JimFox June 13, 2017 05:58 AM Which tobacco company funded THIS "research"???? Martin-tu June 13, 2017 09:32 AM More pertinent would be "Which Pharma Company funded this research?' Tanstar June 13, 2017 10:03 AM The biggest advantage of e-cigs over the paper ones? The smell. Cigarette smokers don't even seem to realize how bad those things stink and how the smell lingers on them (especially those that smoke in their cars and homes). MerlinGuy June 13, 2017 10:45 AM Wow, large amounts of nicotine may cause DNA damage. Who would have thought that a chemical who's two main uses - cigarettes and pesticides would be bad for you. I am shocked. Puff away hipsters just get off my insurance plan. FredSteffen June 13, 2017 01:39 PM I can't see the method used without paying. Many studies end up vaporizing the liquid at much too high a temperature, far higher than a person could actually stand. This would cause various toxic byproducts like aldehydes that would be toxic. As the article mentions, another group using industry standard equipment found almost no DNA damage from vaping. Douglas Bennett Rogers June 13, 2017 03:44 PM The study doesn't tell us what percentage of total risk DNA damage represents. Sub micron particulates are the main risk from most smokes. These are absent in E cigarettes. Maybe this is like being afraid of radon when going into a tornado shelter. Tom Phoghat Sobieski June 14, 2017 02:23 AM Don't they grow tobacco in Connecticut? ljaques June 14, 2017 10:11 AM Um, aren't the liquid nicotines derived from the same chemical-laced, GM tobaccos that are used to make cigarettes? And now, what dangers do synthetic nicotines pose? I'm with MerlinGuy in wanting to opt with an insurance plan which doesn't support smokers of any sort. Jim and Martin, note the "surprise" portion of the headline. If funded by tobacco or pharma, would this study have been released at all, or would it have been instantly squashed, hmm? Tinman_au June 14, 2017 10:59 AM " Royal College of Physicians"Hmm...an actual association for doctors, versus a (no doubt) paid for study. Hmm...which should I believe... Augure June 14, 2017 04:25 PM Brought to you by corrupted-paid off "scientists", from tobacco lobbies with love.