No real evidence as to the non harm of passive e cigarette exposure. Until then I don't want them anywhere near me just like the real thing.
I see this argument all the time and it annoys me intensely. When did we go from banning things because it was demonstrated that they were harmful to banning things because there was no evidence that they weren't harmful? What next, screening to make sure you don't sit next to someone who has a cold? Nobody with badbreath allowed it because there's no evidence that stinky breath doesn't harm people in the general vicinity?
There's tons of evidence. All eliquids are made of flavourings, propelyne glycerine, vegetable glycerine and nicotine. Each one of these ingredients has been extensively tested and none of them are dangerous even to those directly inhaling them. You are as likely to be harmed from ecig vapour as from vapour from the bovril being drunk by the bloke behind you.
As said earlier. It's ok to pour alchohol down your throat and then sit next to people and annoy them all through the bloody game because your high on drugs. But you can't smoke an Ecigarette behind the East stand at half time. I'm a non smoker, but the world has gone mad.
Yet another example of how setting up a small smoking area would solve this problem.
At Doncaster they opened up one of the gates and placed a few low metal fences so that people could go for a cigarette at half time. It took 1 or 2 stewards to man it, and negated this entire issue altogether,
...These things do absolutely no harm to the user, and certainly none to anyone nearby...
Everything is a carcinogen Known human carcinogens International Agency for Research on Cancer Group 1: Carcinogenic to humans
Acetaldehyde (from consuming alcoholic beverages) Acid mists, strong inorganic Aflatoxins Alcoholic beverages Aluminum production 4-Aminobiphenyl Areca nut Aristolochic acid (and plants containing it) Arsenic and inorganic arsenic compounds Asbestos (all forms) and mineral substances (such as talc or vermiculite) that contain asbestos Auramine production Azathioprine Benzene Benzidine and dyes metabolized to benzidine Benzo[a]pyrene Beryllium and beryllium compounds Betel quid, with or without tobacco Bis(chloromethyl)ether and chloromethyl methyl ether (technical-grade) Busulfan 1,3-Butadiene Cadmium and cadmium compounds Chlorambucil Chlornaphazine Chromium (VI) compounds Clonorchis sinensis (infection with), also known as the Chinese liver fluke Coal, indoor emissions from household combustion Coal gasification Coal-tar distillation Coal-tar pitch Coke production Cyclophosphamide Cyclosporine 1,2-Dichloropropane Diethylstilbestrol Engine exhaust, diesel Epstein-Barr virus (infection with) Erionite Estrogen postmenopausal therapy Estrogen-progestogen postmenopausal therapy (combined) Estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives (combined) (Note: There is also convincing evidence in humans that these agents confer a protective effect against cancer in the endometrium and ovary) Ethanol in alcoholic beverages Ethylene oxide Etoposide Etoposide in combination with cisplatin and bleomycin Fission products, including strontium-90 Fluoro-edenite fibrous amphibole Formaldehyde Haematite mining (underground) Helicobacter pylori (infection with) Hepatitis B virus (chronic infection with) Hepatitis C virus (chronic infection with) Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) (infection with) Human papilloma virus (HPV) types 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59 (infection with) (Note: The HPV types that have been classified as carcinogenic to humans can differ by an order of magnitude in risk for cervical cancer) Human T-cell lymphotropic virus type I (HTLV-1) (infection with) Ionizing radiation (all types) Iron and steel founding (workplace exposure) Isopropyl alcohol manufacture using strong acids Kaposi sarcoma herpesvirus (KSHV) (infection with), also known as human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8) (infection with) Leather dust Magenta production Melphalan Methoxsalen (8-methoxypsoralen) plus ultraviolet A radiation 4,4'-Methylenebis(chloroaniline) (MOCA) Mineral oils, untreated or mildly treated MOPP and other combined chemotherapy including alkylating agents 2-Naphthylamine Neutron radiation Nickel compounds N'-Nitrosonornicotine (NNN) and 