🇦🇺 Important Vaping Info
Website writers note: this page is quite a long read, so we have seperated the articles for you to read at your own leisure. We think you will find this information very interesting. Happy reading and happy vaping.
A Public Health England (PHE) report suggested...
vaping only poses a small fraction of risk and can be a useful tool for those trying to quit smoking.
“Our new review reinforces the finding that vaping is a fraction of the risk of smoking, at least 95 per cent less harmful, and of negligible risk to bystanders. Yet over half of smokers either falsely believe that vaping is as harmful as smoking or just don’t know,” said Director for Health Improvement at PHE, Professor John Newton.
The PHE actually suggested anyone wanting to quit smoking but has struggled should make the switch to e-cigarettes and seek help from a professional.
Professor of Tobacco Addiction and lead author of the PHE report, Professor Ann McNeill, says although nicotine is addictive, it’s the actual smoke from cigarettes that results in tobacco-related diseases and death.
“It’s of great concern that smokers still have such a poor understanding about what causes the harm from smoking. When people smoke tobacco cigarettes, they inhale a lethal mix of 7,000 smoke constituents, 70 of which are known to cause cancer,” she said.
“There are now a greater variety of alternative ways of getting nicotine than ever before, including nicotine gum, nasal spray, lozenges and e-cigarettes.”
Cancer Research UK agreed that it was ‘important not to get too caught up in the 95 per cent figure’ and suggested that, regardless of the exact figure, there is a series of studies that have found that vaping is ‘significantly safer’ than smoking.
Similarly, a review by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, a US based organisation of leading researchers which analysed the results of more than 800 identified peer-reviewed scientific studies, concluded that “while e-cigarettes are not without some unknown risks, they are likely to be far less harmful” than conventional cigarettes.
Also from the science section of the website BusinessInsider.com, a report from David Eaton, the chair of the committee of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine,
"swapping to e-cigarettes from conventional cigarettes reduces users' exposure to many of the toxins and cancer causing agents in regular cigarettes - conclusive evidence. There is also substantial evidence that completely switching to e-cigs from conventional cigarettes reduces negative health outcomes in organs like the lungs and heart."
Does vaping double your risk of having a heart attack?
Jim McDonald (a very smart guy)
Smokers created vaping without any help from the tobacco industry or anti-smoking crusaders, and vapers have the right to keep innovating to help themselves. My goal is to provide clear, honest information about the challenges vaping faces from lawmakers, regulators, and brokers of disinformation. I recently joined the CASAA board (Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association), but my opinions aren’t necessarily CASAA’s, and vice versa. You can find me on Twitter @whycherrywhy
Does vaping double your risk of having a heart attack? August 27th 2018
That’s what the news stories say, based on a new study from California anti-smoking activist Stanton Glantz and three George Washington University students.
Here’s a random selection of headlines:
“Vaping every day could double your risk of a heart attack, new research suggests” (Business Insider)
“Vaping doubles chances of heart attack” (San Francisco Chronicle)
“Study: Heart attack risk doubles for e-cigarette users” (UPI)
“E-Cigarettes May Raise Risk for Heart Attack” (New York Times)
The Times article, by Nicholas Bakalar, was a virtual transcription of the University of California-San Francisco press release. The reporter didn’t even seek out opposing views — which is a shame because there is no shortage of experts who would be glad to dispute Glantz’s dubious claims.
Prof. Glantz is the career anti-smoking (and anti-vaping) activist based at UCSF, where he runs the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, one of the FDA-funded Tobacco Centers of Regulatory Science (TCORS). Glantz’s PhD in applied mechanics led to research on human heart tissue, and that earned him a professorship in cardiology. But his interest for most of four decades has been battling the tobacco industry. At least that’s what he thinks he’s doing.
