>> welcome to al jazeera. here are the headlines. in washington president obama has ordered a review of security procedures after the deadly attack. the names of all 12 people were read before lawmakers stood in silence. still they do not know why the shooter, aaron alexis, committed the crime. in colorado rescue efforts have not been easy. roads have been washed away by floods, many people are in shelters and many more waiting

to be rescued. more than 500 people are still missing. the floods covered 17 counties. the rain started september 11th and state of emergency continues for the affected areas. jerry sandusky's appeal for now before three judges. the former penn state assistant coach was rushed to trial last year. prosecutors disagree. we'll have much more news at the top of the hour. i'll see you at 11:00 eastern, 8:00 pacific time.

>> another mass murderer with a history of mental illness leaves a country in shock after the massacre at washington's navy yard. in the past few years there have been mass murders. also as america weighs intervention in syria, is there a separate civil war now raging, this one within the ranks of assad's opponents. how are al-qaeda and other extremists affecting the fight against syria's governments. plus e-cigarettes have become a billion dollar business, and is this just another way to target kids? welcome to consider this. we begin with the navy yard shooter. as authorities check in the background of aaron alexis. reports on the details of troubled history that are starting to emerge.

>> flags flew at behalf mass, and another familiar scene in america. those gunned down by a lone man on a bloody rampage. more questions are left than answers. could stronger gun control laws or better mental illness help against the carnage. >> as such with no other suspects at large the investigation has moved into a phase of evidentiary recovery and information gathering. >> alexis did suffer recently from extreme paranoia and delusions and was treated for mental health issues. he also had a haste of trouble with the police. a police report from seattle in 2004 details alexis' self described anger-fueled blackout that caused him to shoot the rear tires of a vehicle with a

.45-caliber vehicle. he was arrested in 2008 after an altercation in a nightclub for disorderly conduct. in 2010 fort worth, texas, he was arrested for firing a gun into an apartment. it others had raised red flags before their killing sprees. dr. janice orlowski, from the hospital where some of the gun victims were treated made this plea. >> there is something won wronge when we have multiple shootings, there is something wrong. we have to work together to get rid of it. >> reporter: al jazeera, new york. >> joining me from washington, d.c. dr. allen li litman director of the study of violence and with me dr. michael

stone clinical psycho analytic training and research. dr. litman, let's start with you. we learn in the last 24 hours along with his anger and guns, he suffered from paranoia. he was in newport, rhode island and had an encounter with police at his motel. he said he heard voices speaking to him through the wall, floor and ceiling and people were sending vibrations through his body but he claimed to have no harassment claim against the voices. the police action required although they did fax a copy of the report to the police. he should not be allowed to purchase a gun, which is exactly what he did a couple of days later. how did this happen?

>> alexis is with a long history of individuals who have reported psychotic phenomena, including lauglahne, lanza and others bef. most people with mental illness are not violent ls violent and are more likely to be victorvictimof violence. the small group of individuals, virtually all of them have suffered from a serious untreated or under treated mental illness. and when we combine that, antonio, with the remarkably and certainly planned lax gun laws that allow these individuals in

the height of their psychosis and paranoia to get easy access to weapons we create a circumstance where these in fact, mostly unnecessary mass shootings become much more likely. what we need to do is to, among many things, institute a true system of universal background checks, a term that has been repeated so much that it almost loses its meaning but it's incredibly important. if an individual who is psychotic filled with delusions and believing as we heard from alexis, that people are out to get them can with great ease get their hands on a weapon they can move in the midst of their impairment get their hands on a weapon of mass destruction. if it is the case that we have laws that although we have checks do not have even computer

adequate reports require the fbi to destroy their records each day every 24 hours, that allow individuals to buy guns over the internet or at gun shows from unlicensed dealers, without any kind of background check whatsoever, then the background check system is so filled with intentional holes that it's essentially a farce. people who have psychotic psychotic mental illnesses, if they have a significant barrier and one of time will often instead have the opportunity for treatment, that will prevent many of these crimes. without that the gap between full-blown psychosis and full-blown tragedy is too thin. this is what we must face. >> well doctor, talking about psychosis and talking about erratic behavior, we saw what happened in rhode island. he's talking about voices.