4-(N-Nitrosomethylamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK) Opisthorchis viverrini (infection with), also known as the Southeast Asian liver fluke Outdoor air pollution and the particulate matter in it Painter (workplace exposure as a) 3,4,5,3',4'-Pentachlorobiphenyl (PCB-126) 2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran Phenacetin (and mixtures containing it) Phosphorus-32, as phosphate Plutonium Polychlorinated biphenyls (includes dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls with a Toxicity Equivalency Factor according to WHO:(PCBs 77, 81, 105, 114, 118, 123, 126, 156, 157, 167, 169, 189) Radioiodines, including iodine-131 Radionuclides, alpha-particle-emitting, internally deposited (Note: Specific radionuclides for which there is sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity to humans are also listed individually as Group 1 agents) Radionuclides, beta-particle-emitting, internally deposited (Note: Specific radionuclides for which there is sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity to humans are also listed individually as Group 1 agents) Radium-224 and its decay products Radium-226 and its decay products Radium-228 and its decay products Radon-222 and its decay products Rubber manufacturing industry Salted fish (Chinese-style) Schistosoma haematobium (infection with) Semustine (methyl-CCNU) Shale oils Silica dust, crystalline, in the form of quartz or cristobalite Solar radiation Soot (as found in workplace exposure of chimney sweeps) Sulfur mustard Tamoxifen (Note: There is also conclusive evidence that tamoxifen reduces the risk of contralateral breast cancer in breast cancer patients) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin Thiotepa Thorium-232 and its decay products Tobacco, smokeless Tobacco smoke, secondhand Tobacco smoking ortho-Toluidine Treosulfan Trichloroethylene Ultraviolet (UV) radiation, including UVA, UVB, and UVC rays Ultraviolet-emitting tanning devices Vinyl chloride Wood dust X- and Gamma-radiation
National Toxicology Program 13th Report on Carcinogens "Known to be human carcinogens"
Aflatoxins Alcoholic beverage consumption 4-Aminobiphenyl Analgesic mixtures containing phenacetin Aristolochic acids Arsenic and inorganic arsenic compounds Asbestos Azathioprine Benzene Benzidine Beryllium and beryllium compounds Bis(chloromethyl) ether and technical-grade chloromethyl methyl ether 1,3-Butadiene 1,4-Butanediol dimethylsulfonate (also known as busulfan) Cadmium and cadmium compounds Chlorambucil 1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-(4-methylcyclohexyl)-1-nitrosourea (MeCCNU) Chromium hexavalent compounds Coal tar pitches Coal tars Coke oven emissions Cyclophosphamide Cyclosporin A Diethylstilbestrol (DES) Dyes metabolized to benzidine Erionite Estrogens, steroidal Ethylene oxide Formaldehyde Hepatitis B virus Hepatitis C virus Human papilloma viruses: some genital-mucosal types Melphalan Methoxsalen with ultraviolet A therapy (PUVA) Mineral oils (untreated and mildly treated) Mustard gas 2-Naphthylamine Neutrons Nickel compounds Oral tobacco products Radon Silica, crystalline (respirable size) Solar radiation Soots Strong inorganic acid mists containing sulfuric acid Sunlamps or sunbeds, exposure to Tamoxifen 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD); "dioxin" Thiotepa Thorium dioxide Tobacco smoke, environmental Tobacco, smokeless Tobacco smoking o‑Toluidine Vinyl chloride Ultraviolet radiation, broad spectrum Wood dust X-radiation and gamma radiation
The "no harm to the user" argument is odd isn't it?
Let's be clear, nicotine is a poison, like arsenic or cyanide. It was once used as a pesticide but is now banned in a lot of places (which probably tells you all you need to know).
It is estimated that a dose of around 30-60mg will kill an adult in minutes. That compares with a dose range of 70-200mg for arsenic by the way!
I understand the liquid refills for e-cigs contain around 75mg. So don't swallow one whole or leave them unattended around kids....
My wife gave up smoking 6 months ago, after 30 years. She now smokes e cigarettes (my suggestion). She's addicted to them now. At least they're not detrimental to your health (as far as we know). However, they appear to be as expensive as cigarettes (although advertised as much cheaper). Does anyone else smoke these & if so how do they find them cost wise ?
