The article would insinuate the injuries are the result of "malfunctioning gadgets", but then goes on to say that in three out of five incidents, the patient had the "device" in their trouser pocket (I keep a snake in mine) when the event occurred. What device would that be I wonder... a loose battery, perhaps? I'm just not convinced that theres some rampant quality control problem with currently available devices. In the other two instances, they don't really describe what happened other than "it blew up in his face", which could be any number of things, but likely all user preventable. The correct answer here would be education as opposed to regulation.
Photo caption: "A posed picture of a man smoking an e-cigarette."
No, its not smoke, so its not smoking. Got it? M'kay, great.
I am hereby calling for stricter regulations on poor journalism in order to preserve our sanity and give us all a little peace of mind.