I found this today. (The link at the bottom, I never intended writing this much of an introduction to it)
It will be of particular interest to anyone struggling with their e-cig, anyone who wonders why it just doesn't hit the spot like a real cig. It answers the urban myth that suggests people who use e-cigs could be taking in far more nicotine than they did when they smoked real cigarettes. The chances are that you are actually taking in far less nicotine than you ever did smoking a real cig, and explains to me why a 4mg nicotine lozenge can outdo puffing away on 24mg of e-fluid.
The article is long, its very long, it's pretty technical too but don't be put off, you could learn a lot. This person or persons have at least made some attempt to scientifically quantify how much nicotine a person takes in through an e-cig rather than the blanket accusations that e-cigs are bad and you don't know how much nicotine you're taking in and you don't know what's really in them, by those who would prefer it if we just kept on smoking and paying our taxes. I particularly like the comparisons towards the end between the figures on mortality rates as a direct result of using an e-cig which appears to be zero and over the same time period of 7 years, the mortality rates of those whose death appeared to be as a direct result of using Champix - a licensed product seen as a legitimate aid to stopping smoking.
The author of this piece concludes that is extremely difficult to quantify how much nicotine any one person will get from an e-cig, but a least he offers a sound explanation of why it is difficult. I wonder just how much research the critics of the e-cig have done to justify their claims that it must be regulated and controlled in order to protect the public and yet never come up with any concrete evidence of why this must happen.
The article that I have linked to below appears just below the two yellow advertisements of "call to action"