Forgive me for the repeat comments.  However, this article is so lacking in data that it relies 100% on innuendo.  The innuendo: Using the term nicotine, propylene glycol and carcinogens, in the same sentence.  The writer would have you believe that because they occur in the same sentence, they must be related.

The article mentions 19  carcinogens.  (By the way, "cancer-causing carcinogens" is redundant since carcinogen denotes cancer-causing.)  You name nicotine and propylene glycol.  Neither of which is a carcinogen.  And yes, I do know of what I speak.  Nicotine is not directly carcinogenic.  A simple google search will confirm this.  But I've also included links below to two recent peer-reviewed e-cig vapor studies.  Propylene glycol is also not a carcinogen.  Again, google propylene glycol and it will be painfully obvious the author is wrong again.

So, where are the other 17 "cancer-causing carcinogens?"  You wrongly name only two, and infer there are others.  

The author should lose their press credentials or whatever it is this site requires of its writers.  This article is written under the guise of public interest, yet it does exactly the opposite, by specious arguments against a product that is already improving the lives of millions of former tobacco smokers.

ntr.oxfordjournals.org/.../ntr.ntt203.short
publichealth.drexel.edu/.../ms08.pdf