The study, published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, is titled “Association Between Electronic Cigarette Use and Myocardial Infarction.” Myocardial infarction is the medical term for heart attack. The researchers used 2014 and 2016 data from the National Health Interview Survey. Participants in the survey were asked if they used e-cigarettes, and also if they had ever been told by a doctor that they had a heart attack.
The UCSF press release tells the story Glantz wants reporters to hear (and retell): “The researchers found that the total odds of having a heart attack were about the same for those who continued to smoke cigarettes daily as those who switched to daily e-cigarette use.” But that’s extremely deceptive, because smokers who switch to vaping still have the cumulative damage to their cardiovascular health caused by their past smoking. The authors couldn’t even be certain if vapers had their heart attacks after they started vaping.
An “association” doesn’t prove a causal connection. It means that some e-cigarette users had heart attacks at some point in their lives. It doesn’t necessarily mean they had heart attacks after they began vaping, because that question wasn’t asked. It may prove that more vapers have heart attacks than non-vapers, but that can be easily explained without assuming that vaping caused their heart attacks.
Most vapers are also current or ex-smokers. Smoking causes a lot of cardiovascular damage that can lead to heart attacks — even years after you quit smoking. If you smoke for 25 years and quit by switching to vaping, and then you have a heart attack years later, the explanation is probably your smoking history, not the vaping you did after you smoked for 25 years.
Glantz also seems to claim that “dual users” (people who smoke and vape) are at even higher risk, apparently because when smokers add vaping to their smoking regime they’re still also smoking the same amount. But most people who do both are replacing some of their smoking with vaping, not simply adding one to the other.
Glantz could just as easily have concluded that smokers who have heart attacks often switch to vaping to improve their health. That explanation is just as plausible — and probably more plausible — than the one made in his university’s press release. In fact, the study itself spells it out directly: “The NHIS is a cross-sectional study, so it only permits identifying associations rather than causal relationships.”
But Prof. Glantz rarely lets the words of his own studies get in the way of his scary pronouncements — or the sensational news stories that he promotes. As usual, he hypes this study as though it means something more than what it probably does. And one result will be that some smokers who may have switched to vaping will keep smoking because they think both products are equally dangerous.
We’ve looked at this problem before. There are lots of ways to turn deceptive science into propaganda: in vitro cell studies, rodent studies, studies that use bad methodology (like the Portland State formaldehyde research), and studies that overestimate vapor consumption and its resulting effects.
Prof. Glantz is famous for using tricks to get the research results he wants. Even before vaping existed, Glantz used statistical games to “prove” the risks of secondhand smoke. This deceptive research — intended to frighten the public about vaping — may very well kill people. And that doesn’t appear to bother Glantz at all.
Vape Ranks Magazine
Peer-Reviewed Clinical Trial Finds No Adverse Health Effects from Long-Term Vaping
Vape Ranks magazine on January 24, 2018 Under: E-Cigarette Studies
Regular use of electronic cigarettes over long periods of time has no adverse impact on health, according to the findings of a 24-month peer-reviewed clinical trial due to be published next month in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology.
The report on this clinical trial has now been released, here is the link:
Entitled “Evaluation of the Safety Profile of an Electronic Vapour Product Used for Two Years by Smokers in a Real-life Setting”, the study followed 209 volunteer smokers who agreed to use a closed system electronic cigarette over a period of two years, with researchers regularly monitoring their lung and heart functions, measuring their exposure to nicotine and various tobacco constituents, and keeping an eye out for any adverse effects on their overall health. Throughout the entire 24-month study, no serious health concerns were recorded among the participants, and no clinically-relevant adverse effects were observed by the researchers.
This study shows that after two years of continual e-cigarette use, there were no signs of serious health complications in smokers.” said Tanvir Walele, Director of Scientific Affairs at Fontem Ventures. “Clinical data over a two-year period gives us a much clearer picture about longer term vaping, and the potential implications for the health of smokers, so they can make an informed decision.”
