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
peterL  
#81 Posted : 29 August 2019 09:27:27(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
peterL

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, (quote for Jumponthebandwagon)

My two penneth, this is not a policy issue it is a code of conduct issue for Employers to decide upon, I believe that there should be direction given that switching may help as part of any smoking cessation programme, but the act of using e-cigs at work should not be encouraged similarly to the way that private mobile phone use is not an accepted use of an employees working time or that overly pungent foods are not allowed (under an Employer's specific active code of conduct) in an open office area; use in private or during off site recognised breaks is fine, but always away from other employees who may object.

Pete,

Roundtuit  
#82 Posted : 29 August 2019 10:07:55(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

This 2014 thread is another resurrected by lack of moderation on the forum

However since then we have news from across the pond that the first death has been attributed to vaping (rather than exploding chargers or associated fires) https://www.phillyvoice.com/vaping-death-e-cigarettes-illinois/

thanks 1 user thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 02/09/2019(UTC)
George_Young  
#83 Posted : 30 August 2019 06:01:24(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
George_Young

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

This 2014 thread is another resurrected by lack of moderation on the forum

However since then we have news from across the pond that the first death has been attributed to vaping (rather than exploding chargers or associated fires) https://www.phillyvoice.com/vaping-death-e-cigarettes-illinois/

I came across that yesterday, in a statement by the CDC https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2019/s0823-vaping-related-death.html.

Also, read that there are roughly 200 ill-health reports linked to vaping. Looks like its not as good as people first thought.

jumponthebandwagon  
#84 Posted : 30 August 2019 08:05:25(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
jumponthebandwagon

Originally Posted by: George_Young Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

This 2014 thread is another resurrected by lack of moderation on the forum

However since then we have news from across the pond that the first death has been attributed to vaping (rather than exploding chargers or associated fires) https://www.phillyvoice.com/vaping-death-e-cigarettes-illinois/

I came across that yesterday, in a statement by the CDC https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2019/s0823-vaping-related-death.html.

Also, read that there are roughly 200 ill-health reports linked to vaping. Looks like its not as good as people first thought.

There are 40-50 million vapers worldwide, the recent incidents are clustered around a few states in the USA and have exclusively been associated with youths vaping illicit THC containing oils ( regulated e-liquid under the Tobacco Products Directive in the UK/EU do not contain any oils )

This is a similar type of problem as when alcohol is occasionally ( and sometimes deliberately ) contaminated with methanol, it does not mean that there is a significant risk of similar when vaping e-liquids from reputable suppliers, anymore than I will be at risk of methanol poisoning when I enjoy a few pints in my local this evening.

A more sensible explanation of these incidents from leading public health experts in the UK can be found here - https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-death-in-illinois-reported-as-being-linked-to-vaping/

Roundtuit  
#85 Posted : 30 August 2019 08:49:08(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Locked doors and honest men..... the Directive is aimed at producers who choose to follow the law.

The RAPEX web site reveals 45 reports where EU member states have found liquids on the market contravening the directive including 4 from UK manufacturers, 13 imported from China and 4 imported from the USA.

Hsquared14  
#86 Posted : 30 August 2019 11:32:08(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Hsquared14

In the civil service e-cigarettes, vapes etc are treated exactly the same as tobacco based products and I think quite rightly so.  There are still by-products and the smell from some of the flavoured nicotine free units can be quite obnoxious.  Regardless of what dedicated vapers think this is not made up in the Daily Mirror it is a fact as is evidence emerging that these things are not as safe and innocuous as you might think.  They are to my mind a smoking cessation aid and should be regarded as such and not normalised within the workplace.  Sorry of this offends anyone (not) but I think they are turning into as big an issue as cigarettes and tobacco were and they need to be controlled.

thanks 2 users thanked Hsquared14 for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 02/09/2019(UTC), nic168 on 03/09/2019(UTC)
jumponthebandwagon  
#87 Posted : 30 August 2019 14:35:18(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
jumponthebandwagon

Originally Posted by: Hsquared14 Go to Quoted Post

In the civil service e-cigarettes, vapes etc are treated exactly the same as tobacco based products and I think quite rightly so.  There are still by-products and the smell from some of the flavoured nicotine free units can be quite obnoxious.  Regardless of what dedicated vapers think this is not made up in the Daily Mirror it is a fact as is evidence emerging that these things are not as safe and innocuous as you might think.  They are to my mind a smoking cessation aid and should be regarded as such and not normalised within the workplace.  Sorry of this offends anyone (not) but I think they are turning into as big an issue as cigarettes and tobacco were and they need to be controlled.

