[millzlane]

>Academic journal papers are meant to be digested by experts in that topic, not the general population.

TL;DR: Studies like these need scrutiny from everyone. Not just people that declare themselves experts.

I disagree.The latest E-Cig study says they found evidence of tumors in mice who were exposed to cigarette smoke....What they don't tell you in the abstract is that they used 10mg/ml nicotine E-juice and exposed the mice for 3h/day, for 12 weeks. The highest ratio most people vape at is 9mg/ml. No one smokes them for 3 hours straight. The study failed to include how exactly they produce the vapor, no mention of wicking material or coil metallurgy, temperature, or voltage of the coil. It could very well be that the tumors were cause by combustion of either the coil being heated above it's melting point, the wicking material burning, or the juice being combusted and not vaporized. Even though I'm not considered an expert in tumors or cancer I have learned that this test is flawed is missing information and doesn't really show anything that we as people don't already know "Heating things beyond the combustion point produces byproducts that could be harmful to our health." I can rest assured instead of listening to headlines that didn't bother to read or scrutinize the study. I think studies like these need scrutiny from everyone. Not just people that declare themselves experts.

Let's also be fair...just because I have an academic email address doesn't mean I'm an expert. I could be a janitor at JHU for intent and purposes.

[throwawayaway12]

It would be helpful to link the study. Without seeing the paper, I would be cautious of separating the paper and conclusions it draws from a possible news article that has extrapolated or expanded the conclusion actually made in the paper.