We’ll have to wait for the study to be published next month, but according to the abstract made public through a press release, the 209 healthy smokers involved in the research used the Puritane closed-system e-cigarette developed by Fontem Ventures. It’s not yet clear how often participants were asked to come in for follow-up visits, but every time they did, researchers monitored their vital signs and exposure to nicotine and selected tobacco constituents, conducted electrocardiograms and lung function tests, and questioned them about any nicotine withdrawal effects and their desire to smoke conventional cigarettes.
The most frequently reported adverse effects throughout the 2-year study were headache (28.7% of participants), nasopharyngitis (28.7%), sore throat (19.6%) and cough (16.7%), all of which dissipated over time. “Small decreases in lung function were not considered clinically relevant. No clinically relevant findings were observed in the other safety parameters,” researchers noted.
Furthermore, the use of electronic cigarettes was associated with reduced exposure to hazardous compounds found in cigarette smoke, as conventional cigarette consumption gradually decreased in all subjects. At the same time, urinary nicotine levels remained close to what they were at baseline, which shows that e-cigarettes were effective in delivering sufficient nicotine.
Researchers concluded that the use of electronic cigarettes was well tolerated by participants over the 24 months, and was not associated with any clinically relevant health concerns.
“Governments and policy-makers should ensure that regulatory frameworks reflect this emerging scientific consensus, as more long term research demonstrates the safety profile of e-cigarettes,” Tanvir Walele said. “This research suggests we need e-cigarette regulation that is not modelled on tobacco product regulation, but encourages innovation and compliance with robust product quality, manufacturing and safety standards.”
An updated Cochrane Review that analyzed several studies on the effects of electronic cigarettes also concluded that nicotine-containing electronic cigarettes can help smokers quit or reduce smoking, with no increased health risks associated with short- to mid-term (up to two years) use.
Nicotine Itself Isn't The Real Villain
Sally Satel Contributor to Forbes Magazine
Healthcare, Fiscal, and Tax
'I write about issues at the intersection of medicine and culture'.
'I am a psychiatrist specializing in addiction medicine, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and a lecturer at the Yale University School of Medicine. A former Robert Wood Johnson Health Policy fellow, I have worked on several Senate subcommittees. I have written on veterans' mental health, racial disparities in medicine, addiction theory and practice, harm reduction in public health, organ markets, among other topics. My latest book is Brainwashed - The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience (Basic, 2013), which was a finalist for the LA Times Book Prize in Science'.
The man in charge of tobacco regulation at the Food and Drug Administration says we “need a national debate on nicotine.” Good idea. But first we need to understand what nicotine is – and what it isn’t.
It isn’t the stuff that can cause serious illness and death from cancer, lung, and heart disease. Those culprits are the tar and toxic gases that are released from burning tobacco when you smoke.
Nicotine is a chemical that is dangerous not because it causes cancer but because it can addict you to cigarettes. As Michael Russell, the father of tobacco harm reduction theory and the developer of nicotine gum, put it in 1976: “People smoke for nicotine but they die from the tar.”
Mitchell Zeller, director of the Center of Tobacco Products, a division of the FDA, made his comments about nicotine in an interview with New York Times columnist Joe Nocera on the eve of his agency’s recommendations for regulating electronic cigarettes.
The nature of e-cigarettes is that, like Russell’s gum, they contain nicotine and thus satisfy the cravings of smokers, but vaping – as puffing on an e-cigarette is called – doesn’t burn tobacco and release those carcinogens. Unfortunately, many Americans don’t understand that nicotine itself isn’t the villain.
Adolescents in the early 1980s encountered an evil character called Nick O’Teen, created by DC Comics in collaboration with the Sacramento-based Health Education Council. Nick O’Teen sparred with Superman, who tried to guard Gotham’s children against cigarettes.
But nicotine is only a menace when it can addict people to conventional cigarettes – that is, tobacco wrapped in paper. By contrast, in the process of vaping, nicotine carries little risk by itself. Negative health consequences have not materialized within the seven years e-cigarettes have been used in the U.S. – though it’s essential to keep monitoring.
