The negative feedback received in wake of the electronic cigarette article struck unexpected. The introduction article was not meant to stir public contempt, but was designed to reveal a potentially serious health concern not yet documented by the FDA. In effort to place this article series on track the negative feedback must be addressed. To be sure, all comments were read and considered, with due respect for those voicing their opinions. However, it seems that the readers who commented either misunderstood or carelessly read the work, which caused them to unduly judge the writer.
To begin with, the reader comments charged the writer with making “unsubstantiated claims”, “lack of research”, “lies and falsehoods”. But in truth, while reviewing reader reactions, many of which were strewn with overlapping redundancy; a fearful blaze of mostly frivolous claims made by e-cig users, seeming to regard the writer as their adversary — publishing false findings to stop the ‘supply’ feeding their addictions. Perhaps e-cig users thought they had escaped the tremendous challenge of “breaking the habit”.
For clarity, an article such as this should not take more than 750 words to write, though it takes more than mere “cover reading,” to fairly judge such a piece as having been “poorly written”. But the writer still should not patronize the reader by listing the research hyperlink yet again.
The topic has been diligently investigated and the findings soundly assimilated.
Perhaps new readers may find the writer is not seeking to encourage or discourage the use of the electronic cigarette, but aims only to reveal the truth regarding false advertising claims made by product manufacturers, so to prevent children from legally purchasing it, for it may lead them to smoking tobacco should the FDA impose a permanent ban on the device. E-cig manufactures seem unwilling to step-up and design a better quality “smoke free” device.
Furthermore, the comments against last week’s article seemed a mix of fear and verbal rubbish; the two often go together when clever people overwrought with emotion reduce themselves to casting baseless insults. However, there were also comments that lent thought-provoking insights, even though the former heavily outweighed the latter — as is often the case with controversial issues. Something Nietzsche refers to as “herd behavior”. One often secures a sense of safety tucked in the shadow of majority opinion.
In truth, article 1 contains a small gluttony of scientific research. But did the reader closely investigate the piece and open the hyperlink listed in the first sentence of the article? Did the reader also open the links listed on the page which the writer carefully selected for the very purpose of providing research procedures and results? Did the reader give the writer a fair chance before casting ‘paper stones’ of superficial judgments? Perhaps the contemptuous readers should take a look at the “foundation link” provided in last week’s piece. There they will find an FDA article link containing far greater condemnation than the warning whispers voiced in this series.
But it is not the job of the writer to instruct the reader of how to follow a trail of hyperlinks. If the reader had properly read the piece it would have made a brighter picture of the scorching test results. But instead, like children, many even boasted their product knowledge compared to that of the writer, as though they had won some sort of challenge — but never seeing how they overlooked or suppressed or ignored something they may have learned from instead of ‘conquered’ in their imaginations.
Again, research has been done; the facts and findings have been presented with integrity; from photos of used cartridges tested by the writer, to evidence and data gladly offered to any university or laboratory wishing to substantiate the findings. Yes, it is true, the evidence has been brought to a material testing lab. But why bother with proof beyond pictures of used cartridges? Material testing facilities demand editing oversight to keep their company name clear of public controversy, and documentation is worth nothing without the name of the lab backing the results. However, the writer will disclose that only the most basic research was done and was done solely for the purpose of proving the combustion theory. To be clear, the actual “safety level” of the devise was not tested, and even despite traces of combustion identified, scientists speculated with confidence that the electronic cigarette was far less harmful than those containing tobacco. As for the other charges readers posted against last week’s article, it seems best to simply let the matter be, save for a few additional comments that may further help clarify things.
One gentleman posted a comment in which he correctly cited that the chemical composition of liquid nicotine withstands 700° heat and the 2 wires connected to the battery (1 positive and 1 negative wire) heat up to 350/400° — depending upon both the strength of the user’s “vape-pull” and the device’s rate of use. However, the combustion theory presented in the previous article had nothing to do with burning liquid nicotine. It was rather the various synthetics which scorch at much lower temperatures. Try placing plastic or paper inside an oven set at 400° and see what happens — the acrid smell of fumes.
In close, it is morally wrong to falsely advertise any product, especially a product such as this, and even (if) in this case the benefits outweigh the potential for long-term danger, who could deny it is wrong that such a device remains as accessible to children as ice cream; it would seem hard pressed for anyone to refute this moral debauchery — soulless manufactures advertising more than ‘31 flavors.’ Certainly not to appease the adult demographic, as some readers had actually summoned the audacity to minimize and to deny. What if they were your children?
As for the death charges posted against last week’s piece — supported by two postings — perhaps one should consider the children before they consider themselves and other adults fighting the addiction. However, if e-cig manufactures and distributors move swiftly and produce a higher quality product, along with stricter, self-mandated distribution practices then the FDA might yet still decide to stay at bay.
Smoke related cancer could become a disease of the past if only all the experts and technology joined together and designed a near flawless e-cigarette. What a concept. And what a tragedy it truly is that this will likely never occur — for obvious reasons too tragic to list.