2022-01-19
In Public Health England’s updated 2018 evidence review, the agency’s experts analyzed several new studies of passive exposure that had been published since the original 2015 PHE e-cig report. They concluded—again—that “to date there have been no identified health risks of passive vaping to bystanders.”
Igor Burstyn’s study of the possible dangers of secondhand vaping attempted to “estimate potential exposures from aerosols produced by electronic cigarettes and compare those potential exposures to occupational exposure standards.” His conclusion: “Exposures of bystanders are likely to be orders of magnitude less, and thus pose no apparent concern.”
Orders of magnitude are multiples of 10. Therefore, 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000, and so on. What Burstyn means is that the exposure to toxic chemicals in secondhand vapor is so slight as to pose no real threat. Whatever the risk may be to the users themselves, it is 10 or 100, or even 1,000 or 10,000, times lower for the bystander.
Does that necessarily mean that vapers should feel free to vape everywhere without regard to the wishes of others? No!
Even if secondhand vaping can’t be proven harmful to others, the concerns of family and friends need to be respected. Obviously, if a spouse or visitor objects, vapers should be courteous and thoughtful, and take the vape outside. Clearly, if someone in the home has asthma or another respiratory condition, secondhand vape is best avoided, since we know PG and some flavorings can irritate the airways.
Children, of course, don’t get to make an informed choice about what they breathe, so vapers should use good judgement and be more cautious than they might be around adults. There are no secondhand vapor studies that specifically measure the lung functions of babies or young children after daily vape inhalation. Vapers shouldn’t experiment on their kids.