It is interesting to hear that one part of the civil service has implemented a policy that vaping and smoking are to be treated exactly the same which is directly at odds with advice given by a different part of the civil service ( Public health England (PHE)  - "policies should make clear the distinction between vaping and smoking."), as I have never worked in the civil service I am curious if it is common practice to ignore advice issued by different parts of the civil service when formulating workplace policies or is this just peculiar to vaping?

I quite agree that inconsiderate vapers blowing large clouds of strongly smelling vapour can indeed be obnoxious, the reality however is that you probably work alongside very discreet vapers and have not even noticed them. 

I would be interested to hear why you think vaping will turn into as big an issue as smoking?, the latest evidence update by PHE in Feb 2019 certainly did not highlight any such concerns and the different substances involved make such an outcome very unlikely. Such concerns are only typically found in publications such as the Mail or Mirror in clickbait articles.

chris.packham  
#88 Posted : 31 August 2019 07:53:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

Do we really know what the long term (chronic) effects of inhaling the high temperature vapour from the constituents of e-cigarettes might be? The only evidence we have is that short term there does not seem to be any adverse effect.

I am old enough to remember when smoking was considered harmless and asbestos was a wonderful, safe material. More recently I am sure most will remember the government’s encouragement that we should all go ‘diesel’ and this was less polluting than petrol!

There are no short term tests that will reliably indicate the long term effect of a chemical. This is particularly true of mixtures and even more so when heated. So simple statements that the vapour from e-cigarettes is harmless should be treated with caution. Why should others be exposed to something that they do not wish to be exposed to. Who will compensate them if in 10 or 20 years serious health effects become apparent?

thanks 2 users thanked chris.packham for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 02/09/2019(UTC), stevedm on 27/10/2019(UTC)
peter gotch  
#89 Posted : 31 August 2019 10:36:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Chris

I don't think that you are that old.

As you are probably aware the report by the Ombudsman damning HM Factory Inspectorate (one of the predecessors of the Health & Safety Executive) for not enforcing the Asbestos Regulations in Great Britain was published way back in 1976.

http://www.hebdenbridge.co.uk/features/acremill.html

Pliny the Younger spotted that slaves in Cyprus asbestos mines tended to die young and recommended that villa owners should not take them on as domestic slaves. This was in the 1st Century AD.

We knew that smoking was bad for you well before the Hebden Bridge report. The experts may have  underestimated the risks but were far from suggesting that smoking was safe.

However, both the asbestos industry and the tobacco manufacturers were adept at downplaying the risks for many decades, and still do.

The US Geological Society publishes the annual estimates of asbestos production and use country by country. Still huge tonnages used in some parts of the World.

Benz3ne  
#90 Posted : 03 September 2019 13:34:29(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Benz3ne

Originally Posted by: chris.packham Go to Quoted Post
Why should others be exposed to something that they do not wish to be exposed to. Who will compensate them if in 10 or 20 years serious health effects become apparent?

Fully agreed - I've had this discussion with my immediate superior. I stipulated that, as a minimum, the body would likely not uptake the entirety of the nicotine in the vapour, to which I was met with surprise and "I hadn't thought of it like that". Fast forward a few months and it is still allowed in communal areas, which I still disagree with (aloud).

The stance of the superior in Q is that it is still 'safer' than smoking, therefore they would prefer vaping as a trend over smoking. My counter to this is that smoking would still be disallowed regardless of the superior's stance on this, but it is ultimately overlooked.

