Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

3 Pages<123>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
leadbelly  
#41 Posted : 17 July 2014 09:38:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
leadbelly

Coy

Many thanks for the reference; I did search for some information but did not find the paper to which you refer.

LB
jwk  
#42 Posted : 17 July 2014 12:56:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

It's an interesting paper Coy, and I agree that the man in the pub is almost always the worst source of information on anything (except maybe the way to the gents). However, the PHE paper does beg some questions, and it does indicate that there is still much research to be done, especially on long-term health effects, which while they are likely to be much lower than those arising from smoking, may well not be zero.

It also doesn't suggest that employers should allow vaping at work. There are many harmless or low -risk activities which are forbidden in workplaces, and vaping breaks would prove to be just as divisive as smoking breaks were. On the merits of the available evidence I will continue to support my employer's view that there are no good reasons to allow vaping at work
jumponthebandwagon  
#43 Posted : 17 July 2014 15:47:38(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
jumponthebandwagon

jwk wrote:
It's an interesting paper Coy, and I agree that the man in the pub is almost always the worst source of information on anything (except maybe the way to the gents). However, the PHE paper does beg some questions, and it does indicate that there is still much research to be done, especially on long-term health effects, which while they are likely to be much lower than those arising from smoking, may well not be zero.

It also doesn't suggest that employers should allow vaping at work. There are many harmless or low -risk activities which are forbidden in workplaces, and vaping breaks would prove to be just as divisive as smoking breaks were. On the merits of the available evidence I will continue to support my employer's view that there are no good reasons to allow vaping at work


The main "good reason" for having a permissive e-cig policy is that it is more likely to persuade hardened smokers in your organisation to switch, this will almost certainly save people from an early & painful death. It is probably the most effective H&S policy you could implement in terms of effort required v lives saved.

A good summary of the risks of overly restricting e-cigs has been written by Clive Bates ( ex ASH director ) - http://www.clivebates.com/?p=2257#more-2257. It is aimed at the public health community, but there are many parallels for those of us who have an employee well-being remit within our roles
jwk  
#44 Posted : 18 July 2014 14:02:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

Jumponthebandwagon; what you describe is an argument for allowing the use of e-cigs in society and as a whole, but there isn't a logical connection with permissiveness in private and permissiveness in public.

Despite what some practitioners (and promoters of safety awards) think, H&S isn't about people's private lives, it's about work. By all means promote the use of e-cigs, but I see no reason to allow the use of e-cigs at work in any way that is different to the use of other tobacco products. Don't get me wrong, I am sure the evidence is that they are considerably safer than burning tobacco products, and I accept the concept of harm reduction. I just don't see what any of that's got to do with work or an employer's duty of care to their employees,

John
Ron Hunter  
#45 Posted : 18 July 2014 16:02:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

jwk wrote:
....... indicate that there is still much research to be done, especially on long-term health effects.......... may well not be zero.
On the merits of the available evidence I will continue to support my employer's view that there are no good reasons to allow vaping at work


On the basis of that argument, what's your employer's view on the use of mobile phones?
paulw71  
#46 Posted : 18 July 2014 16:32:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
paulw71

Ron Hunter wrote:
jwk wrote:
....... indicate that there is still much research to be done, especially on long-term health effects.......... may well not be zero.
On the merits of the available evidence I will continue to support my employer's view that there are no good reasons to allow vaping at work


On the basis of that argument, what's your employer's view on the use of mobile phones?


Mobile phones are (nowadays) essential work equipment for many people. E cigs arent.
Ron Hunter  
#47 Posted : 18 July 2014 20:18:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

I remember when asbestos-containing materials were "essential work equipment"..............
paulw71  
#48 Posted : 19 July 2014 19:18:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
paulw71

Ron Hunter wrote:
I remember when asbestos-containing materials were "essential work equipment"..............


You heard it here first folks. Mobile phones, the new asbestos.
jwk  
#49 Posted : 21 July 2014 13:23:24(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

Ron, interestingly I don't know as far as my current employer's concerned, except that they have a no mobile while mobile policy; I havent' been here long enough to ask about personal mobile use in general. However, I can tell you that my previous employer did not allow personal mobile use for peple on duty (residential care & hospices) except at times of family crisis etc,

John
jwk  
#50 Posted : 21 July 2014 13:31:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

But as far as the health effects of mobiles go (which is what I presume you were alluding to); the available evidence seems to be that they are, if any, very marginal, and are probably outweighed by the business and personal benefits of mobile phone use. The only benefit of vaping is to satisfy a craving for a substance which to me appears to have no effect other than to produce a craving....