he wants to file harassment claims against those voices. shouldn't police taken a more active response than something more proactive under these circumstances? it seems many of these mass shooters have sent very strong signals about their problems. >> you make a very good point. >> dr. stone, yes, they should. furthermore it's not quite correct to say that the mentally ill are less violent. they're five times more violent than the general population, but the figures are that perhaps 1% of the entire general population are at some point going to commit a violent crime, and it rises 4% to 6% those who are schizophrenic and bipolar, which means that many of the psychotic people don't have pre-disposition-- >> to make it clear, what i'm referring to is the fact that most people with psychotic

illnesses despite the perception which has been nurtured by the nra, as you know, are not violent. and it is just this smaller group of individuals who have been associated with to an extreme degree with these mass shootings as seen in the secret service report. that's undeniable. >> i think it is denial to a certain extent. in my study of 300 mass murderers about who a considerable amount is known in contrast to the 1300 other ones where there are only newspaper clippings. if you look at the ones in the united states where there is the vast majority of people committing mass murder, probably 25%, in my own series, 22% have a psychosis. in other words, this man apparently has paranoid schizophrenia. there are others who have paranoid personalties and people

talk about think pre-disposition to blow up when they are fired from a job, lose a sweetheart, wife walks out, they're individuals who old grudges. >> please, paranoid personalities, as you know, is one of the most difficult disorders to treat because the individual is in the grip of a fixed and rigid delusion. so we really don't want to be distinguishing from psychotic disorders, number one. number two, it is certainly the case that while your research may indicate otherwise, multiple studies including the work of the united states secret service has revealed, a, virtually without exception the individuals who have committed these mass crimes have been either with an untreated mental illness or an under treated

mental illness, and there has been some kind of triggering event that has proceeded the illness. more over getting to antonio's point. in virtually every one of these cases as we saw with juried lafner's extensive postings on the airport and as with columbine, individuals announce in some form that they intend to commit the act. and raise-- >> that raises the question, can we preempt these acts. >> that again, that is my question. once these signs are out there, what can psychiatrists do? if he apparently went to the veteran's hospital and asked for help with some of this, where does the line get drawn between privacy and the public safety? dr. stone? >> well, the fact that he had

talked about these things to people in positions of authority meant that they ought to have had and really enjoyed the privilege of having him committed involuntarily to a hospital. the degree to which he could have benefited from treatment is another matter entirely. but at least they could have kept him safely away from the public for some length of time. there are many, many problems in dealing with particularly paranoid persons, whether they're paranoid permanent were not psychotic, or those who are psychotic, they tend to reject therapy and help because they feel they don't accept other people's opinions, etc. they're extremely difficult to treat. if they have the psychosis in which medication would be in order to prescribe what often

happens they are then released, they take it for a little bit of time. don't like the effects and leave it in the draw. >> yet again you have a guy who was able to buy a gun. he was also able to maintain his secret clearance. we look at federal gun laws. they banned 36 categories that prevent people from purchasing you arms,, and it just seems to me that that list should be expanded, and the second you start talking about psychosis, you start talking about trying to sue people, the voices in your head, something should be done to keep them fro aowth gun. >> we have 300 million guns, a little bit less in the way of

guns than there are people. to imagine that people cannot get guns illegally even if they're prevented by law is ridiculous. they're going to be able to get guns. the one who is are fixed-- >> aside from the guns this guy had a secret clearance. he had access toecurity. >> hthat was a failure in the system. he should not have been able to get guns. he should have been locked up. but mafiosi, gangsters, they're always able to get a gun. >> with what about that question indications this man was not only allowed to buy guns but he was allowed to keep secret clearance. do doctors need to share this information? >> the answer to your point is. we can have lists of 36 or 360 categories, however, even though we can draw very sharp line

between the neurosis and psychosis, includiy disorder. but if we ha those individuals easily purchase those guns easily purchase those guns, via internet, via unlicensed dealers at gun shows, and if we have a system that does not allow them to be actually be checked in the background check then the simple iis a farce. this is why the johns hopkins summit and harvard research center and many other very esteemed and long-lasting institutes of public policies have focused on the universal background check in all of its forms to prevent these sorts of crimes. there is no reason to split hairs about diagnoses. the individuals who commit these crimes in the united states are buy and large individuals with

severe mental disorders and once again we're seeing this begin to unroll. we want to get all the facts with alexis. if we try to pull those small needles out of a large hay tackk of mental illness we're unlikely to succeed. but if we have strong background checks we can prevent those individuals from getting the guns to prevent them from committing their delusional violent crimes. >> thanthank you for participann this discussion tonight. >> coming up next. is syria seeing another civil war, this time among the opposition forces? why is al-qaeda on its side of the war and how is it packetingg our side. we'll have hermela aragawi with this discussion and we'll

condition with our facebook and google plus pages.

millions who need assistance now. we appreciate you spending time with us tonight. up next is the golden age of hollywood going golden but elsewhere. why l.a.'s mayor has declared a state of emergency for the entertainment industry there. next.

