Wanted to bump for general discussion, but saw I missed the convo on the NEJM study when it happened.
I can get you links if you really want me to, but I know this info off the top of my head. The study is fallacious because the testing conditions and procedures were not realistically comparable to the actual act of vaping. Yes, formaldehyde did form, but it formed from the plastic insulator of the atomizer head being melted from the heat of the coil. Vape coils vary in operational temperatures, but they can't come close to melting plastic if the coil and wick are saturated in e-liquid. If they are not saturated, the device would give the user an unpleasant and mildly painful "dry hit" from the wicking material (silica, cotton, eckowool, ceramic-based, etc.) being burnt by the heat of the coil. Obviously at this point, users typically do not continue using the device (PC way of saying people with common sense) until the the issue is resolved, most likely due to the tank running out of juice, the battery power set inappropriately high, or the atomizer unit being exhausted. And all of this is WAYYYY before we get to the point of all the wicking material burning completely dry, allowing the coil to melt the insulator. Basically, if you actually vaped on the actual device and equipment powering the operational perimeters of the device, you would cough your head off and stop using it way before the insulator melts. The study's procedures simulated a wildly unrealistic vaping scenario.