John
Steve e ashton  
#51 Posted : 21 July 2014 14:54:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Steve e ashton

"The only benefit of vaping is to satisfy a craving for a substance which to me appears to have no effect other than to produce a craving.... "

Really?

I'm truly disappointed by the many closed minds on display in this topic. As someone who smoked twenty plus a day for over forty years - and has now avoided fags for six months without difficulty thanks entirely to the vaper....

For me, it has been the magic bullet that has killed the habit. All previous attempts at habit breaking over thirty-plus years - failures.

And whilst it may be too late to give me significant benefit in terms of expected longevity the benefit in pocket has been much welcomed by the wife and weans. I recommend to all smokers.
jwk  
#52 Posted : 21 July 2014 15:16:21(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

Steve, you misunderstand my point; it's nicotine that does (almost) nothing but cause addiction. Cocaine causes intense excitation of the senses and gives people a great sense of energy; morphine/heroin cause anasthesia and euphoria; opium gives people visions; alcohol allows ugly people to have love affairs ;-); nicotine just gets people hooked. It's almost the perfect puritan drug. Guaranteed to give only very limited pleasure but certain to produce vast revenues.

It's not vaping, but nicotine I was talking about,

John
jumponthebandwagon  
#53 Posted : 21 July 2014 15:26:04(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
jumponthebandwagon

jwk wrote:
Jumponthebandwagon; what you describe is an argument for allowing the use of e-cigs in society and as a whole, but there isn't a logical connection with permissiveness in private and permissiveness in public.

Despite what some practitioners (and promoters of safety awards) think, H&S isn't about people's private lives, it's about work. By all means promote the use of e-cigs, but I see no reason to allow the use of e-cigs at work in any way that is different to the use of other tobacco products. Don't get me wrong, I am sure the evidence is that they are considerably safer than burning tobacco products, and I accept the concept of harm reduction. I just don't see what any of that's got to do with work or an employer's duty of care to their employees,

John


I agree to a certain extent, however times do change, I have worked for organisations that have ran campaigns to improve the lifestyle and health of their employees ( Men's health awareness, inviting NHS stop smoking services in, subsidised local gym membership etc. ). So it is clear that educating and persuading employees to live a healthier lifestyle in their private lives is a reasonable thing for an employer to do.

"but I see no reason to allow the use of e-cigs at work in any way that is different to the use of other tobacco products" - e-cigs ARE NOT a tobacco product, no tobacco is present and no combustion occurs, e-cigs are no more a tobacco product than patches, gum, tomatoes or potatoes.

To summarise, I would advise the following e-cig actions for company's

- Adopt a policy for e-cigs that is more permissive than your policy for real cigarettes, this would be proportionate to the risks present and provide a motive for the hardened smoker to switch
- Develop a body of knowledge so the daily mail & vested interest scare stories can be countered, so as to minimise the risk of hardened smokers being put off switching due to a distorted perception of the risks involved.
jwk  
#54 Posted : 21 July 2014 15:36:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

Nicotine comes from tobacco; ergo e-cigs are a tobacco product just like yoghurt is a milk product and lanolin comes from wool. Not convinced; you give example of employers trying to influence workers' (general) health, but that still doesn't mean it's necessary (or even useful) for employers to do that.

Work is not private life; vaping is fine as a harm reduction/quitting smoking strategy in private, but it's nothing to do with work,

John
jumponthebandwagon  
#55 Posted : 21 July 2014 15:51:35(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
jumponthebandwagon

jwk wrote:
Nicotine comes from tobacco; ergo e-cigs are a tobacco product just like yoghurt is a milk product and lanolin comes from wool. Not convinced; you give example of employers trying to influence workers' (general) health, but that still doesn't mean it's necessary (or even useful) for employers to do that.

Work is not private life; vaping is fine as a harm reduction/quitting smoking strategy in private, but it's nothing to do with work,

John


Would you class nicotine patches, gum or a medicalised version of an e-cig as a tobacco product? , Nicotine is a very small component of tobacco ( and one of the least harmful components ) there are many other plants and foodstuffs that contain nicotine but they do not contain any tobacco. The key criteria of what should be classed as a tobacco product is whether it contains tobacco or not, for e-cigs the answer is a definite NOT.

