10 chemicals identified so far in e-cig vapor that are on the California Prop 65 list

[VaperCaper]

The main argument for choosing vaping over tobacco cigarettes seems to be missing:

With tobaco cigarettes, there is a constant output of sidestream 'passive' smoke but with vaping, there is very little (if any) sidestream and the mainstream will have been 'diluted' by ingestion prior to exhaltion.

As I understand it Mainstream is the stuff inhaled by the user and Sidestream is everything else combined. (exhaled vapour/smoke other smoke released that's not inhaled as part of the mainstream stuff)

It actually gets complicated when looking at exhaled vapour in e-cigs as rather than 'diluting' what's in the mainsteam vapour the user also breaks down some of the vapour into smaller bits. The particulate size of the vapour is too large to be absorbed much (if at all) by the very fine pathwways in the lungs. Some of the exhaled vapour does become small enough to be absorbed by the lungs which could potentially mean that '2nd hand vapour' has some small adverse health effects. Lots more research is needed.

We're still in the position though where to date vaping is many many times safer than smoking tobacco and there is no scientific evidence at all, to point to short/medium term adverse health effects in vapers outside of allergies. If vaping was a potential health risk in the short to medium term (1-5 years) then as people around now have been vaping longer than that then we'd expect to see some of them with health problems, and we don't. We won't know about the long term effects for another 10 years, and there is potential for some of the flavourings used in e-cigs to prove damaging as they weren't designed to be inhaled, (see diacetyl) but there remains little to no reason to regulate vaping on health grounds yet.

I wonder if a study has been done comparing the toxicity of 'passive' vapour to samples of air taken from beside a busy road? Don't see the 'experts' wanting to rush through a ban on combustion engines to protect the public from 'passive driving'.

There have been studies showing that the quality of air you breathe in while in a car stuck in a traffic jam are pretty terrible and more than a little bad for you.

Speaking of traffic related health concerns one thing that always bugged me was speed limits. At 40mph you're 90% likely to kill a pedestrian if you hit one. At 30mph that drops to 10%. So why aren't the speed limits everywhere 20mph?? - road deaths would practically disappear! Or is road safety predicated less on public health and more on other factors, like say.... money?