The state of California has been examining whether or not second-hand vapor is a serious public health concern. While smoking has been banned in many public places in the Golden State and across the country, many people have argued that vaping should not be subject to those same bans.
New second hand vape smoke studies conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH) aim to look at the prevalence of harmful chemicals in second-hand vapor.
Straight to the Source
Over the last several years a number of studies have been conducted into the first-hand effects of vaping. However, few studies have looked into the effects of second-hand vapor.
Moreover, no studies have looked at the effects of second-hand vapor in a highly concentrated environment. NIOSH sought to test the most extreme scenario by testing chemical levels inside of vapor shops where large crowds of people are vaping at once.
The goal was to test the air inside of vape shops for formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and signs of chemicals that cause “popcorn lung” like diacetyl.
Early summaries of the two studies show that even with a room full of people actively vaping, chemical levels were well below harmful levels. In fact, the air inside the vape shops was equivalent to the air outdoors or inside the average home.
Signs of diacetyl were almost entirely absent, except for a few samples that were significantly below harmful ratings.
As a result, many within the vaping community are looking to share this data and inform voters about why vaping should be allowed in public places. As California tightens restrictions on smoking, and seeks ways to reduce the prevalence of smoking all around, many vapers are concerned that lawmakers will not appreciate the differences between second-hand tobacco smoke and second-hand vapor as shown in this study.
Dr. Michael Siegel has spoken out in favor of e-cigarettes as a useful tool for harm reduction, and hopes that legislators will take this into consideration when they write new laws.
Ultimately, vapers are hoping that these studies will help people understand that vapor clouds are not the same as cigarette smoke, and that there is no public health crisis surrounding vaping. On our end, VaporFi has made our vape juice research publicly available to anyone interested in learning about industry statistics.
They argue that allowing vaping in public will actually incentivize smokers to make the switch, rather than punishing them while they are trying to quit. As California continues to fund anti-smoking campaigns, this research deserves the attention of lawmakers who could be supporting the vapor industry as a whole.