E-Cigs generate virtually no toxins

[WhiteHighlights]

A new study of leading American and British brands, reported in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, confirms this point, finding that the levels of potentially problematic substances in e-cigarette aerosol are about the same as those detected in ambient air.

In light of data like these, anyone who implies that e-cigarette vapor is about as dangerous as tobacco smoke cannot be taken seriously.

Study Confirms That E-Cigarettes Generate Virtually No Toxins - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Although the test was done with cigalikes, it was nice to read some good news.

 

[RosaJ]

Bump

 

[MR. Mad]

good stuff thanks for the post

 

[RosaJ]

Bumped again.

This needs to be read by as many people in the forum as possible.

 

[skoony]

here's a link to the actual study.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230014002505

regards
mike

 

[Bill Godshall]

That study was published (and discussed on ECF) back in December.

But it's good that Mike Siegel and Jacob Sullum have recycled this study (that didn't receive much publicity when it was published).

 

[Vatigu]

The article, "Comparison of select analytes in aerosol from e-cigarettes with smoke from conventional cigarettes and with ambient air" was published in the journal of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology (which somehow has an impact factor of >2). This is no cause for alarm, however, here's why this study shouldn't be trusted:

The editor of this journal was a highly paid consultant of B&W tobacco and for nearly two decades argued pro tobacco science for money
The study was conducted by Lorillard, Inc. who acquired Blu ecigs in 2012.
They conveniently only tested cig-a-likes
The lead author only has a bachelors in Chemistry
These are the same sorts of companies and "scientists" who have peddled pro tobacco science for the last 70 years

sources: Gio Batta Gori - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology Editorial Board https://www.linkedin.com/in/rtayyarah http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230014002505

Unethical funding and paid to be biased scientists aren't reliable sources for information which has the potential to effect millions of lives. We need to be more critical than this as a community. Good research is around the corner, don't jump at the first perfect results dangled in your face by someone trying to sell their product. /endrant

edit: The mods should remove the article from the front page or insert a caption for those who don't read comments or won't read the article. Thanks for the gold Haasmaster!

edit2: It looks like the second author,Gerald A. Long, was President of R.J. Reynolds in 1986. Anyone claiming this research could still be legit has a great deal more faith in humanity than I do.

So this was posted over at Reddit
Seems like this study might be a little biased... I like seeing a positive study but we should be validating these just as hard as we validate anti-vaping studies...

I haven't had a chance to dig through the study anyone spot any real methodology flaws or is someone on Reddit being overzealous?

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

When the press picks up this study

Hidden hazards found in 'green' products -- ScienceDaily

and runs it on the front page I'll start to believe they are worried about what we inhale. Remember these are green products.