Anyone looked at this report...?

[SoaFung]

http:// ntr. oxfordjournals .org/content/early/2013/12/10/ntr.ntt203 short

Rip trippers had a video with a kink to thus video regarding second hand vapor. Kinda think it's junk and a bit disappointed in him.

Just wanted some of you guys and gals thoughts.



Sent from my Nokia Lumia 920 using Tapatalk


MODERATED: Broke link

 

[Nataani]

Its a peer reviewed journal published by a well respected university. Imo that alone gives it a fair bit of credibility.

Their methodology is very clear, and well thought out. They account for huge numbers of factors, including the fact that their smoke machine is not a biological process, by using substances that will generally absorb nicotine at a similar rate to the human body.

Personally, I give the article a thumbs up. Personal experience confirms the results of this, as when I have vaped high nic juice in the car with my wife she has experienced nicotine buzz.

It should be noted that the link is to the abstract of the article. To access the full article you either need one of the variety of forms of access or to pay for it. Luckily I still have access to Athens, so was able to browse through the whole thing.

 

[retired1]

Moved to Media and General News

As a reminder: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...g-links-junk-science-other-rubbish-posts.html

 

[SoaFung]

As I did not have access to the full report, I was only able to go off the information I had. If it was truly a full scientific method experiment, then that is good. that would nullify the need to the "junk science/broken link" rule to this particular article, would it not?

Sent from my Nokia Lumia 920 using Tapatalk

 

[Christopherja]

Yeah, doesn't seem particularly "junky" to me, having just read through it (and having a background in the experimental sciences).

I can't see why anyone would be upset at the report - it summarises that e-cigarettes produce "second-hand" nicotine, but significantly lower than the "second-hand" nicotine of conventional (analogue) cigarettes.

They also admit, in their summary, that they may not have been able to accurately and adequately measure the concentration of nicotine present in their air with e-cigarettes, as the vapour is quickly moving, and quickly evaporated.

It's a fairly balanced summary of results, and certainly much more balanced than most of the junk that gets tossed around (even in peer-reviewed journals!).

 

[Uma]

Yeah, doesn't seem particularly "junky" to me, having just read through it (and having a background in the experimental sciences).

I can't see why anyone would be upset at the report - it summarises that e-cigarettes produce "second-hand" nicotine, but significantly lower than the "second-hand" nicotine of conventional (analogue) cigarettes.

They also admit, in their summary, that they may not have been able to accurately and adequately measure the concentration of nicotine present in their air with e-cigarettes, as the vapour is quickly moving, and quickly evaporated.

It's a fairly balanced summary of results, and certainly much more balanced than most of the junk that gets tossed around (even in peer-reviewed journals!).

Excellent points.
As Dr. Farsalinos said, quote "nicotine exposure was never a problem in second=hand smoking and cannot be a problem in second-hand vaping. None can become addicted to nicotine from environmental exposure. You get more nicotine by eating eggplants, tomatoes, potatoes and cauliflower."

i turned Rip's vid off, a short time in. Pretty pompous if you ask me.