It depends on what you're looking for as a level of proof, and I would disagree in a sense. E.g. eating properly cooked clean and disease free potatoes more than once a month has no (as far as I know) epidemiological data linking it to morbidity or mortality. We can say, without fear of reasonable contradiction, that eating potatoes that often is thought safe. Doesn't mean you can't choke on one, or die of an allergy.
Also worth noting that you can't prove a negative (in a sense at least). Potatoes could be very poisonous even when cooked, and we might have all been lucky so far. It's just really, phenomenally, unlikely.
I sincerely doubt e-cigarettes in their present form will ever be thought 100% safe, and when it comes to cigarette substitutes, if they work, I would be happy with "pretty bloody dangerous". Cigarettes are one of the most dangerous things mankind has invented.
But long term, e-cigarettes might be very dangerous, whatever you take that to mean. Or they might be more or less harmless. We can make reasonable inferences (I think it's called abductive reasoning) from other 'similar' things, but we don't have any actual data.
Also worth noting that you can't prove a negative (in a sense at least). Potatoes could be very poisonous even when cooked, and we might have all been lucky so far. It's just really, phenomenally, unlikely.
I sincerely doubt e-cigarettes in their present form will ever be thought 100% safe, and when it comes to cigarette substitutes, if they work, I would be happy with "pretty bloody dangerous". Cigarettes are one of the most dangerous things mankind has invented.
But long term, e-cigarettes might be very dangerous, whatever you take that to mean. Or they might be more or less harmless. We can make reasonable inferences (I think it's called abductive reasoning) from other 'similar' things, but we don't have any actual data.
Last edited:
