Policy on E-cigs

[gemsm]

If you smoke or vap in a room on a RC ship you are breaking the rules……on board policies..look them up yourself……...

 

so is smuggling booze on board but I don't give a flying leap if someone chooses to do so. And If you look at my signature you will see I haven't sailed RCCL for quite a long time therefore I have broken no rules.

[LetsGetWet!]

so is smuggling booze on board but I don't give a flying leap if someone chooses to do so. And If you look at my signature you will see I haven't sailed RCCL for quite a long time therefore I have broken no rules.

So are you PLANNING on sailing on RCCL in the near future then, or are you just here to be a rabble rouser? :rolleyes:

[LMaxwell]

As for respect...You people have no respect for smokers so why would you expect respect from smokers?

 

Yes, the guy that took a giant puff off his vape pen and blew it in my face at the checkout line in Publix was very respectful.

 

And If you look at my signature you will see I haven't sailed RCCL for quite a long time therefore I have broken no rules.

 

I would expect that the next time you sail on Royal that you follow their current policies. Would that be an accurate expectation to have; that you would follow current policies?

[RDC1]

This is the norm from RDC1 which is why I didn't bother posting anything because he would just refute it with some other study that Glantz did blah blah blah.

 

He seems to think that any studies funded by the e-cigarette industry are worthless and all studies by ANTZ are the only ones valid. Part of the issues with current research is none of it is real world situations. For instance the formaldyhyde news that recently came out...It is interesting but nobody vapes in any way shape or form the way they did during the research.

 

The particulate study that RDC1 references put 9 people in a tiny well ventilated room and had them vape for several continuous hours...Doubt you will ever see that.

 

It is the same way they manipulated the second-hand smoke cigarette studies to make it seem like second-hand smoke is much more dangerous then car exhaust, smog, ozone, etc...

 

I posted the funding information for Farsalinos only because I had previously posted the funding source for Glantz, after someone had questioned the bias.

 

The first Schober study was from Germany. I only referenced Glanz for a literature search summary paper that he was part of. If you check that paper you all of the source studies are referenced so one can see for themselves if he has misquoted or misinterpreted any one the studies.

 

Don't like that study. Here is a summary from the American Industrial Hygiene Association. Glanz has nothing to do with this summary. I extracted the portion dealing with particles. Note that while the Schober study is referenced it was only 1 of 9 different studies referenced by that section alone.

 

https://www.aiha.org/government-affairs/Documents/Electronc%20Cig%20Document_Final.pdf

 

Ultrafine Particulates

Research over the last two decades has demonstrated that exposure to airborne fine and

ultrafine particulate matter results in a variety of adverse health effects. Wichmann et al. found

significant associations of elevated cardiovascular and respiratory disease mortality with various

fine (and ultrafine) particle indices.[56] In his study, significant associations were found between

mortality and ultrafine particle number concentration, ultrafine particle mass concentration, and

fine-particle mass concentration.[56]

 

The particulate size distribution and composition of tobacco smoke is well-documented and will

be reviewed here only as a comparison to e-cigarettes. Schripp conducted studies in an 8 m3

chamber to evaluate the size distribution of submicron particulates from both tobacco smoke

and e-cigarettes.[17] The traditional cigarette produced a log-normal distribution around a mean

size of 100 nanometers (nm) in diameter, with a peak concentration of 4.0 × 104 particles/cm3,

while the e-cigarette were found to produce a size distribution around a mean of 35 nm in

diameter with a concentration 2.0 × 103 particles/cm3.[17] Although the concentration of particulates from the

tobacco smoke was found to be an order of magnitude greater than the

electronic cigarettes (when generated under the same conditions), these findings are significant

because both the particulate size and concentration levels are a concern.

 

Schripp also examined the size distribution as the e-cigarette particles aged. The aging process

at different temperatures suggests that exhaled e-cigarette vapor can result in passive exposure

as well a shift in the particle size, where peak size shifted to smaller sizes, from about 180 nm at

23oC to 60 nm and 45 nm at elevated temperatures (37°C and 50oC respectively).[17] However,

e-cigarettes release particles only during exhalation, whereas regular cigarettes emit particles

continuously during combustion via side-stream smoke. The overall conclusions presented by

Schripp et al. were that vaping will introduce particles into the indoor environment that are of

concern from both a size and concentration standpoint but are substantially less than tobacco

cigarettes.[17]

 

In another study of e-cigarette emissions, Ingebrethsen reported even higher particulate

concentrations and larger average particle masses. Particle diameters of average mass in the

250 nm to 450 nm range, and a total particle count in the 106 particles/cm3 range, were reported

for aerosols from e-cigarettes measured with an electrical mobility analyzer.[57] These

measurements were reported to be similar to those observed from tobacco cigarettes. Yet

another study by Zhang et al. reported e-cigarette particle size between 10 and 1000 nm, with

an average of 400 nm.[58] Based on particle size, the authors expect deposition in the human

lung similar to that of tobacco cigarette smoke.[58]

 

Research shows that ultrafine particles form from supersaturated 1,2-propanediol vapor, which

can be deposited in the lung.[36] Schober et al. found that airborne PM2.5 concentration during

vaping sessions with e-cigarette users were approximately 373 µg/m3, with the highest levels

(514 µg/m3) found during vaping sessions with no nicotine in the vaping solution.[36] These

results reflect airborne concentrations in a fairly large room due to exhaled vapor. Therefore,

these results relate primarily to the potential for secondhand exposures

 

Another study, using a device that simulated vaping during a three-minute session, reported

PM2.5 concentrations of 43 µg/m3 after three minutes.[54] People who have frequently been

exposed to theatrical fogs containing ultrafine particles of propylene glycol are more likely to

suffer from respiratory, throat, and nose irritations than do unexposed people, suggesting that ecigarettes

may foster similar health effects.[59] Therefore, while these limited results vary, the

generation of airborne ultrafine particles from e-cigarettes is a potential indoor air quality issue.

