Policy on E-cigs

[Big_G]

Funny to watch the old smoking threads morph into vaping threads. Even autocorrect hasn't caught up yet. I'm all for a good debate but the poor dead horse is catching another beating.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[tiessa]

 

Having suffered from smokers fumes for years, and never having booked a balcony for fear of being unable to use it we now, apparently, have no choice but to be 'vaped' over everywhere on the ship! .

 

 

 

I wish they would ban drinking anything on the balcony too. We had Coke cans fly into the balcony last week on the Serenade twice. Thank goodness neither hit us. Throwing anything off of balconies is dangerous. I'd like to enjoy my balcony without being worried about getting hit by a flying object. They need to ban drinking on the balconies completely. Yes, it's only a few but it's enough to endanger others.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[bucsdave]

I've read the whole thread and will admit that, after smoking cigarettes for 40 years, I now vape. The one thing that seems to be missing from most of the comments is the one thing that seems to be missing from life in general: What happened to RESPECT? That word works two ways, those who vape should respect their fellow passengers by not indulging where it is not allowed, but those who do not like it should have the same respect for those of us that do. Can someone explain what we breath when we walk down the street and all that auto exhaust is being belched from the rear end of cars? Maybe we should ban combustion engines due to the harmful chemicals they put in the air, not to mention the affect on the environment. I've had my say, and will still remain respectful of the person next to me by not vaping if they are offended or bothered by it. Gosh, wouldn't it be nice if we could all learn to live together?

[tiessa]

I've read the whole thread and will admit that, after smoking cigarettes for 40 years, I now vape. The one thing that seems to be missing from most of the comments is the one thing that seems to be missing from life in general: What happened to RESPECT? That word works two ways, those who vape should respect their fellow passengers by not indulging where it is not allowed, but those who do not like it should have the same respect for those of us that do. Can someone explain what we breath when we walk down the street and all that auto exhaust is being belched from the rear end of cars? Maybe we should ban combustion engines due to the harmful chemicals they put in the air, not to mention the affect on the environment. I've had my say, and will still remain respectful of the person next to me by not vaping if they are offended or bothered by it. Gosh, wouldn't it be nice if we could all learn to live together?

 

 

 

 

Well said! Mutual respect is the key!

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[gemsm]

Were these studies done by the FDA?

 

Is second hand vaping byproduct less safe or as safe as not breathing in second hand byproduct?

 

The FDA doesn't do studies...They farm out research money to others.

 

So far studies show second hand vaping byproduct is as safe as not breathing in second hand byproduct...I.e. as safe as breathing regular room air with all of its contaminants

[gemsm]

Some of us don't respect vaping bans outdoors...Sorry but the chances of you breathing in any of my vaping byproduct if I am out on my balcony are slim and none...And I mean extremely slim...more likely none. I use my vape in my cabin because quite frankly nobody is in there but me and my cabin mate and neither one of us care and nobody else knows unless they see me do it.

 

As for the rest...Maryland has not banned vaping anywhere. Until it does then yes I will use my vape in a bar or the bar portion of the restaurant, in the casino, one time I can say i vaped at the movies but in my defense it was a 4 hour movie with no intermission

 

To put vapors out with the smokers is stupid...why can't they have a vaping area where smokers are not allowed to light up?

[LetsGetWet!]

So far studies show second hand vaping byproduct is as safe as not breathing in second hand byproduct...I.e. as safe as breathing regular room air with all of its contaminants

I'd sure like to see the link for the study that has come to THAT conclusion... :rolleyes:

Some of us don't respect vaping bans outdoors...Sorry but the chances of you breathing in any of my vaping byproduct if I am out on my balcony are slim and none...And I mean extremely slim...more likely none. I use my vape in my cabin because quite frankly nobody is in there but me and my cabin mate and neither one of us care and nobody else knows unless they see me do it.

 

As for the rest...Maryland has not banned vaping anywhere. Until it does then yes I will use my vape in a bar or the bar portion of the restaurant, in the casino, one time I can say i vaped at the movies but in my defense it was a 4 hour movie with no intermission

 

To put vapors out with the smokers is stupid...why can't they have a vaping area where smokers are not allowed to light up?

The last paragraph of that post is really quite reasonable. The rest simple labels you as one who feels THEY are above the rules and are completely inconsiderate and lacking that respect for others mentioned earlier.

