backtop


Print 59 comment(s) - last by SiliconDoc.. on Aug 14 at 11:09 AM


A new FDA study finds that e-cigarettes contain many carcinogens and toxins, like their smoking counterparts. Manufacturers' claims that they make for "healthy" use appear blatantly incorrect.  (Source: Sean O'Key/CNN.com)
Proof yet again that things that sound to good to be true really are

They are billed as affordable and safe ways to enjoy the experience of smoking without the health risks.  Every day thousands of customers across the country "light up" e-cigarettes, a new product that is taking the online world by storm.  E-cigarettes consist of cartridges filled with nicotine and other chemicals, spiced with flavors such as chocolate, cola or bubble gum.  The "cigarette" typically lights up as it vaporizes the nicotine-chemical cocktail, which it delivers as steam to the user.

As sales for the devices, market as a healthy-living product, have skyrocketed, the Food and Drug Administration became concerned.  Exactly how "healthy" were these cigarette substitutes? 

The FDA began testing them and it quickly discovered that the e-cigarettes, like their smoking counterparts, are hazardous to the health.  The samples from various manufacturers contained dangerous carcinogens.  Further, at least one manufacturer's mix contained diethylene glycol -- a chemical used in antifreeze, and a toxin to humans.

Dr. Jonathan Samet, director of the Institute for Global Health at the University of Southern California comments, "We know very little about these devices, but to say they are healthy -- that's highly doubtful."

Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg, commissioner of the FDA adds, "The FDA is concerned about the safety of these products and how they are marketed to the public."

One of the largest manufacturers of the devices, Florida-based Smoking Everywhere has remained mum on the reports.  The devices do appear, thus-far to be legal as a combination drug-device product under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Dr. Jonathan Winickoff, chairman of the American Academy of Pediatrics Tobacco Consortium urges people to think of the children, commenting, "It is very important that parents let their children know these are not safe and to make recommendations, or even enforce rules that they not be used."

Dr. Matthew McKenna, director of the Office of Smoking and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adds, "Children who use these products may also be using other tobacco products.  It's a good idea to make sure the child is aware of the dangers of tobacco in products in general."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: wasnt it obvious?
By foolsgambit11 on 7/27/2009 4:44:24 AM , Rating: 2
You don't know what words mean, do you?

Do you mean communism in the political science-sense, as in a stateless, classless society where the means of production are controlled by all the people together? Or do you mean Communism in the political sense, as in a state similar to the Marxist states of the former Soviet Union, where the government owns the means of production? If you meant the former, you're way off base, since America certainly isn't heading in the direction of becoming a country without a government. So I'll assume you meant the former, although I seriously doubt we're in danger of posting pictures of Lenin all over DC any time soon. Either way, though, your position doesn't make sense in this context.

Whatever the case may be, I find no use in affixing loaded labels to ideas. It's much more useful to evaluate them on their merits and defects. (As a side note, the use of emotionally-laden buzz words (like your use of 'communist' is a classic Nationalist tactic - and I mean nationalism as in national socialism and fascism. It's just an attempt to obscure the issue, especially useful when the facts are not on your side.)

Let's look at nationalizing health care on the merits: It has a demonstrated track record of reducing costs and improving outcomes, and it covers everyone. But in that second merit, there is a defect as well, since it mandates health coverage for all - it restricts personal freedom by compelling working Americans to pay for health care. On the other hand, working Americans are already paying for many Americans' health care (nearly 30% of the population), and most of these Americans are among those with the highest medical costs.

Next, there is the concern about rationing of services. We've heard the horror stories about long waits for medical service in countries with nationalized health care. However, statistics don't actually back that up. What is more, a national health service doesn't necessarily preclude a privatized health service. Those who can afford to pay should be able to seek services outside the system - unlike the Canadian system, for example. This kind of 2-tiered system (while inherently unequal) ensures that everyone is ensured a basic level of care, while those who can afford it could get care more suited to their preferences. Still, there is always the concern that the government could botch things up horribly. However, most Americans who have Medicare or Medicaid are quite satisfied with their coverage.

The general population is concerned about the increasing costs of the government's Medicare liabilities. The general population, though, is also concerned about their own increasing health care costs. The fact is that health care costs are rising much more rapidly than inflation in the US. There are pretty much only three responses to this crisis-in-waiting: The capitalist option - i.e., let the markets set the price, which will be in line with supply and demand, and will make health care unaffordable for more and more Americans as time goes on - or the capitalist-socialist option - the utilizers of health care rally together and, through collective bargaining or denial of custom, force health care companies to control costs - or the 'socialist' option - the government (representing the will with the people) engages in collective bargaining on their behalf. Those are the only three options I see: do nothing, mass protest, and government intervention.

So there are the pros and cons as I see it. For some, certain cons are deal-breakers, and I understand that. Luckily, we can all trust that Americans will stick to their democratic ideals and, whatever the outcome, accept it as the result of the will of the people. Or challenge its constitutionality in court. Or vote in a new lot in order to effect change.

My apologies for the wall of text, and hooray for the rule of law!


RE: wasnt it obvious?
By SiliconDoc on 8/14/2009 9:53:13 AM , Rating: 2
You've got a string of lies so big there, there is no reaching you.
The last public poll took put "national healthcare" IN THE BOTTOM OF THE BARREL FOR CHOICES WE THE PEOPLE DELCARED TO BE OURS!
---
What you've got is the whining, commoner, crybaby, broken hearted, alarmist, big government takeover, total line of CRAP !
---
Your liar in chief actually got on TV and claimed national healthcare would not cost a dime of deficit nor a dime of increased, compiled, national debt.
---
Healthcare costs are going to keep rising like they have since the dawn of time. The doctor no longer yanks on your achilles while sissy and daddy hold you down and muffle your screaming piehole, slap some plaster on your leg, give you a half dozen aspirin, then tell you to call in the morning while Daddy hands him $15 gold and silver backed US bucks.
Nowadays, it's an ambulance, 4 technicians and a driver, 14 emergency ward people, 3 x-rays on a multi-million dollar machine, some fancy new non plaster DUPONT fiber sharpie pen signable hinged at the knee cast, a hospital bed overnight just to make certain your noggin isn't anymore screwed up than it was, and lord knows how many return visits, a leg shaving when uncasted, and a finalized x-ray regiment to make certain it's all back together just right.
---
HEALTHCARE COSTS WILL RISE FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, PERIOD, NO MATTER WHAT ANY GOVERNMENT DOES OR DOESN'T DO.
---
Soon the stem cell injecton to increase bone mending speed at the break sihght, besides the corstisone will be standard practice, and that will cost a pretty penny to match the patients complex gentically specific metabolism.
I mean get a clue fella.
----------------
The way we can reduce healthcare costs is have a gigantic bombing war in the USA and turn most modern science healthcare facilities to RUBBLE - barring that there's no going backwards into "cheaper".


"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki