The costs of running this huge site are paid for by ads. Please consider registering and becoming a Supporting Member for an ad-free experience. Thanks, ECF team.

Another Local News Fail

Discussion in 'Hoosier Vapers' started by VaporPhreak, Aug 28, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Image has been removed.
URL has been removed.
Email address has been removed.
Media has been removed.
  1. VaporPhreak

    VaporPhreak Super Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jun 30, 2009
    Indianapolis, IN
    Ok folks, I am doing damage control as best I can with my Social group, commenting on the story, and have already contact the news agency to inform them of the more recent study that disproves what they are reporting on. If any of you have time to weigh in on the topic in the comments area, or wish to contact the news agency as well, please do. The more we can bombard them, the better:

    RTV6 - Study: Carcinogen molecules found in e-cigarettes - News Story

    Thanks folks!
     
  2. VaporPhreak

    VaporPhreak Super Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jun 30, 2009
    Indianapolis, IN
    Also, if anyone knows a good way to contact CASAA in regards to this to have them weigh in, go for it.
     
  3. Hoosier

    Hoosier Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Jan 26, 2010
    Indiana
    I've been trying to think of a way to put the quote from one of the referenced articles in that story, "The study claims to have employed an innovative method in detecting 'a significant quantity of carcinogenic molecules' in the vapour of the cigarettes which, according to Laurenceau, have thus far gone undetected.", into the proper context.

    Anyone who knows something about science knows that quote screams that it is a BS study, but I'm trying to think of a way to explain that to folks who don't know that an "innovative method in detecting" has to be proven to be reliable before using said new method to disprove all previous detection and measuring studies that spelled out what proven methods were used. None of the reference links contain methodology which is another warning sign that the "study" is BS masquerading as science.

    Also note they didn't use the "innovative method" to retest cigarette data, but compared the results of the "innovative method" to the old methods' results.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice