The Science and Peril of Vaping (SIC)
April 16, 2019, 6:12 pm
Assiduous reading of your editorials has taught me many uncommon words but I doubt whether even you know what is meant by "vaping". Or perhaps you do, because as a well-informed editor, of a modern newspaper, you must have encountered the word before I did, in The Economist, the prestigious conservative weekly newspaper. Although vaping is not unrelated to vapour (vapor), "vaping" is not the abbreviated form of "vapourising". The word vaping has been coined to describe the latest process the avaricious tobacco industry has devised to promote the continued use of one of the most addictive poisons on earth, namely, nicotine. Vaping involves the physical transformation by electronic means of a liquid into a vapour or mist for the purpose of inhalation. The product is marketed as an e-cigarette. One knock-down, damning, unanswerable charge against smokers by non-smokers has always been that "your cigarette is killing me". The evidence is conclusive that apart from the smoker, by-standing non-smokers are also seriously harmed by being forced to inhale "second-hand smoke" released into the atmosphere by smokers. Indulgence in the process of inhaling the vapour of e-cigarettes is called vaping. Logically, because those who smoke are called smokers, those who vape should be called "vapers", but the name is still not popular. Vaping is smoking without fire.
Claims
It is claimed by the e-cigarette manufacturing merchants of addiction and disease that vaping, i.e. the use of e-cigarettes, completely eliminates the menace to non-smokers that smokers inflicted. It has been firmly established that when tobacco is burnt to produce the inhaled smoke, as in the act of smoking, in addition to nicotine, the seductive ingredient, the smoker is unwittingly obliged to inhale about 70 identified carcinogens. Moreover, smokers inhale a tiny dose of the colourless, odourless, deadly poisonous gas carbon monoxide, which some people inhale to commit suicide. This gas is found plentifully in the exhaust fumes released by engines of vehicles using fossil fuels. Furthermore, cigarette smoke contains arsenic and cadmium, and many other chemicals harmful to health. It is claimed that because the use of e-cigarettes does not involve actual burning of tobacco, vaping is a relatively harmless indulgence. E-cigarettes have been extensively used in the UK, the US and Japan. At present, vaping appears to be safer than smoking.
Composition of vapour
The vapour of e-cigarettes is said to contain only a few hundred chemicals, unlike tobacco smoke which has thousands. Apart from nicotine, the main constituents of the vapour of e-cigarettes are propylene glycol and glycerol which are said to be harmless when inhaled. But, given the fact that the tobacco industry has been convicted of violating the RICO Act which was originally introduced in the US to combat organized crime, one takes such declarations of the industry with circumspection. There is independent evidence that a group of carcinogens, called nitrosamines, are present in the vapour of e-cigarettes. The vapour also has formaldehyde, which is used to preserve dead bodies. Of most concern, is the definitive finding that the vapour contains free radicals and highly oxidising substances known to damage DNA. There is also evidence that children who vape become addicted to nicotine and go on to become full-blooded smokers. That is the peril of vaping. The industry which vigorously markets e-cigarettes is quick to point out that proper epidemiological studies have not established any adverse effects of vaping. In this context, let us not forget the fact that the tobacco industry implicitly denied the causal relationship between tobacco and lung cancer until Edward R Murrow, the popular CBS television programme presenter who smoked continuously during his show, succumbed to a cancer of his lungs at the age of 57.
Policy options
What should be NATA’s policy regarding vaping? NATA’s proclaimed policy is that it should work resolutely towards the total elimination of tobacco use in our country. The introduction of vaping should not tempt us to change this policy by a jot or tittle. In truth, vaping is simply smoking by another name. Shakespeare’s Juliet’s unambiguous answer to the question ‘What’s in a name?’ was that ‘A rose by any other name would smell as sweet’. On that premise, smoking by any other name would be just as injurious. As already noted, kids who vape, tend to end up smoking. Some health authorities have argued that vaping is safer than smoking. If the likely peril of vaping is smoking, then vaping may turn out to be just an expensive initiation into smoking. To protect our kids from smoking, let us do all we can to discourage them from vaping.
