Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?



  • @maciejasjmj said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    large tank

    You do realise that not only have they stipulated maximum sizes of containers with which to sell the liquid in, they've also mandated maximum sizes of the equipment to be used (2ml for the tank.)



  • @pie_flavor said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    I may be alone in this, but I like vaping without nicotine, just for the heck of it. Are there any concerns for this, either health or for other people?

    Yes. It looks like smoking, thus it's automatically bad for you. And the children.



  • @pjh said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    @maciejasjmj said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    large tank

    You do realise that not only have they stipulated maximum sizes of containers with which to sell the liquid in, they've also mandated maximum sizes of the equipment to be used (2ml for the tank.)

    Legislation in this area is absolute and utter shit. Poland wants to put a (pretty hefty) luxury tax on all liquids, explicitly including non-nicotine ones. A non-nicotine liquid is a mixture of glycerin and polypropylene glycol, or even pure glycerin/PG. Good luck taxing one of the more common chemical reagents, with industrial uses requiring tons of the stuff, at $.20 per mililiter...

    Taxation here will just turn people to homebrewing, and that's insanely dangerous when pure nicotine is going to get involved.



  • @maciejasjmj said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    Taxation here will just turn people to homebrewing, and that's insanely dangerous when pure nicotine is going to get involved.

    I'll take "What are the unintended consequences of Big Public Health™ getting in over their heads? Again?" for $500


  • BINNED

    @pjh said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    they've also mandated maximum sizes of the equipment to be used (2ml for the tank.)

    Fuck 'em, I got a good 4ml tank already they can't take away from me! Muahahahaha!

    But yeah, that's the other idiotic one I forgot. What, you think that having to fill a tank more than before is going to do something? Just like being able to just buy cigarettes completely stopped people from rolling their own? Oh, wait...



  • @pie_flavor said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    I may be alone in this, but I like vaping without nicotine, just for the heck of it. Are there any concerns for this, either health or for other people?

    I am not really a health freak. If it didn't smell so awfully, I'd be more open to it.



  • @maciejasjmj said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    Good luck taxing one of the more common chemical reagents, with industrial uses requiring tons of the stuff, at $.20 per mililiter...

    That's pretty much a non-issue. Industrial / business use cases will get a waiver.

    When I buy pure ethanol (the non-denatured kind) for my chemistry lab I'm paying quite a bit less than when I buy the same stuff as a private citizen.



  • @rhywden I think I heard (on www.youtube.com/user/periodicvideos) that ethanol intended for chemistry has a different production process and hence different (toxic) contaminants than ethanol for human consumption.

    I've heard the same in the past on car fuel, though whether the toxic contaminants are intentional or a side-effect of the production process has never been clear to me.



  • @pleegwat said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    @rhywden I think I heard (on www.youtube.com/user/periodicvideos) that ethanol intended for chemistry has a different production process and hence different (toxic) contaminants than ethanol for human consumption.

    I've heard the same in the past on car fuel, though whether the toxic contaminants are intentional or a side-effect of the production process has never been clear to me.

    IIRC, it's just that producing ethanol above about 190 proof involves some rather interesting chemical processes that result in undrinkable (toxic?) ethanol. That, and trace amounts of methanol are tolerable in some industrial processes (or in cars) but are rather less so in potable alcohol.

    Generally, reagent grade chemicals are either way cheaper (if buying large quantities) or way more expensive (slapping a "scientific" label on something triples the price as a general rule).



  • @pleegwat said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    @rhywden I think I heard (on www.youtube.com/user/periodicvideos) that ethanol intended for chemistry has a different production process and hence different (toxic) contaminants than ethanol for human consumption.

    I've heard the same in the past on car fuel, though whether the toxic contaminants are intentional or a side-effect of the production process has never been clear to me.

    You can still drink the stuff. In fact, to determine if someone cut their drinks with industrial ethanol you'll have to do an analysis of the Deuterium and 13C to 12C ratios. Because otherwise you simply cannot determine the source of the ethanol.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @rhywden said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    I've seen suggestions that a huge amount of lung cancer from tobacco might also be due to the fact that tobacco fixes Polonium-210 in its leaves in higher rates than other plants. And since 210Po is an alpha particle emitter...

