Enter to win $600 Walmart gift card

Organization fights to ban indoor e-cigarette smoking

Registered Nurse Barbara Kilgalen demonstrates an 'e-cigarette' during research at Virginia Commonwealth University's Institute for Drug and Alcohol Studies in Richmond, Virginia. 'Electronic cigarettes' that vaporize nicotine juice to inhale instead of smoke from burning tobacco do not deliver as promised, according to research at VCU.

Registered Nurse Barbara Kilgalen demonstrates an ‘e-cigarette’ during research at Virginia Commonwealth University’s Institute for Drug and Alcohol Studies in Richmond, Virginia.

LONDON — The World Health Organization is calling for major regulations on the e-cigarette industry, including a ban on indoor smoking.

The UN agency says e-cigarette smoke — also known as vapor — increases levels of toxins in the air, including nicotine.

“Existing evidence shows that e-cigarette aerosol is not merely ‘water vapor’ as is often claimed in the marketing of these products,” it said, though acknowledged that e-cigarettes were generally not as bad for smokers and bystanders as traditional cigarettes.

The WHO called for standardized regulations that would restrict advertising efforts and prohibit the industry from making unproven health claims for e-cigarettes.

The industry — worth an estimated $3 billion per year — markets e-cigarettes as a less-toxic product that can help smokers quit. But the WHO maintained there was no scientific proof showing the products helped people stopped smoking.

The WHO is worried that current marketing techniques could encourage non-smoking youth to try e-cigarettes. It suggested banning candy and fruit-flavored e-cigarette products to ensure kids weren’t tempted.

The e-cigarette industry has grown since 2005 to encompass 450 brands made by ‘Big Tobacco’ and small independents.

Based on research from 2013, nearly half of smokers and ex-smokers in the U.S. have tried e-cigarettes, but only 4% use the products on a regular basis.

WHO members will be discussing regulatory options for e-cigarettes in mid-October at a meeting in Moscow.

15 comments

  • Becky

    “The PC We Combined International Forces” Dictate by Over Rule, over and above any and all others “we” deem, not in line, with Our will, Our Way without any Say! The Legal Rights to a Legal Product are hereby Rescinded, Abolished, without Legal Due Course.
    “PC We” proclaims ourselves Omnipotent”. No others are afforded Rights & Privileges, other than those we decided to bestow. “PC We” Combined Strong Armed Forces are “allowed” to Gang Bang, Knock Out, Ramrod, Bulldoze, Steam Roll, Drone, Attack, Bombard OUR Dictates Over ALL. “WE PC” hereby proclaim, Alcohol, in any form, IS Perfectly Correct, Healthy, Good For You. so Drink UP and drive home. It Socially “Correct”, despite Laws.
    “PC We” prefers, illegal, lawless, contemptuous, riotous, Government and foreign, sick, invaders.”

    • harleyrider1778

      Congratualtions to everyone who ever survived a single cookout! LOL

      Barbecues poison the air with toxins and could cause cancer, research suggests.
      A study by the French environmental campaigning group Robin des Bois found that a typical two-hour barbecue can release the same level of dioxins as up to 220,000 cigarettes.

      Dioxins are a group of chemicals known to increase the likelihood of cancer.

      The figures were based on grilling four large steaks, four turkey cuts and eight large sausages.”

      Even the AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY has relay for life BBQ cook-offs……….oh the Hypocrisy of it all!

  • Steel Mill

    Great idea.. you want to smoke, do it in your home or yard.
    We have no idea of the long term effects of E cigs.

    • harleyrider1778

      Steel Mill

      Great idea.. you want to smoke, do it in your home or yard.
      We have no idea of the long term effects of E cigs.

      We have no idea of the long term effects of many drugs being given to people, least of all this ‘experimental’ drug (no human trial results short term, let alone long term available!) that is currently being given to Ebola virus infected people.
      Also, there are no long term studies on e.g. Champix. Please prove that the human trial for throwing e.g. Champix/Chantix on the market lasted longer than 6 weeks.

      Are you seriously trying to tell me that you do not buy flavour/vegetable glycerin containing foods? And is propylene glycol not used as a SAFE antibacterial agent in hospitals?
      Please elaborate on your worries about e-cigs. I actual fact, start thinking about tobacco – I am a baby-boomer who is living and working longer despite starting smoking at the age of 12. You have some explaining to do. Start now.

