Are conventional scientific approaches obsolete when addressing Ecigs?

[5150sick]

http://www.vapingpost.com/2016/08/0...ic-approaches-obsolete-when-addressing-ecigs/

“3-5% the risk of smoking still means that about 2% of regular users will be killed by e-cigarettes. Nothing we would accept for any other consumer product.”Thomas Hartung, toxicologist.

BUT, Since cigarettes kill 50% of their users and that 2% isn't really a reality since it hasn't even happened yet I would think it would be worth the risk.
Wouldn't you? - 5150

 

[Rossum]

3-5% the risk of smoking still means that about 2% of regular users will be killed by e-cigarettes. Nothing we would accept for any other consumer product.”Thomas Hartung, toxicologist.

Hmm. How about ethanol? Or sugar and other fast carbs? Are they not consumer products?

 

[gingerbread]

Air pollution for that consumer product the motor car came to mind...

 

[Jim_MDP]

I'm not a statistician but... I don't think that's how the math works.
We don't know that vaping will kill anyone*.
Someone is conflating risk assessments and probabilities.



*Don't get me wrong, I've said all along... we have decades of knowledge about the inhalation of nicotine and even PG. But food flavorings and VG... not so much.

 

[NGAHaze]

Air pollution for that consumer product the motor car came to mind...

lol, applying the same logic used above however, newer technologies that reduce emissions should/would not be pursed because they don't eliminate them completely.