>> the u.s. has put a strike on syria on hold but a more brutal battle may be dawning between rival rebels in a multi dimensional civil war. there are at least a thousand factions, and many of them are linked to al-qaeda. senator joh john mc john mccainn looking for support. >> many want bashar al-assad gone. the syrian would reject extremist and and jihadists.

>> how right is senator mccain? we're joined in oh you are studio from istanbul, turkey, and others. i thank you all for joining us. today we saw a car bomb go off, no group has taken credit but there has been increased fighting between al-qaeda linked groups and more moderate forces between the free syrian army. as assad forces has increased their military movements. ambassador what are you seeing inside syria now that u.s. policy has evolved as it has and intervention has been pulled back? >> well, i think there are two things that i would point out. one of them is that the u.s. has

seen to be weak and uncommitted. we're not serious about engaging in syria. that's the lesson that comes out of the past couple of weeks with the u.s. pulling back from strikes with the russians taking the initiative in negotiations in geneva. that is seen by all the parties on the ground. the second thing, there is a war going on. of course people with differing agendas and different points of view are trying to win. so you see assad using all means at his disposal including chemical weapons to impose his will on the syrian people and killing as many as necessary in the process. you see the al-qaeda supported and extremist-supported groups trying to advance their agenda, and those who support a more moderate pluralistic agenda as well they're feeling buffeted by the drift away from the

international engagement that we've seen in the last couple of weeks. >> al-qaeda issued a warning about anyone who worked with the west. >> the united states and its allies tried this best to support the secular parties that are allied with the west. but they failed. i warn my brothers and families not to form any relationships with thighs parties. what happened in egypt is a perfect lesson on this. >> so he's talking about the people you represent. he's basically talking about al-qaeda fighting against the free syrian army. what does this mean for you and the situation in syria in general? >> his statement was nothing short of a declaration of war against a moderate free syrian army. two days ago you also had a decree issued by al-qaeda's local affiliate the islamic

state of iraq. further declaring war specifically against two moderate armies affiliated with the supreme military council in aleppo simply because they stood in the way of al-qaeda's attempt to expand. they're fighting against the free syrian army and alqaida fighters in syria and to the east. a al-qaeda has assassinated free syrian army commanders in this past month alone. you're seeing car bombs targeting free syrian army headquarters in the east and potentially the one yesterday as well. the rhetoric has significantly heated up between al-qaeda and the moderate free syrian army. you're seeing these clashes that are simply coming to a head and they're boiling over because quite frankly al-qaeda views the free syrian army as one of

its biggest threats. >> let's take a look at the latest study on the rebels from james, and its sobering. less than one-third of the opposition forces are seen as acceptable partners for the n.a.t.o. allies, and that's something that american officials have acknowledged this. if we look at the actual numbers. a total of 100,000 rebel fighters but a thousand different factions. al-qaeda controls directly 10,000 fighters but 35,000 jihadists may be allied with al-qaeda and 30,000 are referred to as moderate islamist factions. that does not leave too many people that the u.s. would want to help. >> i think for a long time we've been looking at a very large spectrum that makes up the syrian opposition. we have roughly 100,000 fighters and as the new james report points out there is not an incredibly large portion of the

traditional secular moderate that we would traditionally want to partner with. there is a spectrum there. so they put the number at 10,000 extremists, al-qaeda affiliat affiliated groups. but there is also this larger the majority of the group there that is particularly focused on national indiana. it's important to separate out the groups that are affiliated with al-qaeda and believe in al-qaeda ideology of trying to build a transnational, versus the groups who may be moderatist or islamists that are still focused on assyrian project. they're focused primarily and solely on a syrian state. groups of the syrian islamic group which are very conservative, and more conservative than western officials would like to work with. groups like moderate islamists that are closer to the muslim brotherhood, and then the free syrian army the more traditional

moderate secularist. that range is still focused on syrian project. they're not trying to create a transnational copy like al-qaeda would be trying to create. >> the director of the carnegie middle east center in beirut recently said the rise of the islamic extremist groups just mentioned by ken, it's a far bigger threat to the region than assad staying on for a for a how yearfew moreyears in damascus. this is a leader who killed several hundreds men, women and children. >> certainly these groups are a serious threat. let's not treat it as either/or. if assad stays in powers these forces are going to stay there and they're going to be fighting against assad and they'll still be getting external support.

