Did you even bother to read the article linked by nectarsis? If you had, you'd have seen that the FDA found E-Cigs to contain the diethylene glycol, which is toxic (ethylene glycol is equally toxic and not the same as propylene glycol).
I actually had no need to read the article, I have already read it in the past while spending about 2 weeks researching the e-cig before I made an initial purchase.
Did you even finish reading the first sentence in the article? after "toxic chemicals such as diethylene glycol" the sentence ends with "an ingredient used in antifreeze."
I was simply stating in my post back to you that DG,PG and EG are all forms of the same thing and have all been known to be used in antifreeze. As for the test that they claim to have found chemicals similar to some found in antifreeze, if I remember right it was like .02% of the chemical and it was tested on one form of e-juice from china. DG is not equally toxic to EG....Technically no PG is not the same as EG, but it is basically the newer EG...It was made as a substitute to be used for safer applications.
I dont understand why you want to argue something you have not studied on.....Anyone of you guys who would like to argue a point spend a week and half or so as I did and research the e-cig, you will find there is nothing left for you to make valid points. Here is a good place to start
Simple fact the e-cig is healthier than a cigarette! The FDA is making wild statements with not nearly enough testing done. READ THE FACTS!
No one said e-cigs aren't safer than regular cigs but theres litttle proof their OMGZ COMPLETELY SAFE...much less they've been around 6-7 years so LONG TERM effects haven't even started yet.
BTW who's doing all this "testing" anyways? Sorry not joining a dedicated forum to read posts.
And frankly this "I don't understand why you want to argue something you have not studied on"...
1. Assume an awful lot eh...neither Necro, blue or myself have the ability to look anything up, nope.
2. This elitist "I KNOW ALL" BS and general smug attitude is retarded at best. A week and half research..really, not a lot in the big scheme of things.
3. You claim you don't want this thread to become a debate...well first you're on a public forum that SHOULD be expected. Add to that your general rude, and condescending attitude/responses it should be no surprise.
"Yes I as well don't have that wonderful of a sense of humor on this subject as nor do I have much of a sense of humor for anything I feel passionate about that someone trys to cut down."
SO posting a link is "cutting down a subject"? Sorry if you have no sense of humor, or that if others don't act/react EXACTLY how YOU want/expect them to...well that's life, and IMO something that's usually learned at a damn young age. Other people don't HAVE to agree with you...and if they don't that's worthy of you getting all high and mighty?
"you will find there is nothing left for you to make valid points." Nope none at all... like oh maybe Health Canada has issues with em "electronic smoking products may pose risks such as nicotine poisoning and addiction.", and the WHO says many claims are unfounded, and more studies are needed. So hardly just the evil FDA that's just out for tax dollars.
So yes they may be safer, but hardly perfect. Again no long term affects are known yet either. You bash the FDA for not nearly enough tests..the same could be said for other sources of' "it's all safe people." One can also doubt a week and a half of even TONS of reading you went thru all the detailed medical/technical reports on the issue one way or the other..I'm gonna listen a lot more to EXPERTS vs. people on a forum any day, sorry.
