I can enthusiastically support and agree with your recent editorial regarding e-cigarettes with the exception of your statement " heat liquid nicotine into a vapor that is inhaled without creating secondhand smoke ." If there is any difference between a vapor and smoke, it may only be the temperature of the gas suspending the fine particulates. Both pollute the user's environment with known adverse agents, and there is little reason to believe that toxic "vapor" will be less deadly than secondhand tobacco smoke, which currently is estimated to kill greater than 50,000 individuals per year.
In fact, the FDA issued an advisory, No. 2013-015 dated June 26, 2013, detailing many of the toxins found in typical e-cigarette vapor and describing e-cigarette vapor particle size as between 100 and 600 manometers, which is comparable to the particle size found in tobacco smoke. The advisory concluded that, "The levels of most harmful substances are lower in the e-cigarettes than in conventional cigarette smoke, but they do accumulate in indoor air. Secondhand exposure to e-cigarette emission which may lead to adverse health effects cannot be excluded."
Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that emitting toxins into the air by means of vapor is any less foolish that by utilizing conventional tobacco smoke.
Salt Lake City
- Doug Robinson: Making sense of retired...
- Janna Darnelle: Redefining marriage hurts...
- 5 reasons Mitt Romney will probably run for...
- Who said it: Reagan or Clinton?
- Jay Evensen: Forest Service photo rules are...
- John Hoffmire: Save capitalism by focusing on...
- Catherine Rampell: Reasons behind the bad...
- Letter: Enforcing the dress code
- Janna Darnelle: Redefining marriage... 103
- 5 reasons Mitt Romney will probably run... 67
- John Hoffmire: Save capitalism by... 47
- In our opinion: Here's how the Obama... 41
- Drew Clark: Either view of marriage... 39
- A. Scott Anderson: Energy development... 32
- Robert Bennett: Make climate... 30
- Letter: Enforcing the dress code 29