E-cigs and aeroplanes

[dave]

Second hand smoke is certainly very unpleasant for non-smokers and that I think is sufficient reason for not allowing it in enclosed spaces. I don't agree though that the dangers of passive smoking are an established fact. It is difficult to do a proper investigation of this and there are not that many published papers that I have been able to find. I have read some of the often quoted ones and they all rely on statistical evidence which at best suggests that there may be some dangers. I have not found any very compelling evidence and would be very interested to hear of any references to studies in this area that I have missed.

[Gordy]

if smoking is dangerous then it stands to reason second hand smoke would be too... you only have to look at how much tar and crap it deposits on the décor of a pub to realise this is also being deposited into the lungs of bar staff and patrons

[jerryrm]

It probably is a contributing factor, Gordy but I do believe it's not the main culprit. There are other and more serious pollutants out there, especially motor vehicle exhaust. A study was done in California, on residents who live near the freeways and it was found that there was a higher rate of cancer among them than in those who didn't live near high traffic areas.

[Gordy]

thank god people dont take their cars into pubs then

[nicky]

I did Lanzarote in January and there were notices on the plane saying they couldn't be used. That was Monarch Airlines.

[Karma]

What sort of kit would you take for a weeks holiday? I pressume a hub charger and adapter plug? How many batteries? imagine being away and your kit lets you down? you could possibly be drawn back to the nasties

i wouldn't be too bothered about vaping on the flight or at airport, a couple of SD Keyrings some ready filled cartos and a bit stealth

[camperman]

ive done it in the airport without a problem but didnt chance it on the flight.

the other thing to worry about is if your going to a hot climate as your juice will get really thin, last year we went to turkey (about 48 dgrees) and i only took arry tanks with me that just wouldnt hold the juice so make sure you take something that will not leak.

i took a GGTS and a megaladon with me and when customs stopped me they xrayed my bag with my GGTS in and made me take it out and show them what it was (thinking it was a pipe bomb )

i recon your keyrings though will be fine

[FreedomVape]

A customer told me he flew long haul to Egypt although not sure what airlines and the stewardess asked him to test the e-cig in the onboard toilets to see if it set off the sensors and as it had not she allowed him to use it.

Brave man I have to say not sure I would be that gutsy but after a couple of miniatures maybe.

[ragjoy]

although easyjet sell a form of ecig it is just a nicotine suck thing, ie no vapor no battery.
they DO NOT allow you to use your own device.
I emailed them in 2010 regarding this and they said NO you cant use an ecig.
i cant find the email now and there policy may have changed since then.

raggy

[scooter]

"I emailed them in 2010 regarding this and they said NO you cant use an ecig."
Prob's coz they can't make any money out of you with it ;-)
I fly maybe 4-6 times a month international from Paris CDG carrying around 100Ml of various juices, an SDK, a phone charger mod, Lavatube, Bulli x 4 Tanks, a bunch of BOGE cartos and a couple of clearos (back up back up back up).... a tin with wire wick nail clippers, little screwdriver for rebuilding the Bulli.
Always carry the juice in small bottles in a clear bag as per their request for liquids.
The SDK and BOGES are perfect for stealth in the airport, plus can be boosted on the phone charger thingy in flight, in flight I use the phone charger thingy/BOGES to vape, I'm always discreet but if anyone does catch a glimpse, you see their nostrils flare as they try to figure it out, ready to cry hell, then they lose interest when there's no smell.
I have been questioned twice at security, (only when I carried the Provari, their x-ray machines do not seem to like it) in CDG they swabbed it for explosives, in Marco Polo airport the girl immediately understood what it was when I said e-cig, in fact she called her friend over to admire it.
I'm always polite and if they are confused I say inhaler, never a problem....so far ;-)
They've never looked at the juice, just the device and that was the Provari.
I notice in CDG duty free they are selling some kind of cig' lookalike nicotine device, but reading what the other poster said it might be one of those no battery/mist/spray things.
I understand why it's not encouraged/allowed in public places, to all intents and purposes it replicates the act of smoking, encourages smokers to spark up and incenses non smokers.
We may be in the right as per the letter of the law, but we are a minority and I'm not a crusader.
I'm just happy to vape where I can and to be honest cannot be arsed explaining to complete strangers what it is I'm doing, even in countries where smoking is still "accepted" in public places, Greece, Italy, Bulgaria etc..