In the 1960s, most psychologists, psychiatrists, and pharmacologists viewed smoking as a psychological and social habit. “Habit” was also the language used in the landmark 1964 Surgeon General’s report on smoking. At the time, some researchers suspected that nicotine played a role in cigarettes’ appeal. Drugs such as alcohol, barbiturates, and heroin are considered addictive (as opposed to habitual) based on their ability to intoxicate, cause social damage, and produce dramatic physical withdrawal syndromes. But smoking was considered neither a pharmacological nor biological phenomenon.
Not until 1988 did the U.S. Surgeon General designate smoking as an addiction, driven primarily by nicotine, which is a nitrogen-containing chemical, or alkaloid. Nicotine was deemed to have addictive properties based on three fundamental features: (1) in the initial stages of use, more of it is required to produce the same effect in the smoker, a phenomenon called “tolerance”; (2) it is “reinforcing,” meaning that it is sufficiently rewarding to spur self-administration; and (3) abrupt cessation can lead to powerful craving and a recognizable withdrawal syndrome.
Nicotine is a mild stimulant and poses negligible risks in healthy people. It enhances the performance of some tasks, especially those involving vigilance and rapid visual cue processing. It can also sharpen memory, concentration and attention in the short term.
Also, because nicotine receptors appear to regulate other receptor systems, its effect can vary according to one’s mood and level of arousal. A smoker who feels anxious or stressed can be calmed with nicotine, and a smoker who is tired will perk up with nicotine.
When nicotine binds to receptors in the brain, it releases dopamine, a primary neurotransmitter. Dopamine plays an important role in modulating attention, concentration, appetite suppression, and movement. Dopamine’s effects on movement could explain why nicotine has shown some promise in ameliorating a disorder like Parkinson’s disease in primates. In humans, in fact, large epidemiological series have found lower levels of the Parkinson’s in older smokers. Also, patients with early stages of Alzheimer’s disease show some improvement with nicotine when delivered via a patch.
By contrast, there’s no debate about the dangers of smoking. As the biggest preventable cause of mortality in the developed world, smoking can affect fetal development and significantly increase the chances of certain cancers, heart attack, and stroke. Smoking also worsens pre-existing diabetes.
But it’s essential to note that, in addition to nicotine, there are roughly 6,000 chemicals in cigarette smoke, so it is hard to know which components pose the greatest damage to health. For example, the carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and other gaseous constituents of cigarette smoke have been shown to reduce oxygen transport to cells, promote growth of atherosclerotic plaques in blood vessels, and make blood platelets sticky so that they clump together and form clots.
The relative safety of nicotine alone is clear from animal studies and long-term observations of people who have used medicinal nicotine for years. As a result, researchers can be far more definitive when they conclude that gum, patches, lozenges, inhalers, and sprays – all of which contain medicinal nicotine — are not carcinogenic and do not increase the risk of heart attack or stroke, even in people with pre-existing cardiac disease.
Although nicotine is an addictive substance, e-cigarette vapor appears to be less addictive than cigarette smoke. According to work by Jonathan Foulds of Penn State University College of Medicine published recently in Nicotine and Tobacco Research, vapers reported being less irritable when they did not have access to an e-cigarette compared to their feelings of frustration when they could not smoke.
Vapers also claimed they were less eager to get to the first puff of the day than they did when they were smokers. They were also less likely to wake up in the middle of the night to vape than they were, in the past, to smoke.
Many e-cigarettes deliver less nicotine per puff and generally produce lower blood nicotine levels (and, thus, brain levels) than cigarettes do. However, with access to increasingly sophisticated devices and more experience as a vaper, the user can attain a blood level of nicotine that is comparable to that produced by smoking. Still, it takes longer for vaped nicotine to reach its peak level than for tobacco-burned nicotine.
