Popcorn news & dated tropes.
|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|highly addictive||🟥||Nic-only addiction isn't the scientific consensus anymore, but either outdated assumptions or intentional lies.|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.)