The controversy over E-cigarettes

[Sheri]

CarGuyBri wrote:

Thanks Sheri. But my Blu-Smokes are doing the trick.

That's all that matters. I have considered buying one myself: love the design. I have just stocked up too much. Take care, and enjoy.

[marleneb]

Let's just put it this way:
(Real) HEADLINE IN A NEWSPAPER
"Frequent fliers may be getting a dangerous dose" of secondary tobacco smoke.
A “dangerous dose”? In an airport? An airport where hundreds of planes are freely spewing jet fuel fumes into the terminals’ air intakes??
Looking at just two of the emissions that jets and cigarettes have in common shows how ridiculous this is. According to the Surgeon Generals' 1986 Report on Environmental Tobacco Smoke, a cigarette puts out a total of 3 mg of nitrogen oxide (NO) and 40 mg of carbon monoxide (CO). The 1995 EPA study on airplane emissions cites a single 747 takeoff/landing at about 115 pounds of NO and 32 pounds of CO.
That's 52 million mg of NO and 14 million mg of CO if you do the math.
Doing a bit more math for a typical 500 takeoffs/landings per day shows us that
the nice clean smokefree air being pumped into those terminals has the CO equivalent of over 160 million cigarettes and the NO of Eight and a Half BILLION cigarettes.
All of which is being shwooshed right into the lungs of travelers who are supposedly receiving a "dangerous dose" from a few cigarettes being puffed in secluded and sealed off terminal areas and bars. This would be funny if it weren’t so sad.
References:
1986 SG Report pgs. 129, 130, 136
EPA Report "Technical Data... Commercial Aviation" 09/29/95