It is clear from the overall evidence that electronic cigarettes are not as risky as tobacco cigarettes in terms of acute effects on lung function. On this issue, Dr. Glantz's comment is simply wrong.

Hopefully, Dr. Foulds and his group will next repeat the study using a sample of dual users (electronic cigarettes and regular cigarettes) to determine whether or not dual users experience a similar reduction in their overall level of smoking addiction.

In light of these findings, the best that the study authors could do to implicate electronic cigarettes as a human health hazard was to proclaim that "e-cigarettes are not emission-free." If that is the worst thing that thsee researchers can say, then it certainly doesn't appear to rise to the level of a known health hazard for which government intervention is necessary at this time.

According to the press release: "The ERS agrees with the recent report from the World Health Organization (WHO) and is opposed to the use of unregulated e-cigarettes. While the short-term negative impact on health appears not as great as tobacco cigarettes, the long-term effects of e-cigarettes are not known. As a Society grounded in scientific principles, ERS believes that the precautionary principle should be applied when scientific evidence is inconclusive and insufficient."

LAST：2013 most popular electronic cigarette ego-w cartomizer made in china |NEXT：2014 royal disposable e-cigarette smart pcc