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."

(See: Zhu S-H, et al. Four hundred sixty brands of e-cigarettes and counting: implications for product regulation. Tobacco Control. Published online ahead of print on June 17, 2014.)

I had intended to blog about your recent paper, but decided instead to write an open letter and to put these concerns to you directly. So, I write to express dismay at the false, misleading and damaging conclusions you have drawn from your recent paper in JAMA Pediatrics and related media communications. The errors of reasoning are elementary, but have been used to draw conclusions that are relentlessly hostile to e-cigarettes and the important public health concept of ‘tobacco harm reduction’.

GASP may want a 100% smoke-free environment in public places, but it said nothing in the entire news interview about the real public health problem in New Jersey: secondhand smoke exposure in the state's casinos. Moreover, while GASP is promoting legislation to get rid of every last wisp of smoke on entire college campuses and to ban electronic cigarette use in remote areas of a beach, the legislation that the group is supporting allows smoking to continue unabated in the state's casinos, where hundreds of workers are suffering from real diseases brought on by secondhand smoke exposure.

In fact, this is precisely what Trueba et al. demonstrated in a of changes in exhaled nitric oxide levels in 41 healthy college students.

LAST：H2 atomizer h2 cartomizer h2 clearomizer ego starter kit h2 e cigarette |NEXT：Newest design High quality zipper case zipper ecig carry case for vaporizer mod