I'm sure stage smoke isn't also a viable insecticide.
Growing up around people in the tobacco industry I know nicotine is lethal and easily absorbed through the skin, and not something you want to be around if you don't have to -- and especially not if someone has breathing problems.
The long term consumption data will take a while to build up about all the health effects. It's not a good idea to be a guinea pig for that.
I'm saying I don't want to breathe any of it I don't have to second hand, and the argument that I breathe liquid smoke at concerts or Christmas festivals is beside the point.
Forget addiction in users who decide to smoke it, nictotine a neurotoxin and exhaling it to people who don't want it in public places is inconsiderate.
It's not, it's about magnitude of danger and pointing out it's not a kind of danger that's worth worrying about. This is the rational approach; contrast with media fear-mongering that likes to point out "a connection" between X and some illness, without mentioning how insignificant the connection is. Or, in this case, without noticing that you ingest the exact same thing in similar amounts from different sources, and those sources somehow aren't considered bad for you.
> Forget addiction in users who decide to smoke it, nictotine a neurotoxin
So is water, when overdosed.
> and exhaling it to people who don't want it in public places is inconsiderate.
I totally agree with that! But let's call a spade a spade - it's inconsiderate, not dangerous.
So, it's not that bad is simply not a defense. If you want nicotine ware a patch, chew gum etc. If you want some other crap in your lungs, do it somewhere that does not impact me.
There are countless things that are "not that bad" and yet shown to be linked to various diseases. We don't care about them because that's the very definition of danger being not in any way significant.
In the course of this discussion thread, we've jumped from the danger of e-cig vapor (which is nil) to the danger of pure nicotine (which is also nil) and now we're talking about pollution. Can't we just agree that those are three separate issues (two of which are non-issues, and third isn't really discussed by people right now)? So far everything is showing that e-cigs are a neglible hazard to smokers and their surroundings. We should be happy we've found a good alternative for the decades-old problem, instead of trying to destroy it by overblowing its negative effects by orders of magnitude.
[0] - Googling just now, I found that there are reasons for considering cigarette smoke an air pollution - http://epi.yale.edu/the-metric/considering-smoking-air-pollu...
[1] - I haven't seen any analysis about potential of e-cigarette smoke becoming a significant pollutant; it most likely won't be in terms of particulate matter, but maybe the smoke itself is bad for atmosphere. I don't know. But even if, that's a discussion about environmental impact (and a one that no one is having right now), not about direct health effects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine_poisoning#cite_note-L...
"An accidental ingestion of only 6 mg may be lethal to children. [16]"
So, safe as long as you ignore the dead people?
[0] - http://www.electroniccigaretteconsumerreviews.com/how-much-n...
aka second hand smoke is not limited to other people.
It's only the right thing to do.
That's just obnoxious.
"the default is not dump whatever you want into the air."
Lol. Pass the news to industry. And seriously, with your attitude, you should be living a 100 miles away from the nearest car.
but if the Sun had less UV, you would see its texture map all tessellated.
> So, it's not that bad is simply not a defense. If you want nicotine ware a patch, chew gum etc. If you want some other crap in your lungs, do it somewhere that does not impact me.
Dude, the health-impact of getting worked up about this is already magnitudes more than the health-impact of the thing you are worried about.
It's one thing that there are studies showing nicotine is a harmful substance (which isn't even quite as straightforward as it seems), it's an entirely other thing to quantify the risk of exposure to an occasional whiff of e-cig exhaust, in the context of traffic pollution, fireplaces, incense, air fresheners, people farting, or investigating where a burning smell comes from.
The latter 9 times out of 10 involves burning plastic, which going near to instead of away from, for a minute, just to check, is way super more stupid harmful to your health than actually taking a full drag of an e-cig. I owe my life to people that weren't afraid to do that (still insignificant) damage to their health, which is a million times worse than the perceived harm you are whining about.
Hell your presence on my planet is already more damaging to my health than you catching a whiff of e-cig. So nothing personal but kindly maybe get off it. That, or learn how to rationally deal with very very tiny probabilities (it's not intuitive, but also not that hard).
Your anti-nicotine crusade is attacking people who aren't using nicotine, without making the distinction.
They say "this is safe", while ingesting a particularly evil toxin that is lethal in very small quantities (like a drop or two will make you violently sick). Yes, there are other toxins, but ... again, this is perfectly avoidable and nobody has any business making others who do not choose to be exposed to it.
People should have the right to not come in contact with that.
can we please stick to the facts?
a drop of nicotine will kill you. it's easily more than the above stated lethal dose of 6mg.
and before you think that proves your point, it actually just proves that you can't properly keep orders of magnitude apart.
if you consider "a drop or two" as "very small quantities" then I have some news for you: there's essential nutrients your body needs to survive, that would be lethal if you ingested "a drop or two".
how much mg nicotine is there in a whiff of second-hand e-cig smoke?
how much whiffs are there in "a drop or two" of nicotine?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine_poisoning#cite_note-L...
Please read the rest of that article, including the paragraph you quote from, to see why you generally can't get nicotine poisoning from even hardcore smoking.
Also, this doesn't answer GP's question about nicotine causing breathing problems - besides the pedantic observation that your lungs will shut down with the rest of your body when you get lethally poisoned.
Is it bad to jump to conclusions that it's safe and everybody else should be happy inhaling your exhaust believing so?
What someone does in their own homes is fine, though this thread was discussing vaping-exhaust being fine in public, and I don't believe people have that right.
Smoking was predominent in restaurants and public areas a while back and we thought it would be impossible to go away, and now that it has, it's been absolutely fantastic.
This is basically just a "safer", not "safe" method that still affects people in a given area.
I'd rather people just use patches or something else rather than vaping down the street, in malls, or sidewalks. This would be completely fine - mind you - that it is likely to have very negative health consequences to those people.
Why?
Vaping e-cigs in your own home is merely a bunch of orders of magnitude less harmful than doing it in your face.
And according to your reasoning so far, several orders of magnitude less harmful, means you should only be mildly less concerned about that.
Quickly, I hear someone's burning plastic in China.
Are you sure you replied to the right comment? I don't see how any of this relates to what I said. Also, by all means, please show me studies linking nicotine (outside of cigarette smoke) to serious health problems.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527487037495045761723...
Then tell me how much nicotine one would ingest from second-hand vaping in public places. Harm by homeopathy?