In other news, electronic cigarettes are explicitly mentioned in ADR (dangerous goods by road) regulations as prohibited when a vehicle is loaded with dangerous goods, at any point driving in or when stationary in, or around, the vehicle.

stevedm  
#91 Posted : 03 September 2019 15:30:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

I think it is funny really that everyone makes a big play of these to reduce smoking when actually it has brough a completly new set of smokers to the market...teens who started on vaps now on cigs....and that some vap pods have the same nictotine content as a pack of cigs...

also who knew all we had to do to get people to smoke formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and acrolein was to just give it a strawberry falvour!...:)

thanks 1 user thanked stevedm for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 03/09/2019(UTC)
jumponthebandwagon  
#92 Posted : 04 September 2019 09:08:29(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
jumponthebandwagon

Originally Posted by: stevedm Go to Quoted Post

I think it is funny really that everyone makes a big play of these to reduce smoking when actually it has brough a completly new set of smokers to the market...teens who started on vaps now on cigs....and that some vap pods have the same nictotine content as a pack of cigs...

also who knew all we had to do to get people to smoke formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and acrolein was to just give it a strawberry falvour!...:)

Not backed up by the evidence published by Public Health England

http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vaping-in-england-an-evidence-update-february-2019/vaping-in-england-evidence-update-summary-february-2019

Or by the latest smoking statistics

http://www.smokinginengland.info/latest-statistics/

The formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and acrolein scare has also been thoroughly debunked, link to web site ran by Clive Bates ( previously in charge of ASH )

http://www.clivebates.com/flawed-e-cigarette-formaldehyde-paper-should-be-retracted-formal-complaint-and-supporting-letter-published/

jumponthebandwagon  
#93 Posted : 04 September 2019 09:42:19(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
jumponthebandwagon

It seems that the myths and misconceptions around vaping have got a firm foothold amongst EHS professionals.

Public Health England have published an article to combat some of these myths

https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2018/02/20/clearing-up-some-myths-around-e-cigarettes/

Roundtuit  
#94 Posted : 04 September 2019 09:58:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Which is over twelve months old so is it current best available knowledge?

CptBeaky  
#95 Posted : 04 September 2019 10:11:50(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
CptBeaky

Actually it was updated February 27th 2019. So I would assume that it is fairly up to date.

stevedm  
#96 Posted : 04 September 2019 13:01:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

I think you will find that the UK information/ research into this subject lagging behind the US...for a change.  

More and more information is coming through about links directly the cardiac problems, but like all of it there is astill a way to go it terms of getting it right...

I'm out...as the smokers are in... :) 

jumponthebandwagon  
#97 Posted : 05 September 2019 10:22:19(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
jumponthebandwagon

I could provide a very long list of studies and responses which would cast doubt on the assertion that UK research lags behind the sudies and articles published in the USA, but for the sake of brevity let's just consider one of the most recent US studies that alleged a link with cardiac problems;

Bhatta  D, Glantz  SA. Electronic cigarette use and myocardial infarction among adults in the United States Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health. Paper presented at: Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco Annual Meeting; February 20-23, 2019; San Francisco, CA. Abstract P0S4-99.

The study was widely publicised in the media as evidence that adult vaping was associated with a doubled risk of heart attack. However when the study data was obtained and analysed it was found that the majority of the 38 patients in the study who had heart attacks had them before they started vaping ( by an average of 10 years earlier! ).

Given that nearly all vapers are former or current smokers, it is far more likely that differences in smoking history between vapers and non-vapers explain the differences in heart-attacks. In other words, does being a vaper today signify that you were more likely to have been a heavy smoker in the past?. This study ( and many similar ones ) made no attempt to consider this confounding effect.

stevedm  
#98 Posted : 09 September 2019 05:45:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

Thought of a long explaination of why smoking was just a generally bad idea then read this article...maybe you should too...  :) x

'Decades-Long Surveys Suggest The “Deleterious Effects of Smoking May Extend to Detrimental Personality Changes”'

https://main-researchdigest-bps.content.pugpig.com/2019/06/21/decades-long-surveys-suggest-the-deleterious-effects-of-smoking-may-extend-to-detrimental-personality-changes/pugpig_index.html

WatsonD  
#99 Posted : 09 September 2019 09:04:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
WatsonD

I think its great if people want to move from e-cigs from normal ones. Good for them. However, I don't see why allowing them to do so inside the workspace benefits anyone? To wean off of nicotine addiction, you need to stop having nicotine. I say this as an ex-smoker myself.