I'm guessing she smokes the ones that look like fags with replaceable tips? If she wants to save money, she needs to find a proper one which have separate batteries and tanks that can be refilled with eliquid. Those fag look-a-likes are a rip off. They tell you that you'll get 40 fags from a tip and it's BS, it's more like 10, they also cost a fortune to replace. I use a 'Kanger Evod' it cost me 30 quid to buy but has replaceable vapourisers and takes liquid refills. It costs me around £10 per month in liquid and replaceable vaporisers last about a month and cost £1.50 each.
No real evidence as to the non harm of passive e cigarette exposure. Until then I don't want them anywhere near me just like the real thing.
I see this argument all the time and it annoys me intensely. When did we go from banning things because it was demonstrated that they were harmful to banning things because there was no evidence that they weren't harmful? What next, screening to make sure you don't sit next to someone who has a cold? Nobody with badbreath allowed it because there's no evidence that stinky breath doesn't harm people in the general vicinity?
There's tons of evidence. All eliquids are made of flavourings, propelyne glycerine, vegetable glycerine and nicotine. Each one of these ingredients has been extensively tested and none of them are dangerous even to those directly inhaling them. You are as likely to be harmed from ecig vapour as from vapour from the bovril being drunk by the bloke behind you.
The market for e cigarettes is due to be flooded with cheap imitations fron ostensibly China. These products will no doubt work and will have undergone zero testing to see if what they emit is harmful. Straight question. Would you be happy for your child to sit next to someone who is smoking a e cigarette until that time when it is unequivocally proved that these things are safe ?
Oh I forgot. Cold virus and bovril are not carcinogenic.
The "no harm to the user" argument is odd isn't it?
Let's be clear, nicotine is a poison, like arsenic or cyanide. It was once used as a pesticide but is now banned in a lot of places (which probably tells you all you need to know).
It is estimated that a dose of around 30-60mg will kill an adult in minutes. That compares with a dose range of 70-200mg for arsenic by the way!
I understand the liquid refills for e-cigs contain around 75mg. So don't swallow one whole or leave them unattended around kids....
Tests have shown that nicotine in the kind of quantities consumed in ecigs and cigarettes is about as harmful as the caffeine in a cup of coffee. Yes it's a poison, but so are a lot of things that are completely legal and widely available. If you are going to start drinking bottles of nicotine eliquid it's not going to do your health much good, but neither is drinking a whole plethora of other household objects (bleach, toilet cleaner etc). Let's keep things in context.
When used in the correct and proper way, nicotine is less harmful than many other things that we put in our body.
You are most certainly correct about keeping eliquid well away from kids however. The liquid I buy comes in a child safe bottle and I keep it hidden away. I also don't use my ecig around the kids either. I don't want them to see it and grow up thinking it's a normal thing to do.
No real evidence as to the non harm of passive e cigarette exposure. Until then I don't want them anywhere near me just like the real thing.
I see this argument all the time and it annoys me intensely. When did we go from banning things because it was demonstrated that they were harmful to banning things because there was no evidence that they weren't harmful? What next, screening to make sure you don't sit next to someone who has a cold? Nobody with badbreath allowed it because there's no evidence that stinky breath doesn't harm people in the general vicinity?
There's tons of evidence. All eliquids are made of flavourings, propelyne glycerine, vegetable glycerine and nicotine. Each one of these ingredients has been extensively tested and none of them are dangerous even to those directly inhaling them. You are as likely to be harmed from ecig vapour as from vapour from the bovril being drunk by the bloke behind you.
The market for e cigarettes is due to be flooded with cheap imitations fron ostensibly China. These products will no doubt work and will have undergone zero testing to see if what they emit is harmful. Straight question. Would you be happy for your child to sit next to someone who is smoking a e cigarette until that time when it is unequivocally proved that these things are safe ?
Oh I forgot. Cold virus and bovril are not carcinogenic.
1. The cheap imitations from China have been around for years. They are batteries, not eliquid.
2. I do vape around my child with a 100% clear conscious. That's because I know (as in I am certain) that it is safe.
3. Elquid is not carcinogenic. Nothing is set alight. That's why its called vapour rather than smoke. The fact that you don't know this indicates that you don't really know very much about the subject (no particular reason why you should, of course).
