Sat I hairdressers on two seater couch and other woman waiting is chugging on e-cig

[whoahokeycokey]

Just this really. I've got colour on waiting for it to take and as it's a small hairdressers (3 chairs) they rotate us whilst colour set etc. The woman next to me is chugging away on her e-cig. It stinks of some rancid sweet smell.
Why is it acceptable to whip these things out? I've noticed a lot that they are used in places where smoking is not allowed. I know my 2nd hand inhalation isn't going to cause me a great harm but it's making my teeth itch!

What your argument boils down to though is, in the absence of any actual evidence to show they may be harmful, you won't be satisfied until somebody manages to prove a negative. How, logically, do think something in this context can be proven to be safe? It can't be done. The best you can do is run clinical trials, primarily to prove efficacy, and monitor for side effects and contraindications. Even if no noticeable side effects are recorded though, that does not prove it is safe, it just demonstrates no known risk of harm.

You are using the same flawed logic in you argument that supporters of conspiracy theories depend on. You present a theory with no scientifically valid supporting evidence whatsoever, and put the responsibility entirely on the other side to prove their argument. You think vaping should be banned. Where is your proof, your evidence that it is harmful? Given that the burden of proof traditionally rests with the prosecution, the onus is on you.

In the meantime, if you don't want to breath in somebody else's vapour, you are quite free to move away from them. Why is your freedom any more important than theirs?

OK, so you are happy to accept the current evidence but you are still concerned that there has not been enough time for long term effects to emerge - is that about right?

PHE acknowledge that we don’t yet know everything there is to know about e-cigarettes and their impact. What do you think of their assessment that problems are not very likely to emerge, given what we already know about vaping, from testing ingredients, emissions and vapers' health over the past decade?

What did you think about their discussion of balancing risks and opportunities in their guidance on vaping in public places? What do you think about the public health risks they have identified if vaping were to be banned? Where do you think the balance should be?

If your only concern is that we don't know everything yet, then as HerOtherHalf asked, how long do we need to wait? If we ban vaping on those grounds, how can we mitigate the risks of that ban to public health while we wait decades for all to become clear?

Given that public health bodies already acknowledge there are still unknowns and have already factored them in to their policy decisions, and given that it's going to be decades before anybody can conclusively answer your remaining concerns, what is the point of repeatedly telling us about them? All it can possibly achieve is to increase fear and doubt.

if you don't want to breath in somebody else's vapour, you are quite free to move away from them

Or just go to the many many establishments that have chosen not to allow vaping, as is their right.

Yawn. I've accepted the evidence at this time supports vaping in public spaces should be allowed. I'm just not accepting I should be told off for asking for very convincing evidence because someone else doesn't think my questions are valid. I'm perfectly OK with accepting something with no proven harm to me (just personal dislike of the smell) when there is a proven benefit to smokers and thus the public health service and thus society as a whole. This thread would not have dragged on were it not for those who wished to contemptuously accuse others of pearl clutching, fear-mongering and spreading conspiracy theories. There is nothing guaranteed more to spread fear and conspiracy theories and feelings of being manipulated for other people's benefit than other people's arrogant dismissiveness. Politely agreeing that someone's concerns are valid and that, in fact, so valid that people have researched these issues and can provide some reassurance, is generally more effective. Explaining why that research might have more weight than contrary research is also more effective. Basically, if only PencilsInSpace had contributed on the pro-vaping side and not lost her/his temper at any point, the thread would have ended very soon after it began.

Its not so hard to move away from someone when you're only walking past them only for them to blow the damn stuff in your face. Or your behind/in front of them and the wind blows it in your direction.

Why do they have these massive plumes of smoke anyway? It's ridiculous and obviously just for show because not all of them are like that.

They definitely stink.

I've accepted the evidence at this time supports vaping in public spaces should be allowed.

Fabulous Why didn't you say so earlier? That would have made the thread shorter.

