If you have any difficulties or problems with using the platform, please contact us at sales@gigadrinks or at the contact phones.

The TPD introduced new rules which ensure:

• minimum standards for the safety and quality of all e-cigarettes and refill containers (otherwise known as e-liquids)

• that information is provided to consumers so that they can make informed choices

• an environment that protects children from starting to use these products.

The new requirements:

• restrict e-cigarette tanks to a capacity of no more than 2ml

• restrict the maximum volume of e-liquid for sale in one refill container to 10ml

• restrict e-liquids to a nicotine strength of no more than 20mg/ml

• require nicotine-containing products or their packaging to be child-resistant and tamper evident

• ban certain ingredients including colourings, caffeine and taurine

• include new labelling requirements and warnings

• require all e-cigarettes and e-liquids be notified to MHRA before they can be sold

The Royal College of Physicians (RCP), the most respected medical institution in the United Kingdom, concluded e-cigarettes are 95 percent safer than regular cigarettes and are likely to be hugely beneficial to public health.

Titled “Nicotine without smoke: tobacco harm reduction,” the report is one of the most comprehensive ever published examining e-cigarettes and could be a game changer for health officials and politicians all over the world. The RCP’s seminal 1962 report, which demonstrated the link between smoking, lung disease and bronchitis spurred the U.S. Surgeon General to publish the historic 1964 “Smoking and Health: Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the United States.”

The RCP’s new report tears apart scare stories, including the ever-more popular idea that vaping is somehow a gateway to smoking. “To date, there is no evidence that any of these processes is occurring to any significant degree in the UK,” said the report’s authors. (RELATED: CDC Admits, No ‘Concrete’ Evidence E-Cigarettes Are Gateway To Smoking)

The authors are emphatic there is no evidence e-cigarette use has in any way “renormalized” smoking. “None of these products has to date attracted significant use among adult never-smokers, or demonstrated evidence of significant gateway progression into smoking among young people.”

One of the most damaging myths about e-cigarettes that caught fire in 2015 was e-cigarettes don’t actually help smokers quit. (RELATED: Study Claiming E-Cigarettes Make Quitting Harder Exposed As ‘Unscientific Hatchet Job’)

Contrary to the claims of some public health activists in the U.S., the RCP is clear: e-cigarettes can help smokers kick their habit for good. “Among smokers, e-cigarette use is likely to lead to quit attempts that would not otherwise have happened, and in a proportion of these to successful cessation. In this way, e-cigarettes can act as a gateway from smoking.” (RELATED: Study Finds E-Cigarettes Raise Chances Of Quitting, ‘Can Save Lives’)

The RCP does not claim vaping is totally safe, as vapers inhale nicotine and flavorings. But they conclude any risk to vapers is likely to be “very small, and substantially smaller than that arising from tobacco smoking.”

“This report lays to rest almost all of the concerns over these products, and concludes that, with sensible regulation, electronic cigarettes have the potential to make a major contribution towards preventing the premature death, disease and social inequalities in health that smoking currently causes in the UK,” said Professor John Britton, chair of the RCP’s Tobacco Advisory Group. “Smokers should be reassured that these products can help them quit all tobacco use forever,” he added.

Those most applauding the study’s conclusions are e-cig groups who have been fighting an onslaught of attacks from politicians and dubious public health researchers. (RELATED: Read The Stunning Correction This Scientist Dropped On Her Own Anti-E-Cig Study)

“When the RCP told the truth about cigarettes in 1962, it took two years for the U.S. government to play catch up and release its own report. It should not take two months, let alone two years, for American public health authorities to correct their past misstatements about vaping. The FDA and CDC must seriously consider the RCP’s guidance before moving forward on any new regulations or public campaigns about smoke-free nicotine products,” said Gregory Conley, president of the American Vaping Association.

“For those in mainstream tobacco control, the question for them is, how can you dismiss this report out of hand? The authors are credible experts without financial conflicts of interest in tobacco or vapor products. At some point, these groups will have to realize that the science has long outpaced their rhetoric,” Conley added.

Cancer charities added their voices to the chorus of praise for the RCP’s report. “This important report is an accurate summary of the latest scientific evidence on e-cigarettes and will help dispel the increasingly common misconception that they’re as harmful as smoking. They’re not,” said Cancer Research UK’s director of prevention Alison Cox.