  • grace

    How about the long term effects of a cigarette? The only chemical in the liquids is the nicotine, with everything else being things like corn oil and glycerin. And vapor companies are not marketing to young people, they all self regulate by not selling to those under 18, which is the tobacco age. This is all being driven by big tobacco who would rather people smoke cigarettes and die of cancer. I would wager 80% of vapor users were former smokers. And unlike cigarettes one can lower the level of nicotine, theoretically with the possibility of quitting completely. If you’re completely against it then you are probably uninformed.

    • Mo Fiscal conservatism

      Grace, you do realize that there are scientists who say that we don’t know all the dangers of these yet. What exactly makes you a specialist? Your imagination? lol Oh, that’s what people like you call “common sense”.
      I think I will go with the people who are actually educated in the subject. Running tests and whatnot. Instead of what, an art student?

      • crunchy2k

        Mo, the environmental researcher Dr.Igor Burstyn of Drexel University, Pennsylvania reviewed the studies on e-cigarette aerosols and found the vapor created no heath risk for a user and even less so for a bystander. I know the truth is boring and doesn’t make headlines. One of the main ingredients, propylene glycol, is an excellent bactericide that knocks down common air-born contagious diseases in minutes at the levels found in e-cigarette vapor. Those workplaces that allow vaping will have better air quality and possibly less absences due to the flu.

        google: Burstyn(2014), ‘Peering through the mist: systematic review of what the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tells us about health risks.’
        Robertson(1943), ‘THE BACTERICIDAL ACTION OF PROPYLENE GLYCOL VAPOR ONMICROORGANISMS SUSPENDED IN AIR’

        There are individuals in the health organizations that hate nicotine. They have spent their entire careers fighting cigarettes and nicotine became their demon and paycheck. And now they have inappropriately turned their wrath on e-cigarettes. All they can say about them is a bunch of could(s) and maybe(s). The American Heart Association recognizes e-cigarettes are safe, but still included a lot of the 2009 unsubstantiated anti-e-cig rhetoric in their policy statement just released. The Surgeon General sees them is good light. In the coming years, you will see more studies to accompany those already showing how effective they are in smoking cessation, safety, and lower addiction rates.

      • harleyrider1778

        First you have to ask WHAT SCIENTISTS…………As these crazies consider anyone with a mouth to fly open as an expert from the tobacco control side. When they say they don’t know the harm yet its a cop out way as they’ve known there was no harm from ecigs since 1958 when FDA approved the use of the ecig juice as a DISENFECTANT for HOSPITALS! You were likely bathed in it when you were born! While your dad smoked a cigar or a cigarette in the delivery room and lit one up for mom as she pushed to help relax her!

        The myth of smoking during pregnancy being harmful

        Anonymous
        Sott.net
        Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:51 CDT

        Print

        Google+FB Share
        In about 1999 I was asked to analyze the data of pregnant women with respect to smoking for a major health insurance company. They were running a campaign to get pregnant women to stop smoking and they expected to find interesting data to support their case.

        I used to teach college courses covering the topic. The text books said that smoking causes underweight premature babies. Because of this babies of smoking mothers are more likely to have birth defects. With alcohol, two drinks a day was considered safe, but with tobacco, there was no safe threshold. I thought this was rather strange. You smoke one cigarette while pregnant and you are more likely to have birth defects? Even for a hard core health fanatic that is difficult to believe.

        Here is what was found in the data. Babies of smoking mothers average weight was 3232 grams (7.1 lbs.). Babies of non-smoking mothers averaged 3398 grams (7.5 lbs.). That is about a half pound difference and it is statistically significant. Seven pounds is a good healthy birth weight that does not set off any alarms. Babies are considered underweight if they are less than 2270 grams (5 lbs.). 4.5% of smoking mothers babies were underweight and 3.3% of non-smoking mothers babies were underweight. This difference is not significant. There is no indication here of a health risk from smoking based on weight.

        The other risk factor is length of term. Normal gestation is 253 days. 4% of smoking mothers did not go to term and 7.8% of non-smoking mothers did not go to term. Smoking mothers did better than non-smoking mothers but the difference was not significant. There was obviously no risk from reduced term for smoking mothers.

        Because the non-smoking mothers had heavier babies one would expect more C-Sections from the non-smoking mothers. There were about 20% more. This is significant at the .05 level but not the .01 level so you could argue the significance either way depending on your bias. The data here is limited because only 5% of pregnant women smoked but the trend for smoking mothers was toward less babies retained in the hospital, less C-Sections, insignificantly fewer pre-term deliveries and an insignificant increase in clinically underweight babies.