    I suspect that's a much smaller effect than the bulk nastiness of the tars, which are there in vast quantities.



  • @dkf said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    @rhywden said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    I've seen suggestions that a huge amount of lung cancer from tobacco might also be due to the fact that tobacco fixes Polonium-210 in its leaves in higher rates than other plants. And since 210Po is an alpha particle emitter...

    I suspect that's a much smaller effect than the bulk nastiness of the tars, which are there in vast quantities.

    Alpha emitters are rather nasty. I really wouldn't be sure about that.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @pie_flavor said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    Are there any concerns for this, either health or for other people?

    For your own health, yes, you're putting crap in your lungs. Not the crappiest crap you could put in there, of course, but for your own health you'd still be best not. Heck, even something as innocuous as water can cause problems if inhaled. But it's your health, so do whatever. You've got the info.

    For others' health, there's very little in the way of known concerns as the level of exhaled damaging material is so low. OTOH, if you pick something that stinks like a skunk attack in the scent department of a department store, there's going to be something for people to grumble at…


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @rhywden said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    Alpha emitters are rather nasty.

    So are tars.



  • @benjamin-hall said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    IIRC, it's just that producing ethanol above about 190 proof involves some rather interesting chemical processes that result in undrinkable (toxic?) ethanol. That, and trace amounts of methanol are tolerable in some industrial processes (or in cars) but are rather less so in potable alcohol.

    You need interesting chemical processes to obtain ethanol that pure, because distillation of a water/ethanol mixture cannot produce purer ethanol than that (at ordinary pressure levels).


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @benjamin-hall said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    IIRC, it's just that producing ethanol above about 190 proof involves some rather interesting chemical processes that result in undrinkable (toxic?) ethanol. That, and trace amounts of methanol are tolerable in some industrial processes (or in cars) but are rather less so in potable alcohol.

    Uses that require very high purity will produce stuff that is safe to drink if diluted appropriately. If methanol changes experimental results, chemists really won't want it as a contaminant in any ethanol they're using as a solvent…



  • @cartman82 In your place, if that guy isn't fired I would quit. WTF is it even being discussed.


  • Notification Spam Recipient

    @dkf said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    @pie_flavor said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    Are there any concerns for this, either health or for other people?

    For your own health, yes, you're putting crap in your lungs. Not the crappiest crap you could put in there, of course, but for your own health you'd still be best not. Heck, even something as innocuous as water can cause problems if inhaled. But it's your health, so do whatever. You've got the info.

    For others' health, there's very little in the way of known concerns as the level of exhaled damaging material is so low. OTOH, if you pick something that stinks like a skunk attack in the scent department of a department store, there's going to be something for people to grumble at…

    No, I'm talking about sane fruit-flavored vape juices. And I'd gamble that city air is worse for my lungs than any flavored water.



  • @sockpuppet7 said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    @cartman82 In your place, if that guy isn't fired I would quit. WTF is it even being discussed.

    Ah right, one of those internet stranger advices.

    -- My Boss said a slightly insensitive-
    -- Quit. Now. Walk away this minute!

    -- My girlfriend has this annoying habit that-
    -- Reset all your passwords, empty the bank accounts, then change the locks on the door while she's away. Have movers take her things to a storage locker. LET'S SEE THAT BITCH HOG THE SHEETS THEN!

    -- My arm is itching-
    -- CUT IT OFF!!!!



  • @cartman82 said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    What do you think? Are e-cig vapors harmful? Should he be allowed to smoke them indoors? What are the rules in your workplace?

    It's harmful, and forbidden in all non-smoking area in Hong Kong by law. Maybe you should check the smoke banning law of your country to see if there's amendment to include it already.



  • @dkf said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    @pie_flavor said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    Are there any concerns for this, either health or for other people?

    For your own health, yes, you're putting crap in your lungs. Not the crappiest crap you could put in there, of course, but for your own health you'd still be best not. Heck, even something as innocuous as water can cause problems if inhaled. But it's your health, so do whatever. You've got the info.

    Well, no, he didn't, obviously, or he wouldn't have asked. :P No need to be so preemptory.



  • @blakeyrat said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    Boomzilla's a dumbshit.

    You remembered!



  • @cheong said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    @cartman82 said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    What do you think? Are e-cig vapors harmful? Should he be allowed to smoke them indoors? What are the rules in your workplace?

