Smoke from E-Cigs Still Poses Some Second-Hand Risk

  • Share
  • Read Later
Getty Images/Flickr RF

It’s not real tobacco smoke, but the emissions from electronic cigarettes can still contain harmful ingredients.

A new study published in the journal Nicotine and Tobacco Research shows that e-cigarettes generate enough nicotine emissions that they can be inhaled by those near a smoker. The researchers conducted two studies on three brands of e-cigarettes that investigated what the devices emitted into the surrounding air.

In the first study, the scientists used a smoke machine to “smoke” the cigarettes and then measure the concentrations of nicotine and other volatile organic compounds such as carbon monoxide released. They compared these emissions to those of standard cigarettes. Then, the team asked five male participants to smoke both tobacco and e-cigarettes in a room that measured contaminant exposure.

The found that e-cigarettes are a source of second-hand exposure to nicotine, but not of other compounds released when tobacco is burned. And the nicotine exposure was 10 times less than that from tobacco smoke.

However, another recent study from New York University researchers reported that e-cigarette smokers may not be spared such exposures. They inhale more nicotine because they puff more often and tend to breathe in more deeply than regular cigarette smokers. So higher nicotine consumption may be a risk for e-cig smokers.

Both studies suggest there’s much still to be learned about the health risks of e-cigarettes, including their effect not just on smokers but on those around them. The Food and Drug Administration currently does not regulate e-cigarettes, but has proposed a rule that would give the agency more regulatory power over the devices.

63 comments
RealityRocks4U
RealityRocks4U

But smoking marijuana is just fine as is adding fruit flavors to alcohol. There is no such thing as common sense, integrity, balance or honesty in reporting these days - the almighty dollar rules everything coupled with the addiction to control and power over individuals and then we wonder why our children are now plagued with mental illnesses with the number one pharmaceutical drug sale in North America being that of an anti-psychotic. Shame on you all.

RealityRocks4U
RealityRocks4U

Not true. Here is a comprehensive list of scholarly reputable studies from research centers around the world on vaping and e-cigs. The problem is lost tax revenue and decreased sales from pharmaceutical companies for Zyban, Champix, patches, sprays and gum. http://onvaping.com/the-ultimate-list-of-studies-on-e-cigarettes-and-their-safety/

 E-cig companies are small businesses and not corporate giants unlike pharmaceutical companies and federal governments that stand to lose billions from smokers switching to e-cigs.

bigdancehawk
bigdancehawk

You say, "However, another recent study from New York University researchers reported that e-cigarette smokers may not be spared such exposures. They inhale more nicotine because they puff more often and tend to breathe in more deeply than regular cigarette smokers. So higher nicotine consumption may be a risk for e-cig smokers."


However, there is NO SUCH STUDY. This is completely untrue and you should apologize and retract it. For incontrovertible proof, read this: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/12/anti-smoking-researchers-continue-to.html

MickWright
MickWright

"In the first study, the scientists used a smoke machine to “smoke” the cigarettes and then measure the concentrations of nicotine and other volatile organic compounds such as carbon monoxide released. They compared these emissions to those of standard cigarettes. "


Thats utter rubbish there is NO carbon monoxide in ecigarettes whatsoever. 

Source: http://publichealth.drexel.edu/~/media/files/publichealth/ms08.pdf


Eventually you know publishers will end up in court getting sued for defamation for this sort of nonsense. That statement is out and out libelous and will damage the ecigarette industry and there is no defense for it. Its defamation out and out!

missmaja
missmaja

@MickWright Read the first sentence of the next paragraph: "The found that e-cigarettes are a source of second-hand exposure to nicotine, but not of other compounds released when tobacco is burned. "


If you had kept reading the article you would see that although they were measuring carbon monoxide they didn't find any in the room with the e-cig vapor.


*SMH*


Jcdew67
Jcdew67

I smoked for 35 years,2 cartons a week of full flavored Pall Mall.I was able to quit them completely within 1 week of vaping.After 4 years of vaping My high blood pressure is gone,I don't wheeze anymore,I can run a few miles a day when before I couldn't even run 100 feet before I was so out of breath I had to lay down like I was going to die. I have a mother that smoked for 50+ years,she had copd,she used to cough so much she would cry,now she doesn't cough at all. Hate on ecigs all you want but I know they are a life saving invention for us ex smokers. Why do I still vape 0% Nicotine? Because I enjoy it,the people saying it is because of Nicotine addiction are so wrong.If Nicotine was the only reason for people not being able to quit smoking then Nicotine patches and gum and even Chantix would have a 99% success rate.

