Here: http://24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/ecigarettes-under-attack-by-fda-and-who-are-they-really-unsafe-91658.php GAINESVILLE, FL, March 14, 2009 /24-7PressRelease/ -- With the number of people wanting to quit smoking cigarettes, it seems surprising that the Food And Drug Administration and World Health Organization attack one of the best ideas yet: the electronic cigarette. It looks like a cigarette, tastes like a cigarette, and feels like a cigarette, and yet all most contain are less than 20 chemicals in most cases, including mostly nicotine, propylene glycol (used in a number of food products), and water. The e-cigarette works by dissolving nicotine within a cartridge that contains the chemical propylene glycol, which is used to make the smoke in such things as fog machines used at parties. Other uses for this chemical include being put in bakery goods, prepared fruits and vegetables, food coloring, flavor concentrates, sunscreen, hand moisturizers, cosmetics, toothpaste, mouth wash, and even baby wipes. WHO claims that there is not enough evidence that e-cigarettes are a safe alternative to smoking, but where is the evidence supporting that they are not safe? The major chemicals within an e-cigarette are either already on the FDA's GRAS ("generally recognized as safe") list or are already contained in cigarettes themselves. There isn't anything in them more dangerous than the pack of normal cigarettes a person can get at their nearest convenience store and the most important chemical in them, nicotine, isn't listed by any health organization as a carcinogen. Not only that, but nicotine levels in e-cigarettes can be managed in a way similar to both nicotine patches and nicotine gums which are approved for use by the FDA in the United States and in other countries abroad. There are even cartridges that contain no nicotine at all and there are talks about adding cartridges that contain, of all things, vitamins. So, what's not in an e-cigarette? Paint stripper (acetone), lighter fluid (butane), cyanide, ammonia, mercury, the embalming chemical formaldehyde, and not even radioactive Polonium-210... all of which are in the cigarettes produced by big tobacco companies. When being smoked, a cigarette emits 4,000 chemicals... and 69 of them are known to cause cancer. The Australian state of Victoria banned e-cigarettes and other unapproved nicotine delivery systems due to the fact that "nicotine has been linked to cardiovascular disease", according to the Health Minister, Daniel Andrews. As of this writing, normal cigarettes and all of the 4,000 chemicals they emit are still legal for adults in Victoria. There are also currently no statistics to support the claim that the marketing of e-cigarettes would lure in non-smokers to the habit. E-cigarette vendors online, however, are making it clear that these are not to be purchased by minors and typically have a number of health warnings on their sites concerning nicotine, addiction, and pregnancy, so the industry is already attempting to regulate itself outside of the law, much the same way the movie industry regulates itself with its rating system. The sale of nicotine gums or patches are not regulated in the United States and are subject to no minimum age law. If the e-cigarette industry is regulated to the extent of needing a prescription to obtain one, many believe it will cause the e-cigarette to slip out of reach for those desperate to quit or desperate for an alternative to traditional smoking. Even the Mayo Clinic states that even though nicotine is most of what keeps a cigarette smoker hooked, it's the other toxic chemicals in cigarettes that cause the majority of a smoker's health concerns. Can e-cigarettes really be slammed simply because of the chemicals they contain? Is it just a health issue? Considering the amount of chemicals contained in a normal cigarette versus an e-cigarette, shouldn't the FDA be elated that there is such an alternative that both mimics the habit of smoking and reduces the amount of carcinogens the smoker and those around him are inhaling by 100%?