        This data can be explained by assuming that when pregnant women are stressed, they self medicate to relieve the stress. Non-smoking women tend to eat more causing the baby to be larger and more difficult to deliver. This can also cause other problems. Smoking women tend to light up when under stress. This is less harmful to the baby than over-eating. For this reason smoking mothers tended to have better outcomes for baby and mother. They also cost less for the insurance company.

        You might be interested in knowing that this information was not used. I was told that the medical insurance business is highly regulated by the government. The company was not allowed to tell the truth about these results even though it was better for the insurance company and for the patients.

        I do not think these results suggest that women should start smoking when they get pregnant. I do think it indicates that it is very poor practice to try to get smoking mothers to stop smoking when they get pregnant.
        About me

        I have a Ph.D. in experimental psychology and have worked in both research and teaching. I am a health nut and do not endorse smoking or care to be around people smoking. I was shocked by these results. My bias if any is certainly against these results. However I think it is horrible to withhold information form people and intentionally give them bad advice to advance a political agenda.

      • harleyrider1778

        SMOKE PRODUCES THE SAME DISENFECTANT PURPOSE TOO AS PROPYLENE GLYCOL

        Medicinal Smoke Reduces Airborne Bacteria – 2007

        “This study represents a comprehensive analysis and scientific validation of our ancient knowledge about the effect of ethnopharmacological aspects of natural products’ smoke for therapy and health care on airborne bacterial composition and dynamics, using the Biolog® microplate panelsand Microlog® database.

        In this study, we have designed an air sampler for microbiological air sampling during the treatment of the room with medicinal smoke. In addition, elimination of the aerial pathogenic bacteria due to the smoke is reported too.

        We have observed that 1 h treatment of medicinal smoke emination by burning wood and a mixture of odoriferous and medicinal herbs (havan sámagri = material used in oblation to fire all over India) on aerial bacterial population caused over 94% reduction of bacterial counts by 60 min and the ability of the smoke to purify or disinfect the air and to make the environment cleaner was maintained up to 24 h in the closed room.

        Absence of pathogenic bacteria Corynebacterium urealyticum, Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens, Enterobacter aerogenes (Klebsiella mobilis), Kocuria rosea, Pseudomonassyringae pv. persicae, Staphylococcus lentus, and Xanthomonas campestris pv. tardicrescens inthe open room even after 30 days is indicative of the bactericidal potential of the medicinal smoke treatment.

        We have demonstrated that using medicinal smoke it is possible to completely eliminate diverse plant and human pathogenic bacteria of the air within confined space.
        Work has implications to use the smoke generated by burning wood and a mixture of odoriferousand medicinal herbs, within confined spaces such as animal barns and seed/grain warehouses to disinfect the air and to make the environment cleaner.
        Work indicates that certain known medicinal constituents from the havan sámagri can thus be added to the burning farm material while disposing unwanted agriculture organic material, in order to reduce plant pathogenicorganisms.

        In particular, it highlights the fact that we must think well beyond the physical aspects of smoke on plants in natural habitats and impacts heavily on our understanding of fire as adriving force in evolution.
        We have demonstrated that using medicinal smoke it is possible to contain diverse pathogenic bacteria of the air we breathe.

        The work also highlights the fact about medicinal smoke and that a lot of natural products have potential for use as medicine in the smoke form as a form of drug delivery and as a promising source of new active natural ingredients for containing indoor airborne infections within confined spaces used for storage of agriculture comodities.

        The dynamic chemical and biological interactions occurring in the atmosphere are much more complex than has been previously realized. The findings warrant a need for further evaluation of various ingredients present in the complex mixture of odoriferous and medicinal herbs, individually and in various combinations to identify the active principlesinvolved in the bactericidal property of the medicinal smoke, applied in the above discussed fashion.”
        Formerly http: //www.agri-history.org/pdf/Medicinal%20smoke.pdf

    • harleyrider1778

      This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

      http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/28/16741714-lungs-from-pack-a-day-smokers-safe-for-transplant-study-finds?lite

      Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

      By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

      Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

      What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

      “I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study………………………

      Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

      The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

      Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.

      146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.

      A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

      Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!

  • Becky

    “Inclusive” Democrats, Liberals and Progressives Dictate; Rule Over, and that they are Always
    “Correct”, Perfectly, and Against any and all in the population that are Not Exclusively.. PC..
    and toe their line, strings, chains, and ropes.