I believe that it is reasonable for an employer to try to educate & persuade their employees to adopt a healthier lifestyle. Hardened smokers switching to vaping is a winner for both the employee involved and the employer, all at little cost in terms of effort & money.
jwk  
#56 Posted : 21 July 2014 16:39:12(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

Yes, I would consider nicotine patches etc to be a tobacco product, as would e.g. RJ Reynolds, British American Tobacco and so on. Leather is an animal product, calfskin comes from cows, cod liver oil comes from the livers of cod and is therefore a cod product, penicillin comes from penicilium mould and is therefore a fungal product etc etc. Nicotine may be present in other plants (foodstuffs? really?) but believe me, it comes from tobacco. And I am aware that it is only one of the components of tobacco, and that it causes little harm (though it is flat toxic in large doses), but without it tobacco is not addictive; it is the addictive component in tobacco and it is why people smoke tobacco and not e.g dried acorn leaves.

We are now at the stage where you are stating your beliefs and I am stating mine. I'm not going to be persuaded, neither are you, so it's time to bow out gracefully I think,

John
IanDakin  
#57 Posted : 22 July 2014 13:34:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
IanDakin

Again
As with other posts
Here is some good research review material.
http://www.dkfz.de/en/pr...ol19-E-Cigarettes-EN.pdf

Ian
colinreeves  
#58 Posted : 22 July 2014 13:55:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
colinreeves

jwk wrote:
Yes, I would consider nicotine patches etc to be a tobacco product, as would e.g. RJ Reynolds, British American Tobacco and so on. John



Being picky but see:
http://www.ehow.co.uk/li...containing-nicotine.html
Stern  
#59 Posted : 22 July 2014 14:00:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Stern

I think a few people are missing the point here...

Whilst there's still no conclusive evidence on the long term health effects of e-cigs, the reports i've personally read all seem to agree that they are considerably less damaging to health than real cigarettes.

However, the argument isn't about e-cigs vs cigarettes (or nicotine patches, gums, inhalers etc) it is purely about whether e-cigs should be allowed in the workplace given that, unlike other forms of nicotine replacement, they give off a vapour which can then be inhaled by people around you.

Of course it makes sense for employers to encourage and help smokers to switch to e-cigs, as they are quite clearly the lesser of the two evils. However, by allowing them to be used in the workplace (by which i mean sitting at your desk with one) you would then be exposing non-smokers/vapers to inhale this vapour which, whilst not as damaging as "proper" cigarette smoke, may (only MAY) be harmful to health.

Ultimately, until e-cigs are proven to be 100% safe, i can't see how any employer can allow them to be used in the workplace except is designated "e-cig areas".
Steve e ashton  
#60 Posted : 22 July 2014 14:09:21(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Steve e ashton

e-cigs are proven to be 100% safe, i can't see how any employer can allow them to be used in the workplace except is designated "e-cig areas".

???

Has anyone seen anything that proves coffee (or coffee vapour) is 100% safe? Tea? Bananas? Printer ink? The vapour from perfume or Lynx? Do we need to designate special areas for people to suck mint humbugs?

NOTHING in life is 100% safe. And any employer who bans anything and everything that has not been shown to be "100% safe" will very rapidly go out of business.
MrsBlue  
#61 Posted : 23 July 2014 09:10:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

I am an ex smoker following a heart attack last October (psychologically the heart attack was the best deterrent I could have had as it concentrates the mind on just how smoking can wreck lives - fortunately I am now half way through training for a half marathon and have not felt so fit in 20 years).

Having tried e-cigs to give up prior to the attack all I can say is they didn't work for me. My employer does not ban them but politely asks users to go outside to the designated smoking area which in my view rather defeats the object. But you can't have it always.

Sensible policies and procedures are called for and I rather like steve e ashton #60 answer.

Rich
firesafety101  
#62 Posted : 23 July 2014 10:46:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

Rich 777 well done for packing them in and now working hard on fitness, excellent.

I understand you had a very good reason that helped you to give up, I gave up smoking 23 years ago after starting as a 14 year old in school during the sixties when cigarette smoking was very fashionable.

In my opinion all it takes is will power brought on by the "want" to pack in.

I do understand individuals have different levels of willpower and employers can assist by banning these devices from the workplace.

