In recent years, Vaping has surged in popularity, touted by some as a safer alternative to smoking traditional cigarettes. However, this shift in smoking habits has sparked a debate within the medical community and among policymakers.
In this article we try to delve into the conflicting viewpoints surrounding Vaping, examining its potential health risks, its role as a smoking alternative, and the research that aims to shed light on this complex issue.
The “Barbequing Your Lungs” Controversy
Dr. Brian Boxer Wachler, an eye surgeon from California, sent shockwaves through the Vaping community with his alarming statement that Vaping “barbeques the lungs.” His viral TikTok video, which garnered over six million views, raised concerns about the health implications of Vaping, particularly among young people.
In the video, Dr. Boxer Wachler pointed out that vape temperatures can far exceed those of cigarette smoke, potentially explaining why more young vapers require lung transplants than their cigarette-smoking counterparts. While Vaping was initially perceived as a safer alternative to smoking due to reduced cancer risks, emerging research suggests a different story.
The Looming Health Risks of Vaping
Traditionally, the medical community believed that Vaping presented fewer health risks compared to smoking. However, recent studies have painted a troubling picture of the impact of Vaping on the human body.
One study published in The Journal of Nuclear Medicine found that Vaping triggers greater lung inflammation than smoking. Additionally, the American Heart Association (AHA) disclosed that the combination of nicotine, thickeners, solvents, and flavors in vape e-cigarettes poses more substantial risks to heart health than smoking. The AHA’s research also indicated that young vapers face a 15 percent higher risk of stroke compared to smokers.
Even second-hand Vaping, a concern for non-vapers, has been associated with the release of potentially toxic particulate matter known as PM2.5 into the air, as discovered by research conducted at universities in Virginia and North Carolina.
EVALI: A Lung Injury Named After Vaping
The harmful impact of Vaping on the lungs has become so severe that it led to the creation of a specific condition known as EVALI (E-cigarette or Vaping product use-associated lung injury). This condition, officially recognized in 2019, is linked to the use of e-cigarettes and Vaping products.
Symptoms of EVALI include respiratory issues like cough, shortness of breath, and chest pain, as well as gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and stomach pain. Some patients have even reported nonspecific constitutional symptoms like fever and weight loss. The CDC emphasizes that EVALI symptoms may develop over varying timeframes.
Vaping and Skin Aging: The Clear Evidence
Aside from its impact on internal organs, Vaping may have surprising effects on external appearance. Recent research has demonstrated that Vaping could accelerate skin aging by “decades.” The evidence here is clear: it’s not just the lungs and heart that are at risk but also your skin.
The Counterargument: Vaping as a Smoking Alternative
While alarming reports about Vaping-related health risks have emerged, another perspective exists. An international study led by Prof. Peter Hajek from the Queen Mary University of London found no evidence that Vaping-habit leads people to take up smoking. In fact, there are indications that Vaping might compete against cigarette smoking.
The study assessed whether e-cigarettes act as a gateway into or out of smoking. Surprisingly, it discovered that e-cigarettes and other low-risk nicotine products don’t promote smoking. Instead, they may be hastening the decline of smoking.
This study provides reassurance for countries that have embraced e-cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy. It refutes the notion that e-cigarettes act as a gateway to smoking, which has been a point of contention.
Scientific Backing for Smoking Alternatives
The Vaping-debate about safety is rooted in a fundamental distinction between nicotine and combustion. Traditional cigarettes involve the combustion of tobacco, which produces over 6,000 harmful chemicals responsible for smoking-related diseases. In contrast, smoke-free alternatives, including Vaping, eliminate combustion by heating tobacco to temperatures below 350 degrees Celsius. This prevents burning and significantly reduces the levels of harmful substances—by up to 95%—compared to cigarette smoke.
While nicotine remains an addictive substance, scientific research has underscored that it is not responsible for causing smoking-related diseases. The real culprits are the carcinogens produced during the combustion of tobacco.
The Role of Harm Reduction
The evidence points to the potential of harm reduction strategies that encourage smokers to switch to less harmful alternatives. Countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, South Korea, and Sweden have acknowledged the value of these alternatives in reducing the risks associated with smoking.
This perspective aligns with the idea that it’s not nicotine itself that causes harm but rather the way it’s delivered through combustion. Smoke-free alternatives, with their reduced harm profiles, present a compelling option for smokers looking to break free from traditional cigarettes.
Conclusion: A Complex Debate
The Vaping-debate is far from settled. On one hand, alarming reports of health risks associated with Vaping raise concerns about its safety, particularly among young people. On the other hand, scientific studies suggest that Vaping– may serve as a valuable tool in the fight against traditional cigarette smoking.
As the discussion continues, it’s crucial to consider the nuances and evolving research on this topic. For policymakers, medical professionals, and individuals seeking smoking alternatives, the Vaping-debate remains a complex and ever-evolving issue that demands careful scrutiny and consideration of the available evidence. Ultimately, the goal is to protect public health while providing smokers with viable options to reduce harm and improve their well-being.