Reuters: 'E-cigarettes are 95 percent less harmful than tobacco -UK study.' Thank you GOV.UK! From the article:" Electronic cigarettes are around 95 percent less harmful than tobacco and should be promoted as a tool to help smokers quit, a study by an agency of Britain's Department of Health said on Wednesday.
"E-cigarettes are not completely risk free but when compared to smoking, evidence shows they carry just a fraction of the harm," said Professor Kevin Fenton from Public Health England, which carried out the study.
Most of the chemicals that cause smoking-related diseases are absent in e-cigarettes and the current best estimate is that e-cigarette use is around 95 percent less harmful to health than smoking, the study said. Passive inhalation from an e-cigarette was also much less harmful.
The Public Health England study said e-cigarettes, which are already the most popular quitting aids in Britain and the United States, could be a cheap way to reduce smoking in deprived areas where there remains a high proportion of smokers.
"There is no evidence that e-cigarettes are undermining England's falling smoking rates," said Professor Ann McNeil who helped author the study.Instead the evidence consistently finds that e-cigarettes are another tool for stopping smoking and in my view smokers should try vaping, and vapers should stop smoking entirely," she added.
Read the full article here for a lot more information: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL5N10T2OW20150818
Read the study here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/e-cigarettes-an-evidence-update
Please share this information! Thank you!

Researchers at Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center, lead by principle investigator Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos, evaluated the effects of electronic cigarette use on the maximal ability of the coronary arteries to supply with blood and oxygen the heart itself. They recruited 60 participants, 30 smokers and 30 electronic cigarette users. Measurement of maximal coronary blood flow was performed in smokers before and after smoking 2 cigarettes and, on a separate day, after using an electronic cigarette with 18mg/ml nicotine concentration for 15 minutes. In electronic cigarette users, coronary circulation was evaluated before and after using the same electronic cigarette device for 15 minutes.

“This is the first study that has examined the effects of electronic cigarette use on coronary circulation”, said leading researcher Dr Konstantinos Farsalinos. “We know that smoking has immediate adverse effects, lowering the ability of the coronary arteries to deliver blood to the heart, and our purpose was to test whether electronic cigarette use has similar effects”, he added.

After smoking 2 cigarettes, the researchers observed a 16% reduction in maximal coronary blood flow and a 19% elevation in resistance to flow. However, after electronic cigarette use, no difference in coronary blood flow and resistance was observed compared to the baseline measurement. “The results are impressive and indicate that, unlike tobacco, electronic cigarette use does not affect the oxygenation of the heart”, said Dr Farsalinos. “However, we must be cautious and make clear that this does not mean that there are no implications from long-term use. It is currently impossible to evaluate the effects of long-term use but currently available evidence strongly suggests that electronic cigarettes are by far less harmful alternatives compared to tobacco cigarettes.”

Public health authorities all over the world are evaluating the regulatory status of electronic cigarettes. Lately, the European Commission has proposed a medicinal regulation. Dr Farsalinos said: “Acknowledging the significant potential of electronic cigarettes as smoking alternatives and based on the scientific evidence which clearly indicated that they are much safer, it is important that health authorities will regulate these products in a way that will promote rather than restrict their availability and use by smokers who are unable to quit with currently approved medical methods.”

Source: http://clearstream.flavourart.it/site/?p=1171&lang=en
 

E-cigarettes are battery-powered devices that produce a vapor. Some contain nicotine. New research out of London says smokers who use them may be more likely to reduce their smoking or quit altogether.

Mark Foster recently picked up electronic cigarettes and says he's close to kicking his regular cigarette habit.

“Since I got to using these more powerful e-cigarettes, my cigarette consumption is 2 percent of what it used to be,” he said. “As a replacement for a cigarette, they’ve really, for me, they’ve taken over.”

Peter Hajek, a clinical psychologist and the study’s author, said the main finding is that e-cigarettes can more than double the chances of stopping a person’s smoking.

The study looked at data on more than 650 current smokers. Researchers found nearly 10 percent of people who used e-cigarettes were able to stop smoking within a year. About 36 percent of e-cigarette users cut the number of traditional cigarettes they smoked in half.

