Friday, December 2, 2016

Exploding E-Cigarette? Maybe Not.



“A worker at a wine store in Grand Central Terminal suffered burns to his hand and leg after an e-cigarette caught fire in his pocket,” according to a November 23rd ABC news story (here). 

This incident requires context.  Christopher E. Lalonde, a psychology professor at the University of Victoria in Canada with expertise on e-cigarette hardware, made the following comments:



“The device appears to be a Reuleaux RS200 model... It has various safety features designed to protect against such incidents: reverse battery protection, overheating/auto cut-off, battery venting, etc…Not foolproof by any means, but ‘e-cigs’ and ‘cellphones’ don’t explode, batteries do.



“The Reuleaux requires three 18650 batteries to operate. There appear to be six batteries in the photo — along with an assortment of metal coins.


“The three seemingly intact brown coloured batteries (far left, far right, and one remaining in the device) are likely LG 18650s that are recommended for use with this model.


“…I suspect the three silver coloured charred batteries are likely the cause of the explosion. If they were carried along with loose coins in the victim’s pocket, then the “e-cig” didn’t explode — the loose batteries did.” (my emphasis)


Professor Lalonde, while noting that he has “every sympathy for the unfortunate victim of this incident,” provided valuable insight by suggesting that, based on the photographic evidence, batteries interacting with pocket change was the likely cause of this explosion. 

Lithium ion batteries are essential for a wide range of electronic devices.  Consumers should use, charge and store them with care. 



Wednesday, November 23, 2016

Motorcycles Aren't Cars and Cigarettes Aren't Smoke-Free Tobacco



What if the federal government told you that cars are as dangerous as motorcycles?  Well, you would be living – and dying – in TobaccoWorld.  Read my commentary that appeared in the Washington Examiner (here) and is reprinted below.
________________________________

Motorcycles are more dangerous than cars. We know this because a government agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, routinely provides data that confirms it.

For example, the NHSTA reports there were 0.85 auto-related deaths for every 100 million miles Americans drove in 2014. By contrast, the death rate for motorcycles was 22.96 for every 100 million miles, making motorcycles 27 times deadlier than cars.

What if the government ignored this difference in risk and assumed the motorcycle death rate applied to all vehicles? In other words, what if all vehicle manufacturers had to be governed by motorcycle regulations and what if insurance premiums for car owners were pegged at the much higher rates for motorcycles?

The effect of such irrationality would be intolerable, with cars priced out of reach, companies put out of business and consumers left without choice. Policymakers would never inflict such pain on the American driving public – at least, not on purpose.

But that's just the sort of irrationality being imposed on the nation’s consumers of smoke-free tobacco products, with tragic consequences. Federal agencies routinely conflate the risks of using smoke-free tobacco products with the risks of smoking, despite decades of scientific studies demonstrating that smoke-free products are vastly safer than cigarettes.

Smokeless tobacco products are required by the Food and Drug Administration to carry demonstrably inaccurate and misleading safety warnings. Companies that attempt to challenge those messages are held to the unnecessary and financially crippling standard of proving that their products would have virtually no health impact on the population.

Even when a company did provide irrefutable proof to change the warning labels in 2011, the FDA took four years to deny its citizen’s petition. Another company’s formal application from 2014 remains in FDA limbo.

The FDA ignores extensive evidence from federal surveys of the role e-cigarettes are playing in helping smokers to quit—including some 2.5 million successes—while the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention withholds evidence that smokeless tobacco is safer

The Affordable Care Act permits health insurers to charge higher premiums for any recreational nicotine use, not just smoking.  Most life insurance companies also fail to recognize established risk differences, as they charge higher premiums for users of all nicotine products, even medicines. 

No one confuses motorcycles with cars, just as no one, other than government officials, confuses cigarettes with e-cigarettes or cans of moist snuff. The risk differential between combustible and smoke-free tobacco products is proven and profound. It’s time to tell the public the truth, and to regulate accordingly. 



Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Another Engineered Study Claims Teen Vaping Leads to Smoking



A research letter published last week in JAMA asserts that teens who used e-cigarettes became “heavy” smokers.  The research appears to have been engineered to produce that result.

The lead author is Adam Leventhal, a University of Southern California psychologist with a history of exaggerated anti-e-cigarette claims (here).  Promoting his new research, Leventhal told the media (here) his work “…is the first to show that teenagers who vape not only experiment with cigarettes, but are also more likely to become regular smokers…It is also the first time teenage vaping has been linked to heavier smoking patterns involving use of multiple cigarettes per day.”
 
Leventhal conducted repeat surveys of Los Angeles-area high schoolers.  A baseline survey of 10th graders was followed six months later by a second.  Critical to the outcome, Leventhal defined vapers and smokers differently, as seen in this table.


Leventhal’s Definitions and Classification of Baseline Vapers and Smokers
UsageVaperSmoker
NeverNever vaperNon-smoker
PriorEver vaperNon-smoker
Past 30 daysCurrent vaperCurrent smoker
Infrequent1-2 days1-2 days
Frequent3+ days3+ days


Why did Leventhal use different definitions for vapers and smokers?  Why did he separate past and never vaping, but combine past and never smoking?  One possible explanation is that he wanted to record more “non-smokers” at baseline, some, perhaps many of whom, were “prior” smokers.  This allowed Leventhal to count prior smokers as vaping gateway cases to subsequent smoking. 

There are additional problems.  Leventhal labeled those smoking on three or more days in the past month as “frequent,” and those consuming two or more cigarettes on days they smoked as “heavy” smokers.  He provided no reference for these cutoffs, which help support his vaping-leads-to-smoking screed. 

For context, note that the 2014 National Youth Tobacco Survey showed that nearly half of current 10th grade smokers smoked five or fewer days in the past month, and smoked five or fewer cigarettes (on days they smoked).  These were likely weekend party smokers.  Labeling infrequent users as “frequent” or “heavy” is inappropriate. 

Leventhal’s study was supported by NIH grants to him ($3.4 million over five years) and Jonathan Samet ($15.9 million over four years). 

The number of engineered e-cigarette gateway studies is growing, and they will have a major impact on FDA regulations.  Federal grant support requires the authors to share their data (here).  With the stakes so high, independent investigators who aren’t biased against e-cigarettes will eventually obtain Leventhal’s data, and his analysis, results and interpretation will surely be investigated.