Electronic cigarettes have been banned in New York.
Restaurants, bars, parks, beaches and other public places are now off-limits for e-smoking.
I couldn’t believe it when I heard about this.
E-cigarettes are very dangerous, right?
There’s a huge amount of research to support these precautionary measures, right?
Actually, no. Not that much.
Not much? How much?
Obviously way more research than is available concerning the adverse health effects of cell phones – otherwise cell phones would’ve been banned long since, right?
Actually the research is astonishing but not for the reasons you might think.
E-cigarette studies, e-cigarette dangers
I found an article on WebMD
According to Doctor Michael B. Siegel, professor at the Boston University School of Public Health, “”We don’t know the absolute risks — whether, over a very long period of time, the e-cigarette might have harms associated with it,” Siegel says. “They haven’t been on the market long enough to understand if they may have long-term side effects.”
This got me thinking.
I guessed e-cigarettes were a new thing, I didn’t quite realize how new.
They were invented in 2003.
But they’ve only really caught on in the last couple of years.
Then I started to look at what’s in these ‘cigarettes’ that makes them so dangerous.
They contain a mixture of nicotine, vegetable glycerin, propylene glycol, and flavorings.
There’s nothing that would seem to justify an immediate ban.
The most dangerous ingredient seems to be the nicotine.
But nicotine in itself is not so bad.
What’s bad is that it creates addiction.
And some e-cigarettes don’t even contain nicotine, yet they’re still banned.
When you compare e-cigarettes to cell phones, in terms of the research we’re in another stratosphere.
A Different Stratosphere
Cell phones have been around for nearly 30 years, but there’s research dating back to the 1940’s linking adverse biological effects to the same kind of radio-frequency exposures.
There aren’t just a few studies linking cell phone type radiation exposures to cancers and other serious diseases.
There’s a mass of data on it.
Thousands of studies link these exposures to heart attacks, diseases of the blood, brain tumors, DNA damage, immune system suppression, arthritis, rheumatism, skin problem, lymphatic diseases, vaginal discharge, vascular system disease, tinnitus, leukemia, childhood cancer, depression, irritability, memory loss, difficulty in concentrating, headache, dizziness and fatigue, suicidal tendencies, miscarriage and infertility.
Just a few weeks ago the BioInitiative working group published an update listing another batch of studies linking RF radiation to serious adverse health effects.
The World Health Organization classified cell phone radiation as a possible human carcinogen in 2011.
More and more doctors are speaking out about the health risks.
Following a spate of illnesses in their surgeries, in 2002 a group of doctors produced the Freiburger Appeal which has now been signed by thousands of doctors, to highlight the effects of these RF exposures.
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has issued a public statement warning of the dangers of these exposures.
Nobody is banning cell phone use on health grounds.
They’re not even banning kids from using cell phones.
Governments are even reluctant to warn people about a possible danger from cell phone use.
When did you last see a cell phone with a health warning on it?
Doesn’t this all strike you as odd?
I’m not saying we shouldn’t be cautious about e-cigarettes. But COME ON talk about double standards.
There must be more to it than this. There must be some reason for this radical action against e-cigarettes.
Do you know what makes e-cigarettes so dangerous?
It seems they “normalize” the idea of smoking in the minds of impressionable youngsters.
Another argument put forward is that in a restaurant e-cigarettes “confuse” other diners who may muddle current smoking laws.
Compare this with brain tumors, cancer, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and the myriad of other diseases and ailments, which have been linked by scientific studies to cell phone type EMF exposures.
When you put e-cigarettes in the context of normal cigarettes it makes even less sense.
The idea of e-cigarettes is to help people break the habit of normal cigarettes. Everybody agrees normal cigarettes are way worse than any e-cigarette could ever be. So shouldn’t we be encouraging people to adopt this safer alternative given the lack of evidence as to any dangers?
What’s Going On?
If it wasn’t obvious before it should be now.
We’re having the wool pulled over our eyes.
The risks from cell phone radiation and similar EMF exposures are real. They’re documented and they are understood far better than the mainstream media would have you believe.
There are scientists that are beginning to understand how these exposures affect our bodies.
Not just any old scientists.
World leading scientists and EMF experts.
Neuroscientists, molecular biologists, electrical engineers, physicists, epidemiologist’s, researchers, alternative health experts and the like.
For the last 6 months I’ve been interviewing them.
Decrypting and deciphering, asking how these exposures affect our health.
Asking what can be done to deal with them. The solutions.
I’ve been interviewing these scientists and experts.
If you’re subscribed to my newsletter you’ll get details sent to you.
Make sure you are subscribed to my newsletter.
Thanks still for all your work, I really think it is great. Sometimes I wonder what is going on in the world. Most of our politicians are stuck and fussing about what I would call the little things, but nothing is done about what I see as the big things that affect the immediate health of millions of people. Things such as GMOs and EMFs and the contamination of the environment such as mountain top removal, or fracking.