Still, experts say, more study is needed on the long-term safety of the devices.

vape

Although there is a shortlist of strong contenders, as you’ll see below, it was vape that emerged victorious as Word of the Year.

What does vape mean?

So, what does vape mean? It originated as an abbreviation of vapour or vaporize. TheOxfordDictionaries.com definition was added in August 2014: the verb means ‘to inhale and exhale the vapour produced by an electronic cigarette or similar device’, while both the device and the action can also be known as a vape. The associated noun vaping is also listed.

Why was vape chosen?

As e-cigarettes (or e-cigs) have become much more common, so vape has grown significantly in popularity. You are thirty times more likely to come across the word vapethan you were two years ago, and usage has more than doubled in the past year.

Usage of vape peaked in April 2014 – as the graph below indicates – around the time that the UK’s first ‘vape café’ (The Vape Lab in Shoreditch, London) opened its doors, and protests were held in response to New York City banning indoor vaping. In the same month, the issue of vaping was debated by The Washington Post, the BBC, and the British newspaper The Telegraph, amongst others.

The language of vaping

Vape is also the modifier for other nouns, creating new compound nouns which are growing in popularity. The most common of these are vape pen and vape shop, and there is also recent evidence for vape lounge, vape fluid, vape juice, and others. Relatedcoinages include e-juice, carto, and vaporium – as well as the retronym tobacco cigarettefor traditional cigarettes. (A retronym is a new term created from an existing word in order to distinguish the original word from a later development – for example, acoustic guitardeveloping after the advent of the electric guitar.)

Vape before vaping

You may be surprised to learn that the word vaping existed before the phenomenon. Although e-cigarettes weren’t commercially available until the 21st century, a 1983 article in New Society entitled ‘Why do People Smoke?’ contains the first known usage of the term. The author, Rob Stepney, described what was then a hypothetical device:

“an inhaler or ‘non-combustible’ cigarette, looking much like the real thing, but…delivering a metered dose of nicotine vapour. (The new habit, if it catches on, would be known as vaping.)”

However, despite these early beginnings, Oxford Dictionaries research shows that it wasn’t until 2009 that this sense of vape (and vaping) started to appear regularly inmainstream sources.

The shortlist

Here are the words that came close, but didn’t quite make it as Word of the Year:

bae n. used as a term of endearment for one’s romantic partner.

budtender n. a person whose job is to serve customers in a cannabis dispensary or shop.

contactless adj. relating to or involving technologies that allow a smart card, mobile phone, etc. to contact wirelessly to an electronic reader, typically in order to make a payment.

indyref, n. an abbreviation of ‘independence referendum’, in reference to the referendum on Scottish independence, held in Scotland on 18 September 2014, in which voters were asked to answer yes or no to the question ‘Should Scotland be an independent country?’

normcore n. a trend in which ordinary, unfashionable clothing is worn as a deliberatefashion statement.

slacktivism, n., informal actions performed via the Internet in support of a political or social cause but regarded as requiring little time or involvement, e.g. signing an online petition or joining a campaign group on a social media website; a blend of slacker and activism.

Learn more about the Word of the Year 2014 runners-up in our image gallery.

The opinions and other information contained in OxfordWords blog posts and comments do not necessarily reflect the opinions or positions of Oxford University Press.

-E-cigarettes contain the same toxic chemicals found in antifreeze:  Actually, the toxic chemical to which they are referring is ethylene glycol.  Polyethylene glycol used to be utilized in the manufacturing of some of the nicotine liquid found in E-cigarettes.  The word ‘polyethylene’ might sound similar to the word ‘ethylene,’ but polyethylene glycol is actually not dangerous to humans in the least.  Propylene glycol, which is now used in place of polyethylene glycol, works better and is actually much less dangerous than the already non-dangerous polyethylene glycol.  In fact, it’s been lauded by the FDA and many other organizations as one of the safest chemicals on the market.

-E-cigarettes still deliver nicotine, an addictive and dangerous carcinogen:  This could hardly be further from the Truth.  Nicotine is not now, nor has it ever been a carcinogen.  It’s association with tobacco and the many carcinogens contained therein has given rise to the myth that nicotine causes cancer, but nicotine, by itself, actuallypromotes health.  It has been shown to assist in synapse operations in the brain, thereby increasing our memory potential and other thought processes.  It has also never been proven that nicotine, by itself, is the highly addictive substance we have always assumed it is.

