Letter to the editor: Of course vaping is dangerous | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Of course vaping is dangerous

Is vaping damaging to lungs? Of course it is. The vaping debate is another instance where somebody or some group with an agenda has successfully created a controversy, knowing full well that for every controversy there are at least two points of view. And, very simply, a tidy profit can be had by getting enough people that support terpene inhalation to part with money necessary to support the practice.

Mammalian lungs are constructed of millions of alveoli, which are tiny air sacs lined with a single layer of living cells. Alveoli transfer inhaled oxygen through the monolayer of cells to the red blood cells, circulating in tiny capillaries behind the alveoli, in exchange for carbon dioxide which moves the opposite way to be exhaled. The air we breathe is 78.01% nitrogen and 20.96% oxygen. That leaves about 1.03%, which includes all of the inert gases like argon, helium, neon, xenon, etc., traces of carbon dioxide, and traces of nitrous and sulfurous contaminates.

Inhaling terpenes will very quickly destroy the single layer of alveolar cells and even the healthiest of bodies will fall behind in producing replacement cells. It’s a losing game and only a matter of time until the lungs certainly will be damaged beyond repair.

Joseph G. Cremonese


The writer is chairman of Scientific Industries, a company that makes tools for cell biologists.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.