    • harleyrider1778

      A little on the “slippery slope” that apparently – according to the antismoking fanatics – doesn’t exist.

      The first demand for a smoking ban was in the late-1980s concerning short-haul flights in the USA of less than 2 hours. At the time, the antismokers were asked if this was a “slippery slope” – where would it end? They ridiculed anyone suggesting such because this ban was ALL that they were after.

      Then they ONLY wanted smoking bans on all flights.
      Then the antismokers ONLY wanted nonsmoking sections in restaurants, bars, etc., and ensuring that this was ALL they wanted.
      Then the antismokers ONLY wanted complete bans indoors. That was all they wanted. At the time, no-one was complaining about having to “endure” wisps of smoke outdoors.

      While they pursued indoor bans, the antismokers were happy for smokers to be exiled to the outdoors.

      Having bulldozed their way into indoor bans, the antismokers then went to work on the outdoors, now declaring that momentary exposure to remnants of dilute smoke in doorways or a whiff outdoors was a “hazard”, more than poor, “innocent” nonsmokers should have to “endure”.
      Then they ONLY wanted bans within 10 feet of entranceways.
      Then they ONLY wanted bans within 20 feet of entranceways.
      Then they ONLY wanted bans in entire outdoor dining areas.
      Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire university and hospital campuses, and parks and beaches.
      Then they ONLY wanted bans for apartment balconies.
      Then they ONLY wanted bans for entire apartment (including individual apartments) complexes.
      Then they ONLY wanted bans in backyards.

      On top of all of this, there are now instances, particularly in the USA, where smokers are denied employment, denied housing (even the elderly), and denied medical treatment. Smokers in the UK are denied fostering/adoption. Involuntary mental patients are restrained physically or chemically (sedation) rather than allow them to have a cigarette.

      At each point there was a crazed insistence that there was no more to come while they were actually planning the next ban and the brainwashing required to push it. There has been incessant (pathological) lying and deception. Many medically-aligned groups have been committed to antismoking – their smokefree “utopia” – since the 1960s. They have prostituted their medical authority to chase ideology. All of it is working to a tobacco-extermination plan run by the WHO and that most governments are now signed-up to.

      This has all happened in just 20 years. If it was mentioned 20 years ago, or even 10 or 5 years ago, that smokers would be denied employment and housing, and smoking bans in parks and beaches, it would have been laughed at as “crazed thinking”. Yet here we are. Much of it has happened before and it has all been intentional, planned decades ago. We just don’t learn or we’re going to have to learn the very hard way because it has to do with far, far more than just smoking.

  • harleyrider1778

    Clean Air Quality Law

    It is hereby ordered that all things that generate chemical releases simular in nature to tobacco smoke are hereby OUTLAWED.

    1. Automobiles and gas or diesel engines or any other contivance that emits chemcial releases. This savings equals to the public not being forced to inhale 100s of billions of cigarettes each day.

    2. All plants are outlawed as they releases tons daily of the Carcinogen ISOPRENE. Equal in volumes of Millions of cigarettes each day.

    3. Restaraunts will be outlawed from preparing any cooked foods as these release 100s of millions of equal cigarettes each day.

    4. In home cooking is also outlawed as it produces upwards of 10s of thousands of equal cigarettes inside and outside the home.

    5. Outdoor cookouts and fireworks are outlawed as they releases 100s of millions of equivalent cigarettes a day or on weekends in the yards and parks of our city.

    6. Humans are hereby outlawed from existence insode the city limits as their own human breath contains hundreds of the same chemicals as found in tobacco smoke!

    7. Nature itself is outlawed as it generates Billions of chemcial releases naturally into the atmosphere a day hense posing a threat to human life.

    8. This Clean air law becomes effective Immediately.

    9. Your preference of suicide is a personal choise,Police will write tickets and lock up any survivors after this law becomes effective. A grace period of 30 days will be in place to educate the public on its existence.

    Signed into law by the GHOSTOWN ADMINISTRATION

  • harleyrider1778

    EPA & FDA: Vapor Harmless to Children

    April 3, 2014 matt black

    In the continued war on e-cigarettes, we hear about the “potential dangers” of e-cigarette vapor and the “unknown public health risks.”

    First, I find it absolutely absurd that we’re attempting to pass laws based on unknowns, but what makes it even more absurd is the fact that there’s very little that isn’t known about e-cigarette vapor at this point. The primary ingredient of concern to those who wish to see e-cigarettes banned is the propylene glycol vapor, which has been studied for over 70 years.

