4 ms·
The report you linked shows quite the opposite, actually. They concluded: > Based on the results of this study, there is no evidence that theatrical "smoke," a
by Reelin 7y ago
The report you linked shows quite the opposite, actually. They concluded:
> Based on the results of this study, there is no evidence that theatrical "smoke," at the levels found in the theaters studied, is a cause of occupational asthma among performers.
That being said, chronic exposure is probably not good for you. From a health perspective, don't inhale anything other than air!
- Retric 7y agoAsthma is only one of many possible heath impacts. It was associated with others, just not Asthma. When compared to actors from the non-"smoke" productions, actors from two or more of the four productions utilizing theatrical "smoke" reported experiencing a significantly greater prevalence of nasal symptoms (sneezing, runny or stuffy nose), respiratory symptoms (cough, wheeze, breathlessness, chest tightness), and mucous membrane symptoms (sore throat, hoarseness, dry throat, itchy/burning eyes, dry eyes) during their performances for the week prior to the survey. The final line is: The quantity and frequency of use of the various fogs during a performance should be minimized. PS: A method of action was suggested to be the breakdown of glycol due to high temperature.
- gamblor956 7y agoThe report he cited proved his point. Fog machines cause noticeable effects on breathing at significantly lower exposure levels and concentrations than vaping. IOW, it provides a lower bound for the purported safety of vaping.