No real evidence as to the non harm of passive e cigarette exposure. Until then I don't want them anywhere near me just like the real thing.
I see this argument all the time and it annoys me intensely. When did we go from banning things because it was demonstrated that they were harmful to banning things because there was no evidence that they weren't harmful? What next, screening to make sure you don't sit next to someone who has a cold? Nobody with badbreath allowed it because there's no evidence that stinky breath doesn't harm people in the general vicinity?
There's tons of evidence. All eliquids are made of flavourings, propelyne glycerine, vegetable glycerine and nicotine. Each one of these ingredients has been extensively tested and none of them are dangerous even to those directly inhaling them. You are as likely to be harmed from ecig vapour as from vapour from the bovril being drunk by the bloke behind you.
The market for e cigarettes is due to be flooded with cheap imitations fron ostensibly China. These products will no doubt work and will have undergone zero testing to see if what they emit is harmful. Straight question. Would you be happy for your child to sit next to someone who is smoking a e cigarette until that time when it is unequivocally proved that these things are safe ?
Oh I forgot. Cold virus and bovril are not carcinogenic.
1. The cheap imitations from China have been around for years. They are batteries, not eliquid.
2. I do vape around my child with a 100% clear conscious. That's because I know (as in I am certain) that it is safe.
3. Elquid is not carcinogenic. Nothing is set alight. That's why its called vapour rather than smoke. The fact that you don't know this indicates that you don't really know very much about the subject (no particular reason why you should, of course).
Very condescending of you.
As for the cheap imitations . You have seen them all have you. If they are not identical to yours already then they are being designed or manufactured as I write.
And one other thing. You don't know they are 100% safe. Nobody does.
I've been vaping for 4/5 years. I know the difference between a battery and a liquid. I don't know they are a 100% safe for the person vaping. I do know that they are 100% safe for anyone nearby because I know what vapour is.
Go on - where is your proof that bovril vapour is 100% safe?
But what I really object to is this precautionary approach that if you can't prove that something is 100% safe then it must be banned. The onus should be on the person seeking to ban the substance that it should be banned.
I've been vaping for 4/5 years. I know the difference between a battery and a liquid. I don't know they are a 100% safe for the person vaping. I do know that they are 100% safe for anyone nearby because I know what vapour is.
Why is vapour catagorically safe ? Does it not matter what's in the vapour ? Open a bottle of Sulphuric acid in your house and see how you get on.
I've been vaping for 4/5 years. I know the difference between a battery and a liquid. I don't know they are a 100% safe for the person vaping. I do know that they are 100% safe for anyone nearby because I know what vapour is.
Go on - where is your proof that bovril vapour is 100% safe?
But what I really object to is this precautionary approach that if you can't prove that something is 100% safe then it must be banned. The onus should be on the person seeking to ban the substance that it should be banned.
I'll run it past you one time more then give up. Nobody knows if vape is safe and nobody knows what the new generation of e cigarettes mass produced in China will only be producing vapour regardless of whether they are battered operated or driven by pit ponies on a treadmill.
As for bovril well you diminish your argument by suggesting it might be dangerous other than spilling it in your lap.
But what I really object to is this precautionary approach that if you can't prove that something is 100% safe then it must be banned. The onus should be on the person seeking to ban the substance that it should be banned.
Really? Surely something with unknown dangers should be banned until it is cleared as 'safe' ?
But what I really object to is this precautionary approach that if you can't prove that something is 100% safe then it must be banned. The onus should be on the person seeking to ban the substance that it should be banned.
Really? Surely something with unknown dangers should be banned until it is cleared as 'safe' ?
That is indeed what the law says. Manufacturer are under an obligation to place only safe goods on the market not wait until they are proved unsafe.
You could argue that must mean these things are therefore safe, however there's an awful lot of work going on around the longer term effects of these things than the general public are aware of.
That's aside from all the arguments around them normalising smoking as a behaviour of course.
Sod it. Why don't all smokers just carry on smoking cigarettes. Which are proven to kill you. Then once e cigs are deemed safe, then use them. By that time you probably will be more or less dead. *sigh*
I think the reason the government haven't done anything as of yet, is because they need to see if they can place a tax on just nicotine.
