Mark
Legend
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
- Messages
- 13,961
Another interesting blog
http://risk-monger.blogactiv.eu/2013/07/31/ex-smokers-are-vindictive/#.Ufz7UYy9KSP
http://risk-monger.blogactiv.eu/2013/07/31/ex-smokers-are-vindictive/#.Ufz7UYy9KSP
Ex-Smokers are vindictive
- Thread starter Mark
- Start date
Fleabag
Achiever
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2013
- Messages
- 3,479
Nice to see a non-smoker/non-vaper come out on the side of common sense.
The long-term risk argument gets rolled out at a disproportional rate compared to other new products. There were high profile claims that mobile phones might cause brain tumours when they first became popular - as far as I know, this potential risk has yet to be disproved, but it doesn't prevent most people dismissing this as scaremongering and living their lives with a phone permanently pressed to the side of their head (and allowing their children to do the same from a young age). I think the risk of long term low-level radiation has a lot more potential to be risky than using a few fluids in combination that have already been deemed safe to be used in isolation of each other.
Did people abstain from using Albas Oil for 10 or 20 years until that particular combination of, independently safe, essential oils was deemed to be risk-free, or did they consider that the likelihood of them being volatile when mixed was so minimal that the likely benefit was worth the risk?
Should I continue smoking for another 10 years until it's PROVEN this is safe, or shall I cut out the risk of cancer & COPD now?
We breath in all kinds of things on a daily basis, some of which we KNOW to be harmful (and have no power to eliminate from our atmosphere) - and many things we buy to "improve" the air we breath will never be regulated as medicines - we just take it on trust that the research and legislation propping up the product makes it safe... I don't KNOW that air freshener or perfume is safe for me to inhale, but I assume it has to be proven so before it's allowed into my shopping basket. What makes e-juice any different? and why should medical regulation ensure its safety any more than any other legislation it already has to meet?
The long-term risk argument gets rolled out at a disproportional rate compared to other new products. There were high profile claims that mobile phones might cause brain tumours when they first became popular - as far as I know, this potential risk has yet to be disproved, but it doesn't prevent most people dismissing this as scaremongering and living their lives with a phone permanently pressed to the side of their head (and allowing their children to do the same from a young age). I think the risk of long term low-level radiation has a lot more potential to be risky than using a few fluids in combination that have already been deemed safe to be used in isolation of each other.
Did people abstain from using Albas Oil for 10 or 20 years until that particular combination of, independently safe, essential oils was deemed to be risk-free, or did they consider that the likelihood of them being volatile when mixed was so minimal that the likely benefit was worth the risk?
Should I continue smoking for another 10 years until it's PROVEN this is safe, or shall I cut out the risk of cancer & COPD now?
We breath in all kinds of things on a daily basis, some of which we KNOW to be harmful (and have no power to eliminate from our atmosphere) - and many things we buy to "improve" the air we breath will never be regulated as medicines - we just take it on trust that the research and legislation propping up the product makes it safe... I don't KNOW that air freshener or perfume is safe for me to inhale, but I assume it has to be proven so before it's allowed into my shopping basket. What makes e-juice any different? and why should medical regulation ensure its safety any more than any other legislation it already has to meet?
Similar threads
- Locked