These two variables – how high the level of nicotine is in the bloodstream and how fast that level is achieved — are important in determining the addictiveness of any abused drug. As expected, Foulds’s team found that subjects who used weak “ciga-likes” (first generation e-cigarettes that physically resemble actual cigarettes) had among the lowest scores on a test of “dependency,” or addiction. Also, the length of time as a vaper was positively correlated with the strength of dependence. As Foulds suggests, “we might actually need e-cigarettes that are better at delivering nicotine because that’s what’s more likely to help people quit.”
There’s no doubt vapor technology will improve the nicotine delivery of e-cigarettes. Indeed, a brand new type of e-cigarette uses nicotine extract that includes natural nicotine salts that are part of the tobacco leaf, approximating the nicotine delivery of a conventional cigarette. As this and other technologies develop and spread, nicotine delivery will become better and vaping will become more attractive to more smokers.
Believers in harm-reduction theory see that as a good thing. If current tobacco smokers and likely new tobacco smokers choose vaping, they’ll cut their health risks – despite, or actually because of, nicotine.
In his interview with Nocera, Zeller said that “when nicotine is attached to smoke particles, it will kill.” Conversely, when there is no smoke, nicotine alone will be far safer, even a net benefit.
The question now is whether this reality can be translated into government rules that enable existing e-cigarette manufacturers to continue to innovate, to advertise to adult smokers, and to reassure the public that their products have been subject to high levels of quality control. After all, governments should regulate products according to the harm they pose, so the distinction between smoked and vaped nicotine really matters.
If policy makers reject the scientific truth about nicotine and make e-cigarettes more scarce, then the likely result is that more Americans will die from smoking.
Push for vaping to be legalised in Australia continues
FEBRUARY 1, 2019 6:23AM
Stephanie Bedo news.com.au
A new survey claims puffing on e-cigarettes is more effective for quitting smoking than nicotine patches or gum.
But the figures are just the latest in a series of studies being published around the world, and comes just a week after an alarming study pointed to a growing public health concern around young Australian women trying vaping, many who had never smoked a real cigarette.
The latest study released this week from the Queen Mary University of London found 18 per cent of e-cigarette users were smoke-free after a year, compared to 9.9 per cent of people using nicotine-replacement products.
The government’s position is that existing evidence indicates that e-cigarettes are not harmless products and an inquiry into the health impacts of nicotine e-cigarettes was launched by Federal Health Minister Greg Hunt in September.
It all contributes to a confusing picture of what is healthy and what isn’t — and comes as advocates claim misinformation about vaping is widespread and harmful to public health.
A number of groups have been pushing for Australia to legalise vaping, including the Australian Tobacco Harm Reduction Association (ATHRA), Legalise Vaping Australia and tobacco brands such as Philip Morris.
“Vaping is a far less harmful alternative for smokers who are unable to quit and has helped millions of smokers quit overseas,” ATHRA chairman, Conjoint Associate Professor Colin Mendelsohn, said.
ATHRA is a health promotion charity established by independent doctors to raise awareness of vaping and other tobacco harm reduction strategies.
Professor Mendelsohn said smoking rates in Australia had stalled since 2013 and vaping was a potential lifesaver for smokers who were unable to quit with conventional treatments.
“The scientific consensus is that it is far less harmful than smoking,” he said.
He said out of the 37 OECD countries, only three had vaping bans including Mexico and Japan.
Legalise Vaping Australia campaign director Brian Marlow said more than 55 scientific studies showed vaping was less harmful than cigarettes and could help people quit smoking.
“2.6 million Australians smoke daily and according to the ABS, since 2014-15 the adult daily smoking rate is ‘unchanged’,” he said.
“After three years of trying and failing to help Australians quit, the facts are clear. Existing methods to reduce smoking rates are not working, and there is another way.
“Australia can catch up with Canada, New Zealand, the United States, and the United Kingdom and legalise smoke-free alternatives to help smokers quit for good.
