WHO's rationale for decision

[Gonloopy]

For those that are dedicated enough to plough through,- here's the document on which a lot of today's decisions appear to have been based.

http://apps.who.int/gb/fctc/PDF/cop6/FCTC_COP6_10-en.pdf

 

[Mawsley]

For those that are dedicated enough to plough through,- here's the document on which a lot of today's decisions made by WHO appear to have been based.

http://apps.who.int/gb/fctc/PDF/cop6/FCTC_COP6_10-en.pdf

Point 12. Not true
Point 13. A lie
Point 14. Wholly irrelevant as nicotine overdose is negated by the body's response to poisoning
Point 15. Cytotoxicity has not be proven and particulate size is wholly irrelevant to the discussion
Point 16. a) Particulate size again
Point 16. b) Second hand vaping is irrelevant when first hand vaping has been demonstrated to produce orders of magnitude less risk
Point 17. No one claims it's water vapour - more lies
Point 18. Six years of ASH annual studies are not anecdotal
Point 19. Six years of ASH annual studies do not constitute 'limited'

...and I'm bored of reading this fucking bollocks.

Seriously, the cunts involved in the production of this utter piece of crap warrant a fucking head removal. Hopeless fucking inbred, scientifically illiterate, corrupt cunts.

 

[Mawsley]

 

[Gonloopy]

Point 12. Not true
Point 13. A lie
Point 14. Wholly irrelevant as nicotine overdose is negated by the body's response to poisoning
Point 15. Cytotoxicity has not be proven and particulate size is wholly irrelevant to the discussion
Point 16. a) Particulate size again
Point 16. b) Second hand vaping is irrelevant when first hand vaping has been demonstrated to produce orders of magnitude less risk
Point 17. No one claims it's water vapour - more lies
Point 18. Six years of ASH annual studies are not anecdotal
Point 19. Six years of ASH annual studies do not constitute 'limited'

...and I'm bored of reading this fucking bollocks.

Seriously, the cunts involved in the production of this utter piece of crap warrant a fucking head removal. Hopeless fucking inbred, scientifically illiterate, corrupt cunts.

^ +1

 

[Diche]

I thought it was going to be a real tough nut with that introduction Gonloopy, but it is only 13 pages. I will be back in a bit, but I just wanted to comment on the first paragraph given that is how far I have got and I am already annoyed.

This document was prepared in response to a request.....to examine emerging evidence on the health impact of electronic nicotine delivery systems use and to identify options for their prevention and control

They haven't asked the scientists to provide evidence as to whether vaping needs preventing or controlling, just for tips on how to do it!

 

[Gonloopy]

Ok, so if there is anybody out there that may be concerned or confused by what WHO has said today. I've posted a link below.

This is a systematic review of the available evidence. A systematic review is where all evidence is pulled together into one document and an overall conclusion based on all the evidence is made.....

Heres an excerpt

Methods
Both peer-reviewed and “grey” literature were accessed and more than 9,000 observations of highly variable quality were extracted. Comparisons to the most universally recognized workplace exposure standards, Threshold Limit Values (TLVs), were conducted under “worst case” assumptions about both chemical content of aerosol and liquids as well as behavior of vapers.

Results
There was no evidence of potential for exposures of e-cigarette users to contaminants that are associated with risk to health at a level that would warrant attention if it were an involuntary workplace exposures. The vast majority of predicted exposures are < <1% of TLV. Predicted exposures to acrolein and formaldehyde are typically <5% TLV. Considering exposure to the aerosol as a mixture of contaminants did not indicate that exceeding half of TLV for mixtures was plausible. Only exposures to the declared major ingredients -- propylene glycol and glycerin -- warrant attention because of precautionary nature of TLVs for exposures to hydrocarbons with no established toxicity.

And here's the link to the full document:
BMC Public Health | Full text | Peering through the mist: systematic review of what the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tells us about health risks

 

[FromTheDarkness]

Point 17.

Ok so it is saying its not just water vapor.

So what is being exhaled?

Im asking personally, for the well being of my son. As i dont actively vape with him, in his face or anything like that. But he may well walk into a room after ive had a vape, and there is still vaper present.

I vape on 0.6mg so on the exhale how much if any would be released?

I do not wish him to be exposed to any nicotine at all. zero. And if it means me standing outside and vaping in the snow/ rain/ ice i will do so.

Im also considering making my own liquid, with as least ingredients as possible now. ie mentol.

I dont particularly care about my own well being, as im 100% aware that vaping is massively better for me than smoking.

But i do care about any ... and i mean any exposure to my child. Yes cars/ factories all give shite out, but thats out of my control. I would hate to be part of any ill harm no matter how small the risk etc

When i was a smoker, i smoked 200 yards away at the end of the garden, then brushed my teeth and waited 20mins before even being near my son

- My father and Mother where heavy smokers, and i think that all that secondary smoke inhalation had a factor in me becoming a smoker at the age of 14.

I dont want my son, inhaling any nicotine via my vaping.

 

[Gonloopy]

Point 17.

Ok so it is saying its not just water vapor.

So what is being exhaled?

Im asking personally, for the well being of my son. As i dont actively vape with him, in his face or anything like that. But he may well walk into a room after ive had a vape, and there is still vaper present.

I vape on 0.6mg so on the exhale how much if any would be released?

I do not wish him to be exposed to any nicotine at all. zero. And if it means me standing outside and vaping in the snow/ rain/ ice i will do so.

Im also considering making my own liquid, with as least ingredients as possible now. ie mentol.

I dont particularly care about my own well being, as im 100% aware that vaping is massively better for me than smoking.

But i do care about any ... and i mean any exposure to my child. Yes cars/ factories all give shite out, but thats out of my control. I would hate to be part of any ill harm no matter how small the risk etc

When i was a smoker, i smoked 200 yards away at the end of the garden, then brushed my teeth and waited 20mins before even being near my son

- My father and Mother where heavy smokers, and i think that all that secondary smoke inhalation had a factor in me becoming a smoker at the age of 14.

I dont want my son, inhaling any nicotine via my vaping.

Look up. That's the best evidence we have at the moment

 

[coldo]

whistling that awesome fucking tune now...

 

[Diche]

It is actually quite an interesting report. The major concerns seem to be focused on the entry of the Tobacco giants in to the world of vaping. Which tbh I whole-heartedly agree with. The uptake of vaping by non-smokers who wouldn't have taken up smoking, which I don't really mind them discouraging though there is of course the question of free will. And further studies into the safety of vaping for those that choose to do so. However the mechanisms they are suggesting for implementing these aims seem preposterously draconian. The one bit that did make me smile was the suggestion that cigalikes should be banned as should the term e-cigarettes. Vapers we are and vapers we shall stay