it's perhaps assad stays in power and they keep fighting. that's bad, too. the reason these forces seem strong right now because the fast year the moderate forces have been starved of support from international community, the west, the united states, it has been reticent of getting involved while the more extreme elements have been garner support from countries around the region and from extremist elements. of course they're going to appear now that' that's that's f our own creating. what we need to do, where does the future go. we need to support a neither just assad in power nor fueling these extremist groups that are seen to be so incentive. >> and the moderate army is angry. here is what the head of the

syrian army said about the russians and the chemical weapons. >> they're playing games to waste time and win time for the criminal regime in damascus. we think that our friends in the western countries, the united states, know exactly the main goal of the russian administration. they are trying to find a solution for the regime in damascus. >> and the regime celebrated the announcement of the deal. the general wants some support from the other rebel factions. who can he work with? >> look there, is a moderate rebel that one can work with. in fact, we're seeing this

dynamic play out on the ground. assad has attempted to present himself as the only alternative to al-qaeda. but many have forgotten that the al-qaeda presence has been a longstanding policy of jihadi fighters to leverage them against the west. we're finding that the free syrian army is at the forefront pushing back against al-qaeda's attempts to expands it's influence throughout the country. if you do not empower the moderate opposition your left with a vacuum that al-qaeda will be able to expand. the reality is the assad regime is part of that problem. >> ken, do you agree with qubai, that the american policy should focus on helping the free syrian

army. >> i think the americans have been focusing on the moderate army. they're not trying to topple the assad regime. i can see why the general is not happy about it, but because at the end of the day u.s. goals and the goals of free syrian army differ. they're determined to end the assad regime to topple it, and remove him from power. u.s. goals are not necessarily aligned with that. our focus has been on chemical weapons and preventing the creation of a new afghanistan for transnational terrorist group to operate. that's why we've been seeing the contradictions in u.s. policy. wpolicy. benefiting one can hurt other goals there. >> qubai, ambassador, ken, i appreciate your time tonight. i hope you'll be back with us soon. up next, an indian-american

woman wins misameric miss ameri. but before the crown is put on her head there is reaction. next. victoria azarenko

>> your new miss america is... miss new york! [ cheering ]

>> miss new york, nina davuluri! [♪ music ] >> when nina davuluri won this year's 2014 miss america competition, she game the first won of indian origin to take the crown. with a degree in brain behavior and cognitive science she's currently applying to medical school. immediately after her crowning astounding racist tweets surfaced on the weapon. >> how does the "f" does a foreigner win miss america. she is an arab. miss new york is an indian. so what should have been the moment celebrating our diversity be derailed by a racist reaction. joining us is journalist sheila and alexis, great to have you

both here. before nina could even celebrate all this she had to deal with this racist reaction. let's hear what she said. >> it's an unfortunate situation but for every one negative tweet or comment, there were dozens of positive words of encouragement and videos and that's what's it's all about. i'm so honored to have this opportunity, and really bring about a conversation to not really open a discussion about race but cultural competency. that's what it's about. >> very classy in her response. she could have been very upset. were you surprised as an indian-american about the of public bigotry. >> i was surprised that media chose to focus on that, instead of what she accomplished, a how significant a person of indian origin won this award for the first time. >> don't you think it's fair to be surprised in this day and age

tby that reaction? >> it is surprised. when i looked at facebook on monday morning and so many people sharing an article that was an collection of these tweets saying, you know, i feel so dismayed ma this person won, and that's a great thing, and so many people are reacting like this. there is a choice to focus on things that are sensational rather than talking about this person's accomplishments and many other things that could have been brought to the conversation besides the racist comments that are better there. >> and the reality is, today, actually marks 30 years since vanessa williams became the first black miss america. i think between her and now with nina, it's ten women of color who have won miss america. why in the world are we having this discussion? >> we're also 50 years past--we just celebrated the march on washington. we made this incredible progress

around race relations and what we consider to be our own eg egotarian pulled forth but we still hol hold these biases. with the world of certainly media and technology it's all coming to forefront. >> publicly. people's names are a lot of these tweets. >> i completely agree with that. there was a tweet about miss kansas because she has tattoos, she hunts and she served in the army. >> blond, blue-eyed. >> that was the explicit thing. she's white. she should win this as miss america. that's what that was all about. it's true that social media gives these platforms to put these ideas forth and have it catch on on the internet in ways that was not possible 30 years ago when vanessa williams won. >> but nina davuluri is one of