    It's harmful, and forbidden in all non-smoking area in Hong Kong by law. Maybe you should check the smoke banning law of your country to see if there's amendment to include it already.

    From that page:

    Researches revealed that e-cigarettes contain toxic chemical substances like propylene glycol, glycerin

    Yeah, that is bullshit. Glycerin as well as propylene glycol has not a single H- or P-statement which should give a strong hint that these chemicals are pretty high on the "mostly harmless" list. Propylene glycol has a LD50 of 2.15 grams/kg and glycerin stands at 4.0 grams/kg.

    For reference, table salt has an LD50 of 3 grams/kg.



  • Hey, all you vapers, won't you think of the poor birds?

    REAL CIGARETTES NOW!



  • @rhywden said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    @cheong said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    @cartman82 said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    What do you think? Are e-cig vapors harmful? Should he be allowed to smoke them indoors? What are the rules in your workplace?

    It's harmful, and forbidden in all non-smoking area in Hong Kong by law. Maybe you should check the smoke banning law of your country to see if there's amendment to include it already.

    From that page:

    Researches revealed that e-cigarettes contain toxic chemical substances like propylene glycol, glycerin

    Yeah, that is bullshit. Glycerin as well as propylene glycol has not a single H- or P-statement which should give a strong hint that these chemicals are pretty high on the "mostly harmless" list. Propylene glycol has a LD50 of 2.15 grams/kg and glycerin stands at 4.0 grams/kg.

    For reference, table salt has an LD50 of 3 grams/kg.

    Humm... We know thinner is "harmful" chemical and it has LD50 of 5.8 grams/kg. Compare with it I do think that qualifies as harmful.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @rhywden said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    glycerin [has an LD50] at 4.0 grams/kg

    TIL. I can remember my grandmother putting that in cake icing in order to give it a better texture, and I know it is a key component of fats. Also WP seems to indicate that the LD50 is larger (the page only has the figures for rats and mice, which is pretty indicative that nobody really knows the value in humans).



  • @cheong said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    Humm... We know thinner is "harmful" chemical and it has LD50 of 5.8 grams/kg. Compare with it I do think that qualifies as harmful.

    That one has H- and P-statements.

    Health Effects: Hazard statement(s)
    H225 Highly flammable liquid and vapor.
    H316 Causes mild skin irritation.
    H319 Causes serious eye irritation.
    H336 May cause drowsiness or dizziness.

    Precautionary statement(s)
    P210 Keep away from heat/sparks/open flames/hot surfaces. - No smoking.
    P261 Avoid breathing dust/ fume/ gas/ mist/ vapors/ spray.
    P305 + P351 + P338 IF IN EYES: Rinse cautiously with water for several minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present and easy to do. Continue rinsing.

    So, is there anything else I may teach you about the toxicity of chemicals?

    After all, it's not like I have to do that for a living - stuff like that determines whether the pupils are allowed to do the experiment or only I am allowed or it's not allowed at all in a school setting. It's called a "threat assessment" and I have to do that for every single experiment I do.



  • The scary bit is people buying e-liquid via ebay straight from china, which contains anything from the factory floor.



  • @dkf said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    TIL. I can remember my grandmother putting that in cake icing in order to give it a better texture, and I know it is a key component of fats.

    Propylene glycol is used in cake aromas, too.

    Where did you get these numbers, @Rhywden? For comparison, the lethal dose of ethylene glycol (a much more toxic compound) is about 1.4g/kg (as per https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp96-c2.pdf , page 11) Other sources claim PG LD50 at around 22mg/kg in rats with no LD50 for humans ( http://www.inchem.org/documents/sids/sids/57-55-6.pdf , page 17) and around 27mg/kg in rats for glycerin ( http://www.inchem.org/documents/sids/sids/56815.pdf , page 13).



  • @helix said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    The scary bit is people buying e-liquid via ebay straight from china, which contains anything from the factory floor.

    Yeah, no.

    ­ https://www.snopes.com/vaping-causes-popcorn-lung/

    And since the onebox was misleading..

