Policy on E-cigs

[RDC1]

That study was proven inaccurate for several reasons, a good start is here

https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~dshuster/e-Cigarettes/Schober_2014b.pdf

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Actually the e-cig industry tried to claim that the study was flawed. It is ironic that you did not post the e-cig letter that made the claims that it was inaccurate. Instead you posted the authors response which indicates how the letter from the e-cig industry was incorrect and why the study was valid.

 

If you are trying to show that it is flawed suggest you might start with the letter about the article from Farsalinos and Voudris, and not the response from Schober. Of course if you did I would have just posted the response from Schober, so I guess you just saved us a couple of steps.

 

If you are really interested in the state of current research concerning e-cigs you might try reading a very good review of published literature:

 

Contemporary Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine

E-Cigarettes

A Scientific Review

Rachel Grana, PhD, MPH; Neal Benowitz, MD; Stanton A. Glantz, PhD

 

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/129/19/1972.full

 

It lists most of the published papers and summarizes the results quite nicely. Both the good and the bad points.

Edited February 4, 2015 by RDC1

[RDC1]

Actually that is exactly what they were measuring.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Actually not. They were testing for

 

Pollutants included VOCs, carbonyls, PAHs, nicotine, TSNAs, and glycols

 

VOC, volatile organic compounds

PAHs, Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

TSNAs, Tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines

 

If they were studing particulates they would have listed PM, particulate matter or PNC, particle number concentrations.

 

Now one would expect for the categories they measured there would be substantial differences between e-cigs and regular cigarettes, especially if they selected pretty basic fluids without flavorings.

Edited February 4, 2015 by RDC1

[wingatesl]

Actually the e-cig industry tried to claim that the study was flawed. It is ironic that you did not post the e-cig letter that made the claims that it was inaccurate. Instead you posted the authors response which indicates how the letter from the e-cig industry was incorrect and why the study was valid.

 

If you are trying to show that it is flawed suggest you might start with the letter about the article from Farsalinos and Voudris, and not the response from Schober. Of course if you did I would have just posted the response from Schober, so I guess you just saved us a couple of steps.

 

If you are really interested in the state of current research concerning e-cigs you might try reading a very good review of published literature:

 

Contemporary Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine

E-Cigarettes

A Scientific Review

Rachel Grana, PhD, MPH; Neal Benowitz, MD; Stanton A. Glantz, PhD

 

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/129/19/1972.full

 

It lists most of the published papers and summarizes the results quite nicely. Both the good and the bad points.

 

 

I had meant to include the link to his original as well and show the differences between the two.. Getting pretty tired. I will take a look at your link.

 

Edit: original http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24373737

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited February 4, 2015 by wingatesl

[jstraw20]

If you are going to disparage Farsalinos then please don't attempt to pass off Glantz as some bastion of unbiased scientific truth.

Edited February 4, 2015 by jstraw20

[RDC1]

I had meant to include the link to his original as well and show the differences between the two.. Getting pretty tired. I will take a look at your link.

 

Edit: original http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24373737

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Well, you have now posted the abstract to the original, and previously Schober's response to the letter critiquing the paper, but you have still not posted the actual letter from Farsalinos and Voudris that tried to claim that the Schober et.al. paper was flawed.

 

Hard to show differences between an abstract and a rebuttal letter. Especially since the rebuttal primarily focused on describing the study design, the logic behind it and why the letter from Farsalinos and Voudris was incorrect in their critique. Most of the rebuttal letter was spent describing why Schober et.al. interpreted the data the way that they did, including references.

Edited February 4, 2015 by RDC1

[wingatesl]

Well, you have now posted the abstract to the original, and previously Schober's response to the letter critiquing the paper, but you have still not posted the actual letter from Farsalinos and Voudris that tried to claim that the Schober et.al. paper was flawed.

 

Hard to show differences between an abstract and a rebuttal letter. Especially since the rebuttal primarily focused on describing the study design, the logic behind it and why the letter from Farsalinos and Voudris was incorrect in their critique. Most of the rebuttal letter was spent describing why Schober et.al. interpreted the data the way that they did, including references.

 

 

I was looking specifically at pah. Between the two documents he states two very different numbers.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RDC1]

If you are going to disparage Farsalinos then please don't attempt to pass off Glantz as some bastion of unbiased scientific truth.