-E-cigarette vapor exposes other people to dangerous chemicals through second-hand inhalation:  Again, there are no “dangerous chemicals” in E-cig vapor.  All (I repeat ALL) studies of E-cigarette vapor, fumes, etc. have shown that the amounts of chemicals present in exhaled and sidestream vapors themselves are so low, they are hardly even measurable.  Additionally, vaporized glycerine/glycol is slightly heavier than tobacco smoke, and therefore does not remain airborne nearly as long as does the product of tobacco combustion.  The vapor also dissipates much faster than smoke.  So, with all of these facts, the threat of any E-cigarette vapor affecting anything around anyone who is actively vaping, even in an enclosed, crowded place, is nil.

-There haven’t been any serious studies about E-cigarettes yet:  E-cigarettes have been studied for over ten years now, and extensively over the last five years or so.  These studies have been done by reputable scientific organizations and have been done according to the strict standards of modern scientific experimentation guidelines.  There have actually been so many studies done on E-cigarettes, that it would be impossible to list them all here.  Suffice it to say, there have been more than a sufficient number of scientific studies perpetrated on E-cigarettes to avoid any accusations like this one.  The problem isn’t that there haven’t been enough studies, the problem is that none of these studies have succeeded in showing anything negative about E-cigarettes.  Those who throw around this statement are the same who have an interest in derailing the E-cig industry in favor of other, vested interests.  Their best attempts involve statistical manipulation like stating that “Dangerous Chemical X is present in E-cigarettes, and has been known to kill people.”  When in reality, that “dangerous chemical” is present at 5% of a concentration that would begin to present a health risk.

-E-cigarettes keep people addicted to cigarettes:  Well, the actualaddictive qualities of nicotine are unknown… so this statement is founded on an unknown premise.  However, the premise is immaterial to this topic, because E-cigarettes actually do the exact opposite of “keeping people addicted to cigarettes.”  The long and cylindrical shape of an E-cigarette device, and the fact that there is nicotine involved, are the only things that this technology has in common with tobacco cigarettes.  There are literally hundreds of thousands (if not more) testimonials from people who have successfully used E-cigs as smoking cessation devices.  This statement in just as ridiculous as saying that nicotine lozenges keep people addicted to cigarettes.  Obviously there will be those who try E-cigs and return to traditional smoking.  Just as there are those who chew nicotine gum and return to smoking.  We don’t blame the gum, we blame the person’s lack of adequate resolve.

-The fact that this industry is not regulated means that we have no idea what is being put into our E-cigarettes:  Actually, the E-cigarette industry has been doing just fine regulating itself.  It has successfully governed itself with its own series of regulations implemented by universally accepted standards organizations.  AEMSA (the American E-Liquid Manufacturing Standards Association) and CASAA (the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association) have both done an excellent job of governing the industry without unnecessary government intervention.  Also, I have yet to come across an E-juice manufacturer that does not fully disclose all ingredients used in their production process… so obviously, we do know exactly what’s being put into our E-cigarettes.

-Regulation of the E-cigarette industry is necessary to prevent children from buying nicotine products:  I challenge anyone to find an E-cigarette store (or any business that offers E-cigs for sale in any way) that actually allows children under the age of 18 (or 21 in some states) to purchase E-cigarette liquids or devices.  Or, I could just save you the trouble of searching and using up about ten thousand gallons of gasoline by telling you that your search will be fruitless.  If teenagers are buying E-cigarettes, they are buying them the same way they’ve bought tobacco products for decades; fake ID, older siblings/parents, friends with store employees, paying someone to buy the cigarettes for them, or (in my case) tricking the proprietor of a cigar shop into thinking you’re a tried and true cigar connoisseur so they never think to ask you for an ID.  My point is that no measure, short of imprisoning all teenagers in death… er, I mean work camps…, will prevent them from finding ways of breaking the rules.  And since all E-cig retailers are already preventing kids from buying their products, regulation becomes at worst a redundancy and at best a moot point.

