3 ms·
Well two things. You don't need combustion to make chemical changes to organic material. E-cigs still chemically change the organic compounds. We know this expe
by skwb 8y ago
Well two things. You don't need combustion to make chemical changes to organic material. E-cigs still chemically change the organic compounds. We know this experimentally [0].
Second, just because it's not a combustion product, doesn't mean it's safe. The reason why we get lung cancer form asbestos is that the mineral fibers are unable to be fully broken down, and cause long term irritation. Think sand or dust [1].
[0]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5954153/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5954153/
[1]. http://www.npi.gov.au/resource/particulate-matter-pm10-and-pm25 http://www.npi.gov.au/resource/particulate-matter-pm10-and-p...
- Udik 8y agoI remain with my original question: the original study you cited compares aerosols generated by e-cig smokers with the similar sized dust, pollution and soot particles commonly found outside. There is a correct assumption that particles of that size, when found outside in polluted environments, are especially harmful, because of their geometrical properties combined with the fact that they carry harmful substances. Is it correct to compare pm10 generated by combustion engines with pm10 generated by an atomizer that vaporizes a pharmacy-grade pure- and in theory harmless- substance? Would the same instruments have classified as pm10 water droplets of the appropriate size?