In this article...
One of the trials that we as vapers have to put up with all the time is the message that we are as bad as smokers, and that by vaping we are polluting the atmosphere. That vaping indoors is bad.
Only the truth is, we are not and science can now prove it!
Updated: 12th March 2020
The next time someone screws up their face and tells you, (in that snide way they do) that you are polluting their space. You can, with all honesty, turn around and tell them (politely...) that they are wrong.
What does science say about vaping indoors?
The Public Library of Science have recently published an article called "Fine particles in homes of predominantly low-income families with children and smokers: Key physical and behavioral determinants to inform indoor-air-quality interventions."
It is a long title, but basically the researchers used e cigarettes as part of the indoor air quality study, and due to their findings they can show vaping does not pollute the home. They even factored in frying food, cleaning products, scented candles and the sizes of the homes when collating the results.
The EconoTimes that ran the story stated, " The study focused on more than 300 homes in the San Diego area and its purpose was to examine air quality of households where there was evidence of indoor smoking and vaping and compare it with the air quality of households that were smoke and vapor-free. Scientist installed monitoring equipment in all the households and the data was transmitted to them for analysis. There were 43 homes that reported indoor vaping and the data showed no detectable increase in air pollution."
What did the study say about nicotine?
"We observed no apparent difference in the weekly mean particle distribution between 43 homes reporting any electronic cigarette usage and those reporting none."
This is not the only study to find this, many have found e-cigarette vapor to be non-harmful to bystanders, including a literature review done using PubMed that scoured 9000 references to vaping.
What about the nicotine you ask? Well that too is in such low quantities as to not pose a risk. The article states:
"Researchers even say that the biggest concern in this respect is passive exposure to nicotine but point out that "nicotine from exhaled vapor can be deposited on surfaces, but at such low levels that there is no plausible mechanism by which such deposits could enter the body at doses that would cause physical harm."
The previously mentioned Public Health England study quantified that nicotine exposure by noting that it's 169 times lower than that of smoking, and that, as such, it poses no real danger."
Why are we still hearing all this negative press about vaping?
It could be the following piece of interesting news this week; the findings that the media is biased against vaping.
Researchers from Rutgers University in Ohio collected all the media stories about vaping in 2015. This amounted to 295 articles and found that not only was the news negatively biased against vaping, but that the 'experts' interviewed often made inaccurate claims.
The researchers came up with the following findings, that will be of little surprise to those of us that keep an eye on the press.
They found:
Nearly half of articles (45.1%) focused primarily on e-cigarette policy/regulatory issues, although e-cigarette prevalence (21.0%) and health effects (21.7%) were common main topics.
Concerns about youth were frequently mentioned, including the rise in youth e-cigarette use (45.4%), gateway to smoking potential (33.9%) and appeal of flavors (22.4%).
Youth e-cigarette prevalence was more frequently mentioned than adult prevalence in articles discussing FDA regulation (61% vs. 13.5%, respectively).
News articles more frequently discussed potential e-cigarette risks or concerns (80%) than benefits (45.4%), such as smoking harm-reduction. Quoted physicians, researchers, and government representatives were more likely to refer to e-cigarette risks than benefits.
The researchers concluded, "Such coverage may impact e-cigarette risk perceptions, use intentions and policy support."
Tell us something we don't know.
