The anti-vaping advocates are at it again, flooding the Internet and mainstream media with news of an intentionally misleading “study” suggesting the discovery of two new cancer-causing chemicals found in e-cig vaper. According to research conducted by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, vaporized e-liquid contains two probable carcinogens, propylene oxide and glycidol.
The key word here is “probable.”
Most of the anti-vaping blogs trafficking this bogus nonsense also fail to include the link to the actual study posted in the online journal, Environmental Science and Technology. If readers were to actually click on that link, they would immediately see that the results of entire “study” are only 276-words in length. Furthermore, the entire basis for the study depends on increasing the voltage of the e-cig to well-above conventional levels.
Even so, the scientists are very careful to be 100% non-committal in their findings by stating, “Glycidol is a probable carcinogen not previously identified in the vapor.” Well, is it or isn’t it? These guys are supposed to be “scientists,” but they can’t identify the chemicals in a little water vapor?
Two probable cancer-causing chemicals compared to tobacco
While the Lawrence Berkeley study appears to be educating the public on the dangers of vaping and e-cigs, none of the blogs writing about it offer any comparisons between carcinogens found in e-cigs to those of conventional tobacco cigarettes. While e-cigs might, perhaps, maybe contain two probable carcinogens, this has not yet been proven to be 100% correct.
However, scientists have known for decades that tobacco cigarettes contain over 4,000 chemicals, 400 toxic substances, and 43 known cancer-causing compounds. When compared to the two un-confirmed carcinogens of e-cigs, vaping is still far healthier to the general public by leaps and bounds. Why don’t the bloggers and news journalists ever report this comparison information in their anti-vaping propaganda?
Furthermore, nowhere in the Lawrence Berkeley findings does it actually state who funded the research. Was it independently funded by the research lab itself or secretly funded by the FDA? After all, it’s happened before!
Share this post