Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

Just like the almost silly lack of information and context common to local media stories, e-cig studies are regularly released that say almost nothing. They suggest authority and informativeness, but ultimately the main point they come to is more study is needed to say anything actually definitive.

The most recent instance of such comes from RTI International, a research organization with hands in everything from isotopes to HIV. They recently ran an announcement on a study to be published which found that electronic cigarette vapor may cause or worsen respiratory diseases among youth. That announcement is making its rounds through other sources.

But press even a little on the information in the announcement and things begin to collapse under the weight of what’s being put upon it.

The study looked at the particles of electronic cigarette vapor and examined how much of them get deposited in lung cells (about 40% according to the study). All this really means is that the vapor has a yet to be determined effect on lung cells and probably isn’t harmless. But then, the days of claiming e-cigs are totally harmless have long been dead for the majority of the industry and the community.

What RTI turns this study into, however, is nothing short of quote bait for lazy media outlets. They choose to focus on two things. First, they state that the study shows e-cigs may cause or worsen respiratory disease. While this might be true, this study offers almost nothing definitive and lacks any real context. If 40% of e-cig vapor is deposited in lung cells, there is still a laundry list of other factors to consider when determining harm — not the least of which is the toxicity of e-cig vapor, how long the deposits remain, and how concentrated active compounds in vapor are. Instead, we get a basic percentage that is probably comparable to deposits from any vapor that an individual might inhale.

Second, RTI focuses in on the hot button item for e-cigs: kids. The study presumably used lung data for a 14-year-old male. This allows the study to claim that its results apply to teens. But again, this lacks context. The study doesn’t show that e-cigs are any worse for teens than they are for adults — though it certainly implies it. It doesn’t show that e-cigs actually do cause or worsen respiratory disease in teens — though it postulates that it can be a result of the effects the study found. But most of all, the study doesn’t tell us anything beyond this: It is possible for e-cig vapor to effect lung cells in some way.

Just like many local media stories, studies like these tend to be spun with maximum reach and minimum context. Studies like these are certainly necessary to finding the effects of electronic cigarettes — good and bad. But the need to get coverage and attention often means adding hypotheticals to conclusions.

After all, which is more likely to get coverage: e-cigs may kill teens or e-cigs have an undermined effect on lung tissue?