After the WHO's fearmomgering statements the other day, I found myself debating with (ok then, trolling) the antis who were spouting their usual crap on the BBC have your say comments. Part of those exchanges have got me thinking about risk profiles. One of the antz made a sweeping statement (along the lines of) he didn't want to be sat in the same room as someone vaping because 'passive vapour' hadn't been scientifically proven to be safe. I helpfully provided a link to Dr F's e-cig research website and invited them to take a look. I got the responses that Dr F isn't a scientist, probably has a vested interest, that his team's peer reviewed research was worthless because the peers doing the reviewing were biased and basically lacked integrity. Another response stated that 'passive vapour' hadn't been proven to be safe and until such time as it was proven to be safe, vaping in enclosed areas should be banned as a precautionary measure. On the face of it, that stance seems fairly reasonable and rational if one steps back and looks at the big picture, but on closer examination, it reveals a blinkered, bigoted mindset. It would appear that any research conducted that shows 'passive vapour' as being safe will be dismissed by the anti brigade as being biased and lacking integrity and therefore, inadmissible as evidence of safety. But this brings an important point to light in the whole safety debate, namely, how does one quantify safety? One of the antz commented that he would not risk the health of himself and his family by travelling in a car with a vaper because the enclosed space and lack of evidence to prove 'passive vapour' safety would make it an unacceptable risk in his judgement ( or words to that effect.. im paraphrasing here). That struck me as being somewhat ludicrous. Every time he and his family decide to make a journey in a car, there is an associated risk of of injury/death due to road accidents. Mr Antz makes an assessment of those risks and judges that the probability of having an accident is low enough to make taking that journey an acceptable risk in the majority of cases. Science is based on statistical observation and analysis of data. Statistics show that there are hundreds of deaths per year attributed to road accidents. Statistics also show that not a single death can be attributed to passive vapour. Despite this, Mr Antz is still happy to risk his family making a car journey, unless there happens to be a vaper in the vehicle. Now I've heard antz say that vapers are just deluding themselves about risk, but the above mindset seems a damn site more deluded to me. So how can we allay Mr Antz fears about the possible dangers of 'passive vapour' and make the risk profile of a journey with a vaper in the vehicle acceptable to him? The short answer is we can't. Mr Antz refuses to accept positive research because he believes it is biased and unreliable. Even if research shows a negligible risk profile, Mr Antz will find this unacceptable because he demands ABSOLUTE safety.. a complete lack of risk. This is entirely impossible to provide because no human activity has a zero risk profile. People have been reported to injure themselves from even from such mundane tasks as getting dressed or undressed.. something that the vast majority of us do on a daily basis. Would Mr Antz advocate banning clothing because it doesn't have a zero risk profile? No, he would assess that the risk of injury whilst dressing is minute and therefore, acceptable. So why do folk like Mr Antz demand absolute safety from 'passive vapour'? The simple answer is that they subscribe to a hate fuelled, narrow minded, bigoted ideology. It's time folk like these were called out on their impossible demands for absolute safety. There are levels of acceptable risk assigned to the workplace and under employment law, an employer must produce risk assessments of possible safety issues and enact policies to minimise the risk profile of those issues to an acceptable level. Note I say MINIMISE, not eliminate. There is an inherent risk in any activity and to eliminate risk entirely is impossible. Because of this there are official 'safe' levels of airborne contaminants that are deemed to be acceptable in the workplace (and indeed, in general air quality in the 'open'). These need to be applied to the wider debate on the safety of 'passive vapour' and it needs to be hammered home to folk like Mr Antz that their demands for absolute safety are not only impossible to satisfy, but also delusional. An acceptable risk profile needs to be formulated for 'passive vapour' that has parameters that are comparable to guidelines for workplace safety. If a risk profile like this can be formulated and scientific research produced that shows 'passive vapour' falls into an acceptable risk profile, then folk like Mr Antz are only left with the argument 'it needs to be banned because I don't like it'. Of course, Mr Antz will maintain that any research that shows passive vapour has an acceptable risk profile is biased or 'rigged', but another foundation stone of science along with analytical observation is reproduction (no, not that kind of reproduction you filthy minded vapers ) I mean the reproduction of results. If an experiment is carried out by one team, the results of that experiment can always be called into question. If that same experiment is carried out by multiple teams that are all able to achieve the same results, the original team's results gain validity and are seen as being scientifically 'sound'. If the research carried out by the likes of Dr F can be reproduced and validated, it shows Mr Antz's accusations of foul play to be the bigoted codswallop that it really is and that there IS an acceptable risk profile for passive vapour. But Mr Antz doesn't want or believe in an acceptable risk when it comes to passive vapour, even though he unconsciously makes risk assessments constantly in his everyday life and decides that risk is often acceptable. Mr Antz is a delusional, bigoted idiot.