Thu 9 Nov 2017
OK, it isn’t really steam. It can’t scald people, nor does it contain traces of fluoride or other chemicals we enjoy when quenching our thirst with a nice brew made from a tap-filled kettle. But it looks like steam. It is treated in some quarters like cigarette smoke, the noxious, carcinogenic filled, toxin ridden result of burning plant. Today we are of course talking about “second-hand vape” from e-cigarettes exhalation.
Study after study is conducted under a variety of intentions to discover what, if any, damage is or may be caused by exposure to vaping and second-hand vaping. Considering it is yet to be proven over a decade since the beginning of these studies that there are any real negative side effects of vaping itself, it has always appeared to me unlikely that second hand vaping would carry any risk. Maybe juice heavy on VG may carry man-flu to its next unfortunate victim, in which case I guess all men are doomed to suffer.
The Public Library of Science in the USA, has published peer-reviewed research into the air quality in homes. The locations were noted to be located and managed like for like as far as possible, in regards to proximity to traffic and the opening of windows. The study included the effect of methods of cooking, log fires vs electric fires, smoking or non-smoking and other sources of air pollution compared to a cleaner environment. The results were clear-cut when it came to vaping, no notable difference in air quality between vaping households and non-vaping. This follows the consensus reached from the majority of studies I have seen that haven’t had questionable methodologies applied, such as using dry-burning, or using minuscule sample sizes.
If you were to believe everything you read in a tabloid, there probably isn’t a vegetable out there that doesn’t increase your likelihood to develop some form of cancer or another. Especially with the use of pesticides. So we shouldn’t be naïve and think that at no point in time in the future will something negative be found. Chances are after this amount of time though, it is unlikely to be anything major. This is not to say that because there is no proof of any danger to ourselves or others that it is ok to blast 100 watts of cloud into or near the face of somebody who gets offended by life itself these days.
Like all big industry, the plant lobby is powerful. Pharmaceutical companies are powerful and have made a fortune out of smoking. Governments are losing tax.
If we are being really cynical, lets be honest, in the western world at least there are not enough people under 50 working to fund the ever-increasing life expectancies of the older generations, let alone the future care and pensions for themselves, so perhaps smoking contributing to population control is desirable to the powers that be.
I’m digressing, but regardless, if there were to be a large, peer-reviewed study released that showed obviously negative results, I think you can bet your bottom dollar that the world would know about it.
Like many things in life, you take a risk. We should be mindful of those who don’t want to take a risk, however non-existent it appears to be. We want those vape-friendly signs in pubs!
Written by our new content creator Alex Blatherwick
Further reading: A Call for Vape Friendly Logos