New toxic warning issued over disposable e-cigarettes
Researchers at the University of California at Davis found that popular disposable e-cigarettes are more toxic than traditional cigarettes, emitting higher levels of harmful metals.
After just a few hundred puffs, some devices released neurotoxic lead and carcinogenic nickel and antimony, with one e-cigarette emitting more lead in a day than nearly 20 packs of traditional cigarettes.
The study revealed that these toxins are either present in the e-liquid or leach extensively from components like leaded bronze alloy and heating coils.
For daily users, emissions from some devices exceeded cancer risk limits for nickel and antimony, and health-risk thresholds for lead and nickel, posing risks like neurological damage and respiratory diseases.
Despite most disposable e-cigarettes being illegal in the U.S., they remain available, with researchers emphasizing the urgent need for regulation enforcement due to the market outpacing scientific understanding and the high rate of use among teens and young adults.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Jannik Sinner's three-month drugs ban from tennis felt all too convenient, too light on the fading principle of strict liability... excuse those of us rooting for Carlos Alcaraz at Wimbledon, writes RIATH AL-SAMARRAI
This is a true story - a dog once ate my homework. Well, he clawed a couple of pages into a state of disrepair, but my geography teacher didn't quite buy that a border collie was solely responsible for late submission. Nor did a different teacher when the same pet peed on my sister's English essay. I miss that dog, a good boy mostly, but I also wonder what those teachers might have brought to the arbitration of doping disputes in elite sport.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Sudden loss of key US satellite data could send hurricane forecasting back ‘decades'
The Department of Defense will halt a critical atmospheric data collection program at the end of June and has given weather forecasters just days to prepare, according to a public notice sent this week. Scientists that the Guardian spoke with say the change could set hurricane forecasting back 'decades', just as this year's season ramps up. In a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) message sent on Wednesday to its scientists, the agency said that 'due to recent service changes' the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) will 'discontinue ingest, processing and distribution of all DMSP data no later than June 30, 2025'. Due to their unique characteristics and ability to map the entire world twice a day with extremely high resolution, the three DMSP satellites are a primary source of information for scientists to monitor Arctic sea ice and hurricane development. The DMSP partners with Noaa to make weather data collected from the satellites publicly available. Noaa said the changes would not impact the quality of forecasting. However, the Guardian spoke with several scientists inside and outside of the US government whose work depends on the DMSP, and all said there are no other US programs that can form an adequate replacement for its data. 'We're a bit blind now,' said Allison Wing, a hurricane researcher at Florida State University. Wing said the DMSP satellites are the only ones that let scientists see inside the clouds of developing hurricanes, giving them a critical edge in forecasting that now may be jeopardized. 'Before these types of satellites were present, there would often be situations where you'd wake up in the morning and have a big surprise about what the hurricane looked like,' said Wing. 'Given increases in hurricane intensity and increasing prevalence towards rapid intensification in recent years, it's not a good time to have less information.' The satellites also formed a unique source of data for tracking changes to the Arctic and Antarctic, and had been tracking changes to polar sea ice continuously for more than 40 years. 'These are some of the regions that are changing the fastest around the planet,' said Carlos Moffat, an oceanographer at the University of Delaware who had been working on a research project in Antarctica that depended on DMSP data. 'This new announcement about the sea ice data really amounts to blinding ourselves and preventing us from observing these critical systems.' Researchers say the satellites themselves are operating normally and do not appear to have suffered any errors that would physically prevent the data from continuing to be collected and distributed, so the abrupt data halt might have been an intentional decision. 'It's pretty shocking,' Moffat said. 'It's hard to imagine what would be the logic of removing access now and in such a sudden manner that it's just impossible to plan for. I certainly don't know of any other previous cases where we're taking away data that is being collected, and we're just removing it from public access.' The loss of DMSP comes as Noaa's weather and climate monitoring services have become critically understaffed this year as Donald Trump's so-called 'department of government efficiency' (Doge) initiative has instilled draconian cuts to federal environmental programs. A current Noaa scientist who wishes to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation said that the action to halt the DMSP, when taken in context with other recent moves by the Trump administration, amounted to 'a systematic destruction of science'. The researcher also confirmed that federal hurricane forecasters were left unprepared for the sudden change with only a few days of notice. 'It's an instant loss of roughly half of our capabilities,' said the scientist. 'You can't expect us to make accurate forecasts and warnings when you take the useful tools away. It frankly is an embarrassment for the government to pursue a course with less data and just pretend everything will be OK.' Scientists said the decision to halt the DMSP will result in immediately degraded hurricane forecasts during what is expected to be an above-average season as well as a gap in monitoring sea ice – just as Arctic sea ice is hitting new record lows. 