Yet more warnings about e-cigarettes

An assistant professor from Harvard who has been involved in e-cigarette research notes how they have known for years that they can produce formaldehyde:

Nicotine isn’t the only thing e-cigs deliver; they also deliver formaldehyde, a carcinogen. It seems equally fair to call them Electronic Formaldehyde Delivery Systems.

Do manufacturers intentionally put formaldehyde in e-cigs? No, they don’t. But there’s some fundamental chemistry happening that can generate formaldehyde. E-cigs often use propylene glycol or glycerol to help transport nicotine and flavors and to create the big vapor cloud. We’ve known for a long time that when we heat these so-called carrier fluids they can transform into formaldehyde.

Sure enough, when we measure what’s coming out of an e-cigarette, we have found formaldehyde. Sometimes, a lot of it. A letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine caught widespread attention in 2015 when its authors reported that they had found emissions of formaldehyde from e-cigs. There was some initial push back from skeptics who claimed that the e-cig vaping conditions in the research used too high of a voltage (an actual user, they argued, would be deterred from puffing hard enough to generate the excessive formaldehyde because it would taste bad). Of note, one author of that critique receives funding from a group that has accepted money from tobacco companies, and another received money from an e-cig company.

It seems the hired guns were a bit quick to draw, so to speak. Study after study since then has confirmed that e-cigs can deliver formaldehyde to the user. My colleagues and I found, in a study published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, that under typical conditions the formaldehyde coming out of an e-cig can even exceed what is known as ceiling limits — a level of formaldehyde in the air that is not allowed to be exceeded in the workplace, even for one second.

 

The article goes on to explain that there are other flavouring chemicals in some e-cig liquid which produce different, lung dangerous, compounds.   He does concede that nonetheless, they may be "safer" than cigarettes, but that does not mean "safe":

To be sure, e-cigs may be a useful tool for smoking cessation for those who are addicted to traditional cigarettes. E-cigs are safer than cigarettes, no question. But “safer” does not mean “safe.” And all e-cig users need to be informed about the risks of inhaling these chemicals.

 And as for the concern that they are acting as a gateway to real smoking - yes of course there is good concern they work that way in the US, at least:

Consider this: 22 percent of eighth-grade smokers used e-cigs first. That’s one in five — an astounding number of kids. The addictive nicotine in e-cigs is contributing to the next generation of traditional cigarette users. Will we then recommend that they use e-cigs to help them quit? This is the opposite of a virtuous cycle.

Although many states now restrict e-cig sales for those under 18, it’s clear that kids are finding ways to access e-cigs. And in my opinion, e-cigs are being marketed toward this age group. Who else is interested in puffing on an “Alien Blood”-flavored e-cig?

The groups opposing the legalisation of nicotine producing e-cigarettes in Australia have some pretty good arguments going for them.

Meanwhile, libertarians can continue sucking away unhealthfully instead of just quitting via patches or whatever other aids have long been adequate.    Bit of the old "evolution in action", perhaps?