We have all been to or seen pictures of that place where a number of vapers are meeting up. After a countdown, gleefully, everyone helps to create a fog bank inside a room. Anti-vape campaigners will tell you that this constitutes second-hand vape, and that when it settles it becomes some kind of dangerous third-hand vape. Not so, according to a strange source.
It is as surprising that this story has gone without much coverage given the content of the findings – but more so when one considers who it was doing the testing. Air quality sampling was carried out in vape shops, a place where a fug can build up due to the number of people visiting and staying for a while to chat.
Where were these vape shops? California, and the testing was carried out by the Californian State Health Department. This is the very same department who make ludicrous claims about second and third-hand vape being dangerous – and telling people “we don’t know what’s in it”.
On the first occasion, “many of the employees vaped throughout the sampling and 13 customers vaped while in the shop. There was no active ventilation system, and visible clouds of vapour were visible at times.”
Nicotine: Not detected
Glycidol: Not detected
Formaldehyde: 7.2 ppb (a normal indoor/outdoor air level)
Diacetyl: Not detected using standard method
2,3-Pentanedione: Not detected using standard method
Acetyl butyryl: Not detected using standard method
Acetoin: Not detected using standard method
Acetone: Not detected
Ethyl benzene: Not detected
m,p-Xylene: Not detected
o-Xylene: Not detected
Toluene: Not detected
Acetaldehyde: Not detected
Acetonitrile: Not detected
alpha-pinene: Not detected
Benzene: Not detected
Chloroform: Not detected
d-Limonene: Not detected
Methylene chloride: Not detected
Methyl methacrylate: Not detected
n-Hexane: Not detected
Styrene: Not detected
Shortly afterwards, the National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety tested a vape store for tested for formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and three other chemicals of concern. Again, levels were comparable with the average home or not detected at all.
What these two events confirm is that there’s absolutely no increased danger being posed to the general public by vapers. Moreover, it emphasises why employers, who genuinely want to help their smoking staff to quit, ought to give serious consideration to allowing vaping on business premises. Also, it ought to act as a wake-up call to the Californian State Health Department - they certainly need one when it comes to vaping.
As Michael Siegel (a man who’s campaign for workplace smoke bans) says: “Based on the current scientific evidence, I fail to see the justification for banning vaping in most public places. I just don't see any reasonable evidence at this time that it poses any significant health hazard to bystanders.”