    I recently came across a document titled, “Reregistration Eligibility Decision For Propylene Glycol and Dipropylene Glycol“, which was created by the United State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    Catchy title. I was intrigued.

    This quote caught my eye:

    Propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol were first registered in 1950 and 1959, respectively, by the FDA for use in hospitals as air disinfectants. (page 4, paragraph 1).

    In a previous post, I had shared the summary of research that had been done in 1942 by Dr. Robertson regarding the antibacterial properties of vaporized propylene glycol, but I had never heard that the FDA wound up approving it for the purpose of an air disinfectant in hospitals.

    Indoor Non-Food: Propylene glycol is used on the following use sites: air treatment (eating establishments, hospital, commercial, institutional, household, bathroom, transportational facilities); medical premises and equipment, commercial, institutional and industrial premises and equipment; (page 6, paragraph 2)

    Continued…

    Method and Rates of Application

    ….

    Air Sanitizer

    Read the directions included with the automatic dispenser for proper installation of unit and refill. Remove cap from aerosol can and place in a sequential aerosol dispenser which automatically releases a metered amount every 15 minutes. One unit should treat 6000 ft of closed air space… For regular, non-metered applications, spray room until a light fog forms. To sanitize the air, spray 6 to 8 seconds in an average size room (10’x10′). (page 6, paragraph 6)

    A common argument used to support the public usage ban is that, “Minnesotans have become accustomed to the standard of clean indoor air.” However, according to the EPA and FDA, so long as there’s a “light fog” of propylene glycol vapor in the air, the air is actually more clean than the standard that Minnesotans have become accustomed to.

    General Toxicity Observations

    Upon reviewing the available toxicity information, the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol. This conclusion is based on the results of toxicity testing of propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol in which dose levels near or above testing limits (as established in the OPPTS 870 series harmonized test guidelines) were employed in experimental animal studies and no significant toxicity observed.

    Carcinogenicity Classification

    A review of the available data has shown propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol to be negative for carcinogenicity in studies conducted up to the testing limit doses established by the Agency; therefore, no further carcinogenic analysis is required. (page 10, paragraphs 1 & 2)

    Ready for the bombshell? I probably should have put this at the top, as it could have made this post a lot shorter, but I figured the information above was important, too…

    2. FQPA Safety Factor

    The FQPA Safety Factor (as required by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996) is intended to provide an additional 10-fold safety factor (10X), to protect for special sensitivity in infants and children to specific pesticide residues in food, drinking water, or residential exposures, or to compensate for an incomplete database. The FQPA Safety Factor has been removed (i.e., reduced to 1X) for propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol because there is no pre- or post-natal evidence for increased susceptibility following exposure. Further, the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol based on the low toxicity observed in studies conducted near or above testing limit doses as established in the OPPTS 870 series harmonized test guidelines. Therefore, quantitative risk assessment was not conducted for propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol.

    In a paper published in the American Journal of Public Health by Dr. Robertson in April of 1946, Robertson cites a study published in the Edinburgh Medical Journal, which was conducted in 1944:

    The report of the 3 years’ study of the clinical application of the disinfection of air by glycol vapors in a children’s convalescent home showed a marked reduction in the number of acute respiratory infections occurring in the wards treated with both propylene and triethylene glycols. Whereas in the control wards, 132 infections occured during the course of three winters, there were only 13 such instances in the glycol wards during the same period. The fact that children were, for the most part, chronically confined to bed presented an unusually favorable condition for the prophylactic action of the glycol vapor.

    An investigation of the effect of triethylene glycol vapor on the respiratory disease incidence in military barracks brought out the fact that, while for the first 3 weeks after new personnel entered the glycolized area the disease rate remained the same as in the control barracks, the second 3 week period showed a 65 percent reduction in acute respiratory infections in the glycol treated barracks. Similar effects were observed in respect to airborne hemolytic streptococci and throat carriers of this microorganism.

    I don’t expect the prohibitionist lawmakers to delve this deeply into this subject on their own, but I certainly hope that when presented with this data that they reevaluate their stance on the subject and consider what science has to say. If they don’t, they’re simply basing their judgement off of rhetoric, misinformation, and personal bias and we all know where that gets us.

    http://mnvapers.com/2014/04/epa-fda-vapor-harmless-children/

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,713 other followers