The New England Journal of Medicine printed a letter published this week, stating that they have found levels of formaldehyde in e-cigarette vapour that is up to 15times higher than in tobacco smoke.
Major news agencies picked up this letter, the study they are telling apparently has been reviewed. The said study causing much alarm and fear and they ask the question, why they published this as a letter and not yet in full?
Maybe because the authors wanted to get the info out there, right.
The e-cigarette community was alarmed to this rebuttal and blogs have been spreading fast around.
To prove to themselves some leading scientists and commentators look at the findings and you can read what they have found in the ff. links:
he first unrealistic objection to this research that it has been studied in an not real situation using unrealistic “puffing” regimes with a that over heats the atomizer.
A top coil CE4 clearomizer was used as a atomizer that uses capillary action. So there is no way it could cope with maintaining the wick wet at high temperature.
In the lab, the situation “concocted” in real life does not happen and cannot happen. To demonstrate that a 100 second puff on an e-cig the way conducted in the study is impossible.
A dry burn/puff is caused by overheating and this is intolerable for any human.
The second rebuttal is the type of formaldehyde and alcohol. According to Dr. Farasalinos, does not match up to the one referenced in the study as carcinogenic and he states there is no evidence that the type of hemiacetals they did find is toxic/carcinogenic.
The authors of the study have failed to realize that it is the wattage that is of importance when reporting on studies like this. The wattage used would in fact be too much high for vaper to use and too high for many devices on the market.
Vaping is generally done at 200°C. The dry puff is generally found at 280°C and higher.
Clive Bates said in his article-”this is a trend that should shame the public health community and the academics that are fueling consumers’ misunderstanding with misleading studies that misrepresent risk”.
As another blogger found who funded the ‘study’… Seems it could have been a law firm previously been involved in class action against tobacco firms.