So that is why I am so happy with your website which addresses these problems.
Be well! Lienke
Lily Turner said,
Lloyd, great article. I would like to add one correction, however: You stated – The World Health Organization classified cell phone radiation as a probable human carcinogen in 2011.
Actually, the WHO classified cell phone radiation as a POSSIBLE carcinogen (not probable. not yet, anyway).
Lloyd Burrell said,
You’re quite right Lily the WHO classification is ‘possible’ not ‘probable’ – now corrected. Thanks.
The issue may have something to do with the cognitive effects of nicotine. There is evidence to suggest that it improves memory and thinking skills. If it scrambles your brain it is good. If it enhances your brain, it needs to be illegal.
I work in a hospital and have to enforce a no smoking policy which includes ecigarettes. It just baffles me as well. It seems a no brainer to me that there are thousands of less harmful chemicals in them and are a great alternative to real cigarettes. And you are right about questioning why they allow very potentially dangerous things like cellphones in our lives. Or how about wifi!!! One could only speculate that convenience and money are the factors allowing those sources to flourish in our society. I am not perfect and have wifi and a cell phone. I truly limit my exposure though. What gets me though is that the hospital I work in has them everywhere! What kind of healing place is that? Dont people look into that stuff? Its as electronic as an electronic cigarette. This year there was a big push to put more wifi into into my kids grade school as well. I was really against it when they asked for donations but they won and now have a wifi router in every room. Hopefully its not next to any of the children. I can only image how worse it is for an undeveloped brain to be subjected to that versus an adult brain. Could you please share your thoughts on wifi again? Because I have a trifield meter and tested my router as well as many things around the home. The only way I get a reading is if I am within a foot of the unit. Is that correct? Just curious bc even if I turned mine off at night I would still be subjected to my neighbor’s wifi?
Lloyd Burrell said,
The Trifield is not the right meter to measure WiFi radiation…..see my reviews on the Cornet ED85EX or Acousticom 2.
Luis Rivera said,
I really appreciate all your effort to pass on all this information and I really have to comment on this since I have been experiencing all this kind of side effects from EMF such as ringing in the ears/ pain in my bones etc and I do know for a fact that you’re right. What really bothers me is that not everyone experience this side effects from this EMF situation so that’s why it’s so hard to others to understand what we go thru?? But I’m pretty sure that one day soon people will understand how harmful this EMF is to our health and there is when everyone will step up and do what’s need to be done. I know that probably it’s necessary to survive in this days but hey!! Come on. Don’t you have a better idea than this?? I thougt we landed in the moon? for something better…
I think propylene glycol is antifreeze
Lee in San Francisco said,
In the article above, you noted that you’ve been interviewing:
“World leading scientists and EMF experts. Neuroscientists, molecular biologists, electrical engineers, physicists, epidemiologist’s researchers and the like.”
May I suggest you consider immunologists for your list?
I say this because recently, I heard an interview with Aristo Vojdani, PhD, MSc, MT, head researcher at Cyrex Laboratories, who has been billed as the world’s leading expert on environmental causes of illness. EMF’s, of course, are environmental causes. Surely sharp (independent) immunological researchers would see EMF’s as a ripe field of inquiry.
Vojdani’s employer, Cyrex Labs, apparently develops sophisticated tests to measure the body’s reactions to all kinds of environmental toxins, but in his lecture, I heard no mention of EMF’s. My thought was that if there were money to be made in developing tests to show physical EMF repercussions (such as increases in inflammation and so forth), perhaps cutting edge laboratories would be interested–or perhaps they already are (?). At any rate, thanks for considering my suggestion.
I am also looking forward to hearing more about how to access your archives.
P.S. Reader comments are a rich part of this site. I have always enjoyed them, but it seems like over the past year or so, the quality of the comments has become even sharper. What a wealth of insight and information is thus being added to already terrific site. To all who post, please accept my appreciation.
Donald Arnaud said,
Thanks for the hard work. IMO, In the case of Cell technology, follow the power, not the money. It is the way they can track everyone until they can chip them. In regard to the e-cigarettes, then indeed follow the money. A typical cigarette has 2mg nicotine delivered. It is much easier to smuggle 30ml of nicotine juice than 750 packs of cigarettes so the TAX revenue loss is astonishing until they figure out how too collect it. Yes propylene glycol is an anti freeze, because it is a form of alcohol, BUT it is used for medical delivery of inhaled, oral and intravenous medications and has a low oral toxicity. It is not the same as the ethylene glycol anti-freeze used in a car radiator which has a high toxicity. In general I was an e-smoker for 2 years and it is a viable alternative with no known carcinogens if you use a juice from a reputable supplier. As a doctor once told me anything you breath is more damaging than something you ingest but they have not marketed a time release nicotine pill solution either except for intestinal ailments. When I started reading, I thought you where going to comment about the emf’s from the atomizers 🙂
Add A Comment