As a measure of impact from inhaling ultrafine particles from e-cigarettes, Marini et al. examined

the acute effects of electronic and tobacco cigarettes on exhaled nitric oxide (eNO).[60] Exhaled

nitric oxide has been used as a noninvasive method to measure inflammation of the lung after

exposure to pollutants. Marini applied eNO tests to a group of 25 volunteers who use tobacco,

e-cigarettes with nicotine, and nicotine-free e-cigarettes.[60] The eNO tests were applied before

and after smoking/vaping to allow for the comparison in the changes in eNO for individuals.[60]

 

The average total particle number concentration peak was found to range from 3.1 × 109

/cm3 for conventional cigarettes to 5.1 × 109/cm3 for e-cigarettes with nicotine.[60]

Oddly, the e-cigarette particulate emissions were found to be 1.5 times higher than those from

traditional cigarettes, a stark contrast to previous studies.[60] However, the main focus of this

article was to understand changes in eNO levels from e-cigarettes with and without nicotine.

The mean eNO changes measured after each vaping test were found to be 3.2 parts per billion (ppb), 2.7 ppb, and 2.8 ppb

for electronic cigarettes without nicotine, with nicotine, and for

conventional cigarettes, respectively.[60] The control sessions were found to have negligible

change in eNO.[60] Hence, the short-term respiratory effect found in this study was that ecigarettes,

as well as traditional tobacco cigarettes, led to immediate reduction in eNO,

suggesting inflammation of the airways.

 

Floyd et al. recently compared vaping aerosols from a second-generation adjustable voltage

tank style e-cigarette to tobacco cigarette smoke aerosol (D. Johnson and E. Floyd, personal

communication, June 12, 2014). They measured particle size distributions over a broad range,

from 16 nm to 20 µm, and found that less than 40 percent of both the e-cigarette aerosol and

tobacco-smoke aerosol particle mass was comprised of particles less than 1 µm in diameter.

They also observed a 32-fold increase in vaporized e-fluid when voltage was increased from

3.15 V to 5.81 V, demonstrating the potential for newer generation, more powerful devices to

produce much higher concentration aerosols. The higher heating coil temperatures associated

with these high-power devices also pose the risk of chemical changes in the e-fluid, which is

suspected to produce aldehydes and carbonyls.[61,62]

 

The work completed to date on aerosols generated from e-cigarettes suggests that they present

a new source of aerosols in indoor environments. While the aerosol number concentration is

smaller than that from traditional cigarettes, the smaller size distribution of e-cigarette aerosols

may result in different deposition locations within the lung. Because of the relatively new

widespread use of e-cigarettes, the relationship between exposure and any health effects is still

evolving. However, the evidence of health effects from a number of authors linking ultrafine

particles to respiratory and cardiovascular disease clearly indicates a potential health concern.

Edited February 5, 2015 by RDC1

[RDC1]

This is the norm from RDC1 which is why I didn't bother posting anything because he would just refute it with some other study that Glantz did blah blah blah.

 

He seems to think that any studies funded by the e-cigarette industry are worthless and all studies by ANTZ are the only ones valid. Part of the issues with current research is none of it is real world situations. For instance the formaldyhyde news that recently came out...It is interesting but nobody vapes in any way shape or form the way they did during the research.

 

The particulate study that RDC1 references put 9 people in a tiny well ventilated room and had them vape for several continuous hours...Doubt you will ever see that.

 

It is the same way they manipulated the second-hand smoke cigarette studies to make it seem like second-hand smoke is much more dangerous then car exhaust, smog, ozone, etc...

 

I never said that studies funded by the e-cig company are invalid. They are usually in line with their test design. Of course there are many ways to design a test. That is why it is worthwhile to look at funding sources. It is amazing that results almost always follow the interests of those providing the funding. Now that is not to say that the studies are not run correctly, only that the funding sources are usually pretty selective in picking which studies they wish to fund. That usually means that they will fund those projects where the study design is most likely to generate results favorable to them.

 

That is why E-cig studies are usually designed around head to head comparisons to traditional cigarettes. In those studies e-cigs will show them selves to be very favorable.

 

As I have said in the past if the only person that could buy e-cigs were smokers that already have been smoking traditional cigarettes then I would support that. The problem is that they are not being provided or marketed with that limited audience in mind. They are instead being marketed as being a healthy way to smoke with many ads and store displays, as the old cigarette ads did, presenting it as glamorous and often aimed at younger demographics.

 

The most effective policy for reducing smoking has been restrictions on where one can smoke. As such I support restrictions on e-cigs for two reasons. One to keep them out of indoor, public space and two to keep limitations on where they can be used to keep non-smokers from using them.

 

Some recent studies do show that increases in e-cig smoking among non-smoker to be far slower, even stabilizing, in areas that have applied similar restrictions to their use as with regular cigarettes. Results have been different in areas where they are not limited. In such areas use among non-smokers has continued to increase. (non-smokers being those that have either never smoked a traditional cigarette or had stopped smoking regular cigarettes atleast five years before).

Edited February 5, 2015 by RDC1