The above argument is convenient for advocates who want to suppress "negative" or "unfavorable" findings by discouraging RCTs - which they believe will "underestimate" the effectiveness of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation and encouraging survey studies - which they believe will show the effects of vapor products in all their possible glory. However, the argument carries with it a lack of scientific validity.

One reason why these conclusions are so dangerous is that they may lead smokers to figure that there is no value in their smoking outside the home. If thirdhand smoke is as harmful as secondhand smoke, then why bother smoking outside?

The rest of the story is this study actually found no effect of electronic cigarette use on pulmonary function tests, indicating that there was no clinically significant observable effect of vaping on lung function. Specifically, the study found "no differences between basic pulmonary measurements" between the two groups, demonstrating that acute exposure to electronic cigarette vapor did not affect FEV1, FVC, PEF or MEF50 and MEF75."

A number of policy makers - including several prominent U.S. senators - have called for a ban on e-cigarette flavorings in order to reduce their appeal to youth. Unfortunately, a new conducted among 10,000 adult vapers at E-Cigarette Forum suggests that such a ban would lead to a massive migration of adult vapers back to real, tobacco cigarettes.

Furthermore, it is well known that electronic cigarette users do not inhale more deeply than smokers. While smoke does enter the distal airways - which is why adenocarcinoma rates have increased so dramatically - vaping involves aerosol inhalation and the aerosol is mostly absorbed in the upper, not the lower airways. As with a nicotine inhaler, most of the nicotine absorption occurs in the upper airways.

LAST：itaste vv not working |NEXT：itaste battery