It's worth noting that Dr Glantz, whos blog this is from is an anti-tobacco campaigner.
that aside his summary doesn't quite marry up to some of the detail in the papers he cites. For example.
formaldehyde is nasty stuff - and the paper that researched the 2nd hand (sidestream) vapour noted that it was present. At levels approximately 10 times less than a conventional tobacco cigarette, though it goes on to say.
Schripp et al said:
Ohta et al. (2011) proposed the formation of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and methylglyoxal in the e-cigarette because of the oxidation of propylene glycol during contact with the active heating coil. However, continuous monitoring only showed a slight increase in the formaldehyde concentration in the 8-m3 emission test chamber before and during the consumption of the three liquids(see Table 4 and Figure 2). This might be caused by the person in the chamber itself, because people are known to exhale formaldehyde in low amounts (Riess et al., 2010) and the increase was already observed during the conditioning phase (Figure 2). Furthermore, the release of formaldehyde was also below the limit of detection in the small-scale experiments. The expected rise of the formaldehyde concentration in the chamber from smoking a conventional cigarette with a peak value of 114 ppb is shown in Figure 2.
[
link (pdf)] (emphasis mine)
So Formaldehyde which is one of the big nasties on this California list might not have been caused by the e-cigarettes tested but by the test subject exhaling it themselves over the test time, and the graph they show would tend to support that theory given that ti was in the test chamber before any e-cigs were tested, the level increases very slowly over a long period of time, in line with the test subject and not the e-cig being the source, and then jumps dramatically when a tobacco cigarette was tested.
We need lots more research on e-cigs, we don't need jaded bloggers with axes to grind, writing up misleading headlines about the studies that are done, when on first glance they might appear to support ones ideology.
The devil is in the detail Dr Glantz as you should be more than well aware. Shripp et al note that formaldehyde was present, do not (cannot) conclude that it was there as a result of the use of e-cigarettes, go so far as to propose a plausible reason to account for it's presence like the good scientists they appear to be, and then you shoehorn their research into a blog post that fits with your preconceived ideology that e-cigarettes cannot possibly be safe and should be controlled. While breathing in e-liquid vapour can't be as safe or as good for you as breathing in clean air, they are orders of magnitude (plural) better for you than smoking conventional tobacco and campaining for them to be treated in a similar fashion to tobacco cigarettes costs lives. Probably not that far away from, oh say about a billion lives this century.
you guys are great! I hate to admit this but I posted it the way I did to get conversation flowing. It is always amazing to see the crap that these places put out there, discredited 
