Ecig Cancer Potencies Research

Published by Paul Larter on 21st Sep 2017

Dr. Stephens Williams, at the School of Earth & Environment Sciences, University of St Andrews, has published a paper examining the potential of e-cigarettes causing cancer compared to the potential of smoking tobacco. Unfortunately, this science is being swept under outrageous claims from California.

Dr. Stephens tried to quantify “the respective harm that results from inhaling the emissions of vaporized nicotine produce in comparison with smoking tobacco.” As stated by him it “is an essential matter for public health.”

As part of the method, Stephens stated that some dangerous compounds are completely absent in e-cigarette vapor. These included:

Arsenic

Chromium

Benzo(a)pyrene

4-Amino-biphenyl

2-Amino-biphenyl

1, 3-Butadiene

Benzene

Acrylonitrile

In conclusion, he stated: “Most electronic cigarette emissions have the potential of causing cancer in order of magnitude of the nicotine inhaler, a product which is generally regarded to be safe.” But, it is not all good as he mentions formaldehyde to be “the most important e-cigarette carcinogen which can exceed that of tobacco especially at the highest settings of some multi-power tests.”

Those who vape and their advocates can easily point out the reason for this is obvious – it is a dry-burn situation which is no reflected in actual vaping.


“Most electronic cigarette analyses indicate cancer potencies less than 1% that of tobacco.”


The full conclusions:

  • Emissions from vaporized nicotine products (VNP) including electronic cigarettes contain carcinogens, but in a lower concentration than tobacco.
  • The carcinogen contributes the greater amount of the overall risk and cancer potency.
  • Policy makers and users need enough evidence on the respective risks of cancer from using VNPs in comparison to smoking tobacco.
  • Studies in the past examined the carcinogens present in an emission; a technique is developed to model the aggregate cancer potency of all the measured carcinogens and overcome incompatibility in data reports to have the direct comparison of the risks and potencies of VNP emissions with tobacco smoke.
  • Cancer potency spans five orders of magnitude, at this moment creating a spectrum that ranges from the uncontaminated air through tobacco to VNPs.
  • Highly carcinogenic emissions that come from electronic cigarettes can’t be avoided, due to user choice of device settings, vaping behavior, and liquid formation, highlighting a need for involvement in risk reduction and better user awareness.
  • Most electronic cigarette analysis show cancer potencies less than 1% that of tobacco and less than 10% that of heat prototype, although few analyses show higher potencies.

    • “There are situations where the risks of cancer from e-cigarette emissions can increase rapidly, often substantially. Usually, these situations can be avoided if the causes are known.”

    The study indicated facts which Glantz Stanton’s funder simply couldn’t stomach. As a result, he man attempted to discredit the paper: “Electronic cigarettes and cancer: If you ask the wrong questions, you will get the wrong answers.”

    Glantz Stanton’s contribution to this debate sinks deep and smacks rank desperation.