EPF
Zdrowotne aspekty e-palenia.
Awatar użytkownika
By pol
#1914532
Czy istnieje efekt biernego wapowania?

Odpowiedzi na tak postawione pytanie udzielił już 1 maja 2017 roku Profesor Michael B. Siegel

Departament Zdrowia stanu Kalifornia sugeruje, że narażenie na bierne wapowanie jest minimalne

Vape Shop Air Sampling by California State Health Department Suggests that Secondhand Vape Exposure is Minimal
As part of its investigation into the potential health effects of electronic cigarettes, the California Department of Public Health has been conducting air sampling and personal exposure monitoring in vape shops throughout the state. The results of sampling in one of these vape shops, obtained by The Rest of the Story, reveal that "secondhand vaping" appears to result in minimal exposure of bystanders to hazardous chemicals.


In this particular vape shop, sampling was conducted under quite adverse conditions. 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 vapor were visible at times. So this seems to represent a high level of exposure compared to what one might expect in a public place outside a vape shop (e.g., a restaurant, bar, or office workplace).

Here are the major results of the air sampling:

    Nicotine: Not detected
    Glycidol: Not detected
    Formaldehyde: 7.2 ppb
    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

The level of formaldehyde detected is consistent with normal indoor and outdoor air levels of formaldehyde under baseline conditions.

Other than the small concentration of formaldehyde, the only other chemicals that were quantified were ethanol (alcohol) and isopropyl alcohol.

The Rest of the Story

This study, although conducted under very high exposure conditions in a small, non-ventilated vape shop with many employees and customers vaping and clouds of vapor visible, did not document any dangerous levels of exposure to any hazardous chemical. Nicotine exposure was essentially non-existent. Formaldehyde exposure was no different than in many indoor and outdoor environments at baseline. Acetone, acetoin, other aldehydes, toluene, benzene, and xylene were not detected. Chemicals that have been associated with "popcorn lung" were also not detected by the standard method.

This study adds to the evidence that under real-life conditions, "secondhand vaping" does not appear to pose any significant health risks.

Despite the claims of many anti-vaping organizations, the documented health risks of "secondhand vaping" appear to be minimal. And this is in an environment with relatively extreme conditions -- there was a visible cloud of vapor at times.

Based on the current scientific evidence, I fail to see the justification for banning vaping in most public places. And remember, this is coming from a guy who has devoted virtually his entire career to banning smoking in bars, restaurants, casinos, and every other indoor workplace (and even outdoor seating areas of restaurants). So I'm certainly not one to minimize the health risks of preventable environmental exposures.

However, I believe that there must be reasonable evidence before the government intervenes to ban a behavior such as smoking or vaping. With regards to vaping, I just don't see any reasonable evidence at this time that it poses any significant health hazard to bystanders.



Wykryty poziom formaldehydu /Formaldehyde: 7.2 ppb = 0,0072ppm/ jest zgodny z normalnym poziomem formaldehydu w pomieszczeniach i na zewnątrz w warunkach wyjściowych.
Dopuszczalny limit formaldehydu w powietrzu to 0,1ppm

Oprócz niewielkiego stężenia formaldehydu jedynymi innymi chemikaliami, które zostały określone ilościowo, były etanol (alkohol) i alkohol izopropylowy.

Badanie to uzupełnia dowody, że w rzeczywistych warunkach „bierne wapowanie” nie wydaje się stanowić żadnego znaczącego zagrożenia dla zdrowia.


Na podstawie aktualnych dowodów naukowych nie dostrzegam uzasadnienia zakazu wapowania w większości miejsc publicznych. I pamiętaj, że pochodzi od faceta, który praktycznie całą swoją karierę poświęcił zakazowi palenia w barach, restauracjach, kasynach i każdym innym miejscu pracy (a nawet na zewnątrz restauracji). Z pewnością nie jestem osobą, która minimalizuje zagrożenia dla zdrowia wynikające z możliwych do uniknięcia ekspozycji środowiskowych.

Uważam jednak, że zanim rząd podejmie interwencję w celu zakazania takiego zachowania, jak palenie papierosów lub wapowanie, muszą istnieć uzasadnione dowody. Jeśli chodzi o wapowanie, po prostu nie widzę obecnie żadnych rozsądnych dowodów na to, że stanowi ono poważne zagrożenie dla zdrowia osób postronnych.




**********************
Profesor Michael B. Siegel
Twitter - Michael Siegel - @mbsiegel
Smoant Levin PK-mały,wielki pod

https://i.ibb.co/k3tQNQN/vape-poland[…]

Zastanawiałeś się kiedyś, ile może kosztować najd[…]

UWAGA! Na blogu Starego Chemika BARDZO WAŻNE informacje! Dotyczą zdrowia i życia.