sjislepilot said:
KidDoc said:
Zombie said:
At what point do we say enough is enough. If I want to vape and I am not harming anyone but myself, who the hell has the right to tell me I can't do it? This isn't cigarette smoking where second hand smoke has a direct effect on bystanders. This is vaping. What's next?
There is a growing body of evidence that 2nd hand vaping is not as safe as advertised:
https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/news/20190828/lots-of-teens-are-breathing-in-others-vaping-fumes#1
Is there a link to the actual scientific article? I wouldn't exactly call this editorial an example of growing body of evidence.
From uptodate summary the following articles are noted:
Public Health Consequences of E-Cigarettes, consensus study report, The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24952/public-health-consequences-of-e-cigarettes. no abstract available
PubMedTIElectronic cigarettes: an evaluation of exposure to chemicals and fine particulate matter (PM).AUPellegrino RM, Tinghino B, Mangiaracina G, Marani A, Vitali M, Protano C, Osborn JF, Cattaruzza MS SOAnn Ig. 2012 Jul;24(4):279-88. The "electronic (e-)cigarette" generates intense scientific debate about its use. Its popularity is increasing worldwide as a method to reduce/quit smoking, and to smoke indoors when restrictions on smoking tobacco are present. WHO recommends caution, until its effectiveness in helping smokers is clarified, and the possible harm evaluated. The aim of this study was to assess the content of the aromatic liquid mixture and its vapour and the Particulate Matter (PM) emissions of an Italian brand of e-cigarette and to compare its PM emissions with a conventional cigarette. Propylene glycol (66%) and glycerine (24%) were main components in the liquid, while the flavouring substances were less than 0.1%. The same substances were detected in the vapour in similar proportions. Fine and ultrafine PM emissions were higher for the conventional versus the e-cigarette (e.g.: PM10=922 vs 52 microg/m3; PM1=80 vs 14 microg/m3). The e-cigarette seems to give some advantages when used instead of the conventional cigarette, but studies are still scanty: it could help smokers to cope with some of the rituals associated with smoking gestures and to reduce or eliminate tobacco consumption avoiding passive smoking. However, the e-cigarette causes exposure to different chemicals compared with conventional cigarettes and thus there is a need for risk evaluation for both e-cigarettes and passive steam exposure in smokers and non smokers.ADDepartment of Chemistry, University of Perugia, Italy. PMID
22913171146PubMedTIPeering through the mist: systematic review of what the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tells us about health risks.AUBurstyn I SOBMC Public Health. 2014;14:18. Epub 2014 Jan 9. BACKGROUNDElectronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are generally recognized as a safer alternative to combusted tobacco products, but there are conflicting claims about the degree to which these products warrant concern for the health of the vapers (e-cigarette users). This paper reviews available data on chemistry of aerosols and liquids of electronic cigarettes and compares modeled exposure of vapers with occupational safety standards.METHODSBoth peer-reviewed and "grey" literature were accessed and more than 9,000 observations of highly variable quality were extracted. Comparisons to the most universally recognized workplace exposure standards, Threshold Limit Values (TLVs), were conducted under "worst case" assumptions about both chemical content of aerosol and liquids as well as behavior of vapers.RESULTSThere was no evidence of potential for exposures of e-cigarette users to contaminants that are associated with risk to health at a level that would warrant attention if it were an involuntary workplace exposures. The vast majority of predicted exposures are < <1% of TLV. Predicted exposures to acrolein and formaldehyde are typically<5% TLV. Considering exposure to the aerosol as a mixture of contaminants did not indicate that exceeding half of TLV for mixtures was plausible. Only exposures to the declared major ingredients--propylene glycol and glycerin--warrant attention because of precautionary nature of TLVs for exposures to hydrocarbons with no established toxicity.CONCLUSIONSCurrent state of knowledge about chemistry of liquids and aerosols associated with electronic cigarettes indicates that there is no evidence that vaping produces inhalable exposures to contaminants of the aerosol that would warrant health concerns by the standards that are used to ensure safety of workplaces. However, the aerosol generated during vaping as a whole (contaminants plus declared ingredients) creates personal exposures that would justify surveillance of health among exposed persons in conjunction with investigation of means to keep any adverse health effects as low as reasonably achievable. Exposures of bystanders are likely to be orders of magnitude less, and thus pose no apparent concern.ADDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health, School of Public Health, Drexel University, Nesbitt Hall, 3215 Market St, Floor 6, Office 614, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. igor.burstyn@drexel.edu. PMID
24406205 No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full
Medical Disclaimer.