E-cigarettes are becoming a huge company in the last five years, which is easy to understand why. In comparison to smokes, e-cigarettes are a cheaper, more flavorful, and far safer means for smokers to really get the nicotine to which they're hooked. But, the recent increase in e-cigarette use has created exaggerated security concerns about the products. Media outlets and science journalists -- did a poor job of investigating the concerns about e-cigarettes, to the stage of misleading their readers and encouraging junk science.
The most recent case of the misrepresentation arrived last week, when National Geographic's web site ran an article that promises that while e-cigarettes are powerful for weaning smokers off of traditional tobacco products, they could pose health hazards in their very own.
Scientific initiation scares some individuals. Whether it is genetically-modified crops, vaccines, or e-cigarettes, the people's irrational fear is typically propped up by the phrase "research is urgently needed," or some version of it. In the midst of quoting a researcher about the "pressing need" to analyze health issues about e-cigarettes, National Geographic fails to acknowledge that none of the clinical studies conducted about e-cigarettes has found they present any serious health threat.
Citing University of San Francisco tobacco researcher Stanton Glantz, the National Geographic piece claims that e-cigarettes could possibly be damaging, "because they include several noxious chemicals and ultrafine particles in addition to nicotine," and that, "secondhand e-cig vapor could possibly be harmful." However, the post will not mention study supporting both stage (Glantz's opinion will do, apparently). In fact, the Food and Drug Administration, no friend to e-cigarette manufacturers, has concluded that the devices comprise far fewer carcinogens than cigarettes.
Obviously, no health scare piece is complete without some reference to the danger posed to youngsters. Based on a Centers for Disease Control research mentioned by National Geographic, the amount of U.S. middle and high school students using e-cigarettes doubled between 2011 and 2012. It's a frightening statistic, but it's hardly the whole story. To begin with, attempting an e-cigarette once or a number of times is different from regular use. The CDC numbers only tell us as Boston University researcher Michael Siegel points out, how many students attempted the gadgets. Siegel also notes that while Glantz appears concerned that e-cigarettes can lead teenagers into a lifetime of smoking conventional cigarettes, 90% of the students within the CDC survey started off as conventional cigarette smokers, and attempted e-cigarettes instead of tobacco.
Experts should continue investigating e-cigarettes, but rather than extremely speculating and panicking about the possible hazards associated with the devices, we ought to focus in the information we already have about them. And that evidence indicates that e-cigarettes are a safer option to tobacco.
The most recent case of the misrepresentation arrived last week, when National Geographic's web site ran an article that promises that while e-cigarettes are powerful for weaning smokers off of traditional tobacco products, they could pose health hazards in their very own.
Scientific initiation scares some individuals. Whether it is genetically-modified crops, vaccines, or e-cigarettes, the people's irrational fear is typically propped up by the phrase "research is urgently needed," or some version of it. In the midst of quoting a researcher about the "pressing need" to analyze health issues about e-cigarettes, National Geographic fails to acknowledge that none of the clinical studies conducted about e-cigarettes has found they present any serious health threat.
Citing University of San Francisco tobacco researcher Stanton Glantz, the National Geographic piece claims that e-cigarettes could possibly be damaging, "because they include several noxious chemicals and ultrafine particles in addition to nicotine," and that, "secondhand e-cig vapor could possibly be harmful." However, the post will not mention study supporting both stage (Glantz's opinion will do, apparently). In fact, the Food and Drug Administration, no friend to e-cigarette manufacturers, has concluded that the devices comprise far fewer carcinogens than cigarettes.
Obviously, no health scare piece is complete without some reference to the danger posed to youngsters. Based on a Centers for Disease Control research mentioned by National Geographic, the amount of U.S. middle and high school students using e-cigarettes doubled between 2011 and 2012. It's a frightening statistic, but it's hardly the whole story. To begin with, attempting an e-cigarette once or a number of times is different from regular use. The CDC numbers only tell us as Boston University researcher Michael Siegel points out, how many students attempted the gadgets. Siegel also notes that while Glantz appears concerned that e-cigarettes can lead teenagers into a lifetime of smoking conventional cigarettes, 90% of the students within the CDC survey started off as conventional cigarette smokers, and attempted e-cigarettes instead of tobacco.
Experts should continue investigating e-cigarettes, but rather than extremely speculating and panicking about the possible hazards associated with the devices, we ought to focus in the information we already have about them. And that evidence indicates that e-cigarettes are a safer option to tobacco.