Currently the mainstream media is having a field day on vaping. They are taking every single opportunity to dispute the benefits, ignoring the pros and clutching at straws for the cons. There has been a lot of negative propaganda and media frenzies in regards to the subject, often citing “scientific” studies. A few things I would like to point out about these studies and articles that will hopefully convince some to reconsider where their faith is.
Recently there was an article done in regards to formaldehyde content of e-liquid. I refer to it as an article because in no way is this ‘study’ scientific, merely it was a purposely botched media stunt funded by Big Tobacco. The article states that the burning of e-liquid produces formaldehyde, and it provides results found with faulty procedures. The test measured a vaporizer put to 5.0 volts (the normal is 3.3v-3.8v) on 3 to 4 second puffs; overheating the atomizer, running the wicks dry, and burning them. Not only did the test measure at an erroneous voltage and puff duration, the article’s release states 3.7v, and then later redacted and changed to 3.3v. At a normal voltage range, there is no trace of formaldehyde.
Another article recently submitted to the media was in regards to lung damage. The article states that even nicotine free e-liquid still damages cells when inhaled. The problem with this article, along with the previously mentioned article, is that both of them do not state at what temperature the vaporizers were operating at. The main point the article clutches to is that acrolein, which is a carcinogen found in cigarette smoke, is produced in e-liquid. In reality, that is not it at all. As a matter of fact, acrolein is produced by dry, burning cotton. For a user to cause permanent damage due to acrolein, a user would need to inhale 1.5g of dry, burning cotton per day. The amount of cotton the average user typically wicks their apparatus is along the lines of 0.05 – 0.1g. From the results published, one can only assume that this ‘study’ was also nothing but a botched experiment. Performing a test that mimics unrealistic conditions is not a study at all. The test states they burned 0.6mL over an extremely short period of time. 0.6mL is approximately 100 puffs, and the “scientists” did this all at once. I wonder why things got burnt?
There are many things to consider when reviewing a scientific journal or article. Factors such as: flavorless blend ratio (PG/VG ratio), temperature, resistance, country of origin of e-liquid and its ingredients, nicotine content, country of origin of vaporizer and atomizer, battery and power source; all of these things can have a profound impact on the outcome of results. One of the most important things to consider is the author of the articles or journals. Personally, before I read anything published in regards to vaping, I will always search the author(s) on the internet first. If I see that they are “clickbait” journalists who publish nothing but nonsense or have a tendency to completely distort facts, I disregard the article and move onto the study or source they are citing. A lot of the time these negative propagandists are taking paychecks from big corporations to specifically misinform people through fear tactics. I take the majority of negative studies published with a grain of salt as they have proven themselves to consistently use faulty procedures that provide false results. It’s true, vaping does need more research. What it doesn’t need is a smear campaign.
https://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/threads/draws-puffs-per-ml.6525/ – Vapers calculating how many puffs they can get for X amount mL of liquid
http://www.the-aps.org/mm/hp/Audiences/Public-Press/2015/25.html – Article regarding nicotine-free liquid being harmful
http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/10/6/2500 – Guidelines for conducting vaping experiments the authors chose to ignore
http://vaping.info/news/2015/new-e-cig-study-hypes-formaldehyde-fears-based-faulty-experiments – American Vaping Association debunking formaldehyde claims