Second Hand Vapor Argument #2 – New England Journal of Medicine study – is unrealistic

Good afternoon, My name is ________ and I am a [STATE] resident, former smoker, and current vapor. I am deeply concerned that this committee may make their decision regarding [BILL] according to research that is simply not based in reality. Specifically, anti-tobacco harm reduction figures often cite a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine that claims: that “Vapor Devices may emit 10-15 times more formaldehyde than tobacco cigarettes”; As a vapor, I can tell you the experimental conditions of this study would never exist outside of a laboratory experiment, and consequently, the conclusions the authors drew have now been proven false from the standpoint of the reality of how a User would have used the equipment in the real world to vape –  and so thus are shamefully misleading. This “study” is now proven to suffer from so many obvious and serious design flaws, it’s a stretch to even call it science. The first obvious mistake is that the researchers only measured 2 extreme voltage conditions – and they conveniently left out the fact that at the low voltage setting – which is where a person would actually be using this equipment to vape… there were NO  toxins produced in the vapor. The second serious defect of this study is that it does not take into account the fact that there are dozens of different “tank systems” and it conveniently fails to report which tank system the researchers were using. If the researchers fully understood what they were studying, they would have known that variable voltage batteries must be paired with the correct tank; some tanks can handle higher voltages, and others cannot. Though I cannot say for certain which tank they used as they failed to even report it, I can tell you the vast majority of tanks are not designed for a power source greater than 4 volts. Putting Design aside however – it’s important to understand Users never use the devices at those artificially high voltages used in the study – and this highlights the gravest error of the study; it does not account for user input. The detected Formaldehyde, which, again, was only present at the unrealistically high unusable voltage setting – was due to the wicking material being over heated to the point of combustion in what’s known as a “dry hit.” A “dry hit” is accompanied by a severely noxious taste, and immediately results in discontinuation of use at that setting. So again, the report in the NEJM has no implications in the real world. This study in no way proves that users, much less bystanders, are exposed to significant quantities of formaldehyde due to the vaporization of e-liquid, and to regulate vapor devices based on research like this would be like regulating bread based on research showing the carcinogens known to be actually found in burnt toast – which by the way…  also includes high amounts of formaldehyde. Combustion, whether it is the wicking material of an atomizer  – or bread  – creates dangerous compounds like formaldehyde, but just like you wouldn’t eat burnt  toast, a vapor wouldn’t vape a burnt wick.