This article http://www.instantriverside.com/2010/10/prue-talbot-electronic-cigarette-study/ (and/or the study as well) seems to imply that the “stronger inhaling” required for a PV may have “adverse effects on human health.”
Are you kidding?
And “manufacturers’ claims that e-cigarette cartridges are equivalent to a certain number of conventional cigarettes…seems misleading” because… “stronger puffs are required over time to sustain density.” SERIOUSLY??
The senior author of the study is quoted as saying “Our results show that e-cigarettes smoke very differently than conventional brands.” Hmmm….yes. To start with, they don’t smoke.
Another researcher involved in the study is quoted as saying: “An important implication is that users must exert greater inhalation pressure and, therefore, it may predictably cause the aerosol to reach deeper tissue in the user’s lungs. As in the case of conventional harm reduction cigarettes with lower nicotine content, users of e-cigarettes may also need to smoke greater number of puffs to receive sufficient amount of nicotine to satisfy their craving.”
First off, he can’t decide if he wants to talk about how it’s inhaled or the amount of nicotine a user desires. But correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t conducting research involve reviewing previously done research? If not then I can see why he is unaware there is no “conventional harm reduction cigarette,” and that nicotine is not what makes conventional cigarettes harmful in the first place. I can see to why he is unaware of the following e-cig finding: “Nicotine Not Absorbed by Lungs.” Summary here: http://www.e-cignews.com/items/Dr_Laugesen_s_report_on_the_Ruyan_e_cigarette_as_shown_to_th (the link to the handout provides additional information)
And here’s another funny one: “Based on the results of this paper, not only do users become more aware of the vapor characteristics and smoking properties of e-cigarettes but also manufacturers of e-cigarettes will take notice of the functional inconsistencies of their products.” Yeah, I want those consistent batteries that don’t lose power as you use it.
I don’t know guys – perhaps we should consider going back to the analogs since we don’t have to work as hard to inhale, plus they burn consistently from end to end so we don’t even have to think about it. That "thinking" thing can be quite a stressor - and we all know stress contributes to heart disease and acne.
Instant Riverside.com was wise to close/prevent comments from being made on this article. I will say that much. …I’ve got to find somewhere to comment on this study.
Are you kidding?
And “manufacturers’ claims that e-cigarette cartridges are equivalent to a certain number of conventional cigarettes…seems misleading” because… “stronger puffs are required over time to sustain density.” SERIOUSLY??
The senior author of the study is quoted as saying “Our results show that e-cigarettes smoke very differently than conventional brands.” Hmmm….yes. To start with, they don’t smoke.
Another researcher involved in the study is quoted as saying: “An important implication is that users must exert greater inhalation pressure and, therefore, it may predictably cause the aerosol to reach deeper tissue in the user’s lungs. As in the case of conventional harm reduction cigarettes with lower nicotine content, users of e-cigarettes may also need to smoke greater number of puffs to receive sufficient amount of nicotine to satisfy their craving.”
First off, he can’t decide if he wants to talk about how it’s inhaled or the amount of nicotine a user desires. But correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t conducting research involve reviewing previously done research? If not then I can see why he is unaware there is no “conventional harm reduction cigarette,” and that nicotine is not what makes conventional cigarettes harmful in the first place. I can see to why he is unaware of the following e-cig finding: “Nicotine Not Absorbed by Lungs.” Summary here: http://www.e-cignews.com/items/Dr_Laugesen_s_report_on_the_Ruyan_e_cigarette_as_shown_to_th (the link to the handout provides additional information)
And here’s another funny one: “Based on the results of this paper, not only do users become more aware of the vapor characteristics and smoking properties of e-cigarettes but also manufacturers of e-cigarettes will take notice of the functional inconsistencies of their products.” Yeah, I want those consistent batteries that don’t lose power as you use it.
I don’t know guys – perhaps we should consider going back to the analogs since we don’t have to work as hard to inhale, plus they burn consistently from end to end so we don’t even have to think about it. That "thinking" thing can be quite a stressor - and we all know stress contributes to heart disease and acne.Instant Riverside.com was wise to close/prevent comments from being made on this article. I will say that much. …I’ve got to find somewhere to comment on this study.