I didn't say it earlier because I was too busy having to repeat my original questions in different wording to try to get posters who just wanted to be dismissive and rude to accept that the original questions and fears were perfectly reasonable and legitimate fears and questions to have, not deliberate scare-mongering, a way of looking down on other people because I had something missing from my own life, the ravings of an ignorant conspiracy theorist, pearl clutching, the cause of the death of smokers who have somehow convinced themselves that the concerns of a non-smoker who is not at risk from smoking have any relevance to their own risk assessments about whether smoking or vaping is better for them, and not so unjustified that I should instead be spending my time worrying about a nuclear meltdown!

The fact you could point to respected, unbiased research addressing my question kind of proves the questions aren't stupid and worthy of dismissal really, doesn't it? It's reassuring respected researchers actually consider these things, rather than wasting their time on silly put downs.

@roundaboutthetown - I wouldn't be too confident that the research pointed to is unbiased. I've had a quick look at the PHE 2015 report. I've only looked at the section on risks. They have correctly refuted the flawed research on aldehydes. They are also correct in their comments on the studies on lung disease in mice having no relevance.

However, while they identify the flaws in the studies and conclusions that contradict the PHE recommendations, they do not do the same for those that corroborate their recommendations. For example, they use a study that measures levels of airborne nicotine in homes of vapers and smokers. While they state the sample sizes, they don't mention that the sample size of 5 vapers is so small as to render the findings pretty irrelevant as the actual difference in values between vaping and smoking homes is too small to conclude anything. With such a small sample size the margin of error is huge. They also compare cotinine concentrations of partners of vapers and smokers, rather than partners of vapers . While the concentrations are very small, they are fudging the findings by comparing apples and oranges.

The main study they use to support the claim that the risks of vaping are less than 5% of the risks of smoking is the Nutt study, the limitations of which were addressed by an editorial in the Lancet. However, they do not mention any of these limitations.

Overall, I would say that many of their findings are valid. However, while they discuss all the flaws in the research that contradicts their policies, they have not discussed or mentioned the flaws in the research that supports their position.

The policies they are advocating may well be the correct ones. However, by ignoring the flaws in the research they are using to support their position, they are not inspiring me with confidence in their decision making. I suspect that, as it is pretty well accepted that the risks of vaping are so much lower than those of smoking, they are willing to take a chance on the long term impacts, which everyone agrees cannot yet be known, in order to reduce the negative effects of smoking.

E-cigs smell vile. Not half as bad as fags but still unpleasant.

I also can't stand air freasheners or perfume

theymademejoin - yes, I entirely agree that no research ever carried out has ever been entirely unbiased and that the least biased researchers are nevertheless still clearly willing to fudge things somewhat to the detriment of people who neither smoke nor vape, because of the huge benefits to smokers, but I am happy to acknowledge that the evidence is not there at this time, even taking that into account, to justify an outright ban on vaping in all public enclosed places, rather than allowing individual premises to decide - not when, as has been pointed out, we allow aerosol deodorants, air fresheners, hairsprays, perfumes etc, which are known to be no good for the lungs, and have done nothing much, yet, to deal with diesel pollution, let alone ban its use, etc, etc. In a perfect world, people wouldn't ever be selfish, self-destructive and pig headed etc, etc, but we are not perfect, we are human. I just hope vaping does remain a niche activity so that I don't have to end up smelling it everywhere I go!

I didn't say it earlier because I was too busy having to repeat my original questions in different wording to try to get posters who just wanted to be dismissive and rude to accept that the original questions and fears were perfectly reasonable and legitimate fears and questions to have, not deliberate scare-mongering, a way of looking down on other people because I had something missing from my own life, the ravings of an ignorant conspiracy theorist, pearl clutching, the cause of the death of smokers who have somehow convinced themselves that the concerns of a non-smoker who is not at risk from smoking have any relevance to their own risk assessments about whether smoking or vaping is better for them, and not so unjustified that I should instead be spending my time worrying about a nuclear meltdown!

... and breathe ...

Unless you're a vaper it's probably hard to appreciate just how much fear-mongering we deal with, how constant it is, how much energy it takes to counter and how much harm it does. People get battle worn and weary.

Just about every week there's another bullshit study badly reported in the media, on the back of which we get a whole fresh wave of people itching to tell us vaping is as bad as smoking or will give us popcorn lung or lipoid pneumonia or formaldehyde induced cancer or will explode our faces or kill our pets or toddlers or ... and that even if this study proves to be badly flawed, we still just don't know!

And every time that happens a load of smokers become more doubtful about switching to vaping and a load of vapers wonder if they would not be better off going back to smoking because at least we know the risks of that (horrific as they are). And more venues decide they don't want to risk permitting vaping on their premises, which makes it harder for new vapers to stay off the fags and removes an incentive for smokers to switch and increases the confusion about relative harm yet again.

Some of us have been dealing with this for several years now and not just on the internet. We get people at work, in pubs, at parties, on the street who take the opportunity to have their Opinion Of Vaping at us.

The fact I could find research tailored to your specific questions for you is because:

• I'm a bit obsessive
• I enjoy research
• I have time off work

It is not fair to expect that of posters in general.

You did not come on this thread with an honest questioning attitude, your opening gambit was that positive vape studies should not be trusted. There were already lots of links to reputable research when you joined the thread, you just couldn't be bothered to click on them, instead expecting posters to spoon-feed you.

I don't blame people for being a bit rude to you.

Round - your point is valid. However, the difference with deodorant, hairspray etc is nobody is spraying them in my vicinity every couple of minutes.

Vaping is increasing rapidly. It's no longer niche. We don't know the long term impacts and won't for some time. The PHE recognise that fact.

I don't think it should be banned but I think it should be restricted in where it can be done until it is around longer and more research has been carried out.

PencilsInSpace - no, I was not rude, I expressed my cynicism about the research evidence provided so far on the thread and gave my opinion. You were not the only person to have quoted research, and others had provided contradictory and equally convincing sounding evidence at that point. Finally agreeing that the research results so far do not justify a ban on vaping in public places, having read everything that everyone said, is evidence that I am willing to listen, not that I couldn't be bothered to read what you said or alter my opinion. Agreeing the evidence so far doesn't justify a ban, though, is not remotely the same thing as agreeing vaping is not harmful to either vapers or passive vapers. So I would be careful, if I were you, about claiming anyone who disagrees with you is lazy and unquestioning. I see no reason to feel obliged to make your life easier by not questioning the safety of vaping around you.

For example, they use a study that measures levels of airborne nicotine in homes of vapers and smokers. While they state the sample sizes, they don't mention that the sample size of 5 vapers is so small as to render the findings pretty irrelevant as the actual difference in values between vaping and smoking homes is too small to conclude anything. With such a small sample size the margin of error is huge. They also compare cotinine concentrations of partners of vapers and smokers, rather than partners of vapers . While the concentrations are very small, they are fudging the findings by comparing apples and oranges

Here is the study being discussed, for those who have the time and energy. I can only get the abstract. If anybody has access I'd be grateful if they could tell me if there are any surprises in the full text.

The study compared 25 smokers' homes, 5 vapers' homes and 24 non-smoker, non-vapers' homes (control). Is a sample size of 5 too small for this sort of study? It's hardly epidemiology. I'm no expert though so if anybody is, I'd be grateful for guidance on what sort of sample sizes are expected for different sorts of study. For comparison, the studies that are cited in support of the ban on smoking in cars with children present use sample sizes like 4 cars, 18 cars, 9 tests, possibly only 1 car, 1 car. Are these sample sizes not typical for this kind of test?

The differences in values between vaping and smoking homes are not small as far as I can tell.

