Popcorn news & dated tropes.

popcorn dog news

class disinformation
category ad nauseam
motivation bandwagon
science aversion 🟥🟫🟧
used-by CNN et al.

Aging FUD on e-cigarettes is still cycling news portals. Most are junk science derived, but some were deliberately sown by anti-vaping groups. It's evident that basic factchecking still hasn't reached the journalistic mainstream.

talking point sc reality, origin, references
"popcorn lung" (diacetyl) 🟥🟥 FUD: Mostly excised in NVP e-liquids. Never had the concentration of diacetyl in combustibles. And even those couldn't have possibly triggered "popcorn lung". Popcorn lung debunked years ago
lead 🟥🔥 smolder studies: Not actually present in e-cig heating coils (FeCrAl or SS316L). Origin was a Bloomberg-associated study; didn't disclose used devices. Toxic metal study misleading (Farsalinos)
formaldehyde 🟧🔥 ergo harmful: Occurs in heated vapor at doses typically 100-1000 lower than in combustible cigarettes. Not negligible, but irrelevant with context. v360:ecigarettes-vaping-formaldehyde-farsalinos
gateway 🟫 Not at the population level. The good old gateway drug hypotheses have never held up. Much less for actual substitutes. SNW:Myth_ENDS_-_Gateway_to_smoking
new study finds 🟧 24h rule should be taken into account, if not pubpeer, crossref and SMC. Btw, press releases regularly divert from actual studies for: University of California, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, BathTR, Uni Sydney. // CB: how to avoid junk science
exploding bats 🟥🔥 risk perception: Not any more than other consumer devices, despite the 18650 industrial batteries. Should hence be put into perspective to the smoking-related house fires each year e.g.
unclear how harmful 🟥 Not at all. For one thing, it's fairly obvious.

Studies mostly conducted to quantify remaining risk.
industry claims 🟫 tobacco-industry conflation: wilful misattribution, or plain research slander. Neither CochraneTAG nor Public Health England are owned by the tobacco industry.
not enough studies 🟥 Was a valid concern around 5000 studies ago.
highly addictive 🟥 Nic-only addiction isn't the scientific consensus anymore, but either outdated assumptions or intentional lies.
2nd hand vapor 🟧 Indoor/asthma risks are real. But otherwise it's largely disco fog. Nicotine at negligible concentrations when exhaled. Toxic metal hyperbole irrelevant. It's largely a common courtesy issue. No second-hand vaping: e-cigarette aerosol contains less volatile compounds than normal exhaled breath
anti-freeze 🟥 Urban myth based on reading comprehension woes. Was widely promulgated by CTFK since 2009.

In particular the popcorn-lung 🟥🟥 claim can be used to judge the quality of any article / website. That's not really difficult to research. (Important to remember: it's in part a technological failure though.)