Fridays News at a glance:
Herding cats and knitting fog; in support of the NNA … An Unfortunate Day To Write Crap About E-Cigs … EU Confirms It’s Not About Health … Nicotine Science and Policy – Daily Digest – Fri, 20 February 2015 … Of Mice and Men … E-cigs Under Fire, Despite Likely Benefits … Anti-vaping campaign is more about ideology than public health … Glantz complains about research ethics
Beki Jane and why you should support the NNA. There’s a link just over there >>>
I am a proud supporter of the NNA. They got off their backsides and did something. If you can’t do the same, then please consider dropping a small monthly amount to these ordinary vapers. They really do work for you and the task they have set themselves is thankless. Like knitting vapour clouds…..
A double helping from Puddlecote Towers:
Lobbyists have been queuing up for a few years now to push the idea that e-cigs are somehow safer than normal cigarettes. One of the most dangerous aspects of your typical, run-of-the-mill cigarette is the tar-filled smoke you’re inhaling with each puff. That tar may contain up to 7,000 different toxins, which are otherwise found in everything from rat poison to nail polish. E-cigs, on the other hand, produce a light, tar-free vapour. But this doesn’t necessarily make them any safer…..
Proving the Puddlecote Motto correct:
Incredible, isn’t it? The EU has, for decades, liberally pissed away our cash on nagging, cajoling, hectoring, intervening, regulating, legislating and bullying smokers to quit. But now that many have done exactly that with e-cigs, it’s cocking up member state budgets so screw health, it’s now all about revenue raising….
Anti-vaping campaign is more about ideology than public health.
After I began to occasionally puff on cigars while arguing politics and sipping bourbon with friends, I researched the potential health effects of this habit (the cigars, not the political arguments or booze). Much information seemed designed to scare aficionados, rather than to provide a dispassionate review of the facts….
Yes, the man whose superpower is an inhuman ability to willfully misinterpret study results and lie to the public based on that (and who is completely immune to the effects of evidence, logical argument, authors telling him he is interpreting their studies wrong, etc.) is complaining about research ethics. In particular, he is complaining about the recent Shiffman et al. paper which demonstrated that the prospect of interesting flavors did basically nothing to entice teenage non-users toward wanting to use e-cigarettes….
More on #micegate
In other words, to obtain the same exposure in humans the e-cig user should take 11000 – 13000 puffs per day. Assuming 8 hours of sleep per day, in order to acquire such a high number of puffs e-cig users would need to take 11-13 puffs per minute and thus practically take an e-cig puff with each breath.
In conclusion we recommend that the results of the discussed study should be interpreted with caution and that more studies with more realistic levels of e-liquid exposure should be conducted…..