Edited February 3, 2015 by LetsGetWet!

[ellie1145]

I'd sure like to see the link for the study that has come to THAT conclusion... :rolleyes:

 

The last paragraph of that post is really quite reasonable. The rest simple labels you as one who feels THEY are above the rules and are completely inconsiderate and lacking that respect for others mentioned earlier.

 

Quite agree! It's yet another example of someone who says I don't care about the rules, I will vape where and when I like, and I don't give a damn.

 

Hope I am not the unfortunate one to take over the cabin when he has finished vaping in it!

 

It's sad really, to see another addiction taking over, where people cannot even go to see a movie unless they can suck on their e-cig. What did they do when smoking was banned in movie theatres and there were NO e-cigs? Is this progress? Seems to me the addiction is even worse!

[Emperor Norton]

http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/22/7872505/vaping-high-voltage-releases-carcinogens-e-cig

 

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1413069

 

Yum formaldehyde.

[jstraw20]

http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/22/7872505/vaping-high-voltage-releases-carcinogens-e-cig

 

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1413069

 

Yum formaldehyde.

 

Nobody, repeat nobody who vapes would run thier rigs at a voltage that burns the fluid because it would taste awful.

[LMaxwell]

The FDA doesn't do studies...They farm out research money to others.

 

So far studies show second hand vaping byproduct is as safe as not breathing in second hand byproduct...I.e. as safe as breathing regular room air with all of its contaminants

What studies show that inhaling a second hand byproduct is precisely as safe as not inhaling the same second hand byproduct? When you present them please be sure to cite who funded it.

[wingatesl]

I'd sure like to see the link for the study that has come to THAT conclusion... :rolleyes:

 

The last paragraph of that post is really quite reasonable. The rest simple labels you as one who feels THEY are above the rules and are completely inconsiderate and lacking that respect for others mentioned earlier.

 

 

That would be an easy web search

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[LetsGetWet!]

That would be an easy web search

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yep, that's why it's quite reasonable to expect the poster making the claim to back it up with a source. ;)

[wingatesl]

What studies show that inhaling a second hand byproduct is precisely as safe as not inhaling the same second hand byproduct? When you present them please be sure to cite who funded it.

 

 

What studies show that you even inhale a second hand byproduct? I happen to know this for a fact. NONE!

 

Even the studies that evaluate the exhaled gas, do not consider anything except the fact that a gas expelled from a closed container that in no way simulates the human body had some contaminant in it. There are no studies, that I know of that can define those substances as different that the normal environmental contaminants from any distance.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[wingatesl]

Yep, that's why it's quite reasonable to expect the poster making the claim to back it up with a source. ;)

 

 

You were the one making the claim. Please, read.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[LetsGetWet!]

You were the one making the claim. Please, read.

Someone's having trouble reading & comprehending, true - but it's definitely not me. Here's the claim:

So far studies show second hand vaping byproduct is as safe as not breathing in second hand byproduct...I.e. as safe as breathing regular room air with all of its contaminants

Note - that wasn't me - and he made the claim that "so far studies show..."

 

Quite reasonable to ask him for a reference to those "studies" (which I'm willing to bet don't exist or came from the industry if they do.)

[MalervyC]

I agree with the creation of a place to vape...please don't lump vape users in with smokers!!

 

I don't care how many studies, papers, reports, or uneducated people say it...there is a huge difference between vaping and smoking and smoking is WAY worse.

 

I have to say it's very disappointing to see how childish some people are on here...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[wingatesl]

Someone's having trouble reading & comprehending, true - but it's definitely not me. Here's the claim:

 

Note - that wasn't me - and he made the claim that "so far studies show..."

 

Quite reasonable to ask him for a reference to those "studies" (which I'm willing to bet don't exist or came from the industry if they do.)

 

 

Given the fact that there is a much larger industry against the e-cigarette, I am not sure what you are trying to suggest. There are billions to be lost by two of the largest tax paying industries in our country if the e-cigarette is normalized. The people fighting for the devices are the underdog, by far!

 

Getting back to the topic. Google says;

 

First hit,

No significant risk, with room dilution

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08958378.2012.724728

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RDC1]

What studies show that you even inhale a second hand byproduct? I happen to know this for a fact. NONE!