'This is a huge hit to our forecasting capabilities this season and beyond, especially our ability to predict rapid intensification or estimate the strength of storms in the absence of hurricane hunters,' said Michael Lowry, a meteorologist who has worked at Noaa's National Hurricane Center and with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 'The permanent discontinuation of data from these satellites is senseless, reckless and puts at risk the lives of tens of millions of Americans living in hurricane alley.' The DMSP dates back to 1963, when the Department of Defense determined a need for high-resolution cloud forecasts to help them plan spy missions. The program, which had been the longest-running weather satellite initiative in the federal government, has since evolved into a critical source of information not just on the inner workings of hurricanes, but also on polar sea ice, wildfires, solar flares and the aurora. In recent years, the DMSP had struggled to maintain consistent funding and priority within the Department of Defense as it transitioned away from its Cold war mission. The only other nation with similar satellite capability is Japan, and messages posted earlier in June indicate that scientists had already been considering a switch to the Japanese data in case of a DMSP outage – though that transition will take time. Neither Noaa nor the Department of Defense specified exactly which service changes may have prompted such a critical program to be so abruptly halted. In a statement to the Guardian, Noaa's communications director, Kim Doster, said: 'The DMSP is a single dataset in a robust suite of hurricane forecasting and modeling tools in the National Weather Service portfolio. This routine process of data rotation and replacement would go unnoticed in past administrations, but the media is insistent on criticizing the great work that Noaa and its dedicated scientists perform every day. 'Noaa's data sources are fully capable of providing a complete suite of cutting-edge data and models that ensure the gold-standard weather forecasting the American people deserve.' One Noaa source the Guardian spoke to said the loss of DMSP's high-resolution data could not be replaced by any other existing Noaa tool. The Guardian has also reached out to the Department of Defense for further explanation and will update this story with any response.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Putting cancer warnings on alcohol would help me drink less
Back in the early noughties, the indoor smoking ban led to an outcry over 'the nanny state'. The same happened when cigarette advertising was banned, and when manufacturers were required to plaster packs with images of diseased lungs. Yet over the past 40 years, according to Cancer Research, lung cancer rates in men have dropped by around 60 per cent. We may think we crave the rugged freedoms of the Marlboro Man, but given the facts, it turns out we don't actually want to die. And yet when it comes to alcohol, one of the world's biggest killers, a key driver of cancers, heart disease, strokes and obesity, there are no images of rotting livers on the chilled Sauvignon. The presentation of booze in the supermarket aisles is as benign as kitchen roll and chicken pie. It's described on restaurant menus with biblical reverence, it's advertised on TV in a hazy, golden-hour glow, and every other greetings card carries a hilarious reference to the booze-addled nature of the recipient. It is both normalised and celebrated, despite being the fifth greatest risk factor for death in the UK. Now, a group of major medical and health organisations have signed a letter to the Prime Minister calling for alcohol to carry explicit warnings that its consumption can cause cancer. The World Cancer Research Fund, which spearheaded the letter, cited 'shockingly low' public awareness that alcohol raises the risk of seven types of cancer – these being breast, bowel, stomach, head, neck, liver and mouth – and insisted that 'bold and unambiguous labelling' is urgently need to help save lives. Token efforts have long been made by the industry to toe a wavering line of responsibility – the number of units a bottle of wine contains written in a font the size of a gnat's IKEA instructions, or a glancing mention that pregnant women shouldn't drink. According to the Advertising Standards Authority, 'Lively, but responsible, social interaction or party scenes with alcohol present are allowed but…no behaviour may be adolescent or childish.' If only that diktat held true in real-life 'party scenes.' Initially, like much of Gen X and our wine-necking Boomer parents, I was resistant to the idea of cancer warnings. If I wanted to slowly kill myself in a responsible and socially acceptable manner, I felt it should be my choice to do so. But after another night of drinking slightly too much with friends, waking bathed in shame and a light prosecco sweat, I reconsidered. Women, particularly, are at risk of harm from alcohol, simply because we're smaller. If every time I picked up the wine bottle to top up my glass – over a healthy dinner! So civilised! – it reminded me that I was increasing my risk of cancer, I suspect I might put it back down. Humans like to ignore the dangers when it's something we want to do until it becomes impossible to turn a blind eye. But this time, it's not so much the consumers resisting warnings as the enormously powerful drinks industry. It's already up against Gen Z's wellbeing crusade, with a tsunami of kumbucha and kefir washing away the old-school shots and spirits from nights out. The risk of drinkers murmuring, 'Actually, I don't think I do want seven types of cancer' and switching the kettle on instead is a step too far. A spokesperson for the Portman Group, which oversees UK alcohol labelling in the UK, says: 'Whilst we do not dispute the link between alcohol and certain cancers… blanket cancer warning labels…can create unnecessary anxiety, eroding trust in health advice and alienating the very people who require support.' As an argument, this is weaker than a sixth-form debating point scribbled on the bus. Imagine the motor industry saying, 'Road signs create unnecessary anxiety. Let's not warn people that they might crash, lest we alienate drivers.' The spokesperson added that most alcohol products already include advice to limit drinking to 14 units a week, and claimed that 'most people drink within guidelines.' According to NHS Digital, however, 24 per cent of Brits drink more than this, while the charity Drinkaware has found that 32 per cent of men and 15 per cent of women regularly sink more than the recommended limit – and it is a limit, not a target. Doctors repeatedly warn that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption, and in April, the World Health Organisation advised that women should drink no alcohol at all to avoid a heightened risk of breast cancer. I'm aware that even reading this is annoying. I share the general British resentment over finger-wagging admonishments from the Fun Police. I want to say, 'You'll prise my Picpoul from my cold, dead hand.' The only thing is, I'd rather not be cold and dead – and I'm increasingly convinced that warning labels can only be a good thing. Although, of course, we must be careful how we approach this new regime. After all, we wouldn't want to alienate anybody.
