Disposable Vapes Found to Contain Toxic Levels of Lead, Say Scientists

16 July 2025

Paul Francis

Want your article or story on our site? Contact us here

Vape gear on a cluttered table with colorful e-liquid bottles, a red mod labeled "dotMod," and various accessories. Bright, busy atmosphere.

New research has revealed that some of the most popular disposable vape brands on the market today are emitting dangerously high levels of toxic metals, including lead, prompting renewed health warnings and accelerating regulatory crackdowns.

The study, led by researchers at the University of California, Davis and published in late June 2025, examined seven popular disposable vaping devices including brands such as Elf Bar, Flum Pebble, and EscoBar. The findings were stark: several devices released lead concentrations that far exceeded health safety thresholds, with some generating more lead in a single day of vaping than what would be inhaled by smoking 20 traditional cigarettes.

According to the researchers, as disposable vapes are used over time, the levels of toxic metals in their aerosol emissions increase significantly. This is largely due to the degradation of internal components such as heating coils and solder joints. In some cases, the levels of lead, nickel and chromium in the vapour were found to be over 1,000 times higher than at the start of the device’s life.

These metals, when inhaled, are not harmless by-products. Lead, in particular, is a potent neurotoxin that can damage virtually every system in the human body. Prolonged or high-level exposure can affect brain development, reduce cognitive function, damage the kidneys and liver, and increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. In children and teenagers, whose nervous systems are still developing, exposure to lead is especially dangerous. Even low levels of lead can result in long-term developmental and behavioural issues.

Nickel and chromium, both also identified in the study at harmful levels, carry their own significant risks. Nickel exposure through inhalation has been linked to lung inflammation, bronchitis and increased cancer risk. Chromium, depending on its chemical form, is classified as a human carcinogen. These findings suggest that far from being a safer alternative to cigarettes, many disposable vapes could be introducing a new set of serious health hazards.

Close-up of red lips exhaling vapor from a red vape pen against a dark background, highlighting the smoky atmosphere and glossy lipstick.

In light of these revelations, the UK government moved ahead with its planned ban on disposable vapes, which officially came into effect on 1 June 2025. The decision was made on both environmental and public health grounds, with mounting concerns over youth vaping, poor product quality, and the unrecyclable nature of the devices. Public health officials welcomed the move, describing it as a necessary step in tackling what they termed a "rapidly escalating health crisis".

While the ban addresses the growing popularity of colourful, sweet-flavoured disposable devices among younger users, it leaves open the market for reusable and refillable vaping products. Many adult smokers who have switched to vaping now rely on pod-style or refillable devices, often marketed as cleaner and more reliable alternatives.

But are these alternatives truly safer?

Studies into refillable vaping devices have found that they also emit toxic metals, including lead, though usually at lower levels than their disposable counterparts. Research conducted by Johns Hopkins University and others indicates that the level of metal contamination in refillable devices is highly variable and dependent on several factors, including the materials used in the coil, how often the device is used, and how hot it gets during operation.

In a typical session of 15 puffs on a refillable vape, users may inhale between 0.003 to 0.057 micrograms of lead. By comparison, a single cigarette delivers roughly 0.004 micrograms. For nickel, refillable vapes have been measured between 0.011 to 0.029 micrograms per 15 puffs, closely matching the 0.019 micrograms found in cigarette smoke. These figures highlight that while refillable devices might avoid the worst-case contamination scenarios seen in cheap disposable vapes, they are not free from concern.

Traditional cigarettes, of course, have long been known to contain and emit heavy metals. Tobacco plants absorb metals like cadmium and lead from the soil, which are then released in smoke. The difference, however, is that cigarette composition and emissions are highly regulated and well-documented, while the fast-moving vape market has remained relatively unchecked until recently.

Critics of the vaping industry argue that manufacturers have prioritised aesthetics, flavour and low cost over product safety. The popularity of vapes among younger demographics has outpaced public understanding of what exactly is being inhaled. As evidence of metal toxicity mounts, scientists are calling for stricter testing requirements and long-term health studies to assess the cumulative effects of vaping across different device types.

The health implications are becoming harder to ignore. While vaping was initially promoted as a less harmful alternative to smoking, these new findings suggest that the risk profile is more complex than once believed. Toxic metal exposure, particularly from cheap and poorly manufactured devices, could pose risks equal to or even exceeding those associated with traditional tobacco use.

Ultimately, public health experts continue to reiterate one key message: the safest option is not to smoke or vape at all. While nicotine replacement therapies and prescription aids are available for those looking to quit, neither cigarettes nor e-cigarettes can be considered risk-free. As the UK and other countries move towards tighter regulation, the goal remains to reduce dependency on all nicotine products, not just the most dangerous ones.

Current Most Read

WWE Evolution 2025 – The Return of a Milestone Moment

WWE Saturday Night’s Main Event – A Retro Throwback with a Modern Problem

UK Government Pressures Apple for Encrypted Data Access – Security Measure or Privacy Risk?

