When Dr. Michael Siegel of the Boston University of Public Health first heard about the California vaping study on the topic of secondhand vaping, he was hopefully optimistic that the scientific findings would support previous research that vaping is significant safer than smoking. Once he finally received a copy of the study’s findings, he was pleasantly surprised. It was only after the California Department of Public Health began publishing “alternative facts” about the scientific conclusions that he became immediately outraged.
Dr. Michael Siegel and secondhand vaping
According to a recent blog posted on the website of Dr. Siegel, the researchers involved with the study measured the secondhand vapor from electronic cigarettes for over twenty different chemicals and c carcinogens commonly found in cigarette smoke. The air sampling took place in a local California vape shop where several employees were currently working at the time, and approximately thirteen customers were also wandering around the store.
Even with all of this activity taking place near the air sampling station located in a non-ventilated section of the store, the scientists still determined that the measurable quantities of the over twenty different chemicals were virtually non-detectable. The chemicals tested included several aldehydes (including the conspiratorial formaldehyde), benzene, xylene, and others.
“This study, although conducted under very high exposure conditions in a small, non-ventilated vape shop with many employees and customers vaping and clouds of vapor visible, did not document any dangerous levels of exposure to any hazardous chemical. Nicotine exposure was essentially non-existent. Formaldehyde exposure was no different than in many indoor and outdoor environments at baseline. Acetone, acetoin, other aldehydes, toluene, benzene, and xylene were not detected. Chemicals that have been associated with "popcorn lung" were also not detected by the standard method.”
“This study adds to the evidence that under real-life conditions, ‘secondhand vaping’ does not appear to pose any significant health risks.”
California is a notoriously (or infamously – depending on your political viewpoint) one of the most liberal states in the nation, and by extension, one of the most aggressively anti-vaping. Yet even their own research supports numerous previously published scientific claims that vaping is up to 95 percent healthier than smoking.
So, why is the state of California still so aggressively anti-vaping? Could it be that the potential tax revenues generated by tobacco cigarette far outweigh the tax revenues from vaping supplies? Who knows, but perhaps this latest vaping study conducted by the California Department of Health will help sway the political tides in a more pro-vaping direction.
Share this post
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author's and do not necessarily represent the viewpoints, policy or company position of Vapes.com, the rest of our staff, and/or any/all contributors to this site.