    0_1510316235554_76ec78b4-1f9d-4837-8df4-65bcd2aee869-image.png



  • I once saw the battery from one of these E-cigarettes explode. Someone had bought a new battery for her husbands device, and charged it using an Apple USB phone charger. Now, this was a cheap battery, and Apple USB plugs tended to kick out more than the standard volts and amps than typical USB chargers because their devices need that (this was a few years ago when it was only Apple really doing this in UK)

    She goes off to lunch, leaving her colleague, my friend, at the desk where it was being charged. Queue one huge explosion, and a fireball that arced up to the ceiling and across a couple of desks (at least 3m) to land on a nice patch of carpet (well, carpet tiles) that were only installed about ½ a year prior when our company moved into the building.

    Luckily nobody was hurt, as the flaming ball of battery went up first rather than sideways, otherwise my friend would have had a face full of exploding battery, something I don't recommend for anyone.

    So, yes, e-cigs are very bloody dangerous, and should not be used in the workplace.

    The carpet is still burnt and was never replaced.



  • @maciejasjmj said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    @dkf said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    TIL. I can remember my grandmother putting that in cake icing in order to give it a better texture, and I know it is a key component of fats.

    Propylene glycol is used in cake aromas, too.

    Where did you get these numbers, @Rhywden? For comparison, the lethal dose of ethylene glycol (a much more toxic compound) is about 1.4g/kg (as per https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp96-c2.pdf , page 11) Other sources claim PG LD50 at around 22mg/kg in rats with no LD50 for humans ( http://www.inchem.org/documents/sids/sids/57-55-6.pdf , page 17) and around 27mg/kg in rats for glycerin ( http://www.inchem.org/documents/sids/sids/56815.pdf , page 13).

    I simply used Wikipedia. But again, as soon as a chemical has no H- and P-statements it can be considered relatively harmless.

    I still remember one incident at the beginning of my chemistry studies where we had to find out those statements for every single compound in our experiments. One chemical nearly drove us insane - we simply couldn't find it in the literature which listed all those statements for all the chemicals. It simply wasn't there.

    Turns out that oleic acid (it's name nonwithstanding) is an important part of body chemistry and simply is about as harmful as fat. Because that's what it is. A fatty acid.



  • @ashley_sheridan said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    I once saw the battery from one of these E-cigarettes explode. Someone had bought a new battery for her husbands device, and charged it using an Apple USB phone charger. Now, this was a cheap battery, and Apple USB plugs tended to kick out more than the standard volts and amps than typical USB chargers because their devices need that (this was a few years ago when it was only Apple really doing this in UK)

    Wah? I strongly doubt that even Apple put out more than the standard 5 V over USB before there was a standard for it. Also, if a device wants more than 5 V it has to negotiate that with the charger.



  • @rhywden Apple chargers do kick out about 6V give or take. The new USB standards allow for this, but back then they didn't. Also, this was a cheap battery, and didn't come with the failsafes that you take for granted on your phone.



  • @ashley_sheridan said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    Now, this was a cheap battery

    That's where :doing_it_wrong: comes in.

    @ashley_sheridan said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    So, yes, e-cigs are very bloody dangerous

    No, dodgy batteries and chargers are dangerous.



  • @ashley_sheridan said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    @rhywden Apple chargers do kick out about 6V give or take.

    You'll pardon me if I don't simply take your word for it. Do you have a credible source for that?



  • The scary bit is people buying dodgy ecig batteries and chargers via ebay straight from china, which contains anything from the factory floor.



  • @rhywden Well, I've tested one before, so it's something that can be easily reproduced...



  • @rhywden said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    @cheong said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    Humm... We know thinner is "harmful" chemical and it has LD50 of 5.8 grams/kg. Compare with it I do think that qualifies as harmful.

    That one has H- and P-statements.

    Health Effects: Hazard statement(s)
    H225 Highly flammable liquid and vapor.
    H316 Causes mild skin irritation.
    H319 Causes serious eye irritation.
    H336 May cause drowsiness or dizziness.

    Precautionary statement(s)
    P210 Keep away from heat/sparks/open flames/hot surfaces. - No smoking.
    P261 Avoid breathing dust/ fume/ gas/ mist/ vapors/ spray.
    P305 + P351 + P338 IF IN EYES: Rinse cautiously with water for several minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present and easy to do. Continue rinsing.

    So, is there anything else I may teach you about the toxicity of chemicals?

