E-cigarettes produce a number of dangerous chemicals including acetaldehyde, acrolein, and formaldehyde. These aldehydes can cause lung disease, as well as cardiovascular (heart) disease. E-cigarettes also contain acrolein, a herbicide primarily used to kill weeds.
Those studies had extremely flawed methodologies. For the formaldehyde one, they burned a ce4 cart more than 40% higher than the nominal voltage (5.2v vs 3.7v) for 90 seconds.
I challenge you to inhale for 90 seconds. I can’t even do it and I’m a skilled brass instrument player.
Basically every study showing negative effects has either flawed methodology, or the news outlets reporting on them conveniently forget to mention that the levels are orders of magnitude lower than what cigarettes produce. Hell, even some of the heavy metal results were lower than atmospheric levels.
While that test may not be the norm, it represents cheap brand knockoffs that may have shitty voltage control, or faulty, etc. it is not like they run ever vape through rigid testing like airplane control systems ( and even those fail )
No, it doesn’t. No human would be able to draw on an atomizer that was being fired at 40% higher than normal voltage for more than a split second.
But yes, if you managed to draw on an atomizer that’s literally burning for 90 seconds and survive the lung scaring and smoke inhalation, the byproducts of burning plant matter and plastics is likely not healthy.
i wasn’t contesting the 90 seconds, sometimes tests are setup no following real world parameters to gain info that would take too long to gather otherwise. like Carcinogen tests with LD50. Black pepper is a carcinogen (when injected under the skin–per the test method). But nobody eats pepper that way.
The 90 seconds may be to test the amount of exposure in one day, etc
No, it’s straight up flawed methodology. Pretty much anything will produce harmful chemicals if you set it on fire.
These tests were designed to produce negative results, which is bad science.
Vaping cuts into profits from several industries as well as tobacco tax revenue. This is why any vaping study that comes out of the US needs to be heavily scrutinized.
https://www.lung.org/quit-smoking/e-cigarettes-vaping/impact-of-e-cigarettes-on-lung
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/Quick-Facts-on-the-Risks-of-E-cigarettes-for-Kids-Teens-and-Young-Adults.html
Just don’t vape, man…
Those studies had extremely flawed methodologies. For the formaldehyde one, they burned a ce4 cart more than 40% higher than the nominal voltage (5.2v vs 3.7v) for 90 seconds.
I challenge you to inhale for 90 seconds. I can’t even do it and I’m a skilled brass instrument player.
Basically every study showing negative effects has either flawed methodology, or the news outlets reporting on them conveniently forget to mention that the levels are orders of magnitude lower than what cigarettes produce. Hell, even some of the heavy metal results were lower than atmospheric levels.
Source: I’ve read all of the studies.
While that test may not be the norm, it represents cheap brand knockoffs that may have shitty voltage control, or faulty, etc. it is not like they run ever vape through rigid testing like airplane control systems ( and even those fail )
No, it doesn’t. No human would be able to draw on an atomizer that was being fired at 40% higher than normal voltage for more than a split second.
But yes, if you managed to draw on an atomizer that’s literally burning for 90 seconds and survive the lung scaring and smoke inhalation, the byproducts of burning plant matter and plastics is likely not healthy.
i wasn’t contesting the 90 seconds, sometimes tests are setup no following real world parameters to gain info that would take too long to gather otherwise. like Carcinogen tests with LD50. Black pepper is a carcinogen (when injected under the skin–per the test method). But nobody eats pepper that way. The 90 seconds may be to test the amount of exposure in one day, etc
No, it’s straight up flawed methodology. Pretty much anything will produce harmful chemicals if you set it on fire.
These tests were designed to produce negative results, which is bad science.
Vaping cuts into profits from several industries as well as tobacco tax revenue. This is why any vaping study that comes out of the US needs to be heavily scrutinized.
Nothing you linked indicates that e-cigarettes are worse than traditional cigarettes.