It’s Official: E-Cigarettes are less harmful than their conventional counterparts.

webygeek

It’s still a debate we don’t doubt will continue for many months (nay, years!) to come, but for the moment it seems electronic cigarettes are coming out on top in research of traditional vs. vapour cigarettes.

The World Health Organisation has released new information about the positive impact of electronic cigarettes (or e-cigs for short) on society, as well as anti-smoking lobbyists and scientists alluding to the idea that replacing traditional cigarettes with electronic ones could reduce smoking-related deaths tenfold.

International teams have been looking at 80+ studies including the safety of products, chemicals used to manufacture e-liquids (the greatest cause for concern and resulting funded research) and how they are used and viewed by users and non-users alike.

Currently, views (and research) are that e-cigarettes are a great method for quitting traditional cigarettes, and do not hold the same toxins and tars that traditional cigarettes have.

With approximately two million people using electronic cigarettes in the UK (and rising!) – Their popularity is only set to increase, and as a result – so does the market.

The WHO, whilst still on the fence regarding certain ideas surrounding e-cigarettes, are all on board with one resounding concern with all in the industry – and that is one of quality.

Vinculus

This sounds very postive, can you post a link?

Didihno

Not to whatever this poster is refering to, but this is required reading, particularly item 48f.

http://apps.who.int/gb/fctc/PDF/cop6/FCTC_COP6_10Rev1-en.pdf

jonski

webygeek wrote: »

The World Health Organisation has released new information about the positive impact of electronic cigarettes (or e-cigs for short) on society, as well as anti-smoking lobbyists and scientists alluding to the idea that replacing traditional cigarettes with electronic ones could reduce smoking-related deaths tenfold.

Any link to the above ?

Didihno

jonski wrote: »

Any link to the above ?

I searched the WHO site and found nothing of the sort, this poster has 1 post but surely this isn't a spammer, I mean to what end?!!

RIchieNouveau

Didihno wrote: »

I searched the WHO site and found nothing of the sort, this poster has 1 post but surely this isn't a spammer, I mean to what end?!!

I was trying to figure out the angle yesterday. Best I can come up with is that some of the post should have been those hyperlinks that spam often come with but boards blocked it because you need 50 posts to link. It definitely has the hallmarks of spam.

Didihno

RIchieNouveau wrote: »

I was trying to figure out the angle yesterday. Best I can come up with is that some of the post should have been those hyperlinks that spam often come with but boards blocked it because you need 50 posts to link. It definitely has the hallmarks of spam.

Indeed.

As an aside if you spend the time and read the WHO report theres actually a lot of good stuff in it too, which is then horribly tainted by the fear mongering and borderline lies also contained. Not to mention the veracity of any of the referenced studies.

Honestly if any of these mongs actually consulted real people who use these products I'm sure they would arrive at a very sensible conclusion in the end rather than the stupidity that they have then passed onto the EU for example who follow their every lead.

After all, the WHO are always right.

RIchieNouveau

I heard for their next study they're going to set a bottle of Hangsen on fire and report back on whichever chemical is present in higher numbers than in a cigarette.

Didihno

RIchieNouveau wrote: »

I heard for their next study they're going to set a bottle of Hangsen on fire and report back on whichever chemical is present in higher numbers than in a cigarette.

Is that before or after the study where they send four orphan children with teddy bears that only have one eye into a room containing a bottle of Red Astaire which has a piece of weapons grade plutonium inside it?

RIchieNouveau

Didihno wrote: »

Is that before or after the study where they send four orphan children with teddy bears that only have one eye into a room containing a bottle of Red Astaire which has a piece of weapons grade plutonium inside it?

Not sure exactly.

On another note I'm glad to see that North Korea is slowly integrating back in to the international community. They coated the bullets in 24mg Dekang RY4 before shooting that man with the anti aircraft gun and sent the results to the WHO.

Turns out that eliquid kills

Didihno

RIchieNouveau wrote: »

Not sure exactly.

On another note I'm glad to see that North Korea is slowly integrating back in to the international community. They coated the bullets in 24mg Dekang RY4 before shooting that man with the anti aircraft gun and sent the results to the WHO.

Turns out that eliquid kills

Damn, time to stop vaping so.

I thought I remembered something from the papers a few weeks ago, turned out the sinking of the Titanic was caused by someone who hadn't a child safety cap on their bottle of Hangsen Mint Strawberry and the lookout drank it thinking it was schnapps. Tragic.

Eoin

Another article I saw today.
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-05/21/e-cigarette-formaldehyde

E-cigarettes can produce harmful levels of formaldehyde that exceed those of regular cigarettes -- but only under "extreme conditions", a new report says.
...
"Vapers are not exposed to dangerous levels of aldehydes. My reading of the evidence is that e-cigarettes are at least 95% safer than smoking. Smokers should be encouraged to switch to vaping."

It's hard not to feel that a lot of the scaremongering is quite deliberate.