Airborne nicotine:

Smoker's homes = 0.74 μg/m3 (GSD=4.05)
Vapers' homes = 0.13 μg/m3 (GSD=2.4)
Control homes = 0.02 μg/m3 (GSD=3.51)

The value for vapers' homes was far closer to the control homes than the smokers' homes. PHE state the value for vapers' homes is around 6 times less than for smokers' homes. That looks about right to me.

salivary cotinine of non-smoking, non-vaping partners:

Smokers' homes = 0.38 ng/ml (GSD=2.34)
Vapers' homes = 0.19 ng/ml (GSD=2.17)
Control homes = 0.07 ng/ml (GSD=1.79)

Again, the values for vapers' and control homes are closer than the values for vapers' and smokers' homes although the difference is not so marked this time.

The abstract claims the results from all three groups show statistically significant differences. If anybody has full access and a proper understanding of statistics (and the time!) I'd be grateful if you could confirm or else explain why these results are dubious.

The abstract says the groups were partners of smokers, partners of vapers and partners of people who neither smoke or vape. Is there something in the full text to say the vapers were also smokers?

The main study they use to support the claim that the risks of vaping are less than 5% of the risks of smoking is the Nutt study, the limitations of which were addressed by an editorial in the Lancet. However, they do not mention any of these limitations

We did this on page 2. PHE are very clear that while they used Nutt's figure as a starting point they evaluated it in light of all the evidence available and concluded it was valid as the current best estimate based on the peer-reviewed literature. The Lancet editorial was a nasty hatchet job that was roundly criticised in related correspondence in the Lancet and elsewhere. The Lancet had no problem publishing Nutt's earlier study on the relative harms of different drugs, even though it used exactly the same methodology. How strange.

roundaboutthetown I didn't say you were rude I said I didn't blame people for being rude to you. You admitted yourself you had been lazy.

FTR though, yes I think you have been both rude and lazy on this thread and I have no interest in engaging with you further.

Unfortunately, I don't know enough about statistics to be helpful on your questions, PencilsInSpace, nor could I get full access to the article without paying, but I know quite a few mumsnetters do claim to work as statisticians, so hopefully we will receive an intelligent response. From my layman's perspective, I would not be happy with a sample size of five, particularly if the conclusion of the research was to allow the entire population to be exposed to something, rather than to take the decision to err on the side of caution and protect them from it for the time being.

It was self-evident you thought I was rude, Pencils - it isn't justifiable to be rude to someone who has not been rude to you.

Pencils - believe me, if I were considering taking up vaping, I would have ensured I had the research into it at my fingertips. As I have never considered it, I have not had four years' worth of reasons to look into it - it is only coming onto my radar, now, because other people are beginning to inflict their risks on me. Why on earth would I spend four years researching what you already know, rather than asking you what you know and how you justify your opinions, when you have made it quite apparent that you are very knowledgeable,on the subject?! Far more sensible to ask you to point me in the right direction, would you not agree?!

She admitted that it's not out of her hand. I'm guessing there's a bigger problem there.
I did a lengthy behavioural modification course to stop smoking (worked for two years that time but have since stopped again for four years - touch wood). One of the things they emphasised is that you need to find some sort of replacement,other than food, for the hand to mouth activity of smoking.This was pre ecigs, and one of their suggestions was to fiddle with a pencil, so it looks as if this is her substitute, if she likes to fiddle with it even when not smoking.If it works for her, good.

I personally found ecigs worse than nothing, like a sad, pale, constant reminder of the real thing, and what I was missing out.

OP:You did mean she was fiddling with it/had it in her hand even when it wasn't actively working, didn't you?

And for the avoidance of doubt, I have looked through the PHE and ASH links you provided. They are all very focused on the benefits to smokers, as you would expect from experts who largely specialise in research into the health effects of tobacco smoking. I have never questioned the assertions from smoking experts that e-cigarettes are considerably less dangerous to smokers than cigarettes are, especially if they are a route to giving up both smoking and vaping. I'm not a smoker, though, and a lesser risk than smoking is not automatically an acceptable risk to the non-smoker-non-vaper, and a speculated 5% risk of it causing the same harms as smoking tells me nothing about the harms not yet identified that relate exclusively or more specifically to vaping (or even other aerosol use, given the lack of research on this compared to smoking). It would be lovely if the evidence continues to be that all the risks to passive vapers are minuscule, but we have not had long enough to be entirely confident on that, yet, and are still looking at it through the lens of the experts on smoking, as nobody can yet claim to be a true expert on the long term risks of vaping. Time is the only thing that will provide some reasonably definitive answers, so it is inevitable that the questions and concerns of those who do not benefit from vaping will continue for some time.