 

I did not disparage Farsalinos. Only indicated that Schober had posted a rebuttal to the Farsalinos letter.

 

Nor did I say that Glantz was a bastion of unbiased truth. I did refer to the paper of which Glantz was a co-Author to do a pretty good job covering the current state of research, both good and bad. I would be interested in any specifics you have that indicates that Glantz's work is invalid or inaccurate.

Clearly Glantz's prior work has indicated negative impacts of cigarette smoking and he has published a fair amount of information related to government policy and its impact on cigarette smoking.

 

Now I do find it interesting that when you review Farsalinos papers, he must spend an lot of time writing critiques on publications that have negative findings on e-cigs. Since a number of his listed publications are in that area.

 

 

I would expect from what I have read from each of them that Glantz is very much against cigarette smoking (after spending 10 years working on developing Oncology products aimed at treating lung cancer, especially NSCLC, I would have to agree with him in that area) and is in favor of government policy limiting their use. His articles on e-cigs, including the one I referenced seemed to be far milder in his conclusions. The following paragraph from the conclusions seems pretty reasonable to me:

 

Although data are limited, it is clear that e-cigarette emissions are not merely “harmless water vapor,” as is frequently claimed, and can be a source of indoor air pollution. Smoke-free policies protect nonsmokers from exposure to toxins and encourage smoking cessation.124 One hundred percent smoke-free policies have larger effects on consumption and smoking prevalence,125 as well as hospital admissions for myocardial infarction, stroke, and other cardiovascular and pulmonary emergencies,126 than weaker policies. Introducing e-cigarettes into clean air environments may result in population harm if use of the product reinforces the act of smoking as socially acceptable or if use undermines the benefits of smoke-free policies.

 

He is correct in that the most effective government policy in getting people to stop smoking has been to restrict where people can smoke. I believe that he is also correct in that if e-cigs return smoking to the land of being socially acceptable then it does have the potential to result in substantial harm.

 

As far as Farsalinos goes most of his recent work seems to be in comparisons between e-cigs and regular cigarettes and show that e-cigs are better than regular cigarettes.

 

I don't think that there is much doubt on that.

 

However, he has also spent substantial time critiquing studies that have found issues with e-cigs, including a WHO publication, as well as the article referenced above by Schober.

 

Now WHO does provide funding to Stanford and Glantz's organization. It is less clear on exactly where Farsalinos gets his funding from.

 

So clearly Glantz is in the camp that smoking both e-cigs and regular cigarettes should be restricted as a matter of government policy and Farsalinos is in the camp that e-cigs are better then cigarettes and should be encouraged.

[RDC1]

I was looking specifically at pah. Between the two documents he states two very different numbers.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Would you care to quote specifics.

[RDC1]

I was looking specifically at pah. Between the two documents he states two very different numbers.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

To save some time

 

this is the pah info listed in the abstract

 

The concentration of putative carcinogenic PAH in indoor air increased by 20% to 147 ng/m(3),

 

This is the discussion of PAH in the rebuttal letter

 

the comments we would like to point out the following.

It is stated that control and vaping sessions were performed

on different days, and, therefore, differences in PAH levels may be

caused by day-to-day changes in environmental levels. Motor vehicle

emissions represent a major source of ambient PAH and,thus, in

urban areas time-dependent variations in PAH levels are primarily

traffic-related (Lintelmann et al., 2005; Schauer et al., 2003).

Aerosol samples collected over 3 years for 24 h at busy roads in

Munich (Germany) showed PAH contents between 1.67 ng/m3 and

15.13 ng/m3 (Schnelle-Kreis et al., 2001). Such background PAH levels

wouldcontribute <5%to the overall PAHburdenobservedduring

the vaping sessions (276.5 ng/m3 to 663.0 ng/m3) and would not be

of relevance. Furthermore, we do not consider the mere presence of

subjects without any vaping activity as a serious indoor source for

PAH or other pollutants. Thus, control measurements were taken

without room occupancy.

 

The rebuttal letter does not give different numbers then does the abstract. It is just giving data on why the critique about the PAH measure (it being subject to background changes since the tests were run over multiple days) was not valid.

 

Anything else??

[RDC1]

If you are going to disparage Farsalinos then please don't attempt to pass off Glantz as some bastion of unbiased scientific truth.