Nicotine patches, gum and e-cigs are a nonsense as they continue to feed the addiction. They are marketed products worth millions so of course they are going to have backing.

The reality from most smokers I know is that they continue to smoke normal cigarettes and use e-cigs as a convenient 'get-around'when they are unable to smoke normal ones. Allowing this to take place within a workspace just allows them the convenience of smoking more, whilst putting an unknown quantity of pollutants in the atmosphere. This after people campaigned so hard and so long to ban smoke from the workplace, only to have it replaced with some other crap.

Edited by user 09 September 2019 14:15:08(UTC)  | Reason: Spelling mistake

A Kurdziel  
#100 Posted : 09 September 2019 14:01:06(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

As I said back in 2014, there is no RIGHT to smoke or vape. Ultimately it is down the employer/occupier of the building to decide what is permissible on their property. Loads of employers such as the Civil Service have gone down the route of banning vaping and e-cigarettes. Nothing has happend to make them change their minds. So how harmful vaping is or is not is relevant: if the boss wants to ban it, it stays banned.   

thanks 1 user thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
CptBeaky on 10/09/2019(UTC)
stevedm  
#101 Posted : 24 September 2019 11:20:55(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

Couldn't resist posting this...so does continuing use get you a nomination for a Darwin Award...?

https://www.techspot.com/news/81987-vaping-related-lung-disease-cases-reach-530-fda.html

Dikta36725  
#102 Posted : 25 October 2019 15:22:04(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Dikta36725

I would also recommend that you review the companies insurance policy

A lot of insurance companies include the use of electronic cigarettes under the definition of "smoking" within the policy which then goes on to say that no smoking is allowed within the premises and a designated smoking area be provided externally.

boblewis  
#103 Posted : 25 October 2019 21:55:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
boblewis

Originally Posted by: coybuckman Go to Quoted Post
For a forum populated by so-called health and safety professionals, the level of ignorance shown in this thread is quite astonishing. I'm personally glad that burning people at the stake is no longer legal. May I suggest to those who would have been at home in Salem, that instead of flinging your arms around aimlessly, that you actually read the vast amount of research that has been done on ecigs. You may come to a different conclusion.
To be absolutely correct - NONE of the victims of Salem were burned at the stake. Most were hung, one was crushed to death for not making a plea and the rest died in prison. Facts as always best if correct
stevedm  
#104 Posted : 27 October 2019 09:14:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

Sorry said I was out...but its like watching a car crash....

I have to research and provide objective advice to individual patients at work and privately...groups of people are dumb as a buck of shrimp, individuals are smart and can understand....so yes there is a lot of misinformation about vaping and ecigs around and yes it is probably due to lack of revenue etc....however if you are saying that this will cut smoking related deaths THAT really is misinformation....it only reduces the intake at that point in time and only because it is mixed with other products...the true way to stop smoking related deaths is to STOP SMOKING...follow a proper cessation of smoking program provided by your GP or free on the NHS...don't come on here saying these are brilliant and we should all hail vaping...there is absolutely no eveidence at all that ecigs help people quit smoking...that is partly due to the fear from users that participation in a proper research program who harm the image!...individual cases vary...but advising a mass of people the answer is STOP SMOKING...