There is no requirement on the employer to allow them during working hours, also smoking shelters - whose idea are they?

Do workplaces provide "non smoking shelters" for employees who do not smoke to enable them a paid break every couple of hours ? If I ever went outside for a break and was not smoking I was called a Skiver.

Thank you for allowing me this rant, I do know ex-smokers are the worst.


Invictus  
#63 Posted : 23 July 2014 11:52:12(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

Rich know how you feel had a heart attack last August, although I was fit and healthy and hadn't smoked for over 20 years, trained daily, triathlons, half marathons etc. and contuary to belief it was the fact that I was so fit that kept me alive. So keep working towards your goal of the half marathon (great feeling when you finish if you haven't done one before.

I have a manager who smokes so I go home early everyday because I save up the minutes throughout the day that he and a collegue go outside to smoke.

We do not allow the smoking of e-cigs in buildings but they can go outside for a smoke if they want.
MrsBlue  
#64 Posted : 23 July 2014 12:36:48(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

Invictus - Great to know you survived the HA - it really is a bolt from the blue when it happens.

I was at work and in a meeting when it struck me. A colleague called an ambulance and I was on the operating table literally 45 minutes later which saved an immeasurable amount of damage being done to my heart.

My HA was down to smoking and was a no-brainer to stop.

Which is why, as has been said in other posts I would support e-cigs in the workplace (used outside so the vapour wafts away until such time as the vapour is proved or otherwise to be safe) as a lesser of two evils - you have to break habits like a drink and a fag, the cup of tea and fag, fag after eating etc.

Make no mistake it is extremely hard to give up - it is said nicotine is 10 times more additive then heroine (never seen justification for this statement just repeating what I have heard and read) so anything which helps must be a plus.

Rich
Invictus  
#65 Posted : 23 July 2014 13:38:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

Rich I was the opposite I was running thought I had indigestion so just speeded up the treadmill, I was lucky because I had intended to run through the woods but couldn't be bothered.

Anyway back to e-cigs the reason we allow them outside is that it hasn't been proved what damge can be done by them to the user or others and it took years for it to be realised that passive smoke also contributed to a lot of the damage in none smokers.

John J  
#66 Posted : 29 July 2014 09:25:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
John J

It's about the particle size apparently

http://www.iflscience.co...ealth-risks-e-cigarettes

One issue not considered is that there is a growing trend for substitutes for nicotine that have a narcotic effect. Just make sure your drug and alcohol policy is up to date.
Stern  
#67 Posted : 31 July 2014 14:50:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Stern

steve e ashton wrote:
e-cigs are proven to be 100% safe, i can't see how any employer can allow them to be used in the workplace except is designated "e-cig areas".

???

Has anyone seen anything that proves coffee (or coffee vapour) is 100% safe? Tea? Bananas? Printer ink? The vapour from perfume or Lynx? Do we need to designate special areas for people to suck mint humbugs?

NOTHING in life is 100% safe. And any employer who bans anything and everything that has not been shown to be "100% safe" will very rapidly go out of business.


Nobody is suggesting that anything which is not 100% safe should be banned.

The fact of the matter is that things like tea, coffee, bananas, mint humbugs and perfumes have been used by mankind for hundreds of years so any potential side effects/health issues would have been observed by now. If you read into e-cigs then you'll see that one of the primary issues is that the experts (doctors, scientists, health agencies etc) have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA of the long term health effects of the "smoking" or passive "smoking" of them because they just haven't been around for long enough.

How long did it take for the health effects of asbestos to be discovered? Or the effects smoking itself? The world thought these things were great at the time (doctors prescribed fags for gods sakle!) until people started dying in their thousands 20-30yrs later. With so much uncertainty and debate around ecigs and their long term health effects, any employer allowing them to be freely "smoked" around the workplace would in my eyes be grossly irresponsible.

I would have thought that restricting their use to designated areas would be a sensible control measure so that people who want to use them can do so but not in such a way that it affects others around them. (See - there is a middle ground between uncontrolled use and a 100% ban!)

