Tuesday, May 09, 2017

Government Testing of Another Vape Shop Reveals No Cause for Concern about Secondhand Vaping

Government officials have now completed an investigation of a second vape shop, finding that levels of chemicals of concern are minimal in the ambient air of the vape shop, thus not posing any significant risk to customers.

The evaluation was performed by the National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH). Breathing zone air samples were tested for formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and three chemicaals associated with "popcorn lung."

Results showed that all of these chemicals were well within the NIOSH recommended exposure levels. The formaldehyde and acetaldehyde concentrations were similar to those observed in typical U.S. homes. The "popcorn" lung associated-chemicals were not detected in most samples and detected only at very low levels in the remaining samples.

The Rest of the Story

This is now the second study conducted under the extreme conditions inside a vape shop, and like the first study, it finds that there is no evidence of significant exposure to hazardous chemicals among bystanders in this setting.

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. Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde exposure was no different than in many indoor and outdoor environments at baseline. Chemicals that have been associated with "popcorn lung" were either not detected or detected at very low concentrations.

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. Based on the current scientific evidence, I fail to see the justification for banning vaping in most public places. 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.

Thursday, May 04, 2017

Smokeless Tobacco Company Admits that Its Products Cause Oral Cancer

In its defense of a lawsuit brought by the family of former San Diego Padres great Tony Gwynn who died of oral cancer in 2014, the U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company has admitted that its products cause oral cancer and that the public was widely aware of it, to the extent that it was "obvious."

As reported by USA Today: "The U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company has filed a response to the family of deceased baseball legend Tony Gwynn, saying that Gwynn was warned about the alleged risks of using smokeless tobacco and that such risks are “commonly known” but Gwynn accepted them anyway. ... “Plaintiffs (the Gwynns) are barred from recovering any damages because the dangers claimed by Plaintiffs, if any, are and were open and obvious,” says the company’s response, filed by attorneys at the firm Shook, Hardy & Bacon."

Furthermore, the company argued that: "Gwynn “had the means of knowing, by the exercise of ordinary intelligence, the truth of alleged statements concerning smokeless tobacco use and health.”"

The company's primary defenses are two-fold:

First, the company argues that the oral cancer risks of smokeless tobacco were widely known, to the point that they should have been obvious to everyone. Second, the company argues that Gwynn's oral cancer was not due to smokeless tobacco, but to some unspecified "pre-existing condition."

The Rest of the Story

This is about the weakest defense imaginable. On the one hand, the company argues that the link between smokeless tobacco use and oral cancer is so clear, so obvious, and so obviously true, that anyone with ordinary intelligence knows that smokeless tobacco causes oral cancer. On the other hand, the company is arguing that despite such an obvious link, Tony Gwynn's oral cancer -- which occurred in the exact spot where he used smokeless tobacco -- was not related to his smokeless tobacco use.

This duo of conflicting arguments should not deceive any jury member with "ordinary intelligence."

You can't have it both ways. You can't argue that the link between smokeless tobacco and oral cancer is so obvious that anyone should have known that if you put smokeless tobacco into one area in your oral cavity for years, you are likely to develop cancer in that area, but that for some reason, this individual who did exactly that and got cancer at that site got cancer for some other reason. That reasoning should fool exactly no one.

I also agree with Northeastern Law School professor Richard Daynard's comment: "Tobacco companies "do what they can to blame the victim,” said Richard Daynard, a law professor at Northeastern University and tobacco industry critic who is not involved in the case. “Their basic defense is, `Only a very weak-willed person would use this product, and it’s his fault and not ours.’ My understanding is that ain’t going to work with Tony Gwynn, with what people know about him. It’s working less and less with people who are not celebrities.”"

The company is also going to have a hard time convincing a jury that the link between smokeless tobacco and oral cancer was obvious to anyone with any intelligence, but that the company itself denied such a link, or downplayed and undermined it.

Gwynn's death is widely recognized as having helped changed the culture in baseball regarding smokeless tobacco use and has led to an increasing number of bans on the use of smokeless tobacco during professional baseball games.

Tuesday, May 02, 2017

Op-Ed: Don't Let Alternative Facts Deter Congress from Fixing E-Cigarette Regulations

Here is a link to my op-ed, published today in the Washington Examiner, and entitled: "Don't Let Alternative Facts Deter Congress from Fixing E-Cigarette Regulations."
OP-ED

Monday, May 01, 2017

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.