Thanks for reading, I wrote it, which stats did you have a question about?
The Mistic survey was correctly quoted, but it's ambiguous to say the least. The first part of the
Business Week piece says that 63% of those surveyed wouldn't mind if someone vaped "in close proximity."
Also, the air quality studies very rarely compare indoor vaping to any standard. In other words, someone could be wearing perfume and the result would be "particles in the air." It turns out that vaping
does introduce stuff into the air, but not much:
BMC Public Health | Full text | Peering through the mist: systematic review of what the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tells us about health risks (there are other analyses which show that vaping is comparable to prescribed nicotine inhalers, actually less I believe, in terms of air quality issues).
That said, it was nice to read an article abut vaping that didn't mention the plethora of junk and/or out-of-context information that one usually sees. For example the nonsense about an alleged minor "gateway to tobacco smoking" (minor use of tobacco cigarettes is plummeting), or the poison control center calls (200 a month for vaping, 20,000 a year for toothpaste). Etc.
We appreciate the very rare piece that isn't loaded up with gratuitous false and/or misleading information. It's extremely rare to find, perhaps only one article in 50.
And welcome to ECF