    After all, it's not like I have to do that for a living - stuff like that determines whether the pupils are allowed to do the experiment or only I am allowed or it's not allowed at all in a school setting. It's called a "threat assessment" and I have to do that for every single experiment I do.

    Yes, I know it has P and H statement. That's why I use it as example for comparison.

    It's a known harmful chemical but still it has much higher LD50 volume than Glycerin. So you cannot just quote that and assume Glycerin is on "mostly harmless" list.

    That's what I'm talking about.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @cheong said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    It's a known harmful chemical but still it has much higher LD50 volume than Glycerin.

    I couldn't independently find the LD50 for glycerine. The figures for animal models vary so much that it's not possible to guess what it would be for humans.



  • @dkf said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    @cheong said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    It's a known harmful chemical but still it has much higher LD50 volume than Glycerin.

    I couldn't independently find the LD50 for glycerine. The figures for animal models vary so much that it's not possible to guess what it would be for humans.

    I copied the wrong chemical from the previous quotes. It should be regarding the LD50 quote of "Propylene glycol" instead.



  • @cheong said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    @rhywden said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    @cheong said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    Humm... We know thinner is "harmful" chemical and it has LD50 of 5.8 grams/kg. Compare with it I do think that qualifies as harmful.

    That one has H- and P-statements.

    Health Effects: Hazard statement(s)
    H225 Highly flammable liquid and vapor.
    H316 Causes mild skin irritation.
    H319 Causes serious eye irritation.
    H336 May cause drowsiness or dizziness.

    Precautionary statement(s)
    P210 Keep away from heat/sparks/open flames/hot surfaces. - No smoking.
    P261 Avoid breathing dust/ fume/ gas/ mist/ vapors/ spray.
    P305 + P351 + P338 IF IN EYES: Rinse cautiously with water for several minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present and easy to do. Continue rinsing.

    So, is there anything else I may teach you about the toxicity of chemicals?

    After all, it's not like I have to do that for a living - stuff like that determines whether the pupils are allowed to do the experiment or only I am allowed or it's not allowed at all in a school setting. It's called a "threat assessment" and I have to do that for every single experiment I do.

    Yes, I know it has P and H statement. That's why I use it as example for comparison.

    It's a known harmful chemical but still it has much higher LD50 volume than Glycerin. So you cannot just quote that and assume Glycerin is on "mostly harmless" list.

    Dude, I said two(2) things. As in, two(2) things which in combination (as in: conjunctive statements, dependant on each other, not to be taken on their own) give a result.

    Thing 1) Both substances have no H- and P-statements
    Thing 2) They have extraordinarily high LD50 dosages.

    Again, that's two statements. And if you combine them they paint the picture of pretty harmless substances. I studied that stuff. And, again, I have to give threat assessments regarding those chemicals (and, yes, I have used glycerine in a school experiment) where, if I do them wrong and something goes wrong as a result I'll have my ass handed to me.

    Now, do you want to further argue about this or would you like to admit that you have no clue what you're talking about?



  • @rhywden The scary bit is people buying dodgy glycerin via ebay straight from china, which contains anything from the factory floor.



  • @rhywden said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    @cheong said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    @rhywden said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    @cheong said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    Humm... We know thinner is "harmful" chemical and it has LD50 of 5.8 grams/kg. Compare with it I do think that qualifies as harmful.

    That one has H- and P-statements.

    Health Effects: Hazard statement(s)
    H225 Highly flammable liquid and vapor.
    H316 Causes mild skin irritation.
    H319 Causes serious eye irritation.
    H336 May cause drowsiness or dizziness.

    Precautionary statement(s)
    P210 Keep away from heat/sparks/open flames/hot surfaces. - No smoking.
    P261 Avoid breathing dust/ fume/ gas/ mist/ vapors/ spray.
    P305 + P351 + P338 IF IN EYES: Rinse cautiously with water for several minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present and easy to do. Continue rinsing.

    So, is there anything else I may teach you about the toxicity of chemicals?

    After all, it's not like I have to do that for a living - stuff like that determines whether the pupils are allowed to do the experiment or only I am allowed or it's not allowed at all in a school setting. It's called a "threat assessment" and I have to do that for every single experiment I do.

    Yes, I know it has P and H statement. That's why I use it as example for comparison.

