but everyone is out there acting like it's doom and gloom, or conversely, they are saying vape is the safest thing on the planet. Both are incorrect and we need to clear the air about what vaping is about. To put it bluntly, the title of this blog post pretty much nails it; vape is about reducing harm from combustible cigarettes by switching to something that does not produce smoke. We've known since Prometheus stole fire that smoke inhalation is bad and doesn't make for healthy breathing.
Interestingly enough, eLiquids and vaping in general gained a fast following to start, but now the number of people vaping is actually no longer increasing. More than likely this because of public perception shifting. In 2013 just 7% of people thought that vaping was just as harmful as tobacco smoke, but in 2017 that number rose to 26%
This increase in the number of people thinking that vapes and eLiquids are harmful could be because of the mountains of conflicting evidence that is constantly reported on both for and against their use. What is the truth? Powerful smoking cessation tool or more damaging than combustible smokes?
Right now, all we have is the short term studies that have been done, but unfortunately those studies find contradicting results in both directions. One research team isolated the main ingredients used in eLiquids; propylene glycol, glycerin and nicotine. The team then exposed rats to an aerosolized liquid with these components in over 90 days. The rats were exposed to above average concentrations than that of a normal vape user, but no toxicity or changes to their overall health were found.
On the other side, another research team tested a non-animal approach, using macrophages, a type of immune cell, to test if eLiquids cause the onset of inflammation, or any changes in the macrophages normal function, which is to help clear the airways of particles or toxins. They exposed the cells to the eLiquid directly, as well as to a vaporized version, and discovered that the vaporized liquid was more toxic than the raw material.
These are just two example of studies studies that show the conflict in evidence, and there are many more on both sides of the issue. Obviously we need more science. Only more research that is dutifully conducted and well documented can help us understand the potential human health hazards generated by this new technology.