“By closing loopholes of
smoke-free zones... LA
County residents are
better able to enjoy
cleaner, healthier air.”
Leaving aside the FDA’s misleading confluence
of tobacco and nicotine, is ‘second-hand
vapour’ actually harmful?
Not according to Public Health England’s most recent
e-cigarette evidence review.
Researchers found the risk of passive exposure to
nicotine and other compounds in vapour was very low
“or at trace or non-detectable levels when compared
with second-hand smoke.”
Another study found that only six percent of nicotine,
eight percent of propylene glycol and 16 percent of
glycerine inhaled by vapers was exhaled, and that
there was “no difference in nicotine levels compared
to homes of non-tobacco users.”
It’s not just UK studies that dismiss the
risks of ‘passive vaping.’
A 2017 US Department of Health and Human
Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
evaluation of the air in a vape shop found that the
detected levels of flavourings and formaldehyde were
well below the lowest occupational limit and nicotine
was ‘virtually undetectable,’ despite poor ventilation
and 13 vapers blowing clouds throughout the shift.
The lack of evidence of the harms of exposure to
outdoor e-cigarette vapour suggests that restrictions
on outdoor vaping are based on a fundamental
misunderstanding of the relative harms of smoke
and vapour. It is also far easier to adapt existing
smoke-free policies than to draw up specific vaping
regulations based on the available evidence.
Around one-in-20 US adults use e-cigarettes,
according to the Annuls of Internal Medicine. But
lawmakers and many never-smokers are increasingly
hostile to vaping, forcing vapers out into the open-air.
But now even these once-safe spaces are under-
threat, which may leave smokers with one fewer
reason to quit actual tobacco for good.
VM23 | 83