Article published on Vapingpost - Author: Fergus Mason - Translator: The Vape Club
Vaping is back in the news this week, and as always, the press doesn't get the best of it.
The reason vaping is in the news this time is because it has added to the narrative of misinformation based on anecdotal evidence. In Nevada, the public health agency has launched an attack on the industry for claiming it poses a cancer risk. On the bright side, a new study of the effects of vaping vapor has found it to be no different from air – and a court in Northern Ireland has dismissed claims that e-cigarettes caused a drunk driver to fail a breath test.
Vaping allegations send British media into crisis
The UK media was once again thrown into anti-vaping panic on Tuesday following comments at a cardiology conference in Rome. The most egregious example appeared in The Sun, with the headline “vaping as bad as smoking”, but similar articles appeared in The Mirror, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph and even the Times. A subsequent Times article on Wednesday clarified the earlier falsehoods, but it was too late – most major UK newspapers had already shown readers the misleading headlines.
The reason for all the commotion is a study by a Greek researcher on the effects of vaping on coronary artery hardening. Based on his conclusion that 30 minutes of continuous vaping is equivalent to 5 minutes of smoking, Professor Charalambos Vlachopoulos concluded that using e-cigarettes is as bad for coronary artery hardening as smoking.
On the surface, this conclusion may seem plausible, but Clive Bates and others have pointed out that this is not a new finding, since nicotine is known to cause temporary hardening of the arteries. Other factors that cause temporary hardening of the arteries include caffeine, exercise, watching movies, listening to music, and moving your head. Compared to drinking coffee, the degree of hardening of the arteries caused by e-cigarettes is relatively mild.
Professor Vlachopoulos knew about this (his previous research has included the effects of caffeine on arteries) but he failed to mention it in Rome. He also failed to mention that the effects of vaping after 30 minutes wear off after a few minutes, whereas the effects of smoking last for an hour or more, and over time can cause permanent damage to arteries. And unfortunately the media didn’t read the story before rushing to throw out “crazy” headlines.
Nevada Tobacco Control Board Attacks Vaping Industry Over Misinformation and Cancer Claims
Also on Tuesday, one of America’s most lenient public health agencies took a public shot at e-cigarette companies. Maria Azzarelli, the tobacco control coordinator for southern Nevada, told the Las Vegas Sun that the e-cigarette industry is spreading misinformation. Azzarelli’s statements contradict one another, saying one sentence says you can buy e-cigarettes in a grocery store, and the next that they can only be purchased online. She also claimed that “e-cigarettes produce a vapor that everyone knows causes cancer.”
Azzarelli has made a number of such inaccurate statements, telling the same newspaper in 2013 that studies were needed to determine whether e-cigarette vapor contained fewer “chemicals and carcinogens” than cigarettes, when that information had been widely known for years. And based on Azzarelli’s most recent comments, she’s way behind modern science.
New study finds “no cytotoxic chemicals” in vape vapor
At the same time, a study was published on the effects of vaping on lung cells. Previous studies on the subject were rudimentary, using essential oils on fragile and easily killed cultured lung cells. The new study used more sophisticated techniques, using them on lung tissue modeled after human lungs to get a more accurate look at the effects of vaping. And the results showed that vaping had no effect on them at all.
Despite being exposed to vape vapor from different brands of e-liquid for six hours, the lung model remained unaffected, just like the model that was exposed to air. Meanwhile, the same model when tested with regular cigarettes suffered severe damage and cell death.
This new study, conducted by BAT and MatTek, will have many accusing it of bias and bias, but the researchers have published how they conducted the study. Those who are skeptical of the results are free to replicate the study themselves.
E-cigarette-related “drink driving” allegation dismissed
Finally, a Belfast man has claimed that his positive breath test was due to the smell of alcohol from the e-cigarette he was using, leading to a drink-driving conviction. Aaron Galbraith, 35, was breathalysed by police in late December after his car lost control. Galbraith, who police said was walking unsteadily and speaking incoherently, failed the test and was taken to a police station. However, he denied having been drinking, despite reading twice the legal limit.
Galbraith's argument is based on scientific evidence that some essential oils contain small amounts of alcohol for flavor, and that this amount was in his respiratory tract for fifteen minutes before the test. When asked, consultant Michael Walker replied that this possibility was highly unlikely.
Galbraith was charged with drink-driving, disqualified from driving for three years and ordered to pay a £300 fine.