I truely am out now..just off for a cig...:) (Never smoked never wanted to smoke but treated and attended lots of people who did/do...most of which I have lived longer than - even having had cancer my self (not smoking related))...

thanks 1 user thanked stevedm for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 28/10/2019(UTC)
jumponthebandwagon  
#105 Posted : 28 October 2019 11:08:33(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
jumponthebandwagon

A randomized trial was published earlier this year ( funded by the National Institute for Health Research and Cancer Research UK ). http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1808779

The main result was "The 1-year abstinence rate was 18.0% in the e-cigarette group, as compared with 9.9% in the nicotine-replacement group". Combined with the accelerated reduction in smoking rates in the UK in recent years gives us a great deal of confidence that vaping does reduce smoking rates ( and therefore smoking related deaths ). Who knows, the reduction in smoking rates may have been even higher if it was not for persistent fearmongering about the relative risks associated with vaping?

A Kurdziel  
#106 Posted : 28 October 2019 11:23:15(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

Vaping along with tattooing   will be regarded as a strange early 21st century affectation by the time our kids are grown up.

johnmurray  
#107 Posted : 28 October 2019 13:43:00(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
johnmurray

Originally Posted by: jumponthebandwagon Go to Quoted Post

A randomized trial was published earlier this year ( funded by the National Institute for Health Research and Cancer Research UK ). http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1808779

The main result was "The 1-year abstinence rate was 18.0% in the e-cigarette group, as compared with 9.9% in the nicotine-replacement group". Combined with the accelerated reduction in smoking rates in the UK in recent years gives us a great deal of confidence that vaping does reduce smoking rates ( and therefore smoking related deaths ). Who knows, the reduction in smoking rates may have been even higher if it was not for persistent fearmongering about the relative risks associated with vaping?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2019/10/02/vaping-patients-had-acute-lung-damage-similar-gas-poisoning/

Inhaling vapourised propylene-glycol, along with whatever additives each sample has, was always going to be good for health.

jumponthebandwagon  
#108 Posted : 28 October 2019 14:44:28(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
jumponthebandwagon

Thank you.

The telegraph article is a very good example of the fearmongering I mentioned in my last post.

For an explanation from leading UK experts - http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-study-of-lung-biopsies-of-patients-with-lung-injury-due-to-vaping/

To quote Linda Bauld from the University of Edinburgh - "This provides further evidence that it is extremely unlikely, if not impossible, that flavoured nicotine e-liquids of the type that have been used by millions of people around the world for up to a decade (including in the UK) are causing these injuries. Instead contaminants look like they are to blame. Most of the evidence points to adulterants in cannabis vaping but other products may be involved."

Edited by user 28 October 2019 14:45:35(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 1 user thanked jumponthebandwagon for this useful post.
CptBeaky on 29/10/2019(UTC)
CptBeaky  
#109 Posted : 29 October 2019 09:15:28(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
CptBeaky

I am completely neutral in this. I usually follow the science when I lack knowledge in a particular subject. Current science seems to suggest that vaping is safer than cigarettes, although more research should be done (standard science qualifier there). I agree there are lots of newspaper reports disagreeing with the science, but same goes for climate change, vegan diets, brexit etc. We only get biased, cherry picked data that the editor thinks will be the most satisfying and agreeable for their readers.

When the experts agree on something that disagrees with your preconcieved ideas there are 3 options

  1. You know more than the experts that dedicate their lives to the study of this
  2. The experts are all involved in a conspiracy to hide the truth
  3. The experts know something that you don't

I use this when I ask questions on this site. You guys tend to know more than me, so I always assume point "3" is the most likely truth.

Unless you can show me peer reviewed papers to suggest that vaping is as/more dangerous than smoking I will have to rely on the scientific papers that say it isn't. Not that this changes anything. I still wouldn't reccommend it, in the same way that I wouldn't reccommend crossing the road blind folded as opposed to blind folded with headphones on!

thanks 1 user thanked CptBeaky for this useful post.
mihai_qa on 29/10/2019(UTC)
Hsquared14  
#110 Posted : 29 October 2019 12:14:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Hsquared14

