work at the ripe old age of 16 I had a allergy which could not be explained. It cost me many months off work and also hospitalised me once. I assumed it was work related but because I worked with a number of different chemicals and elements nothing could be attributed to the allergy. My Doctor refused to send me for patch tests without some idea what was causing the ill effects.

Six years later and by pure chance I found out that I was allergic to expoxy resins. Patch tests revealed I was acutely allergic. The irony was that whilst off work sick, I was building Airfix models with epoxy based adhesive!

There are worse things than caffeine that people are using these for too, I have seen reports of individuals managing to get their narcotics through these things....

http://www.rt.com/uk/220...mt-electronic-cigarette/

I am not a Doctor, but I find it hard to believe that your son developed chest problems solely due to be being exposed to vaping. It could be he is 'sensitised' for some unknown reason.

You have very little idea what substances are used to create the vaping liquid or their potential health effects.

And your point is...?

That you base your belief on what...?

You don't know what his son is actually exposed to.

Jumpon.....

In your post at #16 you describe a situation where Smokers are outside by the gate and those with Ecigs have a room to vape. You describe this as ideal. Does that mean you agree that those that do not smoke or use Ecigs should not be forced to be in the same room as those that like to vape ( at break times when they Vape).

Chris

Hi folks
Recent research stuff for consideration [Grauniad Weds]

A health watchdog is to take legal action in California against the manufacturers of some of the best-known brands of e-cigarettes, following tests to establish the levels of toxic chemicals they contain.

The Center for Environmental Health (CEH) says its tests found that nearly 90% of the companies had at least one brand that produced high levels of one or both of the cancer-causing chemicals formaldehyde and acetaldehyde.

In the first ever large lab-testing of e-cigarettes on the market, the CEH found that most – 50 of 97 products examined – contained high levels of one or both chemical.

The lab tests and legal action will fuel the battle raging over e-cigarettes. While supporters say they could help thousands of people give up the far more dangerous tobacco-filled conventional cigarettes, others worry about the chemicals they contain.

Such suspicions are fuelled by the involvement of major tobacco companies in the e-cigarette market. Critics say e-cigarettes may be a stalking horse for Big Tobacco, in order to rehabilitate the act of smoking.

The CEH said its lab tests of 97 e-cigarette and vaping products revealed levels of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde that violated California’s safety standards. It said this was the first time e-cigarettes had been tested by simulating their real-world use.

“For decades, the tobacco industry mounted a campaign of lies about cigarettes, and now these same companies claim that their e-cigarettes are harmless,” said Michael Green, executive director of CEH.

“Anyone who thinks that vaping is harmless needs to know that our testing unequivocally shows that it’s not safe to vape.

“This is especially troubling given the reckless marketing practices of the e-cigarette industry, which targets teens and young people, and deceives the public with unfounded health and safety claims. Our legal action aims to force the industry to comply with the law and create pressure to end their most abusive practices.”

CEH is invoking California’s consumer protection law, known as Proposition 65. Earlier this year, the watchdog started legal action against the companies for failing to warn users about the risks of nicotine in the products.

The non-profit organisation purchased e-cigarettes, e-liquids and other vaping products from major retailers including RiteAid and 7-Eleven, and from many online retailers and Bay Area vape shops between February and July 2015.

It commissioned an independent lab accredited by the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation to test 97 products, including 15 disposable “cigalikes” e-cigarettes, 32 cartridge devices and 50 refillable devices, for formaldehyde and acetaldehyde.

The two chemicals are known to cause cancer and are also linked to genetic damage, birth defects and reduced fertility. The lab used standard smoking machines that simulate how consumers use the products.

Almost 90% of the companies whose products were tested (21 of 24 companies) had one or more products that produced hazardous amounts of one or both of the chemicals, in violation of California law.

The testing showed that 21 products produced a level of one of the chemicals at more than 10 times the state safety standard, and seven products produced one of the chemicals at more than 100 times the safety level.

The CEH testing found high levels of the chemicals even in several nicotine-free varieties. For example, one nicotine-free product produced acetaldehyde at more than 13 times the state legal safety threshold and formaldehyde at more than 74 times the threshold.
Regards
Mike

That's typical of teh ecigs proponent's strawman arguments. I don't doubt that vaping is less harmful than smoking. However, it has not been shown that vaping is as harmless as not vaping.

I have never seen anyone propose that vaping should be banned and people should be forced to smoke instead. The proposal is that those who don't want to vape or smoke should not be obliged to breath in the uncontrolled cocktail of unknown substances emitted by ecigs. As such, ecigs should (quite reasonably) be treated in the workplace like cigarettes - require people that want to breathe this stuff in do it in such a way that it does not affect those that don't.