 

Not to disparage Farsalinos, but when looking into his funding I did find

 

For contribution of $500 OR MORE, you will receive an official invoice for "research services for e-cigarettes". Please allow 10% for paypal and indiegogo fees (unless you provide the contribution by different route). Every contribution done outside this campaign will be announced publicly. Please contact kfarsalinos@gmail.com to provide the details that should be mentioned in the invoice.

 

We now initiate this crowdfunding campaign to expand our research. This is probably the most exciting field in e-cigarette research that will generate valuable information not only for scientists and regulators but also for consumers (vapers) who will be provided with information on the best way to use the devices (especially the new generation devices), without sacrificing pleasure. Temperature evaluation is one of the most crucial factors in determining safety of e-cigarette use, and any improvements in this field will further reduce any small residual risk associated with e-cigarette use.

 

 

So it would appear that his research is now focused on trying to develop a safer e-cig.

 

 

I also found that in a description where he was presenting at a conference contained the following disclaimer

 

Competing Interest: For some of the studies, the institution has received funding from e-cigarette companies. None of the researchers received any compensation for participating to the studies.

 

Now here is an interesting interview with Farsalinos.

 

http://vaping.com/news/exclusive-ecf-interview-dr-konstantinos-farsalinos

 

In this interview he makes the following statement

 

Nobody is expecting e-cigarettes to be an absolutely safe and healthy habit though…but they don’t have to be.

 

He very much seems to feel that since e-cigs are safer then regular cigarettes they should be encouraged, even though we do not know long term impacts. He also basically negates the negative impact of e-cigs attracting non-smokers to take up smoking e-cigs.

 

 

So you have an e-cig advocate, and one who advocates that all smoking should be regulated. One funded primarily by e-cig companies and users and one funded by WHO and other government policy related organizations.

 

Make your own decisions about bias potential.

Edited February 4, 2015 by RDC1

[slinkythecat]

I find the smell of strong "perfume" much more offensive then the smell of vapers. Try eating a nice dinner with someone sitting near reeking of perfume and I can only wonder what kind of chemicals are used that I have to inhale. Never smelled vaping aromas although I've been near people vaping, but I have had dinners ruined because of someone dousing themselves with some chemical aroma.

[bouhunter]

Not to disparage Farsalinos, but when looking into his funding I did find

 

For contribution of $500 OR MORE, you will receive an official invoice for "research services for e-cigarettes". Please allow 10% for paypal and indiegogo fees (unless you provide the contribution by different route). Every contribution done outside this campaign will be announced publicly. Please contact kfarsalinos@gmail.com to provide the details that should be mentioned in the invoice.

 

We now initiate this crowdfunding campaign to expand our research. This is probably the most exciting field in e-cigarette research that will generate valuable information not only for scientists and regulators but also for consumers (vapers) who will be provided with information on the best way to use the devices (especially the new generation devices), without sacrificing pleasure. Temperature evaluation is one of the most crucial factors in determining safety of e-cigarette use, and any improvements in this field will further reduce any small residual risk associated with e-cigarette use.

 

 

So it would appear that his research is now focused on trying to develop a safer e-cig.

 

 

I also found that in a description where he was presenting at a conference contained the following disclaimer

 

Competing Interest: For some of the studies, the institution has received funding from e-cigarette companies. None of the researchers received any compensation for participating to the studies.

 

Now here is an interesting interview with Farsalinos.

 

http://vaping.com/news/exclusive-ecf-interview-dr-konstantinos-farsalinos

 

In this interview he makes the following statement

 

Nobody is expecting e-cigarettes to be an absolutely safe and healthy habit though…but they don’t have to be.

 

He very much seems to feel that since e-cigs are safer then regular cigarettes they should be encouraged, even though we do not know long term impacts. He also basically negates the negative impact of e-cigs attracting non-smokers to take up smoking e-cigs.

 

 

So you have an e-cig advocate, and one who advocates that all smoking should be regulated. One funded primarily by e-cig companies and users and one funded by WHO and other government policy related organizations.

 

Make your own decisions about bias potential.

 

I cannot believe someone would bother to post such a detailed bizarrre post.............. FYI I am not a smoker. This post was just too funny!!!!!