True I think. The government know that cigarette smoking is on a rapid decline. This also means that taxation and revenue from smoking is also on the decline. They cannot ban smoking, not only because of public outcry from the smokers, but because it will leave a massive black hole in their tax revenues. As soon as the current studies are completed and cleared as 'safe', you can bet that there will be duty added to all ecigs and other related materials. Once these things get the green light, all of the people that are considering switching, but are unsure on the longer term affects, will start to move over leaving a deficit in cigarette revenues.
True I think. The government know that cigarette smoking is on a rapid decline. This also means that taxation and revenue from smoking is also on the decline. They cannot ban smoking, not only because of public outcry from the smokers, but because it will leave a massive black hole in their tax revenues. As soon as the current studies are completed and cleared as 'safe', you can bet that there will be duty added to all ecigs and other related materials. Once these things get the green light, all of the people that are considering switching, but are unsure on the longer term affects, will start to move over leaving a deficit in cigarette revenues.
I'm also not sure there's a single smoker out there who is waiting, fag in hand, for e-cigs to be given the all clear as safe before switching. It's clearly nonsensical to continue poisoning yourself whilst waiting for something that may never happen.
Lastly, a lot of the publicity around e-cigarettes being less harmful, an aid to quoting, them not aimed at children, etc is financed by the big tobacco companies. Coincidently they are also heavy investors in the e-cigarette market. One might say they are just Benson & Hedging their bets...
I use my e cig at half time, outside the east stand, causing no harm to no one, got told to stop using it by a steward at the Cardiff game, how stupid is that ! will be more discreet now.
I had the same told her to piss off and do a proper job like stop people actually blatantly smoking real fags
I've been vaping for 4/5 years. I know the difference between a battery and a liquid. I don't know they are a 100% safe for the person vaping. I do know that they are 100% safe for anyone nearby because I know what vapour is.
Go on - where is your proof that bovril vapour is 100% safe?
But what I really object to is this precautionary approach that if you can't prove that something is 100% safe then it must be banned. The onus should be on the person seeking to ban the substance that it should be banned.
nobody knows what the new generation of e cigarettes mass produced in China will only be producing vapour regardless of whether they are battered operated or driven by pit ponies on a treadmill.
The stuff you inhale is the e-liquid which you can source from a large number of British companies, onepoundeliquid for example. It's not the mass produced Chinese battery that is inhaled, the battery just turns the liquid into vapour.
I've been vaping for 4/5 years. I know the difference between a battery and a liquid. I don't know they are a 100% safe for the person vaping. I do know that they are 100% safe for anyone nearby because I know what vapour is.
Go on - where is your proof that bovril vapour is 100% safe?
But what I really object to is this precautionary approach that if you can't prove that something is 100% safe then it must be banned. The onus should be on the person seeking to ban the substance that it should be banned.
nobody knows what the new generation of e cigarettes mass produced in China will only be producing vapour regardless of whether they are battered operated or driven by pit ponies on a treadmill.
The stuff you inhale is the e-liquid which you can source from a large number of British companies, onepoundeliquid for example. It's not the mass produced Chinese battery that is inhaled, the battery just turns the liquid into vapour.
Sorry but you are missing my point. We don't yet know if what comes out of e cigarettes is harmful. I am basing this on the current British Medical Association advice to GP's. The jury is still out. As for Chinese copies of a more quality e cigarette for want of a better description. I will use the analogy of cheap Chinese imitation phone chargers that explode. Nothing wrong with a phone charger but a cheap version won't work or be as safe.
Simple answer designated smoking area at the back of the east stand and the other stands open the gates at half time like they do at reading everyone's happy
True I think. The government know that cigarette smoking is on a rapid decline. This also means that taxation and revenue from smoking is also on the decline. They cannot ban smoking, not only because of public outcry from the smokers, but because it will leave a massive black hole in their tax revenues. As soon as the current studies are completed and cleared as 'safe', you can bet that there will be duty added to all ecigs and other related materials. Once these things get the green light, all of the people that are considering switching, but are unsure on the longer term affects, will start to move over leaving a deficit in cigarette revenues.