    It's a known harmful chemical but still it has much higher LD50 volume than Glycerin. So you cannot just quote that and assume Glycerin is on "mostly harmless" list.

    Dude, I said two(2) things. As in, two(2) things which in combination (as in: conjunctive statements, dependant on each other, not to be taken on their own) give a result.

    Thing 1) Both substances have no H- and P-statements
    Thing 2) They have extraordinarily high LD50 dosages.

    Again, that's two statements. And if you combine them they paint the picture of pretty harmless substances. I studied that stuff. And, again, I have to give threat assessments regarding those chemicals (and, yes, I have used glycerine in a school experiment) where, if I do them wrong and something goes wrong as a result I'll have my ass handed to me.

    Now, do you want to further argue about this or would you like to admit that you have no clue what you're talking about?

    No. The way you're saying it makes me think you want to prove these chemicals are safe using LD50 volume ratio, but to me this quote is irrelevant and should be neglected.

    That's the point I want to make.

    Btw, what is safe to eat is not the same as what is safe to inhale, as all matters for people around e-smokers is the vapor generated. Tar in ordinary cigarette is carcinogenic, but the most important damage to human body is it condense and accumulates in lung to create physical blockage that hinders the ability for people to breath.



  • @cheong said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    @rhywden said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    @cheong said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    @rhywden said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    @cheong said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    Humm... We know thinner is "harmful" chemical and it has LD50 of 5.8 grams/kg. Compare with it I do think that qualifies as harmful.

    That one has H- and P-statements.

    Health Effects: Hazard statement(s)
    H225 Highly flammable liquid and vapor.
    H316 Causes mild skin irritation.
    H319 Causes serious eye irritation.
    H336 May cause drowsiness or dizziness.

    Precautionary statement(s)
    P210 Keep away from heat/sparks/open flames/hot surfaces. - No smoking.
    P261 Avoid breathing dust/ fume/ gas/ mist/ vapors/ spray.
    P305 + P351 + P338 IF IN EYES: Rinse cautiously with water for several minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present and easy to do. Continue rinsing.

    So, is there anything else I may teach you about the toxicity of chemicals?

    After all, it's not like I have to do that for a living - stuff like that determines whether the pupils are allowed to do the experiment or only I am allowed or it's not allowed at all in a school setting. It's called a "threat assessment" and I have to do that for every single experiment I do.

    Yes, I know it has P and H statement. That's why I use it as example for comparison.

    It's a known harmful chemical but still it has much higher LD50 volume than Glycerin. So you cannot just quote that and assume Glycerin is on "mostly harmless" list.

    Dude, I said two(2) things. As in, two(2) things which in combination (as in: conjunctive statements, dependant on each other, not to be taken on their own) give a result.

    Thing 1) Both substances have no H- and P-statements
    Thing 2) They have extraordinarily high LD50 dosages.

    Again, that's two statements. And if you combine them they paint the picture of pretty harmless substances. I studied that stuff. And, again, I have to give threat assessments regarding those chemicals (and, yes, I have used glycerine in a school experiment) where, if I do them wrong and something goes wrong as a result I'll have my ass handed to me.

    Now, do you want to further argue about this or would you like to admit that you have no clue what you're talking about?

    No. The way you're saying it makes me think you want to prove these chemicals are safe using LD50 volume ratio, but to me this quote is irrelevant and should be neglected.

    That's the point I want to make.

    Btw, what is safe to eat is not the same as what is safe to inhale, as all matters for people around e-smokers is the vapor generated. Tar in ordinary cigarette is carcinogenic, but the most important damage to human body is it condense and accumulates in lung to create physical blockage that hinders the ability for people to breath.

    You obviously don't know what H- and P-statements actually are. If it was dangerous to inhale the stuff then there would be a special H-statement given. One of H330 through H335 in fact.

    Any other aspect you want to demonstrate your lack of a clue in?



  • @rhywden said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    @cheong said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    @rhywden said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    @cheong said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    @rhywden said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    @cheong said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    Humm... We know thinner is "harmful" chemical and it has LD50 of 5.8 grams/kg. Compare with it I do think that qualifies as harmful.

    That one has H- and P-statements.