[CaribSailor]

I find the smell of strong "perfume" much more offensive then the smell of vapers. Try eating a nice dinner with someone sitting near reeking of perfume and I can only wonder what kind of chemicals are used that I have to inhale. Never smelled vaping aromas although I've been near people vaping, but I have had dinners ruined because of someone dousing themselves with some chemical aroma.

 

 

I can't stand getting in an elevator or dining next to someone who decided they wanted to bathe in their preferred fragrance, it is plain nasty. And agree with the fumes, it is so nice to walk behind someone and inhale their cloud of puke as they stroll along or walk by. There are studies out there about the chemicals in perfume/cologne. I bet if someone actually cared about what they are spraying on their skin and took the time to understand what's in it they would be appalled. I think the NEJM did a few studies. On the ecig front? I don't mind them one bit. Puff away my friends and no I am not a smoker or vaporer.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums mobile app

Edited February 4, 2015 by CaribSailor

[RDC1]

I cannot believe someone would bother to post such a detailed bizarrre post.............. FYI I am not a smoker. This post was just too funny!!!!!

 

Another poster raised the question of bias concerning the two authors of two of the studies introduced. So in response I looked into both authors backgrounds.

It is kind of interesting. I have always found if you really want context look at funding.

 

That is not to say that the authors do not believe what they are saying, but funding tends to match an authors views.

[RDC1]

I find the smell of strong "perfume" much more offensive then the smell of vapers. Try eating a nice dinner with someone sitting near reeking of perfume and I can only wonder what kind of chemicals are used that I have to inhale. Never smelled vaping aromas although I've been near people vaping, but I have had dinners ruined because of someone dousing themselves with some chemical aroma.

 

Don't disagree with you there. I have had anaphylaxis like reactions due to some perfumes. I say like, because I have not been diagnosed as having any particular allergy. I can tell when I am in proximity with some perfumes because my eyes start itching and if I do not remove myself quickly from the area my throat will start to swell.

 

The issue with vaping is not the aromas, in general. Some flavors may cause problematic, but in general the problem is not smell.

 

The biggest problem is particulates in the PM2.5 range. There are a range of potential other issues, but they vary widely depending upon the particular fluid, and the manufacturer of the device (quality control is somewhat lacking).

 

So used outside there is not really an issue in general (except maybe to the use themself). Used inside in private space that is not ventilated to other inside space, also not really an issue (unless some spills nicotine containing fluid then you can have some potential for through skin absorption later on).

 

Used inside. even in well ventilated space can result in problems. Especially to others that already have health problems.

[Gon2hwe]

You cant discuss anything about smoking or vaping on these boards without being attacted. New group forming in sm "Royal Caribbean Smokers and Friends Discussion Group". No nasty comments allowed.

[twindaddy]

I wish they would ban drinking anything on the balcony too. We had Coke cans fly into the balcony last week on the Serenade twice. Thank goodness neither hit us. Throwing anything off of balconies is dangerous. I'd like to enjoy my balcony without being worried about getting hit by a flying object. They need to ban drinking on the balconies completely. Yes, it's only a few but it's enough to endanger others.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

Throwing or dropping things off balconies is banned, so your post makes no sense.

 

I do not understand much of the logic on this thread. Smoking is very bad, vaping is not nearly as bad, but still not something that should be done right beside you. I fully support a vaping area on all ships, but not inside

 

People who dump a ton of perfume on are bad. People who do not bath are bad. Just because those exist does not make an excuse for someone vaping next to me in the elevator.

[LMaxwell]

Throwing or dropping things off balconies is banned, so your post makes no sense.

 

I do not understand much of the logic on this thread. Smoking is very bad, vaping is not nearly as bad, but still not something that should be done right beside you. I fully support a vaping area on all ships, but not inside

 

People who dump a ton of perfume on are bad. People who do not bath are bad. Just because those exist does not make an excuse for someone vaping next to me in the elevator.

[emoji106] [emoji106] [emoji568]

[tiessa]

Throwing or dropping things off balconies is banned, so your post makes no sense.

 

 

 

I do not understand much of the logic on this thread. Smoking is very bad, vaping is not nearly as bad, but still not something that should be done right beside you. I fully support a vaping area on all ships, but not inside

 

 

 

People who dump a ton of perfume on are bad. People who do not bath are bad. Just because those exist does not make an excuse for someone vaping next to me in the elevator.

