That is patently false, and even if nicotine were healthy, it should be someone’s choice to inhale it, not forced on them by others with low self-control and no sense of courtesy.
The key finding of this study is that e-cigarettes emit significant amounts of nicotine but do not emit significant amounts of CO and VOCs. We also found that the level of secondhand exposure to nicotine depends on the e-cigarette brand. However, the emissions of nicotine from e-cigarettes were significantly lower than those of tobacco cigarettes.
In a scientific context “significantly less” essentially means “we were able to prove beyond our error threshold that there was less nicotine”
As such, it doesn’t mean squat without numbers to back it up. There could be 1% less nicotine and it’d still be significant if their testing method was sensitive enough to reliably capture the difference.
Whereas this:
There’s evidence that nonsmokers exposed to secondhand vape aerosol absorb similar levels of nicotine as people exposed to secondhand cigarette smoke.
Along with nicotine, nonvapers are also exposed to ultrafine particles from secondhand vape aerosol, which may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.
Would mean exactly what the person you’re replying to has said it means, assuming it’s true, aka. It’s patently false to say it’s safer for non-smokers to be around.
There are numbers to back it up, in the study I linked. Is 10 times less not significant?
The primary harm from cigarettes doesn’t come from the nicotine, it comes from all the other toxic chemicals released by combustion, which aren’t present in the aerosol exhaled from a vape.
Nobody is claiming it to be 100% safe (what is?), but it’s not even in the same ballpark of harm as smoking is.
I’m personally all for banning smoking in public places (besides designated areas and specialty clubs). I agree that exposing people to secondhand smoke is rude at best and a health risk for them at worst. But I do think that especially in the comfort of your own home, you can do what you want (with the caveat that if vaping has similar odor issues as smoking, I see it entirely reasonable that renters can be required to smoke outside).
That is patently false, and even if nicotine were healthy, it should be someone’s choice to inhale it, not forced on them by others with low self-control and no sense of courtesy.
https://www.healthline.com/health/second-hand-vape#:~:text=There’s evidence that nonsmokers exposed,the risk of cardiovascular disease.
Which bit is false?
From the first link:
In a scientific context “significantly less” essentially means “we were able to prove beyond our error threshold that there was less nicotine”
As such, it doesn’t mean squat without numbers to back it up. There could be 1% less nicotine and it’d still be significant if their testing method was sensitive enough to reliably capture the difference.
Whereas this:
Would mean exactly what the person you’re replying to has said it means, assuming it’s true, aka. It’s patently false to say it’s safer for non-smokers to be around.
There are numbers to back it up, in the study I linked. Is 10 times less not significant?
The primary harm from cigarettes doesn’t come from the nicotine, it comes from all the other toxic chemicals released by combustion, which aren’t present in the aerosol exhaled from a vape.
Nobody is claiming it to be 100% safe (what is?), but it’s not even in the same ballpark of harm as smoking is.
I’m personally all for banning smoking in public places (besides designated areas and specialty clubs). I agree that exposing people to secondhand smoke is rude at best and a health risk for them at worst. But I do think that especially in the comfort of your own home, you can do what you want (with the caveat that if vaping has similar odor issues as smoking, I see it entirely reasonable that renters can be required to smoke outside).