I personally think that if you wouldn't smoke somewhere you shouldn't vape. When I went to hospital to have my 12 week scan, someone was sat in the waiting room vaping!

believe me, if I were considering taking up vaping, I would have ensured I had the research into it at my fingertips. As I have never considered it, I have not had four years' worth of reasons to look into it

That's fair enough. The reason this thread has, at times, been a little bit heated is because vapers have been under sustained attack for many years and it is quite wearing, actually it's soul destroying. As I mentioned earlier, there has been an ongoing campaign by both the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries who want to kill vaping because it seriously threatens their business. We have also faced strong opposition from both the general public and policy makers who think that because it looks a bit like smoking and involves nicotine it must be as dangerous as smoking.

Now if this was a more trivial matter maybe it wouldn't be such a big deal but the stakes are incredibly high, both for the individual smoker and mankind generally. Approximately 50% of smokers will die from a smoking related illness, fact. In England alone 78,000 people died as a result of smoking in 2014 according to official NHS statistics, fact. An estimated 475,000 hospital admissions in England were atrributed to smoking for that year, fact. Please think about that. These figures are mind-bogglingly staggering. Even if you don't smoke, there will be people that you know and love that do and there is a very high chance that their lives will be ruined or ended by it in a very painful way. Of course, there will be someone popping up soon on their high horse to derisively state that smokers could just quit or read Allen Carr but the reality is it is not that easy and the facts around just how addictive smoking is are so conclusive it isn't worthy of debate.

Let me tell you my personal story.

I started smoking at the age of 9, back in an era when shops would happily sell a single cigarette and a match to school kids for a few pence. Up until i was in my early forties, I was a heavy smoker, getting through 20 to 40 cigarettes a day. Throughout my life, i had tried to quit many times. I had tried cold turkey, every form of NRT and even hypnosis. Many of my attempts failed within days or weeks but I did have a few that lasted months and one of over a year. I always ended up going back though. By the time I reached my forties I had pretty much resigned myself to the fact I was an incurable addict. I knew it was a massive waste of money, I knew it was detrimental to my health and fitness, I knew it would probably kill me. Despite all that I just couldn't beat it and my story is far more typical than those irritating people who love to look down their noses as they proclaim how they just decided to quit and did.

Just over 8 years ago I bought my first ecig. I was only vaguely aware that they even existed but happened to bump into an old friend who had one, ironically at the funeral of someone who died from lung cancer. To be honest, I was very cynical and thought it was gimmicky but I'm curious by nature and a gadget freak so thought I'd buy one, mainly out of curiousity. It's worth stressing that I had absolutely no intention of using it to try and quit. I thought at best it might prove to be a barely passable solution to the smoking ban but I was more vearing towards it being something that would be abandoned to the back of a drawer very quickly.

The day it arrived, I'd just been to the shops to buy a fresh pack of cigarettes. That was the last pack I ever bought. I didn't even finish it, I eventually threw it in the bin with 6 still in it some months later. Half the cigarettes that I did smoke from that pack I didn't even finish. Vaping for me wasn't just a barely passable alternative to smoking, it was vastly preferable to smoking, almost immediately. Now not everyone will have such a positive response. Some will, some will take longer to make the switch and for some it just won't be for them. Based on my involvement with vapers over the years though, both IRL and online, I am in no doubt that it is an incredibly effective and successful option for the majority who try it. Nothing else comes remotely close.