MarinaBurroughs
MarinaBurroughs

@Jcdew67 Hi there. It's great you're feeling fitter now after giving up smoking! I wish more smokers started using e-cigarettes, especially around entrances to buildings, pubs, bus stops, tube stations, in parks, on beeches, etc. If more people started smoking e-cigarettes my life as a non-smoker would be bliss: there's nothing worse than unwillingly inhaling the smoke coming from a smoker walking in front  you on your way to work in the morning! 

Jcdew67
Jcdew67

One of the ingredients in ecigs is propylene glycol(PG),it is used in ventilation systems in Hospitals,it is also used as a base for many household products and medicines.Another is Vegetable Glycerin(VG) that is used in Fog machines in plays and many events that have children. To treat ecigs like regular cigarettes would mean that drinking water would not be allowed to anyone under 21 since it mimics drinking Vodka,buying anything that resembles a Firearm would require 21 years of age and a back ground check,the list goes on and on. People in my office also drink steaming hot coffee,should I be made to breath in the vapors from that? The smell of a lot of people's perfume and cologne makes me sick,maybe we should ban that too. Tests HAVE been done on second hand vapor and pose no more harm to people around them. I vape 0% Nicotine,every ingredient  approved by the FDA as safe for humans,should that be banned since it mimics smoking? If you think that then my earlier ban proposals on guns,water and Fog machines aren't so silly.

MarinaBurroughs
MarinaBurroughs

@Jcdew67 

 I agree with you. However I don't know if, as a non-smoker, I would like to work next to a chain 'vaper', or sit next to one on the tube, etc. Where do you draw the line?

bluebird27
bluebird27

People in our office smoke e-cigarettes, and the smell makes me feel sick, and it dry's the back of my throat.  I think they should be banned from public areas, the same as smoking real cigarettes.

castor798
castor798

@bluebird27 Then people should be banned from using purfume or even fabric softener. The smell of Bounce causes me to have a headache, take it off the market and create Bounce feee zones!

clover67b
clover67b

Some of you clearly need to do more research on the subject.  First of all, "inhaling" and "digesting" chemicals are two entirely different things.  Inhaling "nicotine" and other chemicals into your lungs is different than eating a tomato!!  Furthermore, how could inhaling ANY chemical into your lungs be good for you or less damaging that cigarettes?  Food for thought.


MarinaBurroughs
MarinaBurroughs

@clover67b 

It may still be harmful for the smokers, but it would be less unpleasant for the non-smokers walking behind them early in the morning... ;)

bigdancehawk
bigdancehawk

@clover67b I've done an enormous amount of research. Why don't you do some research before spewing nonsense. E-cigarettes are vastly less harmful than conventional cigarettes and even people who are anti-nicotine fanatics concede that. Water is a "chemical." Do you fear taking hot showers? Think of all that "chemical" you're inhaling. Here, educate yourself: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpublichealth.drexel.edu%2F~%2Fmedia%2FFiles%2Fpublichealth%2Fms08.pdf&ei=ozTNU4fRJpCgyATa_QE&usg=AFQjCNF6slX5pkvrMNLeBKjDTZOHEohlMA&sig2=3xqVs63Ck_krMmWaF7DFmw

grid.gypsy
grid.gypsy

Let me do some quick calculations here. According to the study, the most nicotine produced by an e-cigarette was 6.23ug per cubic meter, or approximately the volume of a 10 square foot room. Pureed tomatoes contain 19.2ug of nicotine per gram. So that means that a person eating slightly over a tenth of an ounce of tomato sauce would get the same exact nicotine as someone standing in a small room with active e-cigarette vapor. Of course, that depends on whether or not the scientists that performed this study took into account the amount of nicotine that the user absorbs, since there is absolutely no side stream product. Sounds to me like we need to ban tomatoes, potatoes, cauliflower and especially eggplant right along with e-cigarettes. Think of the children!

MarinaBurroughs
MarinaBurroughs

@grid.gypsy 

We're not talking about 'inhaling' tomatoes, right? It's about the air we breathe... However, I don't know if you are a smoker or not, but believe me, when I accidentally inhale other people's cigarette smoke my stomach reacts immediately and I feel sick. How do you explain that? :P

JacobWallace
JacobWallace

@MarinaBurroughs @grid.gypsy

Psychosomatic response is the reaction of the mind that creates a physical condition change just from the belief that something has actually happened.