I'm also not sure there's a single smoker out there who is waiting, fag in hand, for e-cigs to be given the all clear as safe before switching. It's clearly nonsensical to continue poisoning yourself whilst waiting for something that may never happen.
Lastly, a lot of the publicity around e-cigarettes being less harmful, an aid to quoting, them not aimed at children, etc is financed by the big tobacco companies. Coincidently they are also heavy investors in the e-cigarette market. One might say they are just Benson & Hedging their bets...
You are correct, so let's have a look at some alternative info. It's good to show both sides of an argument I feel...
There are plenty of new vapers out there who've stayed away from them due to not fully knowing the long term risks. I've been part of several vaping forums for a few years and there have been plenty of stories from new vapers that have said as much.
The ecigs that I use are not funded by tobacco companies and neither is the company I buy the liquid off. It's true that the tobacco industry is trying to introduce new vaping products, but at this point they are sub par and not very popular with regular vapers.
However some new users DO try these products and do not get on with them as they are inferior products and quickly these people run back to their normal fags. As you are putting across conspiracy theories about the tobacco industries involvement then maybe you can already see one in what I have detailed...
Bottom line is. Ecigs are safer than fags. Ecigs may have longer term health risks but probably not as bad as fags. In the interest of public health surely it's better for people to switch from a VERY dangerous product to something less dangerous?
Ecigs are designed with smokers in mind. Research suggests that the outright majority of users are former smokers. Similar research also suggests that kids are not latching on to ecigs as they don't have the cool factor.
Although the previous comment is tongue in cheek, I have/had smoked for the past 25 years. I decided on one of those vapour liquid things. After using it for around ten times, realised what a c*** I must look, and stopped. I then applied the same logic with normal cigarettes and have now gone 4 months, 12 days, 4 hours and 27 minutes without one.
Comments
At Doncaster they opened up one of the gates and placed a few low metal fences so that people could go for a cigarette at half time. It took 1 or 2 stewards to man it, and negated this entire issue altogether,
Known human carcinogens
International Agency for Research on Cancer
Group 1: Carcinogenic to humans
Acetaldehyde (from consuming alcoholic beverages)
Acid mists, strong inorganic
Aflatoxins
Alcoholic beverages
Aluminum production
4-Aminobiphenyl
Areca nut
Aristolochic acid (and plants containing it)
Arsenic and inorganic arsenic compounds
Asbestos (all forms) and mineral substances (such as talc or vermiculite) that contain asbestos
Auramine production
Azathioprine
Benzene
Benzidine and dyes metabolized to benzidine
Benzo[a]pyrene
Beryllium and beryllium compounds
Betel quid, with or without tobacco
Bis(chloromethyl)ether and chloromethyl methyl ether (technical-grade)
Busulfan
1,3-Butadiene
Cadmium and cadmium compounds
Chlorambucil
Chlornaphazine
Chromium (VI) compounds
Clonorchis sinensis (infection with), also known as the Chinese liver fluke
Coal, indoor emissions from household combustion
Coal gasification
Coal-tar distillation
Coal-tar pitch
Coke production
Cyclophosphamide
Cyclosporine
1,2-Dichloropropane
Diethylstilbestrol
Engine exhaust, diesel
Epstein-Barr virus (infection with)
Erionite
Estrogen postmenopausal therapy
Estrogen-progestogen postmenopausal therapy (combined)
Estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives (combined) (Note: There is also convincing evidence in humans that these agents confer a protective effect against cancer in the endometrium and ovary)
Ethanol in alcoholic beverages
Ethylene oxide
Etoposide
Etoposide in combination with cisplatin and bleomycin
Fission products, including strontium-90
Fluoro-edenite fibrous amphibole
Formaldehyde
Haematite mining (underground)
Helicobacter pylori (infection with)
Hepatitis B virus (chronic infection with)
Hepatitis C virus (chronic infection with)
Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) (infection with)
Human papilloma virus (HPV) types 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59 (infection with) (Note: The HPV types that have been classified as carcinogenic to humans can differ by an order of magnitude in risk for cervical cancer)
