Maxim Tillmann 10/8/2014

HUM 101-029
Dr. Fleischer
Research Roadmap 3.1

In the article Thank you for E-smoking Megan McArdle discusses electronic cigarettes, their
history and the possible positive and negative consequences they could have on society. As one
can infer from the title, McArdle clearly believes that the benefits of electronic cigarettes
outweigh any harm they do. McArdle concluded that electronic cigarettes are not only more
flavorful but also safer than traditional tobacco products. She also believes that their widespread
use could significantly lower the number of smoking related deaths in the United States.
McArdle cited many health statistics from reputable sources, such as the FDA and various health
experts. However, the article was far from impartial. McArdle reveals that she is a smoker and
her argument that electronic cigarettes are more flavorful is largely self-testimony. McArdle
proves to be staunchly in favor of widespread E-smoking and sees it as a benefit to society.

In his article The Hazards of E-Cigarettes, Dr. Francis J. Offermann evaluates the many
negative effects of E-cigs, particularly the presence of carcinogens in E-cig vapor. The article
was published in the ASHRAE Journal, a peer-reviewed, monthly scientific magazine.
Offermann disagrees with many of the positive points presented in McArdles argument. He cites
several studies saying there is evidence that some carcinogens found in tobacco are carried over
into the e-cigarette fluid from the nicotine extraction process. These include formaldehyde,
cadmium, and lead. He also explains how the vapor emitted from E-cigs is not a vapor or gas,
but rather an aerosol. Some flavoring chemicals in E-cigs, while having no apparent adverse
effects when ingested, when aerosolized and inhaled can cause lung irritation. He concludes that
the health risks associated with the usage of e-cigarettes are less than those associated with
tobacco smoking, but they still pose a serious health risk to consumers and should be regulated in
the same way as traditional cigarettes.
The two articles offer opposing viewpoints on the issue of E-smoking and present their
arguments in different ways. Both authors cite numerous studies and statistics to support their
arguments, but the key difference between the two is that McArdle uses some personal opinion
and testimony in her article while Offermann only cites studies done with E-cigs. This makes
McArdles argument somewhat more sensational and less credible. In conclusion, Offermann
makes the more valid argument and presents E-cigs as what they are, not a solution, but a serious
health risk.
The Reflective Statement
For this roadmap I used the NJIT library database exclusively to find the second article.
Using the library database seemed the simplest way to acquire high quality articles from reliable,
peer-reviewed sources. To find the article I needed to try searching for several different
variations of my subjects title ( such as E-cigs, Electronic Cigarettes, Vaping, E-smoking, ex)
Using this strategy I was able to find a series of reliable sources relatively quickly and chose the
best one for my topic (it took only a few minutes to find over a dozen articles in favor of or
against E-cigs.) The NJIT library database was surprising effective and easy to use, (I never used
online databases in high school because of how frustrating they were to use.) and this assignment
proved to be simpler than I had anticipated.

Sources:
McArdle, M. (2014). Thank you for e-smoking. Bloomberg Businessweek, (4366), 54-58.

Offermann, F. (2014). The Hazards of E-Cigarettes. ASHRAE Journal, (June 2014), 39-44.