Civil Service policy is to treat vapes the same as cigarettes, not for safety reasons but for social reasons.  Some people find the smell from the flavoured ones really obnoxious (I know it isn't really dangerous but I too am one of those that just hate the smell) we also have a ban on recharging them via USB ports due to cases of exploding batteries. It will be interesting to see what comes out of the US following the CDC investigation into this mysterious lung disease which has prompted several states to ban them outright.

thanks 1 user thanked Hsquared14 for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 29/10/2019(UTC)
jumponthebandwagon  
#111 Posted : 29 October 2019 14:35:47(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
jumponthebandwagon

Public Health England have published an update today

https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2019/10/29/vaping-and-lung-disease-in-the-us-phes-advice/

Their main concern, that I share is;

"the responses we have seen to the problem in the US and in other countries may increase the already widespread misunderstanding about the relative safety of nicotine e-cigarettes, deterring smokers from switching and risk driving vapers who have switched back to smoking. There is a real risk therefore that such a reaction will mean people continue to smoke, which will undoubtedly put lives at risk"

RayRapp  
#112 Posted : 30 October 2019 21:30:21(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

With regards to vaping (or anything else come to that) there will alaways be some risk, however low and someone will die, somewhere in the world. Unfortunately the worst case scenario will always be referred to and not the many who get positive benefits.

A Kurdziel  
#113 Posted : 31 October 2019 10:16:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

Ray is right with anything there is a risk but he does not mention that fact the risk and the costs associated with that risk much be balanced against the benefits.

So what are the benefits of vaping for the individual-it is apparently enjoyable, the smoker’s milieu or sociocultural context( ie the people  they work with) it can annoy people and society as a whole-it benefits the companies and people selling these products but is there a social cost?

It is not simply about whether this is “safe” or not.

CptBeaky  
#114 Posted : 31 October 2019 11:20:50(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
CptBeaky

Isn't also about the alternative? Vaping (according to the science available at the moment) is less harmful than smoking, helps people to quit smoking and there is no evidence that it increases the uptake of smoking/vaping on young people compared to smoking alone.

From this angle, we are substituting a dangerous substance for a less dangerous one. Reducing the amount of hazardous chemicals these people are being exposed to, and those around them.

Let me state for the record that I hate vapers. It isn't even the obnoxious smells and clouds  of vape I have to walk through. It is the reminder that I am breathing in the same air as people are breathing out. Weird, but true.

johnmurray  
#115 Posted : 31 October 2019 15:21:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
johnmurray

https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/ryct.2019190212

jumponthebandwagon  
#116 Posted : 31 October 2019 16:08:01(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
jumponthebandwagon

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel Go to Quoted Post

Ray is right with anything there is a risk but he does not mention that fact the risk and the costs associated with that risk much be balanced against the benefits.

So what are the benefits of vaping for the individual-it is apparently enjoyable, the smoker’s milieu or sociocultural context( ie the people  they work with) it can annoy people and society as a whole-it benefits the companies and people selling these products but is there a social cost?

It is not simply about whether this is “safe” or not.

 

The main benefits are a several orders of magnitude lower risk of an early & painful death caused by smoking, a significant cost saving compared to smoking and a generally higher quality of life.

Vaping can certainly annoy others, in particular when vapers use kit designed to produce large clouds of vapour, however most vapers can be and are very discreet, it is very unlikley that anyone on this forum works somewhere that does not have several people who discreetly vape at work, with their workmates none the wiser ( know as stealth vaping )

Is there a social cost? - Yes, lower tax revenue from tobacco sales and higher long term health care costs as less people will be dying young from smoking, society will have to pay for more very expensive health care associated with old age ( remember that tax revenues from smoking are many times higher than the cost associated with treating smoking realeted illnesses )

jumponthebandwagon  
#117 Posted : 31 October 2019 16:12:02(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
jumponthebandwagon

Originally Posted by: johnmurray Go to Quoted Post

https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/ryct.2019190212

See https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2019/10/29/vaping-and-lung-disease-in-the-us-phes-advice/

for the CDC update, serious acute ilnesses are associated with contaminants in much the same way that there are occasional serious incidents invoving contaminated alcoholic drinks

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.