Human T-cell lymphotropic virus type I (HTLV-1) (infection with)
Ionizing radiation (all types)
Iron and steel founding (workplace exposure)
Isopropyl alcohol manufacture using strong acids
Kaposi sarcoma herpesvirus (KSHV) (infection with), also known as human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8) (infection with)
Leather dust
Magenta production
Melphalan
Methoxsalen (8-methoxypsoralen) plus ultraviolet A radiation
4,4'-Methylenebis(chloroaniline) (MOCA)
Mineral oils, untreated or mildly treated
MOPP and other combined chemotherapy including alkylating agents
2-Naphthylamine
Neutron radiation
Nickel compounds
N'-Nitrosonornicotine (NNN) and 4-(N-Nitrosomethylamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK)
Opisthorchis viverrini (infection with), also known as the Southeast Asian liver fluke
Outdoor air pollution and the particulate matter in it
Painter (workplace exposure as a)
3,4,5,3',4'-Pentachlorobiphenyl (PCB-126)
2,3,4,7,8-Pentachlorodibenzofuran
Phenacetin (and mixtures containing it)
Phosphorus-32, as phosphate
Plutonium
Polychlorinated biphenyls (includes dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls with a Toxicity Equivalency Factor according to WHO:(PCBs 77, 81, 105, 114, 118, 123, 126, 156, 157, 167, 169, 189)
Radioiodines, including iodine-131
Radionuclides, alpha-particle-emitting, internally deposited (Note: Specific radionuclides for which there is sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity to humans are also listed individually as Group 1 agents)
Radionuclides, beta-particle-emitting, internally deposited (Note: Specific radionuclides for which there is sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity to humans are also listed individually as Group 1 agents)
Radium-224 and its decay products
Radium-226 and its decay products
Radium-228 and its decay products
Radon-222 and its decay products
Rubber manufacturing industry
Salted fish (Chinese-style)
Schistosoma haematobium (infection with)
Semustine (methyl-CCNU)
Shale oils
Silica dust, crystalline, in the form of quartz or cristobalite
Solar radiation
Soot (as found in workplace exposure of chimney sweeps)
Sulfur mustard
Tamoxifen (Note: There is also conclusive evidence that tamoxifen reduces the risk of contralateral breast cancer in breast cancer patients)
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin
Thiotepa
Thorium-232 and its decay products
Tobacco, smokeless
Tobacco smoke, secondhand
Tobacco smoking
ortho-Toluidine
Treosulfan
Trichloroethylene
Ultraviolet (UV) radiation, including UVA, UVB, and UVC rays
Ultraviolet-emitting tanning devices
Vinyl chloride
Wood dust
X- and Gamma-radiation
National Toxicology Program 13th Report on Carcinogens
"Known to be human carcinogens"
Aflatoxins
Alcoholic beverage consumption
4-Aminobiphenyl
Analgesic mixtures containing phenacetin
Aristolochic acids
Arsenic and inorganic arsenic compounds
Asbestos
Azathioprine
Benzene
Benzidine
Beryllium and beryllium compounds
Bis(chloromethyl) ether and technical-grade chloromethyl methyl ether
1,3-Butadiene
1,4-Butanediol dimethylsulfonate (also known as busulfan)
Cadmium and cadmium compounds
Chlorambucil
1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-(4-methylcyclohexyl)-1-nitrosourea (MeCCNU)
Chromium hexavalent compounds
Coal tar pitches
Coal tars
Coke oven emissions
Cyclophosphamide
Cyclosporin A
Diethylstilbestrol (DES)
Dyes metabolized to benzidine
Erionite
Estrogens, steroidal
Ethylene oxide
Formaldehyde
Hepatitis B virus
Hepatitis C virus
Human papilloma viruses: some genital-mucosal types
Melphalan
Methoxsalen with ultraviolet A therapy (PUVA)
Mineral oils (untreated and mildly treated)
Mustard gas
2-Naphthylamine
Neutrons
Nickel compounds
Oral tobacco products
Radon
Silica, crystalline (respirable size)
Solar radiation
Soots
Strong inorganic acid mists containing sulfuric acid
Sunlamps or sunbeds, exposure to
Tamoxifen
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD); "dioxin"
Thiotepa
Thorium dioxide
Tobacco smoke, environmental
Tobacco, smokeless
Tobacco smoking
o‑Toluidine
Vinyl chloride
Ultraviolet radiation, broad spectrum
Wood dust
X-radiation and gamma radiation
Let's be clear, nicotine is a poison, like arsenic or cyanide. It was once used as a pesticide but is now banned in a lot of places (which probably tells you all you need to know).