Aside from the hope that just maybe I've switched in time to avoid a horrible smoking related death, the immediate benefits for me have been nothing less than life changing. Now, all these benefits are ultimately from not smoking but without vaping I would never have stopped. There is also the point to be made that if vaping were remotely comparable with smoking harmwise would I have noticed such a profound change? I am saving myself a shit load of money, probably several hundred pounds a month at today's prices. I don't smell like a tramp and my fingers and teeth no longer have a yellow tinge. I no longer get irritable if I haven't had a nicotine fix recently, not sure why but the physiological response is clearly very different. I was suffering worsening ED before I switched, that is now a distant memory. Despite being active snd involved in various physical pursuits including hill walking, cycling and kayaking, I was always the frustrated out of breath guy trying and failing to keep up with the group. Now, I'm invariably out in front, repeatedly stopping to let the pack catch up. That last point is worth emphasising - the improvement in my cardiovascular fitness has been nothing short of miraculous.

I did take time to educate myself as to the potential for harm that vaping might represent, despite the irony considering how blatantly harmful the habit it replaced is. Initially, I wasn't even sure exactly what the ingredients were. E-liquid is comprised of propylene glycol, glycerine, nicotine and food-grade flavourings. Those first two components sound a bit chemically and unusual but it's staggering just how widely used they are. They're used in cosmetics, mouthwash, toothpaste, countless foodstuffs, loads of medicines (most cough syrups are largely just glycerine), some asthma inhalers, theatrical smoke machines to name but a few applications. They are considered safe for human consumption and many people reading this thread will have unknowingly absorbed more today through everyday products than I will have used in my ecig. Nicotine is admittedly, in sufficient quantities, a rather nasty poison. In the quantities used recreationally though, it is about as toxic as caffeine. The body also metabolises it extremely quickly so there is no risk of long-term build-up. Nicotine's biggest problem is it's image. Until recently it was synonomous with smoking, because that was the only meaningful means of consumption historically, but it is not the nicotine in cigarettes that does the damage, it is all the other toxins and carcinogens in the tar. Based on my understanding of the raw materials, and taking into account that a change in state (liquid to vapour) does not constitute a change in molecular structure (as with combustion), I was happy to make a positive risk assessment. I have also read numerous studies trying to discredit vaping over the years, and due to the politics they have not been in short supply. None of them have stood up to scrutiny and many have been so flawed in their scientific methodology the authors should be ashamed of themselves.

In my opinion, taking into account the known damage being caused by smoking, and the success rates of peoole switching, I honestly think vaping is right up there with antibiotics in terms of its potential contribution to world health. That is not an exaggeration. The people who pioneered it and drove it into the mainstream should be sharing a Nobel prize. Instead, vaping is losing the battle. Recent EU regulations have massively reduced the choice and availability of vaping products allowed on the market. Regulation has pushed the price up massively. Imagine you woke up one day to discover that the anti-vaxers had won the debate and persuaded health agencies to cancel mass vaccination programmes without so much as a shred of supporting scientific evidence. That's how vapers feel. That's why we are frustrated. How can we hope to win the battle with the establishment when we are facing so much ignorance? This thread alone is full of it. There's the person arguing that they don't want to breath in something that's been in someone else's mouth (duh! Llike air perhaps) or the person proclaiming how lungs aren't designed to inhale water vapour (duh! air humidity, steam rooms) and umpteen people who just don't like the smell very much. When there is the potential to save millions of lives world-wide, without exaggeration, excuse me if I give less than a flying fuck whether someone dislikes the smell a little.

HerOtherHalf: Vaping for me wasn't just a barely passable alternative to smoking, it was vastly preferable to smoking, almost immediately
I am serious about this: could you please provide a link to the e-cig you used? As I said above, I stopped smoking cold turkey four years ago (because I was having major surgery) and found the e-cig I bought to be completely unsatisfying and actually worse than nothing, and never tried another type, which may have suited me better. However, I often worry that something will happen and I'll be tempted to try "just one cigarette" and before I know it, I'll be back to thirty a day. I would love to have something that actually worked for someone else tucked in a drawer for that emergency moment when things get too much.

I just realised I sound like Ray Milland in "The Lost Weekend" trying to find that elusive bottle that he hid when sober.