U. S. public health professor and anti-smoking activist Michael Siegel reveals data on the air in vape shops. In these highly vapor-exposed environments, analyses did not reveal the presence or very small quantities of harmful elements.

To assess the exposure of people working in specialized vape shops, the California Department of Public Health conducted a campaign to analyze the ambient air in these shops throughout the state. Michael Siegel was able to obtain the results of analyses from one of these stores which he published on his blog "The Rest of the Story".

The Boston University professor details the "unfavourable conditions" of air sampling. At the time of sampling there was no active ventilation system, steam clouds were visible, most of the employees were vaping and the 13 customers were present.

The main results of the sampling as published by Michael Siegel reveal the following results:

Nicotine: not detected
Glycidol: undetected
Formaldehyde: 7.2 ppb
Diacetyl: not detected using a standard method
2,3-Pentanedione: not detected using a standard method
Acetyl butyryl acetyl: not detected using a standard method
Acetoin: Not detected using a standard method
Acetone: undetected
Ethyl benzene: Not detected
M, p-Xylene: not detected
O-Xylene: not detected
Toluene: not detected
Acetaldehyde: undetected
Acetonitrile: not detected
Alpha-pinene: not detected
Benzene: not detected
Chloroform: undetected
D-Limonene: not detected
Methylene chloride: undetected
Methyl methacrylate: undetected
N-hexane: not detected
Styrene: not detected
The scientist explains that "the detected level of formaldehyde is consistent with normal indoor and outdoor air levels of formaldehyde under baseline conditions".

Image result for vape

No significant risk

Surveys conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH) at another specialty store showed similar results. Inspectors were looking for the presence of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and three chemical components associated with "popcorn worker's disease". These analyses also showed minimal levels of these substances without significant risk to customers.

For Siegel, the second study conducted in the extreme conditions of an online vape shop, as in the first study, found that there was no evidence of significant exposure to hazardous chemicals. He sees this as further evidence that, in real-life conditions, "passive vaporization" does not appear to pose significant health risks.

Reasonable Evidence

On the basis of current scientific evidence, I do not see the justification for the ban on smoking in most public places "insists the Public Health expert, who points out that these words come from" a person who has spent most of his or her career banning smoking in bars, restaurants, casinos and all other indoor workplaces (and even the outdoor seats of restaurants)"before driving the nail down" I certainly am not in favour of ".”

But for the government to prohibit behaviour, such as smoking or spraying "there must be reasonable evidence" and "I do not see any reasonable evidence at this time that[passive spraying] poses a significant risk to human health".

Likes

Comments