Many think about ignorance or the repetition of bulos to vapor can cause the so -called “corn popcorn.” Although the best option will always be that of not smoking, regardless of any kind of substance, the truth is that science indicates that this ailment (whose technical name is obliterant bronchiolitis) is not caused by legal and regulated vapeo.
This is confirmed by the British National Health Service (NHS) That in his guide on vapeo myths he explains that “diacetyl is contained in the smoke of the cigarette, but is prohibited as an ingredient in the vaporizers and electronic liquids with nicotine regulated in the United Kingdom.” This prohibition has been applied since 2016, the year in which the transposition of the European Tobacco Products Directive In British legislation.
You may be interested
Hoteliers issue a statement for the prohibition of tobacco on terraces and warn of damage to the image of Spain
The price of tobacco changes from this Saturday in well -known brands and this is its new cost
But what is this name due? Well, everything has its origin in the early 2000s, when a group of workers from a popcorn factory in the United States developed this pathology for inhaling, for years, high diacetyl concentrations, an aromatizing additive with butter flavor. Since then, the term “Popcorn Lung” (in English) became popular and began to be wrongly used to alert over non -existent risks in regulated products.
The data review quoted by the NHS concludes that, in countries with health control such as the United Kingdom or Canada, there are no documented cases of obliterating bronchiolitis due to the use of legal e-líquidos. The only diacetyl findings in vapeo have occurred in unregulated or illegal origin, which suggests that the real risk is outside the authorized circuit.
The vapeo does not cause “lung of corn popcorn”
Obliterant bronchiolitis is a chronic disease that heals and narrows the smallest respiratory tract, hindering air entry and exit. It can be caused by inhalation of irritating chemicals, by certain infections or after serious damage to the lung tissue, but not by vaping regulated liquids without diacetyl.
Now, this does not mean that vaping is healthy and safe. Inhaled aerosol may contain harmful substances such as formaldehyde, acroleína or metals which are released by the resistance of the device, although it must be said that at levels much lower than the smoke of tobacco. Although long -term effects are not yet known, and health authorities insist and recommend that non -smokers, minors and pregnant women should never vapor.
Now, NHS maintains its recommendation to use vapeo as a damage reduction strategy only for smokers who fail to abandon nicotine, remembering that the final objective should always be living free of addictions.
Prohibit is not the solution
The political debate adds more confusion. In countries such as Spain, the health commitment is to prohibit and harden vaping restrictions, that is, equating these less harmful alternatives to the combustion cigar, while scientific evidence says quite the opposite, since the prohibition could lead some smokers again back to the traditional cigarette, with the consequent increase in risk for their health. “Vapeo is not healthy, but it is much less lethal than tobacco,” they remember from the British National Health Service, asking for a “realistic and nuanced” approach that distinguishes between legal products and the black market.
Why then the myth persists? Because the first warnings against vapeo focused on ingredients and formulations more than a decade ago, many times outside the regulated frame. In addition, some studies on toxicity have been applied to the whole population without differentiating between legal vapeo fluids and those that are not, which has led to incomplete conclusions.
Even so, the hierarchy of risk is clear. First, leave the nicotine; If you can’t, better vapor regulated products than smoking tobacco. For those who value their respiratory health (and in particular for those who fight to abandon the cigar), this distinction can be the difference between reducing damage or perpetuating exposure to the most dangerous toxins.