Exploding E-Cigarette? Maybe Not.

“A worker at a wine store in Grand Central Terminal suffered burns to his hand and leg after an e-cigarette caught fire in his pocket,” according to a November 23rd ABC news story (here). 

This incident requires context.  Christopher E. Lalonde, a psychology professor at the University of Victoria in Canada with expertise on e-cigarette hardware, made the following comments:

“The device appears to be a Reuleaux RS200 model... It has various safety features designed to protect against such incidents: reverse battery protection, overheating/auto cut-off, battery venting, etc…Not foolproof by any means, but ‘e-cigs’ and ‘cellphones’ don’t explode, batteries do.

“The Reuleaux requires three 18650 batteries to operate. There appear to be six batteries in the photo — along with an assortment of metal coins.

“The three seemingly intact brown coloured batteries (far left, far right, and one remaining in the device) are likely LG 18650s that are recommended for use with this model.

“…I suspect the three silver coloured charred batteries are likely the cause of the explosion. If they were carried along with loose coins in the victim’s pocket, then the “e-cig” didn’t explode — the loose batteries did.” (my emphasis)

Professor Lalonde, while noting that he has “every sympathy for the unfortunate victim of this incident,” provided valuable insight by suggesting that, based on the photographic evidence, batteries interacting with pocket change was the likely cause of this explosion. 

Lithium ion batteries are essential for a wide range of electronic devices.  Consumers should use, charge and store them with care. 

E-Cigarette Battery Hazards Minuscule and Overblown

Breathless reports of e-cigarette battery explosions have appeared recently in the Journal of the American Dental Association (here) and Cornea (here).  The latter article, alluding to a “number of media reports,” claimed that “e-cigarettes pose a significant public health risk.”  Clive Bates labeled that claim “inappropriate and alarmist” in his excellent PubMed Commons comment (here).

Bates explained that “Risk is a quantitative concept or it is meaningless… Claims that products or behaviours cause significant public health risks need to be proportionate and reflect both absolute risks (how much harm is caused) and relative risks - i.e. set in appropriate context by reference to risks arising from other common products and activities.”

In other words, the risk of e-cig accidents should be assessed in relation to smoking-related accidents.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “Twenty-five separate incidents of explosion and fire involving an e-cigarette were reported in the United States media between 2009 and August 2014…nine injuries and no deaths.” (here)  The agency concluded: “Fires or explosions caused by e-cigarettes are rare.”

In contrast, the FEMA chart above shows that smoking caused 40,000 residential fires, 1,665 fire deaths and 4,550 fire injuries over roughly the same period (source here).  Clearly, a switch from combustible to electronic cigarettes will substantially decrease fire hazards as it reduces the 400,000+ annual deaths from cancers, cardiovascular and lung diseases.

E-cigarettes have lithium-ion batteries.  Battery explosions and fires, which also occur with cell phones and laptop computers, are rare events that can be prevented with quality control in manufacturing and with responsible use -- charging with manufacturer-recommended power adaptors and handling and storing appropriately, for example. 

In any rational analysis, the real public health hazard is smoking.