Popcorn news & dated tropes.
|used-by||CNN et al.|
Aging FUD on e-cigarettes is still cycling news portals. Most beget from junk science, some resilient falsehoods, and a few deliberately ad-nauseam asserted by Tobacco Companions. And tabloid media still being reserved with basic factchecking at times.
|talking point||sc||reality, origin, references|
|"popcorn lung" (diacetyl)||🟥🟥||CTFK/ALA-promoted FUD: Exactly zero cases exist. Diacetyl was never as concentrated in e-liquids (mostly excised, btw) as it is present in combustibles. And 1950s factory-level air pollution not reproducible anyhow. 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); most studies spectograph metal traces in liquids` flavour extracts or production remnants (0.000001‰ range (µg/kg), higher Uranium in "tobacco" flavours, btw)|
|formaldehyde||🟧🔥||ergo harmful: Occurs in heated vapor at doses typically 100-1000x 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|highly addictive||🟥||Nic-only addiction isn't the scientific consensus anymore, but either outdated assumptions or intentional lies.|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-cig aerosol less volatile compounds than normal exhaled breath. See also: sciencemediacentre on recent PR science. Or even the CDCs vape shop inquests coming up empty.|
|dual use||🟧||Transitional use is usually substitutional, and it appears even laconic smoking reduction translates into some risk reduction.|
|anti-freeze||🟥||Urban myth based on reading comprehension woes. Was widely promulgated by CTFK since 2009.|
|Juul pod equations||🟥||Mispresenting the yield of nicotine in pod devices vs presumed cigarette contents usually pairs with nicotine trivializations|
|gum disease||🟥||Based on misrepresenting smoking history|
|adhd / depression||🟥||Despite TI marketing claims (and possibly psychosomatic cases), nicotine does not cause depression/stress. In fact, it's often sought out for ADHD self-medication, can help with some forms of tourette.|
|increased covid||🟥||The TC-desired outcome did not come true.|
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.)
- UK Health Security Agency: Clearing up some myths around e-cigarettes
- E-Cigarette Myths Debunked
- 10 Common Myths About Electronic Cigarettes