-The exotic flavor offerings of E-cigarette liquids are designed to target children and get them to start smoking:  There are so many things wrong with this statement, it’s hard to know where to begin.  First, the prospect of E-cigarettes being designed to somehow sucker kids into smoking is about as asinine as suggesting that flavored fruit chewing gums are designed to trick kids into drinking alcoholic cocktails.  Second, from a business aspect, would it make more sense to target a segment of society that is prohibited from using your product?  Or would it be smarter to target individuals who have developed a need for an effective smoking cessation avenue over long years of tobacco smoking?  Lastly, a person’s tastes increase in scope as they age.  They do not narrow as this statement would suggest.  Kids and teenagers generally have a small number of foods and flavors that they adhere to like super glue.  It isn’t until we age that we begin to broaden our culinary horizons.  With this in mind, it doesn’t make any sense to suggest that the availability of manyflavors is designed to target children, when in reality it is designed to appeal to the wide palatal range of adults, whose tastes are as vast as the ocean.  As an addendum to this topic, I’d like to suggest (in the spirit of fairness) that if E-cigarette flavors are banned “for the sake of the children” we should obviously also ban all flavored liquors, vodkas, rums, hard lemonades, malt beverages, cocktail recipes, etc.

-Dripping style atomizers cause E-cigarette vapor to turn into formaldehyde:  There is actually no evidence of this ever having happened.  References to this supposed “research” are circular, and only refer to other news articles which refer to other news articles and so on, but never back to an originating study or peer-reviewed journal of any sort.  Chemically speaking, for glycerine and glycol to somehow magically change into formaldehyde would be just as likely as a block of cheddar cheese suddenly turning into a Ferrari via the wave of a magic wand and the utterance of the correct Voodoo spell.  And even if there are cases where one, individual E-cigarette or one, individual bottle of E-juice somehow produced traces of formaldehyde there are two things that must be kept in mind:  1. There have been cases when toxic chemicals have been found in supermarket beef or chicken.  These are mistakes and might possibly be grounds for a recall, but not a banning of all cows and chickens.  2. These “traces” of formaldehyde (assuming for the sake of argument that they exist) must still be compared with the known toxic levels of formaldehyde exposure for humans.  We’re actually exposed to formaldehyde all the time, but in such small quantities that our bodies very naturally metabolise said amounts and remain unharmed.

-E-cigarettes are a “gateway” to traditional, tobacco cigarette smoking:  Here is another statement that is actually the exact opposite of the truth.  E-cigarettes are no more a gateway to tobacco use than Naloxone is to heroine.  E-cigarettes are a “gateway” tohealthy living without tobacco dependency, not a “gateway” to the exact addiction that people are attempting to escape with the help of E-cigarette technology.  The term “gateway” gets thrown around a lot these days without any real attention being paid to what it actually means.  The term is actually just a metaphor used for dramatic effect, and has no set-in-stone definition for scientific purposes.  I could just as easily say that Ford Mustangs are a “gateway” to motor vehicle collisions, or that living in the South is a “gateway” to racism.  These are meaningless statements using a word that is meant to draw shaky, unfounded conclusions based upon fallacious arguments.

-E-cigarettes have been known to explode while being used:  My apologies to whomever blew their face off with an E-cigarette, but one solitary incident does not an argument make.  E-cigarettes have batteries.  Batteries, no matter what type, under the right (and extremely rare) circumstances can explode or melt down.  Cell phones have the same kind of lithium batteries as you’ll find in E-cigarettes, and we hold cell phones up to our heads and faces probably much more frequently than we take a drag off of our E-cigarette.  The majority of these supposed explosion “cases” into which I’ve looked actually involved carelessness on the part of the user, not equipment that was so horrifically defective, that it suddenly just exploded for no reason.  Many people charge their E-cigs on the kitchen counter, where water has a habit of accumulating thanks to the close vicinity of the kitchen sink.  Others leave their E-cigs in a 180 degree car, sitting in direct sunlight for hours and hours during the summer months.  An accident is an accident, and they are occasionally tragic… but they are not necessarily cause for legislation unless the number of occurrences warrants concern.  Cars, airplanes, cell phones, toasters, lawn mowers, computers, windows… all of these things are involved in accidents from time to time.  Do we ban them all, or do we accept the imperfect nature of life and try to avoid danger as much as possible without locking ourselves in padded rooms so we can protect ourselves from absolutely every single potential threat in the world?

-E-cigarettes are even more expensive than regular, tobacco cigs:  I’m actually not even going to dignify this one with comment.  Sorry, but if you buy into this particular statement, no amount of logical reasoning is going to affect you at all.

