PNAS is certainly a respected journal. I would love to publish in it myself. I would upload the original article from PNAS, but I've evidently exceeded my attachment quota. Suggestions anyone? One has to keep in mind, however, that even PNAS can publish questionable papers.
There is one sentence that is standing out to me:
"TSNA absent in freshly emitted tobacco smoke, as the major product."
TSNA means tobacco-specific nitrosamine. So how can it be a TNAS and not be in tobacco? Loose usage of the TSNA term?
Also, here is another strange statement:
"Nicotine, their precursor, is the most abundant organic compound emitted during smoking (up to 8 mg per cigarette)."
More abundant than CO2 or CO? More abundant than ash-tar-carbon compounds? Is this true?
As for
vaping, wasn't there a study that said we do not exhale significant quantities of nicotine, that it almost all gets orally absorbed?
And with smoking, without the ash-smoke particles, which nic attaches itself to, would there be any surface nic to be found? Its the tars that build up all over the surfaces, holding nic in place. They sort of force the issue by blasting a surface with nic, not smoke, but we don't know about nic on surfaces from a VG/PG vapor. I cannot help but think there would be essentially none from vaping, even if we were to exhale a lot, which we don't. And there is no VG buildup from vaping in my office.
The article is quite deep chemically, with lots of chemical mechanisms proposed. It can certainly be used as fuel against smoking, which TPTB would likely use against vaping. But since this will likely
not result in a banning of analogs, how could they justify banning PVs with it?
I am wating for Jason/Pillbox to get more info from their health agency about similar concerns with the UK situation. I am tired of studies showing how bad smoking is leading to PVs under attack, and analogs still remaining on the shelves.