Paul Francis
Feb 11
4 min read

The UK government has taken a bold step in its ongoing efforts to strengthen national security, issuing a formal request to Apple demanding access to encrypted iCloud data. The demand, made under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA)—often referred to as the "Snooper’s Charter"—could force Apple to create a backdoor in its encryption system, granting law enforcement access to user data that is currently inaccessible, even to Apple itself.

The UK argues that encryption prevents law enforcement from investigating serious crimes, including terrorism, child exploitation, and organized crime. Apple, however, has refused to comply, warning that such a move would undermine the privacy and security of users not just in the UK but globally.

The dispute has reignited the long-running debate over privacy versus security, raising serious concerns about the future of digital rights, government surveillance, and the potential consequences of setting a precedent that other countries may follow.

Why the UK Government Wants Access to Encrypted Data

The UK government insists that its demand is a matter of public safety and crime prevention. With technology evolving, criminals and terrorists have increasingly turned to encrypted services to communicate and store illicit material, making it difficult—if not impossible—for law enforcement to access vital evidence.

Government officials argue that:

Encrypted backups prevent police from gathering evidence – Many investigations, particularly those related to terrorism or child abuse, rely on digital evidence stored in cloud backups. Without access, law enforcement is effectively blind to potential criminal activity.
A controlled backdoor would not compromise regular users – The government claims that a well-regulated backdoor could provide law enforcement with access only in cases where it is legally justified, such as under a court order.
Other forms of surveillance are already permitted – The UK already has extensive data collection laws, including those that allow authorities to request communications metadata and access to unencrypted services. Extending this to encrypted iCloud backups is seen as a logical next step.

From this perspective, encryption is not just a tool for privacy—it can also shield criminals from justice, making it harder for authorities to investigate and prevent serious crimes.

Apple’s Resistance: The Security and Privacy Risks

Apple has made it clear that it will not comply with the UK’s request, arguing that creating a backdoor for government access would put all users at risk. The company’s Advanced Data Protection (ADP) feature provides end-to-end encryption for iCloud backups, meaning that even Apple cannot access a user’s data once encryption is enabled.

Apple—and many cybersecurity experts—warn that:

A backdoor for law enforcement is a backdoor for everyone – Any vulnerability introduced for one government could be exploited by hackers, cybercriminals, and foreign intelligence agencies.
The UK is not the only country that would make this demand – If Apple complies, other governments—including those with weaker human rights protections—may demand the same access, potentially leading to mass surveillance.
It would weaken cybersecurity globally – Encryption protects not just individuals but also businesses, financial transactions, and even national security infrastructure. Weakening it could increase cybercrime, identity theft, and data breaches.
There is no guarantee of ‘controlled’ access – While the UK claims any backdoor would be used responsibly, history shows that government surveillance powers often expand beyond their original scope.

Apple’s stance reflects a broader industry position: once an encryption backdoor exists, it is impossible to ensure it remains in the right hands.

The Precedent: What Happens If Apple Complies?

The implications of this case go far beyond Apple. If the UK succeeds in forcing the company to weaken encryption, it could set a precedent for other technology firms, including:

Google (Android devices and Google Drive backups)
Microsoft (OneDrive and Windows security systems)
Meta (WhatsApp, Messenger, and Facebook backups)
Encrypted messaging services like Signal and Telegram

This could trigger a global wave of government demands for similar access, making it increasingly difficult for any company to maintain strong encryption protections for its users.

There’s also the risk that the UK’s demand won’t stay limited to cloud storage. If Apple is forced to weaken iCloud encryption, what’s stopping governments from demanding the same for iMessage, FaceTime, and local device encryption?

Could Apple Withdraw Security Features from the UK?

Apple has taken drastic action before in response to government pressures. In 2023, it threatened to pull iMessage and FaceTime from the UK market rather than comply with potential encryption-busting requirements. While those laws were later amended, the current dispute over iCloud encryption raises the question: Could Apple withdraw its security features from the UK entirely?

Some experts believe Apple may choose to disable end-to-end encryption for iCloud backups in the UK, ensuring compliance without weakening security globally. However, this would leave UK users at a greater risk of cyberattacks, making them an easier target for hackers and surveillance programs.

Others suggest Apple could fight the order in court, delaying compliance for years while legal battles unfold. Given that the UK’s stance on encryption is stricter than many other Western nations, a legal challenge could pressure lawmakers to reconsider their approach.

A Dangerous Precedent in the Making

At its core, this debate is about where to draw the line between privacy and security. The UK government argues that its demand is necessary to protect citizens from crime, while Apple maintains that it would compromise global security by setting a dangerous precedent.

If the UK is successful, the world could see a dramatic shift in encryption policies, with other countries following suit. While government officials insist their intentions are to protect the public, critics warn that weakening encryption is a slippery slope, leading to widespread surveillance and reduced digital security for all.

As the standoff continues, the outcome will shape not just Apple’s encryption policies, but also the future of digital privacy, cybersecurity, and the balance of power between governments and technology companies worldwide.