Unfortunately, no amount of reasoning and/or logical, scientific proof will deter the anti-vaping elements of society from their crusade against E-cigarettes.  The reasons for this are disturbing, and I’ll only briefly touch on them here.  (These subjects are covered more completely (and sourced/cited) in others of my blog posts.)  Many anti-vaping organizations are heavily vested in pharmaceutical ventures which stand to continue raking in profits from products like Nicorette, Chantix, Wellbutrin, etc, if the more effective E-cigarette industry is buried under bans and unreasonable regulations.  Others are hell-bent on bringing absolutely everything under strict government regulatory control because of extremist political ideologies.  Still others are so opposed to tobacco products, that their hatred blinds them to evident truths simply because of the fact that vaping “kinda looks like” smoking.  Government agencies have only become interested in the regulation of E-cigarettes since the industry became a multi-billion dollar pile of potential tax revenue.  And lastly, there are those who are simply opposed to E-cigarettes because of the material they’ve read/heard from all of the previously mentioned groups.  Not everyone will agree with all of the reasons I’ve just listed, and that’s OK.  I only mention them in passing and am not currently interested in offering proof on their behalf (that’s for other articles).  The purpose of this blog post is to debunk myths about E-cigarettes themselves, not to throw blame at the potential sources of those myths.

If you have an interest in E-cigarettes, either on your behalf or on behalf of a loved one, please take the time to consider that all of the frightening headlines floating around the Internet and news media concerning E-cigs might be just that… frightening words aimed at striking fear into the hearts of the unsuspecting.  I implore everyone to do research, and to be sceptical of news stories in general until you take the time to look into the subject yourself in order to make an informed decision, not one based on panic and dramatic presentation.  Renowned philosopher, Rene Descartes, practised what he referred to as “methodic doubt,” which essentially meant that he would systematically doubt everything until he could prove to himself what was Truth and what was falsehood.  This goes for everything you might come across, not just E-cigarettes.  We unfortunately live in a world where we need to be sceptical of everything around us, because there are too many conflicting interests and ulterior motives.  However, we fortunately have in this same world a means to access almost all human knowledge throughout history with the touch of a few buttons and a thirst for learning.  Take advantage of our gifts and blessings, before those gifts and blessings get regulated and banned as well!

 Sources (Complete List):

-http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/91/1/52.abstract

-http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig11/fetters1.1.1.html

-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20378585/

-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22503574

-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23033998

-http://sfata.org/resources/effects-of-nicotine/

-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19241061?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=9

-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1579636

-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC526783/

-http://canadavapes.com/health/vegetable-glycerin-safety.html

-http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08958379209145307?journalCode=iht&

-http://www.inchem.org/documents/sids/sids/56815.pdf

-http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2009-title21-vol3/xml/CFR-2009-title21-vol3-sec184-1666.xml

-http://www.dow.com/productsafety/finder/prog.htm

-http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/814701-overview

-http://casaa.org/uploads/Are_Electronic_Cigarettes_Safe.pdf

-http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/health-safety-e-smoking/1734-germ-killing-vapor.html

-http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/3/3/175.abstract

-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2714207

-http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/10/is-nicotine-really-as-dangerous-as-cyanide.html

-http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/54115.html

-http://casaa.org/uploads/Literature_Review_for_Glycerol_and_Glycols.pdf

-http://casaa.org/uploads/DublinEcigBenchtopHandout.pdf

-http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08958378.2012.758197

-http://nypost.com/2013/10/23/the-lunatic-war-on-e-cigarettes/

-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131212141948.htm

-http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/10/ntr.ntt203.abstract

-http://en.esmokinginstitute.com/node/31

-http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=14&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CLkBEBYwDQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpublichealth.drexel.edu%2F~%2Fmedia%2Ffiles%2Fpublichealth%2Fms08.pdf&ei=BhJbU-meOpSksQTh8YDoBA&usg=AFQjCNFzS783QIKaOtOiF9p63cnJfFxlQA&sig2=a29qI8yaGt_9y0FgiIdLcw

-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121007134831.htm

-http://www.livescience.com/17816-nicotine-combat-memory-loss.html

-http://flipper.diff.org/app/items/5340