On first skim, it takes itself very seriously so I'll have a closer look at it when I get time. But, for now, I thought you'd like to see this stand-out gem from the preamble.
Another important aspect in the future discussion about e-cigarettes will be the effect of third-hand smoke that mainly describes human exposure against residues of smoking on clothes, furniture, and other indoor surfaces (Matt et al., 2011). In case of e-cigarettes, the solvent of the liquids may remain on available surfaces and be a source for the contamination of residents.Now, forgive me if I've misread that, but these guys seem to think third-hand smoke - which isn't even a thing - is reason to suspect that third-hand e-cig vapour is a future danger to the population. Yes, water vapour is now dangerous according to the public health racket. Quite remarkable! Think of the children and boil those kettles outdoors from now on please.
The study to which they refer is authored by Georg E Matt, a boggle-eyed fruitcake on the lunatic fringe of even a tobacco control industry which has long lost perspective.
You know you're dealing with someone incredibly deluded when Simon Chapman himself takes time to write a not-too-enthusiastic critique.
Many constituents of third hand smoke can be found in all homes and cars, regardless of smoking
It is important that research documents residuals from tobacco smoke. But it is equally important that consumers and policy makers are not led to believe that the chemical compounds thus located are somehow unique to tobacco smoke.
The omission of this information in such reports risks harming the credibility of tobacco control.In fact, he could have been referring to Georg Matt when he wrote this.
Opponents of clean indoor air will be able to point to dubious “endgame” advocacy in nations which have successfully introduced indoor smoking bans, and invoke slippery slope precedents that advocates actually want to ban smoking “everywhere”. This may unfairly brand tobacco control advocates as clandestine extremists with agendas which abandon all proportionality in the formulation of policy.
Proportionality flew out the window years ago, Simon, me old mucker. All that's left is quite astounding fuckwittery.
Probably why, even though this study cites Matt et al as a source - 'research' Chapman has politely condemned - his zealotry still found it perfectly correct to retweet when Nutty Stan made his great revelation to the world of Twitter.
Still, it's worth looking into further seeing as Stan thinks it's such a cracker, isn't it? What are the odds that the study doesn't show e-cigs are that dangerous, after all? Oh look, it's already been looked into, and no, it doesn't.