newspapers is a broad term.....the guardian tend to seek out informed experts for opinions as they have here. competitors may have opinions from loud-mouthed randoms who are paid to ruffle feathers and write entire pieces based on anecdotal experiences
the other/main problem is the public aren't interested in investigating the science of something they observe occasionally. much bias is in play, fuelled by the negative aspects of smoking and applied to vape clouds
they just see giant clouds and assume it's full of toxic chemicals, and vape clouds are huge in comparison.
they won't ever bother to check it's not chock full of noxious substances like cigarette smoke and bus fumes, they just associate it with conventional smoking and the multitude of chemicals found in its smoke
a prudent scientist has to add the caveat that it's safer
as far as we know without any long-term studies and given how wrong they were on smoking for so long, are hesitant to commit to it being the safe alternative. If it was pushed as the miracle alternative and in 10 years time, we all turned around with perforated lungs full of cavities, they'd once again have egg on their face.
her article is objective - you can see she would not hesitate to criticise had the evidence pointed that way, and as an expert who has reviewed the highest quality studies (quoting the gold standard cochrane), she has taken the stance on it being safe and a preferable alternative
that's what matters to us, authoritative scientists working on facts and evidence
we know how safe it is, we reap the benefits. moany complainers can naf off
It's only when there are regulations forced through that affect us that haven't been thought through that I'm concerned (TPD
). ASH should acknowledge how many people have quit their dreaded cigarettes thanks to ecigs but aren't supportive
http://ash.org.uk/category/information-and-resources/product-regulation/harm-reduction