I don't think its the cigs or e cig's.. I think you have had an issue with a smoker that has manifested itself into a desire to rid the world of smokers. It is evident in the fact that you have replied or like every single comment on this page..maybe you were conditioned to believe cigs are poison and evil as a child?

someone would literally have to shove the smoke down your throat to induce nausea from second hand smoke...they simply aren't toxic enough...Now stand over a tire fire and tell me about feeling sick  

missmaja
missmaja

@JacobWallace @MarinaBurroughs @grid.gypsy Although e-cigarettes don't seem to bother me, secondhand smoke from an actual cigarette causes severe irritation in my bronchial passages and sometimes just opening my car door in a parking lot and getting one facefull of secondhand smoke will make me cough for close to a half hour.  When the smoke continues I will cough so hard that it makes me cry from the pain in my chest and throat.  That is not psychosomatic, it is just more severe than most people's reaction.  

secondhandcaffeine
secondhandcaffeine

Quick!  No more brewing coffee at the office!  It is creating water vapor CONTAMINATED with second hand caffeine!


Kverulant
Kverulant

Yeah, 'cause secondary exposure to the smell of caffeine has been proven to be harmful, just like SHS, right? What a silly, illogical and dumb thing to utter.

harleyrider1777
harleyrider1777

Complaint regarding Mail on Sunday article 27 January 2013: E-cigarettes ‘can cause more harm than smoking’, experts say

1. The headline and premise of the story is completely inaccurate – there are no circumstances in which e-cigarettes cause more harm than smoking. In reality they are almost harmless – probably at least 99% less risky than cigarette smoking. No expert would say this and none has.

2. There is no fact or argument in the article to support the headline or its main premise. This is simply asserted by the by the journalist in the first sentence of the article, and in the headline. The fact that e-cigarettes ‘can cause acute respiratory system irritation’ in some users is barely relevant. An ‘irritation’ is a minor issue compared to cancer, heart disease and emphysema caused by smoking. It is these chronic conditions that do the most harm. Most e-cigarette users don’t experience this irritation and no figures are given on how many people are afflicted by this irritation or how severely. So even the one health impact that is mentioned is asserted without any quantification or sense of its seriousness. It certainly is not described in a way that justifies the headline or premise of the article. Inflammation and irritation of the respiratory tract is common in smokers (smokers’ cough) – as well as cancer, heart disease etc.

3. No experts are quoted in the article saying e-cigarettes ‘can cause more harm than smoking’ – yet this quote is used in the headline and is unattributed. No experts have said this because it is not true. The article doesn’t even support its own (false) premise.

4. There is implicit misleading scaremongering about ‘the chemical propylene glycol’ (why mention it otherwise?). In reality this is a largely benign substance used as a food additive and in medicines.

A grossly inaccurate story like this could have real impacts on human welfare if it discourages people from switching from smoking cigarettes to e-cigarettes. It is also unfairly damaging to numerous small businesses trying to grow the market for a much safer alternative to smoking. This is particularly irresponsible, ill-informed, and lazy journalism.


http://www.clivebates.com/?p=806

kevinmulvina
kevinmulvina

The "denormalization" strategy is a medical / Pharmaceutical promotion, costing more than 100 Billion Dollars to date. The word itself screams violence, hatred and inhumanity. Regardless, it is the mainstay of promoted smoking  bans and cigarette taxation. Now spreading it's wings to outdoor smoking bans and electronic cigarettes where science understands no level of risk exists for those being pushed to hate. We see identical hate being promoted for those who are overweight of those who consume alcohol along with a bevy of nanny state, paternalist promotions, in all areas of human activities where governments desire more control.


People learn hatred. It is far easier to teach them to love and understand each other.


Mandela et al




That promotion would have cost us practically nothing, because before the promotions and fear mongering by bell curve "research" we all seemed to have gotten along just fine. For every Billion Dollars invested in the current form of "research" by estimates and "so say all" technologies. We could have invested in 1000 million dollar research grants in real labs with real biological observations. By now, most of the so called smoking "related" diseases might well be curable.


In that perspective are we really well served by the Billions invested in de-humanist activities, such as we see herein?





kevinmulvina
kevinmulvina

If this so called "Journalist" has given this article her best effort,This report reflects badly on the quality of education offered "from the Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism."  Anyone with even a precursory understanding of the subject matter, would be remiss to educate themselves, on the facts at hand prior to wading into something she obviously knows very little about. Perhaps in search of fear mongering to mislead the audience, a bold print headline, or whatever agenda she is supporting today. 


