News

The Senate OK&rsquo;d a bill Thursday that limits the sale and use of electronic cigarettes.<br />
<br />
The upper chamber passed H.171 on a vote of 24 to 5.<br />
<br />
The Senate made few changes to the bill that cleared the House last month. The legislation bans the use of e-cigarettes indoors at workplaces and restaurants.<br type="_moz" />

<br />
By Dr Farsalinos, E-cigarette Blog<br />
<br />
The formaldehyde study scandal conducted by researchers from Portland university is progressing, with the authors unwilling to admit their methodological and presentation mistakes, while they continue their effort to misinform the public and consider our case for retraction as an attempt to help the industry or to get money from the industry. First of all, the only one who got money was the Portland University. They created a problem and they were awarded millions to &ldquo;solve&rdquo; it. Let me clarify in brief that the retraction was based on:<br />
<br />
1. Assessing the risk of developing cancer from exposure to a chemical which they did NOT find in the study. All the analysis was based on formaldehyde exposure, while they only found formaldehyde hemiacetals. Formaldehyde hemiacetals are not classified as carcinogenic or toxic, thus their whole analysis is invalid.<br />
<br />
2. They intentionally manipulated statistics by displaying in the same graph mean &plusmn; standard deviation values for formaldehyde in tobacco cigarettes and mean &plusmn; standard error of mean for formaldehyde hemiacetals in e-cigarettes. They intentionally did this in order to hide the huge variability in their measurements (standard error of mean is much lower than standard deviation).<br />
<br />
3. They continue to create confusion and misinform the public by discussing about formaldehyde exposure, while (I repeat) they DID NOT find any formaldehyde.<br type="_moz" />

From Dick Puddlecoat’s blog.&nbsp; ASH Scotland receives 85% of their budget from the government. <br />
<br />
Sheila Duffy, ASH Scotland, was in a philosophical mood in a recent article. &quot;Certainly there are informed adults who make a proactive choice to smoke and, so long as they cause no harm to others, that is their business&quot;.<br />
<br />
Quite a statement from an anti.&nbsp; Read the entire article.<br type="_moz" />

From the MOTHERBOARD. <br />
S.A. 3547 is an amendment to an amendment (isn&rsquo;t bureaucracy fun?) on the Federal Aviation Authority&rsquo;s reauthorization bill, which is currently being discussed by the US Senate. It includes a short provision that would ban vaping devices from being brought on board, even in carry-on luggage. Vaping devices were banned from being packed in checked luggage or charged onboard by the Department of Transportation last October, but this would extend the law to prevent vapers from flying with their gear at all.<br />
<br />
Good grief, talk about getting hit from all sides! Write your <a href="http://www.senate.gov">Senator</a> today! It is time we bring jobs back home, there were never issues when lithium batteries when they were made in AMERICA!<br type="_moz" />

&quot;When the Yankees and Houston Astros took the field in the Bronx on Wednesday night, they were the first players to be prohibited by law from using smokeless tobacco for a regular-season game. And the ban covers everyone else in the ballpark, too&quot;.<br />
<br />
How do they plan to enforce this law? Are they really going to arrest the player’s for chew tobacco, think not.<br type="_moz" />