It is estimated that a dose of around 30-60mg will kill an adult in minutes. That compares with a dose range of 70-200mg for arsenic by the way!
I understand the liquid refills for e-cigs contain around 75mg. So don't swallow one whole or leave them unattended around kids....
BTW a Belgium was once murdered - his poisoners using nicotine - just saying... It's a fascinating tale which did a lot for toxicology apparently. wired.com/2012/05/nicotine-and-the-chemistry-of-murder/
Oh I forgot. Cold virus and bovril are not carcinogenic.
When used in the correct and proper way, nicotine is less harmful than many other things that we put in our body.
You are most certainly correct about keeping eliquid well away from kids however. The liquid I buy comes in a child safe bottle and I keep it hidden away. I also don't use my ecig around the kids either. I don't want them to see it and grow up thinking it's a normal thing to do.
2. I do vape around my child with a 100% clear conscious. That's because I know (as in I am certain) that it is safe.
3. Elquid is not carcinogenic. Nothing is set alight. That's why its called vapour rather than smoke. The fact that you don't know this indicates that you don't really know very much about the subject (no particular reason why you should, of course).
As for the cheap imitations . You have seen them all have you. If they are not identical to yours already then they are being designed or manufactured as I write.
And one other thing. You don't know they are 100% safe. Nobody does.
Go on - where is your proof that bovril vapour is 100% safe?
But what I really object to is this precautionary approach that if you can't prove that something is 100% safe then it must be banned. The onus should be on the person seeking to ban the substance that it should be banned.
As for bovril well you diminish your argument by suggesting it might be dangerous other than spilling it in your lap.
You could argue that must mean these things are therefore safe, however there's an awful lot of work going on around the longer term effects of these things than the general public are aware of.
That's aside from all the arguments around them normalising smoking as a behaviour of course.
I think the reason the government haven't done anything as of yet, is because they need to see if they can place a tax on just nicotine.
I'm also not sure there's a single smoker out there who is waiting, fag in hand, for e-cigs to be given the all clear as safe before switching. It's clearly nonsensical to continue poisoning yourself whilst waiting for something that may never happen.
Lastly, a lot of the publicity around e-cigarettes being less harmful, an aid to quoting, them not aimed at children, etc is financed by the big tobacco companies. Coincidently they are also heavy investors in the e-cigarette market. One might say they are just Benson & Hedging their bets...
Sorry but you are missing my point. We don't yet know if what comes out of e cigarettes is harmful. I am basing this on the current British Medical Association advice to GP's. The jury is still out. As for Chinese copies of a more quality e cigarette for want of a better description. I will use the analogy of cheap Chinese imitation phone chargers that explode. Nothing wrong with a phone charger but a cheap version won't work or be as safe.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29061169
There are plenty of new vapers out there who've stayed away from them due to not fully knowing the long term risks. I've been part of several vaping forums for a few years and there have been plenty of stories from new vapers that have said as much.
The ecigs that I use are not funded by tobacco companies and neither is the company I buy the liquid off. It's true that the tobacco industry is trying to introduce new vaping products, but at this point they are sub par and not very popular with regular vapers.
However some new users DO try these products and do not get on with them as they are inferior products and quickly these people run back to their normal fags. As you are putting across conspiracy theories about the tobacco industries involvement then maybe you can already see one in what I have detailed...
Bottom line is. Ecigs are safer than fags. Ecigs may have longer term health risks but probably not as bad as fags. In the interest of public health surely it's better for people to switch from a VERY dangerous product to something less dangerous?
Ecigs are designed with smokers in mind. Research suggests that the outright majority of users are former smokers. Similar research also suggests that kids are not latching on to ecigs as they don't have the cool factor.
After using it for around ten times, realised what a c*** I must look, and stopped.
I then applied the same logic with normal cigarettes and have now gone 4 months, 12 days, 4 hours and 27 minutes without one.