In a salvo of actions, these lawmakers first issued a decrying the use of flavorings in electronic cigarettes and then the FDA's proposed deeming regulations for not imposing a ban on these flavorings.
The finding of reduced exhaled nitric oxide is an indication that an exposure is causing some sort of inflammatory effect on cells lining the respiratory tract. It doesn't mean anything more or less than that. You can't take two exposures - each of which causes respiratory tract inflammation - and make the statement that the effects of both exposures are equal. Risk posed by an exposure depends on many other factors, including the degree of inflammation induced, the reversibility of the effect, the nature of the exposure, the chronicity of the exposure, etc.
The consultation on the advertising rules took place amid widespread debate amongst policy makers, health professionals, charities and business about the role and safety of e-cigarettes. During the consultation we took into account the wide range of views that exist about e-cigarettes and their potential to re-normalise smoking, as well as the case being made for their public health benefits. With legislation around the promotion of e-cigarettes not coming into effect until 2016, we have moved quickly to establish a responsible framework for advertising in the UK.
It is important to point out that just because the relative risk of cancer associated with filtered cigarettes is lower than that for non-filtered cigarettes, it does not necessarily follow that switching from a non-filtered to a filtered cigarette will reduce one's health risks. It is possible that smokers who make such a switch will compensate because they are used to higher tar levels. It is possible that the observed reduction in cancer risk only holds for lifelong filtered cigarette smokers, as they do not compensate (they never smoked non-filtered cigarettes). In fact, the scientific evidence supports this contention.
If the electronic cigarette companies are acting fraudulently, then I guess so am I. If you review my blog, you will find that I referred to what comes out of electronic cigarettes as a vapor until quite recently. It wasn't until several months ago that I learned that it is actually an aerosol rather than a vapor. I wasn't using a tobacco industry tactic; I was simply using the term that was most commonly used, and I was using the term that I believed was correct. I don't have any reason to believe that electronic cigarette companies were doing anything different. Moreover, it is not fraudulent for these companies to try to connote reduced harm. Electronic cigarettes are undeniably less harmful than real cigarettes.
This story illustrates how misguided anti-smoking efforts are at the present time. We are placing a huge emphasis on trying to protect kids from e-cigarettes, but losing our focus on preventing kids from becoming addicted to smoking, a behavior that will eventually kill half of those who become regular users.
LAST：The Newest Design Super Fast Cooling 26650 RDA Poseidon Atomizer |NEXT：china wholesale Ehpro kayfun lite plus v2 clone e cig rebuildable atomizer on sale