How We Know Vaping Opponents are Driven by Ideology and Not Science

I have presented many examples on this blog over the past months demonstrating the fact that vaping opponents are being driven by ideology rather than science. But there is one observation I made which is dispositive. In legal terminology, dispositivemeans"evidencethatunqualifiedlybrings aconclusion to alegalcontroversy. "This observation brings a conclusion to any controversy about whether the position and actions of vaping opponents have been science-based or ideology-based.The Rest of the StoryThe observation is actually quite simple:Not a single anti-tobacco or health group or agency which has warned the public about the risks of " popcorn lung " fromvaping has warnedsmokers about the risks of popcorn lung.Let us assume, for a moment, that it is true that vaping puts people at risk of developing popcorn lung because it contains diacetyl, a chemical which was found to cause popcorn lung in several popcorn factory workers. Well, it turns out that cigarettes deliver hundreds of times more diacetyl to smokers than vapers get from e-cigarettes. Given the exposure difference, if diacetyl poses a risk of popcorn lung to vapers, then it certainly poses a much larger risk of popcorn lung to vapers.Yet I am unable to find a single web site of a health or anti-tobacco group that warns smokers about the risk of popcorn lung from smoking, based on the presence of high levels of diacetyl.It seems to me that if the actions of vaping opponents were science-based, then they should be plas...
Source: The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary - Category: Addiction Source Type: blogs