E-cigarettes may contain up to 10 times as many cancer-causing toxic chemicals as traditional tobacco cigarettes according to Japanese researchers. A shocking finding given the devices are marketed as harmless smoking cessation aids.

The study, commissioned by Japan's health ministry found potent carcinogens including formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in the vapour inhaled by users of some types of e-cigarettes.

The electronic devices work by heating flavoured liquid which users purchase as refills. The liquid often contains nicotine and when heated turns into a vapour that is inhaled, much like traditional cigarettes but without the smoke from the burning of tobacco.

Speaking to French news agency Agence France Presse (AFP), a spokesman for the health ministry said formaldehyde was present at much higher levels than carcinogens found in the smoke from regular cigarettes. Scientist Naoki Kunugita added that "In one brand of e-cigarette the team found more than 10 times the level of carcinogens contained in one regular cigarette,"

​Aerotoxic syndrome has been a growing health problem as more and more people are flying. The new Boeing 787, or Dreamliner, now entering service may represent a major step in the right direction as the first commercial airliner not to vent air from the engines into the cabin.

Pilots, flight attendants and passengers have all been experiencing neurological symptoms attributed to toxic cabin air. Most worrying, in some instances flight crew have blacked-out or otherwise become incapacitated.  Many have developed chronic illnesses which are now widely referred to as aerotoxic syndrome.

The source of the problem lies with the way air is introduced into the cabins of all jet airliners currently transporting millions of people around the world daily. Airliners currently in service use a system which involves bleed air -   air which passes through the aircrafts' jet engines before being "bled off" and recirculated around the cabin via the air conditioning system.

​New research in rodents has demonstrated the alarming potential of a wide range of commonly encountered chemicals, from pesticides to vehicle fuels, to cause disease not just in the individual exposed to them but in future generations - whether they are also exposed to such toxic chemicals or not - as a result of epigenetic effects.

The study was conducted by scientists at Washington State University and the results published online in the journal PLoS ONE this week. The team, led by molecular biologist Michael Skinner, were able to show in rats that a whole host of environmental pollutants caused negative health effects in threee generations of an exposed animal's offspring.

This is the first study to look at generational health effects of exposures to chemicals from a wide range of different classes. The study was funded by the US Army who wish to understand the effects of chemicals to which troops are likely to be exposed on the battlefield - in an effort one would hope - to avoid a repeat of an epidemic of Gulf War illness (GWI) type health problems following future conflicts. As such Skinner and his team looked at the effects of dioxins, the pesticides DEET and permethrin, the plastic ingredients bisphenol A and phthalates, as well as jet fuel (which is not so dissimilar to the gas/petrol you fill your car with).

​Op-Ed

A Swedish study looking at use of conventional health care services by those affected by multiple chemical sensitivity and electrical sensitivity finds these patients are more comparable to the general population rather than patients with a diagnosed and treatable condition such as hypertension. But is this because the environmentally ill are less sick or because traditional health care has nothing to offer them?

The research conducted by scientists at Lund University, Sweden, was intended to ascertain the degree to which those with sensitivities to chemicals and electricity place a burden on traditional health care services. A secondary aim was to seek their opinions of such services.

Researchers sent out postal questionnaires to local residents to assess the prevalence of symptoms related to electrical and chemical factors. They received 13,604 completed responses. The questionnaire asked “Did you during the past 14 days experience annoyance that you associate with (1) fluorescent tube lighting (2) visual display units (3) other electrical equipment (4) breathing air that smells of chemicals (5) other smells and if so, how much annoyance did that cause you?” Possible responses were “No,” “Yes, some” or “Yes, very much”. The investigators then chose to focus on 315 individuals who reported annoyance from both any electrical factor and chemicals or smells, with at least one of the factors rated as "yes, very much" annoying.