A few months back, a close family member - who has been smoking off and on for decades - invested in a relatively new product he called "e-cigs" (electronic cigarettes). He explained it to me as a "healthy" alternative to the real thing, as it did not contain harmful carcinogens. Additionally, he was "smoking" a far smoother vaporized solution rather than actual smoke, thereby preventing occasional wheezing and shortness of breath.

Here's how the thing works.  One of the first models I was shown, the DSE-901, is about the same shape and size of an actual cigarette. It contains 4 easily disassembled parts: the LED cover, battery, atomizer, and cartridge. The cartridge, or mouthpiece, contains the solution and the atomizer vaporizes it. The LED is triggered by the atomizer and simulates an orange glow, much like the real thing.

The cartridge in this model carries about 5-6 drops of the solution at a time, which takes about 10 minutes to smoke. A standard $15 bottle contains about an ounce of solution (as opposed to the $23 for the cigarettes my relative had purchased).

Companies producing the e-cigarette claim it is environmentally friendly and can be enjoyed in some public settings in which traditional smoking is prohibited.

Being both cost effective and less dangerous, it sounded like a good sell, and I was in much support of him using it if it meant he would gradually quit smoking. He reports feeling much healthier, though he continues to smoke the real thing about twice a day (as opposed to an entire pack).

There was one feature that concerned me, however, as I perhaps misunderstood the marketing behind the product. See, in my loved one's case, I thought the purpose was to eventually quit smoking, and the e-cigarette was kind of a temporary lead-in to the realm of nonsmoker-dom. I now realize that that is bad business, a discovery I made upon finding out that the solution contained nicotine (which, as we know, is the addictive ingredient in the competing product).

This prompted many questions and some independent research. Turns out that E-Cigs are designed as an alternative to cigarettes, rather than a tool for quitting. The solution's nicotine content is allegedly sold in varying degrees; This particular customer opted to include it as he enjoyed the high induced by the drug.

I started surfing the net for any additional health risks that might negate electronic cigarettes' reputation as a "healthy alternative."

First stop, the FDA. Perhaps e-cigarettes' most vocal detractor, the administration reportedly detected some carcinogens, including TSNAs (tobacco specific nitrosamines) in cartridges which used tobacco flavoring. There were also apparent traces of diethylene glycol, which can be tremendously hazardous when consumed by human beings.

Furthermore, the many flavors, including orange and chocolate, have been criticized by the FDA for appearing marketable to children.

Health Canada similarly worried about risks such as nicotine poisoning.

Despite these criticisms, a "quantitative analysis" by Health New Zealand asserted that, although carcinogens and toxicants were detected, the levels did not present serious health risks.  

I must say that concerns over the marketability towards children seems like a fairly weak argument to me. We are aware of the health risks of cigarettes but despite our best efforts kids are capable of obtaining them fairly easily. If e-cigs are in fact the lesser of two evils, taking them off the market because kids might want it instead of their counterpart seems unreasonable.

As a relatively new product on the market, i hope, for the best interest of my loved one, that e-cigs are essentially safe with a few minor flaws to work out. Unfortunately, because it is so new, long term effects are yet to be determined. In the meantime, I'll keep my eyes peeled for the Surgeon General's Warning.