So the report is made up? It seems pretty conclusive to me that it is still harmful to the users and non users in proximity.
It's a conclusion jumped to in this report with absolutely no viable data to back it up.
In fact, they espouse that it's dangerous while, in the same report, stating that there is no evidence that the things even work to get people off of cigarettes. Perhaps if they actually ASKED the millions of users worldwide and gathered, you know, some ACTUAL data instead of just deciding for themselves what they wanted to accept, they'd get a different result.
If you think the WHO is anything other than a pharmaceutical lobby group, you're deluded.
Notice in the report how they make a big deal about it being dangerous to pregnant women in the vicinity because it can release aerosolised nicotine? That, in fact, is the biggest single point they're able to make. Except it's nonsense... there is no breakdown or reputable scientific data included to show just how much nicotine could be made available, and readily absorbed, by any bystander -- something which is likely minimal when we already know that the actual efficiency of ecigs when it comes to nicotine delivery is relatively low in comparison to cigarettes.
And yet the WHO are happy enough to allow the NHS to recommend (albeit structured) use of "approved" NRT products by pregnant women who can't stop smoking. Is there some kind of difference in the nicotine included in gum, lozenges or quick mist products? Is it a special "medicinal" nicotine that pregnant women making DIRECT use of (and thus taking much more into their system than is in any way feasible via second-hand vapour) can avoid these problems that are all of a sudden so terribly dangerous to society?
No, it isn't.
This report is just more hypocrisy and scaremongering. The WHO report is FAR from objective, and as per usual uses little more than preconception, agenda and cherry-picked data in the hopes of telling the ignorant what to think.
"It puts toxins in the air". What toxins? What levels? What exactly is the comparative background level per toxin, and what is the agreed safe threshold for each? There are toxins in the air all around us. Someone sprays a deodorant or sneezes nearby -- that puts toxins in the air. That's all that their report is saying... but because it's an ecig and not something that's just "normal" nowadays, it's suddenly an issue of immediate danger.
Sorry, but not without the correct data to back that up, it isn't.
You'll likely find that the detection of greater toxin emissions were found from higher voltage device usage. This could, again, be for any number of reasons including burning juice, dry and burning wicks (which a machine doing these tests wouldn't be able to ascertain as happening during use) etc. But, again, the studies being performed are not being done to a degree that understands the devices and their use in any way.
If they were, we'd end up with solid conclusions recommending ongoing advice for users on what may or may not lead to increased toxin generation (yet STILL on a level that renders ENDS much more preferable than cigarettes), and not just a blanket "they contain toxins; ban them".
This entire thing is nothing more than half-truths, outright lies and a blatant attempt at social engineering -- and sadly people will buy it because "it's in the news". That the UK's own Department of Health have already stated that they won't be taking this advice, and will not be banning indoor use should tell you all you need to know.
That they can happily make up statements without corroboration about the dangers of ecigs to non-users, yet continue to prescribe the likes of Chantix to pregnant women is unbelievable. God forbid someone be puffing on a fruit mix aerosol in public, but if people are jumping off of buildings as a direct result of your "approved" failed antidepressant, then that's just the luck of the draw. Still, they quit smoking, didn't they? Result!