French study finds that e-cigs are just as bad as the real thing? Maybe not...
- Thread starter double_aa_ron
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
In both of these articles the reader is invited to draw an inference from the lack of scientific studies to the conclusion that ecigs are bad for you. This is simply illogical. If the science is incomplete as these folks suggest, then the only inference that can be drawn is that we don't know.
Second, I don't vape the 10 or so ecigs you find at gas stations and drug stories anyway.
Third, I buy eliquid from American vendors where there is a reasonable expectation of liability.
Fourth, these articles don't really say that they are finding toxic materials at significant levels, or that their presence is worse than the crap you find in a real cig. Again, they're trying to suggest that the reader draw the illogical inference that ecigs are as harmful as regular cigs.
As I sit and type this I can guarantee that I'm being exposed to far more dangerous synthetic materials that surround me in my apartment.
Second, I don't vape the 10 or so ecigs you find at gas stations and drug stories anyway.
Third, I buy eliquid from American vendors where there is a reasonable expectation of liability.
Fourth, these articles don't really say that they are finding toxic materials at significant levels, or that their presence is worse than the crap you find in a real cig. Again, they're trying to suggest that the reader draw the illogical inference that ecigs are as harmful as regular cigs.
As I sit and type this I can guarantee that I'm being exposed to far more dangerous synthetic materials that surround me in my apartment.
One thing you can count on is that NONE of the media outlets will report the rebuttal or the facts that it contains.
thanks for posting this. thanks to that wonderful (original) article, my wife is no longer comfotable with me vaping in the house. (we have children and i dont necessarily blame her). not that she will ever read the rebuttal. needless to say, im a bit ......, it sure was a luxury to be able to vape wherever i wanted (in my house), now that luxury is gone and i am back to leper (smoker) status. 
There's not enough information to go on, scientifically, but I personally wouldn't expose my children to anything except air/oxygen, albeit the world is quite polluted these days.
No harm in being extra cautious with young, developing lungs.
I would gladly sit out on the porch rather than expose my children to anything that we are not 110% sure about. That's just me.
I agree. I'm sure there's plenty of worse things lingering in the air in my house, but my logic is why add to it?
But my real reason for not vaping in front of my kids or any other kid in my family is that I don't want them to see me do it. Role model, modeling behaviors, all that stuff.
Keep in mind my daughters are 2 years old and 5 months old. My oldest niece is 9.
Yes, we must protect the children.
I vape with my grandkids in the room.
CASAA: New study confirms that chemicals in electronic cigarettes pose minimal health risk -- PHILADELPHIA, Aug. 8, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --
I don't fear that are in any danger whatsoever.
I vape with my grandkids in the room.
CASAA: New study confirms that chemicals in electronic cigarettes pose minimal health risk -- PHILADELPHIA, Aug. 8, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --
I don't fear that are in any danger whatsoever.
thanks for posting this. thanks to that wonderful (original) article, my wife is no longer comfotable with me vaping in the house. (we have children and i dont necessarily blame her). not that she will ever read the rebuttal. needless to say, im a bit ......, it sure was a luxury to be able to vape wherever i wanted (in my house), now that luxury is gone and i am back to leper (smoker) status.
Get rid of her, and get you a new one...
Acrolein and Formaldehyde seem to the be the only things anti-vapers can come up with right now. I'm not even remotely worried about Formaldehyde because it's a false claim.
Acrolein is not a false claim. VG can emit acrolein when it's burned. Great read here:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/ecf-library/455394-glycerine-vapor-acrolein-issues.html
I take great care in using my various devices. Burnt taste usually results in immediately switching the head and cleaning the old one. Not that I think continuing to use one after burnt hits is dangerous. I do it because I prefer the best clean vape at all times and it's easy to maintain that.
All these fuzzy and poorly written scareticals will be tossed in the e-circular file at some point in the near future. It's easy for a laymen to make the distinction between real studies with published results and poorly written unsubstantiated articles. It's no coincidence that all the studies in our favor are publicly published and highly detailed with exact methods and complete results but the smear articles don't provide any meat to go with their statements.
IF a real study showed dangerous results with dire consequences it would have already been published a million times. I see this latest smear campaign as nothing more than another grasp at a straw. It might temporarily work for it's intended purpose but soon there will be no more straws to grasp at.
Acrolein is not a false claim. VG can emit acrolein when it's burned. Great read here:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/ecf-library/455394-glycerine-vapor-acrolein-issues.html
I take great care in using my various devices. Burnt taste usually results in immediately switching the head and cleaning the old one. Not that I think continuing to use one after burnt hits is dangerous. I do it because I prefer the best clean vape at all times and it's easy to maintain that.
All these fuzzy and poorly written scareticals will be tossed in the e-circular file at some point in the near future. It's easy for a laymen to make the distinction between real studies with published results and poorly written unsubstantiated articles. It's no coincidence that all the studies in our favor are publicly published and highly detailed with exact methods and complete results but the smear articles don't provide any meat to go with their statements.
IF a real study showed dangerous results with dire consequences it would have already been published a million times. I see this latest smear campaign as nothing more than another grasp at a straw. It might temporarily work for it's intended purpose but soon there will be no more straws to grasp at.
First, I love the avatar!
Second, that guarantee is the issue. "They" act as if there is some guarantee of 100% safe air. There is no such place on earth. Any breath you take in carries a risk. Granted, there are degrees of risk. Breathing chlorine gas carries a much greater risk that breathing outside air on a summer afternoon in an isolated region of Alaska.
What a crock of
We've been discussing this article in this thread http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/media-general-news/460453-what-heck-french-ecigs.html for a couple days now. The owner of the mag is in bed with french politicians. Bill Goodshall put up lots of good info in that thread too if you want to check it out. The magazine that posted the article supposedly did their own testing with some "new" form of testing which is complete horse crap.
Now why would you suppose the French study would be given to the press before publication? Could it be because it is bad science that would never pass peer review?
The way the scientific community normally works is a study is declared NON scientific, and is disqualified from consideration if it is released to the public before peer review and publication.
AND, this study is a perfect example of WHY those rules exist.
The way the scientific community normally works is a study is declared NON scientific, and is disqualified from consideration if it is released to the public before peer review and publication.
AND, this study is a perfect example of WHY those rules exist.
Last edited:
First, I love the avatar!
Second, that guarantee is the issue. "They" act as if there is some guarantee of 100% safe air. There is no such place on earth. Any breath you take in carries a risk. Granted, there are degrees of risk. Breathing chlorine gas carries a much greater risk that breathing outside air on a summer afternoon in an isolated region of Alaska.
What a crock of
It's quite frustrating honestly. E-cigs could emit carbon monoxide eating molecules and we'd still probably face the same resistance. It just bothers me to no end how much of our personal liberty and freedom is being eroded. Far beyond the ecig debate too. We need a president with a Gary Johnson mindset irt personal liberty and freedom. Johnson is too extreme with small gov etc to ever get elected but my goodness what is going on nowadays is an embarrassment to our founding fathers.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
