Objectives: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) have recently become popular around the world, and their safety is being widely discussed in the scientific literature. Previous studies have examined the chemicals in e-liquids and vapour, and demonstrated that the aerosol from ECs can contain toxic chemicals that are harmful to health. However, little is known about the potential adverse health effects of passive exposure to EC vapour. The aim of this paper is to summarise and review all studies that have examined potential adverse health effects of passive exposure from inhaling EC vapour. Specifically, our research objectives were to describe 1) the absolute impact of passive exposure from inhaling vapour when compared with background, and 2) the relative impact of passive exposure from inhaling vapour when compared with passive exposure from inhaling conventional cigarette smoke. Methods:A systematic review was conducted to identify articles published from 1996 to 10 September 2015 from Embase, Ovid MEDLINE and PreMEDLINE. Papers eligible for inclusion had to be written in English, study health effects from passive exposure to EC vapour in animals or humans, test or analyse the EC vapour directly or in the ambient air (with an inference made about passive or second-hand vapour exposure). The review was conducted using the PRISMA guidelines for reporting on systematic reviews. We identified 312 studies, and 16 were relevant for inclusion in our review.Results: A variety of study designs were used to investigate potential health risks from passive exposure to EC vapour. These included direct exposure studies involving humans and animals, and indirect exposure studies using volunteer EC users or smoking machines. The majority of studies determined that passive exposure to EC vapour may pose a health risk to bystanders. All papers encountered a number of limitations.

BackgroundPolicy makers and regulators are constantly required to make decisions despite the existence of substantial uncertainty regarding the outcomes of their proposed decisions. Understanding stakeholder views is an essential part of addressing this uncertainty, which provides insight into the possible social reactions and tolerance of unpredictable risks. In the field of nanotechnology, large uncertainties exist regarding the real and perceived risks this technology may have on society. Better evidence is needed to confront this issue.MethodsWe undertook a computer assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) survey of the Australian public and a parallel survey of those involved in nanotechnology from the academic, business and government sectors. Analysis included comparisons of proportions and logistic regression techniques. We explored perceptions of nanotechnology risks both to health and in a range of products. We examined views on four trust actors.ResultsThe general public’s perception of risk was significantly higher than that expressed by other stakeholders. The public bestows less trust in certain trust actors than do academics or government officers, giving its greatest trust to scientists. Higher levels of public trust were generally associated with lower perceptions of risk. Nanotechnology in food and cosmetics/sunscreens were considered riskier applications irrespective of stakeholder, while familiarity with nanotechnology was associated with a reduced risk perception.ConclusionsPolicy makers should consider the disparities in risk and trust perceptions between the public and influential stakeholders, placing greater emphasis on risk communication and the uncertainties of risk assessment in these areas of higher concern. Scientists being the highest trusted group are well placed to communicate the risks of nanotechnologies to the public.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-015-1795-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

In this article, we summarise research that identifies best practice for communicating about hazards where the risk is low but public concern is high. We apply Peter Sandman's 'risk = hazard + outrage' formulation to these risks, and review factors associated with the amplification of risk signals. We discuss the structures that determine the success of risk communication strategies, such as the capacity for early communication to 'capture' the dominant representation of risk issues, the importance of communicating uncertainty, and the usefulness of engaging with communities.We argue that, when facing trade-offs in probable outcomes from communication, it is always best to choose strategies that maintain or build trust, even at the cost of initial overreactions. We discuss these features of successful risk communication in relation to a range of specific examples, particularly opposition to community water fluoridation, Ebola, and routine childhood immunisation. IntroductionPublic and environmental health officers make careful risk assessments about a range of hazards. The question of how to best manage these risks is given equally careful consideration. Best practice in risk management is complex, often requiring policies whose goals are not merely to minimise the harms caused by the hazard itself, but to provide an appropriate balance between a range of interests, such as the need for safe water, air and soil; the need for people to work, and for business to survive and thrive; and the need for communities to have quality of life, enjoyment, security and amenity.After such thought and care, it can be challenging when a carefully crafted policy strategy is thrown into disarray because of public reactions to sensationalised media headlines, or because of public fears about lowrisk, highly beneficial policies. However, such outcomes can be mitigated, and sometimes prevented altogether, by making communicating about risk as critical as risk assessment in the risk management process. Risk Communicating about risk: strategies for situations where public concern is high but the risk is low

Societies are constantly challenged to develop policies around the introduction of new technologies, which by their very nature contain great uncertainty. This uncertainty gives prominence to varying viewpoints which are value laden and have the ability to drastically shift policy. The issue of nanotechnologies is a prime example. The labelling of products that contain new technologies has been one policy tool governments have used to address concerns around uncertainty. Our study develops evidence regarding opinions on the labelling of products made by nanotechnologies. We undertook a computer-assisted telephone (CATI) survey of the Australian public and those involved in nanotechnologies from the academic, business and government sectors using a standardised questionnaire. Analysis was undertaken using descriptive and logistic regression techniques. We explored reluctance to purchase as a result of labelling products which contained manufactured nanomaterials both generally and across five broad products (food, cosmetics/sunscreens, medicines, pesticides, tennis racquets/computers) which represent the broad categories of products regulated by differing government agencies in Australia. We examined the relationship between reluctance to purchase and risk perception, trust, and familiarity. We found irrespective of stakeholder, most supported the labelling of products which contained manufactured nanomaterials. Perception of risk was the main driver of reluctance to purchase, while trust and familiarity were likely to have an indirect effect through risk perception. Food is likely to be the greatest product impacted by labelling. Risk perception surrounding nanotechnologies and label ‘framing’ on the product are key issues to be addressed in the implementation of a labelling scheme.