[kingsley]

Feb 13, 2012 2:16:22 GMT domesticextremist said:

I only ever toook one flight before smoking was banned on aircraft.
I know for a fact that when it was allowed, they used to change the
air in the cabin about five times more frequently, with the result that it
was fresher then than it is now!

Indeed. One of the main reasons airlines started banning smoking, long before national bans started coming in was so they could save money by using less fuel as a result of not running the air filters so much. It initially co-coincided with a big increase in air rage as the air became de-oxygenated leading to impaired judgement, even before alcohol became involved.

On the harm caused by passive smoking. if one follows the evidence and not the propaganda, the jury is still out. The only large scale, long term, longitutanal study done to date showed that any risk to a non-smoker by living with a smoker for 30 years to be minimal.

British Medical Journal, 2003: www.bmj.com/content/326/7398/1057.full
Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

I have tried, without success to find the BMJ editorial that accompanied the paper. My suspicion is that it is now behind their pay-wall. From memory though, the gist was: Whilst the BMJ, being a journal with a general anti-smoking policy, didn't want to publish the paper, they felt compelled to because the science was sound. Although the peer-review process had found several flaws in the methodology all of these had been identified as caveats within the paper by it's original authors.

Whilst trying to track down said editorial, I found lots of articles criticising it and so without having done so, feel a lot less confident citing it than I did when I started typing this post. Especially as it appear the primary author Dr. Enstrom, was funded by the tobacco lobby.

I also recall a paper published from research at a Canadian university, around a year or two after the BMJ one I have cited. It's primary conclusion was that for non-smokers living in a major city, traffic fumes were a much bigger risk to health than passive smoking. However having spent over an hour trying to track down the BMJ editorial w/o success, I am not prepared to hunt for it now.

Whether something "stands to reason" or is "common sense" has no bearing whatsoever on it's truth value. However, it does start to appear that this one paper, I had put a huge amount of faith in, may not be as valid as I thought when I started typing. I'm still unconvinced that passive smoking in a well ventilated environment, is anywhere near as harmful to adults as people like ASH claim, but my pendulum of opinion has started to swing more towards their side.

[kingsley]

Oh, and to answer the OP: A friend of mine who until recently worked for Thompson as a flight attendant told me that they banned E-cigs on flights as the feared it may inadvertently set of the smoke alarms (particularly in the toilets).
I cannot comment on the policy of any other airline.

[Gordy]

Feb 19, 2012 2:29:54 GMT kingsley said:

On the harm caused by passive smoking. if one follows the evidence and not the propaganda, the jury is still out. The only large scale, long term, longitutanal study done to date showed that any risk to a non-smoker by living with a smoker for 30 years to be minimal.

do you seriously believe that passive smoking doesn't cause the same diseases and health problems that effect smokers ?? just because there is no study doesn't make it untrue. 30 years ago they also had adverts and doctors telling you smoking was good for you

Feb 19, 2012 2:29:54 GMT kingsley said:

Whether something "stands to reason" or is "common sense" has no bearing whatsoever on it's truth value. However, it does start to appear that this one paper, I had put a huge amount of faith in, may not be as valid as I thought when I started typing. I'm still unconvinced that passive smoking in a well ventilated environment, is anywhere near as harmful to adults as people like ASH claim, but my pendulum of opinion has started to swing more towards their side.

I wouldn't want to put my faith in one paper. the undisputed facts are that cigarette smoke contains carcinogens, tar and carbon monoxide that do kill. we wouldnt be here vaping if we didnt believe this to be true. when you are near a smoker you will inhale cigarette smoke that contains the aforementioned chemicals, fact. so yes using "common sense" tells us its a bad thing and will do you harm.

its all very well saying its safer in a well ventilated environment... well duh yeah as there wont be much smoke there but we don't have well ventilated homes or pubs

why do you think they have banned smoking in public places ? its not to save on cleaning bills im pretty certain

[domesticextremist]

I'm sure passive smoking is not good for you, I'm just not
convinced it is as bad for you as the 'experts' make out.

My strong suspicion is that the health risks have been sexed
up in order to provide a pretext for the various bans.

The public places ban could have been implemented in a more
equitable manner (e.g. non-smoking and smoking parts of a pub,
or the whole pub at the landlord's discretion) and one which didn't
condemn many local pubs and bars to closure.

[scooter]

"On the harm caused by passive smoking. if one follows the evidence and not the propaganda, the jury is still out."
Not with Roy Castles widow it's not..