One of the most asked questions surrounding vaping has finally been answered, is secondhand vapor truly harmless? The answer is yes! Studies conducted by the California Department of Public Health have been carried out by sampling air in vape shops throughout the state and found that there are no dangerous levels of exposure to any potentially hazardous chemicals. The major results of the air sampling are as follows:
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
More so, the level of formaldehyde detected is consistent with normal indoor and outdoor air levels of formaldehyde under baseline conditions.
“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 now that it poses any significant health hazard to bystanders.”
- Dr. Michael Siegel (http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2017/05/vape-shop-air-sampling-by-california.html)