 

Even the studies that evaluate the exhaled gas, do not consider anything except the fact that a gas expelled from a closed container that in no way simulates the human body had some contaminant in it. There are no studies, that I know of that can define those substances as different that the normal environmental contaminants from any distance.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Actually there have been several studies dealing with e-cigs in a well ventilated indoor space. The results of those studies show that e-cigs generate a substantial number of particles in the NM2.5 range. Particles of this size have been linked to a number of negative medical impacts including cancer, stroke, heart disease, lung inflammation.

 

While particulates are probably the biggest health impact it is not the only one. One of the more interesting papers is:

 

International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health

Volume 217, Issue 6, July 2014, Pages 628–637

 

Use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) impairs indoor air quality and increases FeNO levels of e-cigarette consumers

Wolfgang Schobera, , , Katalin Szendreia, Wolfgang Matzena, Helga Osiander-Fuchsb, Dieter Heitmannc, Thomas Schettgend, Rudolf A. Jörrese, Hermann Frommea

 

Despite the recent popularity of e-cigarettes, to date only limited data is available on their safety for both users and secondhand smokers. The present study reports a comprehensive inner and outer exposure assessment of e-cigarette emissions in terms of particulate matter (PM), particle number concentrations (PNC), volatile organic compounds (VOC), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), carbonyls, and metals. In six vaping sessions nine volunteers consumed e-cigarettes with and without nicotine in a thoroughly ventilated room for two hours. We analyzed the levels of e-cigarette pollutants in indoor air and monitored effects on FeNO release and urinary metabolite profile of the subjects. For comparison, the components of the e-cigarette solutions (liquids) were additionally analyzed.

 

During the vaping sessions substantial amounts of 1,2-propanediol, glycerine and nicotine were found in the gas-phase, as well as high concentrations of PM2.5 (mean 197 μg/m3). The concentration of putative carcinogenic PAH in indoor air increased by 20% to 147 ng/m3, and aluminum showed a 2.4-fold increase. PNC ranged from 48,620 to 88,386 particles/cm3 (median), with peaks at diameters 24–36 nm. FeNO increased in 7 of 9 individuals. The nicotine content of the liquids varied and was 1.2-fold higher than claimed by the manufacturer.

 

Our data confirm that e-cigarettes are not emission-free and their pollutants could be of health concern for users and secondhand smokers. In particular, ultrafine particles formed from supersaturated 1,2-propanediol vapor can be deposited in the lung, and aerosolized nicotine seems capable of increasing the release of the inflammatory signaling molecule NO upon inhalation. In view of consumer safety, e-cigarettes and nicotine liquids should be officially regulated and labeled with appropriate warnings of potential health effects, particularly of toxicity risk in children.

[RDC1]

I agree with the creation of a place to vape...please don't lump vape users in with smokers!!

 

I don't care how many studies, papers, reports, or uneducated people say it...there is a huge difference between vaping and smoking and smoking is WAY worse.

 

I have to say it's very disappointing to see how childish some people are on here...

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

I would concur, smoking traditional cigarettes is worse. However, that is not to say that e-cigs do not have problems, especially for the people that use them. They also should not be used in public indoor areas, but most likely are not a problem to others when used outdoors.

 

If e-cigs were only being used by people that were trying to switch from traditional cigarettes I would say great and argue for more areas in which they can be used. Unfortunately data is showing increased use by people that have never smoked, especially younger individuals. Since one of the most effective policies to discourage smoking and reducing the percentage of smokers, is to limit smoking areas, I would encourage e-cig areas to remain restricted.

Edited February 4, 2015 by RDC1

[MalervyC]

I would concur, smoking traditional cigarettes is worse. However, that is not to say that e-cigs do not have problems, especially for the people that use them. They also should not be used in public indoor areas, but most likely are not a problem to others when used outdoors.

 

 

Absolutely agree...and I believe they shouldn't be used in any public spaces either.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[RDC1]

Given the fact that there is a much larger industry against the e-cigarette, I am not sure what you are trying to suggest. There are billions to be lost by two of the largest tax paying industries in our country if the e-cigarette is normalized. The people fighting for the devices are the underdog, by far!

 

Getting back to the topic. Google says;

 

First hit,

No significant risk, with room dilution

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08958378.2012.724728

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Of course the conclusion says

 

For all byproducts measured, electronic cigarettes produce very small exposures relative to tobacco cigarettes. The study indicates no apparent risk to human health from e-cigarette emissions based on the compounds analyzed.