 

 

Smoking is bad for those around you when smoke goes to another balcony and it is dangerous if someone throws a lit cigarette off of the balcony so there is no smoking allowed on balconies. Drinking is bad for those around you when you thro cans or bottles off of the balcony. Obviously banning throwing cigarettes or cans off the balcony is banned but it doesn't stop anyone. Therefore banning drinking, just like smoking, will help solve the problem.

 

Makes perfect sense to me. I just want us all to be safe and able to enjoy our balconies.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

[LMaxwell]

Smoking is bad for those around you when smoke goes to another balcony and it is dangerous if someone throws a lit cigarette off of the balcony so there is no smoking allowed on balconies. Drinking is bad for those around you when you thro cans or bottles off of the balcony. Obviously banning throwing cigarettes or cans off the balcony is banned but it doesn't stop anyone. Therefore banning drinking, just like smoking, will help solve the problem.

 

Makes perfect sense to me. I just want us all to be safe and able to enjoy our balconies.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

You've got quite the interesting logic loop there

[shellunderwater]

Oh wow.... still bickering.

[twindaddy]

Smoking is bad for those around you when smoke goes to another balcony and it is dangerous if someone throws a lit cigarette off of the balcony so there is no smoking allowed on balconies. Drinking is bad for those around you when you thro cans or bottles off of the balcony. Obviously banning throwing cigarettes or cans off the balcony is banned but it doesn't stop anyone. Therefore banning drinking, just like smoking, will help solve the problem.

 

Makes perfect sense to me. I just want us all to be safe and able to enjoy our balconies.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

Here is where your logic dies. If you smoke on a balcony, the smoke goes elsewhere. There is nothing you can do about that. Cigarette smoke will go on other balconies no matter what you try.

 

Drinking on a balcony does not automatically equal cans flying off. You have to take another step (throwing / being careless) for that to happen.

 

Your post and your logic makes no sense, and I think you know that.

 

FAIL.

Edited February 5, 2015 by twindaddy

[gemsm]

Quite agree! It's yet another example of someone who says I don't care about the rules, I will vape where and when I like, and I don't give a damn.

 

Hope I am not the unfortunate one to take over the cabin when he has finished vaping in it!

 

It's sad really, to see another addiction taking over, where people cannot even go to see a movie unless they can suck on their e-cig. What did they do when smoking was banned in movie theatres and there were NO e-cigs? Is this progress? Seems to me the addiction is even worse!

 

You wouldn't have a clue I was vaping in the cabin. I'm a she. And I'm not above the rules as I didn't break any...You must have missed the part where Maryland has not banned vaping anywhere...I.E. ANYWHERE!!! That includes movie theaters, restaurants, grocery stores etc...so I haven't broken any damn rules.

 

As for respect...You people have no respect for smokers so why would you expect respect from smokers?

[gemsm]

I cannot believe someone would bother to post such a detailed bizarrre post.............. FYI I am not a smoker. This post was just too funny!!!!!

 

This is the norm from RDC1 which is why I didn't bother posting anything because he would just refute it with some other study that Glantz did blah blah blah.

 

He seems to think that any studies funded by the e-cigarette industry are worthless and all studies by ANTZ are the only ones valid. Part of the issues with current research is none of it is real world situations. For instance the formaldyhyde news that recently came out...It is interesting but nobody vapes in any way shape or form the way they did during the research.

 

The particulate study that RDC1 references put 9 people in a tiny well ventilated room and had them vape for several continuous hours...Doubt you will ever see that.

 

It is the same way they manipulated the second-hand smoke cigarette studies to make it seem like second-hand smoke is much more dangerous then car exhaust, smog, ozone, etc...

[Karma5]

You wouldn't have a clue I was vaping in the cabin. I'm a she. And I'm not above the rules as I didn't break any...You must have missed the part where Maryland has not banned vaping anywhere...I.E. ANYWHERE!!! That includes movie theaters, restaurants, grocery stores etc...so I haven't broken any damn rules.

 

As for respect...You people have no respect for smokers so why would you expect respect from smokers?

 

If you smoke or vap in a room on a RC ship you are breaking the rules……on board policies..look them up yourself……...