Ref your list of examples, other than the deodorant (and maybe perfume) they're all very poor choices to support your argument as these things are not able to be "inhaled" by the person sitting next to you in the same way as nicotine vapour is. If i am sucking on a boiled sweet then this is not affecting the health of the person next to me. The same can be said if i am eating a banana, or drinking a cup of tea. However, if i am "smoking" an ecig and creating a cloud of vapour around me (containing chemicals) then this IS going to affect those around me as this will be entering their body with (as i mentioned earlier) currently unknown long term consequences.
firesafety101  
#68 Posted : 08 August 2014 14:11:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

firesafety101  
#69 Posted : 08 August 2014 14:13:37(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

chris42  
#70 Posted : 08 August 2014 14:21:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

There was issues here in Wales of dubious chargers, but in fairness nothing to do with the e cig they were charging.

Another thought on this is we seem to have considered one person using e cig and one other person also breathing in. Of course if no restriction you could have a room with 20 people in and only one who does not Vap. A lot of nothing harmful is still not harmful, but a lot of a little bit harmful may be significant, but the problem is we don't actually know.

grim72  
#71 Posted : 08 August 2014 15:22:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
grim72

Another link on the BBC news today relating to a man being killed in Merseyside when an e-cigarette exploded. Doesn't eactly fill me with confidence that they are a safe product to use in the workplace (or anywhere for that matter)? Although there do appear to be a number of contributing factors in this case http://www.bbc.co.uk/new...land-merseyside-28701515
stonecold  
#72 Posted : 27 August 2014 11:48:55(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stonecold

WHO says ban them form indoor use....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28937610
Ron Hunter  
#73 Posted : 27 August 2014 22:35:12(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

Anyone have a link to WHO source document for statement being quoted by BBC and others?
jumponthebandwagon  
#74 Posted : 01 September 2014 10:02:31(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
jumponthebandwagon

Clive Bates ( former ASH director ) has written a blog about the WHO recommendations with a commentary on the problems within them

http://www.clivebates.com/?p=2350

Although written from a public health perspective, it also contains important points for consideration when formulating workplace policies that are proportionate to the risks involved.
Bob Howden  
#75 Posted : 01 September 2014 12:43:08(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Bob Howden

Ron Hunter wrote:
Anyone have a link to WHO source document for statement being quoted by BBC and others?


Here you are - http://www.who.int/nmh/e...rounder-e-cigarettes/en/

John J  
#76 Posted : 01 September 2014 12:58:21(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
John J

Apparently the quality control isn't great

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-28955590
A Kurdziel  
#77 Posted : 01 September 2014 13:19:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

As this is going on I feel that I have to send the question back to the originator of the thread.
What do you mean by ‘a robust Health and Safety case’?
If you want someone to say that there is clear irrefutable evidence that these things cause disease and that they can be seen as a workplace hazard then the answer; no, there is no ‘robust case’.
If you are asking is there any clear irrefutable evidence that they cause no harm, again there is nothing like that. All we have is possibilities and likelihoods.
So it is really down to you and your employers to decide what they want to do:
They could adopt the precautionary principle and ban the things on the grounds that they might cause harm and that they make it difficult to police the smoking ban.
Equally you could argue that they are not illegal and there is no positive evidence that they cause harm and some people say that they might wean people off real cigarettes. So you might decide to allow their use.
The decision is currently entirely down to you.
It’s one of those decisions that makes the job so interesting and makes you appreciate that you can’t please all of the people all of the time.
colinreeves  
#78 Posted : 05 September 2014 09:10:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
colinreeves

The WHO say one thing, academics say the opposite - how are we to know???

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29061169

Definitely the jury is out - but for how long?
achrn  
#79 Posted : 05 September 2014 09:18:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

colinreeves wrote:
The WHO say one thing, academics say the opposite - how are we to know???

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29061169

Definitely the jury is out - but for how long?


SOME academics.

But the real reason why this does not contradict the WHO is that the work by these academics relates to the choice between smoking real cigarettes and smoking e-cigarettes. That's not the choice in the workplace.

I don't think anyone doubts that if you had to choose between cigarette smoke and e-cig fume, the e-cig fume is almost certainly safer. However, the decision in the workplace is not between those two - it's between e-cig fume and no e-cig fume. No-one, by banning use of e-cigs in the workplace, then allows or permits cigarette smoke there. This is a false dichotomy.
Ron Hunter  
#80 Posted : 05 September 2014 12:23:55(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

From

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29061169

"So killing benefits, which are huge, for risks which are small is like asking people to stop using mobile phones and tablets, or restrict their use and further development, because of a one in 10 million chance that the battery might overheat in your device."

Users browsing this topic
3 Pages<123>
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.