Tobacco Farmers handle nicotine in the fields all day long for months on end  There is something they call green tobacco sickness which would serve us well here, in understanding nicotine Do a search for green tobacco sickness and see what you find, The symptoms of green tobacco sickness, are also seen with the use of nicotine patches and gum, however they are not seen among people who use e-cigarettes or those who smoke cigarettes. Leading us to question the safety of the preferred "medical treatments" being shilled shamelessly, by every facet of the Public Health industry and by the body part charities at large, all of whom are handsomely rewarded for their efforts [we call that prostitution in normalized terms],  


Nicotine has an ignition point below its boiling point and when smoked the greatest proportion is burned up and oxidized to form nicotinic acid, which is a purer form of niacin, than the cheaper mass produced kind you buy in the store as a supplement  or the variety used to enrich your wheat products [your daily bread.]. The e-cig is designed to replicate levels experienced by smoking, meaning if the users are feeling sick, as though they were wearing a patch, they are consuming too much. Smokers are able to switch to e-cigs and in fact quit smoking, only because the experience is closer to what you experience by smoking, than the effects of patches and gum. Medical treatments? which in real research have been shown to be effective less than 1% of the time. Meaning people who are being pushed by their "medical experts" to use these products, are being defrauded 99% of the time.Nub-oil never had it so good, or was the payola behind its marketing so well connected and intertwined, with the people we should be able to trust and sadly that is no longer true.


Isn't it time? the Journalists got back onto a more ethical and redeeming path, by cutting ties with the ad agencies and speak for themselves distinctly and clearly, as representative of something else?


harleyrider1777
harleyrider1777

This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/28/16741714-lungs-from-pack-a-day-smokers-safe-for-transplant-study-finds?lite

Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

“I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study...........................

Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.

146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.

A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!

IroCageCanada
IroCageCanada

Will the prohibitionist propaganda ever stop?  Even if it were true that ''second hand vapor'' contains nicotine, what's the problem?  There is nothing harmful about nicotine in low doses such as found in real cigarettes.  The body metabolizes it in the form of cotinine and cotinine has also been found to be harmless:  ''This study demonstrates that short-term administration of cotinine to humans at levels as high as 10 times that attained from cigarette smoking is safe with no observable acute or withdrawal effects from cotinine in this setting.''  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9258989

And it's not as if anyone can get addicted to it from breathing it in ''second hand''.  When's the last time you heard  of anyone getting addicted to smoking because they were living with a smoker?


cantiloper
cantiloper

Nonsense.  If the study is the one I've read before, the researchers, DESPITE all of the wonders of 21st century technology, weren't even able to MEASURE nanograms and picograms and femtograms of nicotine in the ambient air of a sealed scientific chamber: they had to take measurements from little tubes that had vapor pumped directly into them in order to get a reading.


In terms of the INTENSITY of the reading they got, I believe it worked out, in normal situations, to a non-vaper having to hang out in a room with vapers for something on the order of 50,000 ro 500,000 hours to approach the maximum "safe" levels of atmospheric nicotine designated by OSHA.   This article, just like so many of the ones you read in support of ordinary smoking bans, is propaganda -- maybe innocently repeated by a reporter who hasn't read widely enough in the field to recognize it for what it is, but simple propaganda nonetheless.


The study and its details of course are hidden from the general public who don't have grants to pay for access, but from the abstract I believe my analysis above is true.  One of the authors appears to be the same Mark Travers who made a name for himself traveling around to bars with little sniffers to measure PM 2.5 levels and then blatantly ignore EPA guidelines in comparing one hour readings to twenty-four hour standards.  I believe those little jaunts were funded at $50,000 to $75,000 apiece.  In at least some research along those lines the student "volunteers" being paid to do the sniffing were assured that there was "no risk" involved from the exposures to tobacco smoke they'd be getting in smoky bars and restaurants: a VERY different story than what those researchers generally offer to the public.


Michael J. McFadden

Author of "TobakkoNacht -- The Antismoking Endgame"

harleyrider1777
harleyrider1777

@snowbird  Lets not forget tobacco smokes chemical make up while we are here on this note:


Yet a simple look at the chemistry shows us that its:

About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it quickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.

4 % is carbon monoxide.

6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms......
(1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).

ShareeWert
ShareeWert

Reality is those who vape will always force those who don't vape to breathe in the nicotine crap. I find those who ape quite ignorant and self centred. They choose to inhale the stuff into their lungs thatos there perogative. I prefer not to be around it and breathe it in. As someone in nursing and as someone who is with someone who makes this liquid.. I can tell you it's not in the same category as smelling a cup of coffee. The chemicals in it dry your lungs and the flavourings it it are not meant for our lungs to breathe. While it is better than smoking a cigarette we can still it safely say it is 100 per cent safe. And it does not disappear into the air. I have to constantly wipe the windows of our vehicle as it sticks after a while and that is also what goes into your lungs. Give it 5 years and you will see the cancers caused by breathing this in. Go ahead and vape. Just don't think because to smells nice that it's safe. And don't force those who don't vape to be around to suck the stuff in.