    Health Effects: Hazard statement(s)
    H225 Highly flammable liquid and vapor.
    H316 Causes mild skin irritation.
    H319 Causes serious eye irritation.
    H336 May cause drowsiness or dizziness.

    Precautionary statement(s)
    P210 Keep away from heat/sparks/open flames/hot surfaces. - No smoking.
    P261 Avoid breathing dust/ fume/ gas/ mist/ vapors/ spray.
    P305 + P351 + P338 IF IN EYES: Rinse cautiously with water for several minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present and easy to do. Continue rinsing.

    So, is there anything else I may teach you about the toxicity of chemicals?

    After all, it's not like I have to do that for a living - stuff like that determines whether the pupils are allowed to do the experiment or only I am allowed or it's not allowed at all in a school setting. It's called a "threat assessment" and I have to do that for every single experiment I do.

    Yes, I know it has P and H statement. That's why I use it as example for comparison.

    It's a known harmful chemical but still it has much higher LD50 volume than Glycerin. So you cannot just quote that and assume Glycerin is on "mostly harmless" list.

    Dude, I said two(2) things. As in, two(2) things which in combination (as in: conjunctive statements, dependant on each other, not to be taken on their own) give a result.

    Thing 1) Both substances have no H- and P-statements
    Thing 2) They have extraordinarily high LD50 dosages.

    Again, that's two statements. And if you combine them they paint the picture of pretty harmless substances. I studied that stuff. And, again, I have to give threat assessments regarding those chemicals (and, yes, I have used glycerine in a school experiment) where, if I do them wrong and something goes wrong as a result I'll have my ass handed to me.

    Now, do you want to further argue about this or would you like to admit that you have no clue what you're talking about?

    No. The way you're saying it makes me think you want to prove these chemicals are safe using LD50 volume ratio, but to me this quote is irrelevant and should be neglected.

    That's the point I want to make.

    Btw, what is safe to eat is not the same as what is safe to inhale, as all matters for people around e-smokers is the vapor generated. Tar in ordinary cigarette is carcinogenic, but the most important damage to human body is it condense and accumulates in lung to create physical blockage that hinders the ability for people to breath.

    You obviously don't know what H- and P-statements actually are. If it was dangerous to inhale the stuff then there would be a special H-statement given. One of H330 through H335 in fact.

    Any other aspect you want to demonstrate your lack of a clue in?

    There exists chemicals that does not have warning simply because there's no relevant studies that prove it's harmful in these aspect or not when the data is created. The safety datasheet of "Propylene glycol" says "" The substance may be toxic to central nervous system (CNS). Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage." That translates to "harmful" to me.



  • @cheong Yeah, I don't know where that place got their data from, cause it's wrong.

    Here's the MSDS for USP Propylene Glycol from DOW, one of the major manufacturers of chemicals and the like.

    0_1510333433703_090003e880767435.pdf

    The closest you can find to that in there is:

    Specific Target Organ Systemic Toxicity (Repeated Exposure)
    In rare cases, repeated excessive exposure to propylene glycol may cause central nervous system
    effects.

    Note: EXCESSIVE exposure. As in drinking a gallon of it in a minute.

    The most you're likely to get from vaping the small amounts you deal with in an e-cig is some minor throat irritation.



  • @ashley_sheridan said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    I once saw the battery from one of these E-cigarettes explode.

    <snip>

    Queue one huge explosion, and a fireball that arced up to the ceiling and across a couple of desks (at least 3m) to land on a nice patch of carpet (well, carpet tiles) that were only installed about ½ a year prior when our company moved into the building.

    <snip>

    So, yes, e-cigs are very bloody dangerous, and should not be used in the workplace.

    Laptops, tablets and phones also have rechargeable battery and should be banned in the workplace then :rolleyes:


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @cartman82 said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    @dkf said in Electronic cigars in workplace - yay or nay?:

    The building's head porter was a key bastion of smoking and was a cantankerous git who nobody wanted to cross, not even the head of the department. Lots of people were quietly glad when he died of lung cancer.

    That seems like the ultimate solution for the smoking problem.

    One might even say it's the final solution. :trolleybus:


    Filed under: Wow, I can't believe I made that joke, I need to go shower now


  • :belt_onion:

    @ashley_sheridan The scary bit is people buying dodgy carpet via ebay straight from china, which contains anything from the factory floor.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.