“We need a legislative and regulatory regime that supports the sale of these products to ensure people have the best chance to quit cigarettes.”
Tammy Chan, managing director for Philip Morris, said she believed the products could, when regulated properly, help to reduce smoking rates in Australia.
Mr Hunt did not respond to news.com.au’s request for comment. ('Hmmm' - website writers point of view regarding Mr. Hunt)
Is Diacetyl Vape Something You Need To Worry About?
Don’t panic! You may have heard something about a diacetyl vape being the worst thing since the plague but let’s step back, catch a deep breath, and take an honest look at what is going on here. There is a lot of hyperbole and sensationalism going on from vaping critics. That’s not to say diacetyl is something you should ignore; we are saying let’s introduce some facts and perspective. No sugar coating, just the straight goods.
The media frenzy about diacetyl in e-liquids started with a Harvard University study that found diacetyl in 75% of the e-liquid brands that they tested. We are going to cover that plus how diacetyl gets into some e-juices, what the concerns are, and we will also tell you where you can get vape juice without any diacetyl.
We also want to touch on any risks of vaping diacetyl. Vaping critics and media outlets looking for scary headlines have made diacetyl in e-liquid into proof of the dangers of vaping. The smoking gun they have been looking for! Hold on. Currently, there is no evidence that vaping diacetyl causes disease. Vaping Daily recommends we have an honest discussion. Let’s start at square one. What is diacetyl?What Is Diacetyl?
Diacetyl is an organic compound that is a yellowish, green liquid with the chemical formula CH3CO2. It tastes like butter. Along with acetoin, diacetyl is the chemical that gives butter it’s flavoring. In fact, it is a byproduct of the fermentation process that is used to make dairy and other products. For example, you will find diacetyl in alcoholic beverages.Diacetyl is an organic compound that gives butter it’s flavor. It is used as a butter flavoring in food production.
Diacetyl is considered safe for human consumption. Aside from being found in dairy and alcoholic drinks, diacetyl is used as a butter flavoring in other food products. It’s what makes margarin taste like butter. Eating diacetyl is considered to be perfectly safe. Diacetyl is how they get your microwave popcorn to taste savory and buttery. And those delicious buttery fumes from microwave popcorn is where the concern begins.
While you can eat foods that contain diacetyl to your heart’s content, inhailing it is where the trouble lies.
Popcorn lung, or bronchiolitis obliterans, is a severe lung disease. Damage to lung tissue traps air inside the lungs and makes breathing difficult. The name stems from incidents of the disease occurring in workers at a microwave popcorn factory. The CDC determined that the cause was breathing in the fumes of the diacetyl used for the butter flavoring.
The analysis showed that the popcorn factory workers were spending an entire shift in an area where the diacetyl in the air was measured at 18 parts per million. The constant, long-term exposure at that level was deemed to be a health hazard.
As a result of the CDC diacetyl analysis, OSHA instituted provisions for popcorn factory workers to wear protective equipment to avoid inhaling diacetyl. There was also a case of a Colorado man contracting the respiratory disease after eating microwave popcorn every day for ten years. Diacetyl is fine when eaten but inhaling too many diacetyl fumes is another matter.
The connection between inhaling diacetyl and bronchiolitis obliterans is why the Harvard study raised the alarm about a potential diacetyl vape problem in e-liquids.
Popcorn lung is very rare, with only a few cases besides the ones mentioned already, so it seems like the warning against diacetyl from vaping may be premature.
The Harvard study that found diacetyl in e-liquid set off a media frenzy. Harvard University researchers found diacetyl in 75% of the e-liquids that they tested. They tested several flavors from each of eight different brands. There are e-liquid brands that were using diacetyl at the time. If they tested a brand that was using diacetyl, then every flavor would test positive skewing the numbers upward. When they say they found diacetyl in 39 of 51 samples, keep in mind that those 51 samples were from only eight different brands.The Harvard study did find diacetyl in 39 of 51 e-liquid samples tested, but they only tested eight different brands.