 

The key phrase is for all by products measured. That is not that same as for all byproducts. Notice that they did not measure particulates. I would also question the quality of the study due to the following comment in the abstract "The tobacco smoke sample approached the risk limits for adult exposure"

 

So according to that study even regular cigarette smoke did not cross the risk limits for adult exposure. A paper that is a pretty good summary of the good and bad related to e-cigs, using a literature search had this comment about that study:

 

"National Vaper’s Club, a pro–e-cigarette advocacy group, published a “risk assessment” of e-cigarette and cigarette use that concluded that “neither vapor from e-liquids or cigarette smoke analytes posed a condition of ‘significant risk’ of harm to human health via the inhalation route of exposure.”77 The authors failed to detect benzo(a)pyrene in conventional cigarette smoke despite the fact that it is an established carcinogen in cigarette smoke, and their assessment of conventional cigarettes concluded that they did not pose significant risk, both of which point to fatal errors in the data, data analysis, or both."

Edited February 4, 2015 by RDC1

[wingatesl]

Actually there have been several studies dealing with e-cigs in a well ventilated indoor space. The results of those studies show that e-cigs generate a substantial number of particles in the NM2.5 range. Particles of this size have been linked to a number of negative medical impacts including cancer, stroke, heart disease, lung inflammation.

 

 

 

While particulates are probably the biggest health impact it is not the only one. One of the more interesting papers is:

 

 

 

International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health

 

Volume 217, Issue 6, July 2014, Pages 628–637

 

 

 

Use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) impairs indoor air quality and increases FeNO levels of e-cigarette consumers

 

Wolfgang Schobera, , , Katalin Szendreia, Wolfgang Matzena, Helga Osiander-Fuchsb, Dieter Heitmannc, Thomas Schettgend, Rudolf A. Jörrese, Hermann Frommea

 

 

 

Despite the recent popularity of e-cigarettes, to date only limited data is available on their safety for both users and secondhand smokers. The present study reports a comprehensive inner and outer exposure assessment of e-cigarette emissions in terms of particulate matter (PM), particle number concentrations (PNC), volatile organic compounds (VOC), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), carbonyls, and metals. In six vaping sessions nine volunteers consumed e-cigarettes with and without nicotine in a thoroughly ventilated room for two hours. We analyzed the levels of e-cigarette pollutants in indoor air and monitored effects on FeNO release and urinary metabolite profile of the subjects. For comparison, the components of the e-cigarette solutions (liquids) were additionally analyzed.

 

 

 

During the vaping sessions substantial amounts of 1,2-propanediol, glycerine and nicotine were found in the gas-phase, as well as high concentrations of PM2.5 (mean 197 μg/m3). The concentration of putative carcinogenic PAH in indoor air increased by 20% to 147 ng/m3, and aluminum showed a 2.4-fold increase. PNC ranged from 48,620 to 88,386 particles/cm3 (median), with peaks at diameters 24–36 nm. FeNO increased in 7 of 9 individuals. The nicotine content of the liquids varied and was 1.2-fold higher than claimed by the manufacturer.

 

 

 

Our data confirm that e-cigarettes are not emission-free and their pollutants could be of health concern for users and secondhand smokers. In particular, ultrafine particles formed from supersaturated 1,2-propanediol vapor can be deposited in the lung, and aerosolized nicotine seems capable of increasing the release of the inflammatory signaling molecule NO upon inhalation. In view of consumer safety, e-cigarettes and nicotine liquids should be officially regulated and labeled with appropriate warnings of potential health effects, particularly of toxicity risk in children.

 

 

That study was proven inaccurate for several reasons, a good start is here

https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~dshuster/e-Cigarettes/Schober_2014b.pdf

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[wingatesl]

Of course the conclusion says

 

 

 

For all byproducts measured, electronic cigarettes produce very small exposures relative to tobacco cigarettes. The study indicates no apparent risk to human health from e-cigarette emissions based on the compounds analyzed.

 

 

 

The key phrase is for all by products measured. That is not that same as for all byproducts. Notice that they did not measure particulates.

 

 

Actually that is exactly what they were measuring.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[wingatesl]

Absolutely agree...and I believe they shouldn't be used in any public spaces either.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

 

The same with hairspray, Cologne, body spay, perfume, adhesives, or paints.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk