3 ms·
There hasn't been enough research about e-cigarettes to say whether or not they're a health hazard people who are around users. And many of us who are anti-smo
by tallanvor 10y ago
There hasn't been enough research about e-cigarettes to say whether or not they're a health hazard people who are around users.
And many of us who are anti-smoking (and anti-vaping), are also supporters of public transportation and reducing car usage.
- nske 10y agoWe have no reason to believe they would be a health hazard. Vegetable Glyrecin is approved for food consumption, most flavour concentrates likewise and, nicotine, well, at worse it could raise someone's blood pressure a bit, but due to the nature of vaping, it has been measured that "the level of cotinine in passive vapers is approximately 1200 times lower than active smokers" [...] "In conclusion, the levels of nicotine absorbed from passive vaping are not only harmless but do not even produce any biological effect (not even heart rate acceleration)" (quoting Dr. Farsalinos). We could, of course, assume that there might be ill effects even thogh we can't even imagine what those would be at this point, however we could do that with practically anything, couldn't we?
- brianwawok 10y agoSure, and I would vote we burn banning or incinerating anything in a shared public space. Not pick and choose X is ok but Y isn't. Just keep shared airspace as clean as possible.
- nske 10y agoClean of what though? Burning emissions have an actual impact on the environment, so yes, "clean" does make sense in this case. Vegetable glycerine vapour does not.