It’s beyond belief that a living, breathing, editor at Science Times actually reviewed an article posted on its site, which alleges vaping could be an environmental disaster.
There is a disaster, but it has nothing to do with vaping and everything to do with the complete lack of comprehensibility of the article.
For starters, the title is certainly awkward: Vaping May Be Bringing A Recycling Disaster. Written (a term I use loosely) by Lysette Maurice N. Sandoval and posted on September 2, 2019; the article states:
Vaping is much like traditional smoking, however, it comes with special devices like the vape and the vape juice. It also does not come with nicotine, which makes it less addictive than the traditional cigarette whose nicotine content could really get you hooked
What a nightmare! Vaping is “much like” traditional smoking is a misnomer, as one combusts and the other does not. There are no similarities in the delivery of the active drug: nicotine. But then, the author immediately states that “the vape and the vape juice” does NOT come with nicotine. This must come as a massive shock to those at Truth Initiative, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, FDA, CDC, the entire mainstream news media and every single parent in the Western hemisphere.
I don’t want to pick on this author, but I most certainly will. As I fear there is a severe lack of understanding on this important topic and the author must surely be aware of this professional deficiency.
She writes:
While major vape companies like JUUL and Altria have expressed their concerns about the growing problem of people using vape, they have yet to concretize their action plan and act on the problem at hand.
Dear Science Times editor, are you ok? How could you let this article pass your strict quality guidelines?
Lysette Maurice N. Sandoval – Science Times – September 2, 2019.
Want More Investigative Content?