Researchers did not conclude that a diacetyl vape will cause respiratory illness. What they did suggest was that their discovery indicated a need for further study. That is a reasonable position that makes sense. We do need more study on this issue. As a vaper, this is something you certainly deserve to be aware of.
To add some perspective here, studies have shown that when diacetyl has been detected in vapor, it was measured at a high 9.0 micrograms. The diacetyl level found in tobacco smoke has been measured at 335.9 micrograms. Cigarette smoke exposes tobacco users to exponentially higher diacetyl levels than e-cigarette vapor that contains diacetyl.How Does Diacetyl Get Into E-Liquid
A diacetyl vape is a result of diacetyl being present in the flavoring of an e-liquid. How does that diacetyl get in there? It is in the flavor ingredients. The diacetyl is not a result of the VG, PG, or nicotine. Some flavorings offered by come e-cig companies contain diacetyl. Some of the flavors that have been reported to contain the chemical are cherry, custard, and pastry flavors.
Blending e-liquid is a job for professional chemists and needs to take place in a professional lab. For example, an ISO8 clean room is great, but you can’t put in an ISO8 air filter and think you have a legitimate clean room. A professional lab facility controls the entire air circulation and distribution system. Likewise, blending e-juice requires the attention of a trained chemist. Let me tell you why.
Many small companies and even vape shops are making e-juice. They may be well-intentioned but without the actual expertise required. If they buy bulk flavoring and the ingredient label says “Natural and artificial flavoring,” that may include diacetyl. Some e-liquid companies may not even know they are making vape juice with diacetyl. It takes a chemist to analyze and understand what is in vape juice.
It is easy to avoid a diacetyl vape by choosing an e-liquid that does not contain diacetyl or acetoin. Many of the best vape juice companies offer you plenty of diacetyl free options. And they back their claims with independent lab testing. If you want to be sure you are avoiding vaping diacetyl, look for those companies using professional labs and verified by independent lab tests.Diacetyl Free Vape Juice
While there is no known connection between a diacetyl vape and lung conditions. But if you have any concern, the good news is that it is easy to avoid. Many of the best vape juice companies do not use diacetyl in any of their products. Also, companies like Halo and VaporFi utilize state of the art lab facilities staffed by professional chemists and technicians. They know what they are doing.You can avoid diacetyl in vaping. Not all e-liquids have diacetyl
Look for e-juice companies that utilize professional labsLook for independent lab reports verifying vape juice ingredients.
As a consumer, another thing you can look for is transparency. Look for companies that post independent lab reports of their vape juice ingredients. That way you can make sure you are not vaping diacetyl.
In th UK diacetyl is already banned from vape juices and it may be followed in others countries shortly. So vaping without it is not a problem as it is not an essential ingredient in e-juice.
We have come full circle back to the beginning. Is vaping diacetyl safe? It may or may not impact human health. There is no evidence either way regarding diacetyl as a potential vaping risk. It is something to be aware of. As a consumer, you do have the option of selecting a diacetyl free vape.There are no known cases of anyone getting popcorn lung disease from vaping.
If you compare how much diacetyl is present in vapor in the worst case and compare that to the average cigarette, there is 85 times more diacetyl in cigarette smoke. Any exposure from a diacetyl vape pales in comparison to the exposure from smoking. That’s an important thing to keep in mind. Perhaps even the most important thing to keep in mind.Published: December 7, 2017Updated: April 5, 2019
Posted byChristina Matthews
I love the written word, and in my career as a journalist, I strive to provide the facts about everything I write about. There are too many false and alarmist stories out there about life and vaping mainly. My mission is to make e-cigarettes less scary to people with informative articles and extensive research on not only the possible evils of cigarettes and Big Tobacco, but the objective side of e-cigs.