the most gorgeous women on earth. >> beautiful and accomplished. >> she's fantastic. the idea that we're just seeing skin color in a way that completely--also challenges even what we understand skin color to mean. we're projecting all these things on to her. >> i read some of the names of people who put these tweets on. they're clearly the di descent can'ts of irish, polish, who themselves were discriminated against a few generations ago. one of the tweets from someone who had ethnic last name p do you not have to be an american to be miss america? how does this happen? this young woman who is so successful. they are parents are successful. and she was born in america. >> increasingly becoming minority,--

>> more babies of minority races are being born today. >> exactly. exactly. and i think that there is a consideration of the actual demographics of this country, and the fact that things are changing. this is not the same competition, this is not the same country it was 30 or 40 years ago. >> she's not the only one. look at sebastian della crews. he's also on america's got talent. [ "star-spangled banner" ] >> beautiful voice. had a similar negative reaction, and racist twitter patrols came to the attack. why do they have this illegal immigrant singing the national anthem. that makes it unamerican. there is an 11-year-old mexican

boy singing the national anthem. he's probably illegal. how do we changes this. >> most americans are fundamentally good people. they value egaltarian. >> and we'll say there was an overwhelming reaction to those tweets. >> yes, we have to honor the changing time. you're right to point out that the changing demographics in this country, but at the same time we have to set he boundaries about what is appropriate and what is not, and how we can understand the context of what is happening with respect to race. in some ways the power--in some ways certain constituencies in this country have tried to say even noticing race is racist at this point, right? >> well, we have social media reaction. let's go to hermela aragawi.

>> in both sebastian and then in a's case. many closed their accounts. is there a bit of calling out people who post these racist comments? >> you know, i think that if it makes them realize that what they're saying is something that is racist and biased. who are these people. they may be 14-year-old people. >> the question of whether fear of the other and racism is something that is inherent in people everywhere in the world. there was an interesting reaction in india where people said that nina never would have been able to win miss india because she's too dark skinned. and we look at brazil, there has

never been a miss brazil and virtually no black woman competes in miss brazil. >> our brains have been programmed. if you see a white hand selling an ipod. and the black hand sel or hand f color selling an ipod. it means that being of color brings fear. >> and in places like india, brazil and peru in other cases it's a huge business. and i think that it's great that you have a woman who is clearly proud of who she is, she's proud of her skin, proud of her heritage, and she's not making any apologies of what people in

india might be saying or what people here might be saying. >> or showing pictures of the bollywood dance. let's listen to something else she had to say before we go. >> unfortunately, we don't have it. but she was very--we do. let's live to it. >> i'm, you know, average girl next door, and the way i've always sown it miss america has always been known as the girl next door. but the girl next door is evolving. she's not who she was ten years ago and she's not going to be the same person ten years down the road. >> isn't she the girl we would like to have next door? >> i want her to be my friend. >> pew research center did a survey searching americans, and only 10% of them said race was a major problem to them. to me that says that hopefully this is not the majority of people's experiences. hopefully we're moving in the right direction and seeing menaa

being crowned. >> i agree. i don't think it's the majority. it's the minority, and they're ignorant enough with confusing her to be arab, not that there is anything wrong with being an arab. now i'm calling you nina, sheila. >> we got to go. thank you both. coming up, forbes releases it's annual richest people in america. how rich are they? we'll tell you.

sachin asked the indian media not to put too much pleasure pressure on the teenager. >> my son started his career. it's a humble request if he can live his life like a normal 14-year-old without thinking of anything other than falling in love with the sport. (applause) >> some footsteps to follow in. more on the website. check it out. all the details. get in touch with us on twitter and facebook. plenty more from me later, but that is the sport for now. >> thank you. stay with us on al jazeera. another full bulletin of news is

ahead with julie mcdonald, who will be in london for us. for now, goodbye. on inside story, we bring together unexpected voices closest to the story, invite hard-hitting debate and desenting views and always explore issues relevant to you. >> today's data dive climbs the

forbes 400, the richest people in the america. bill gates tops the list at $782 billion. he's the youngest person in the top ten and claimed the title of the world's richest person. gates is so rich his fortune would rank in 64th on the world banks list of countries by gdp. thathat is higher than luxembou. war len buffet at $58.5 billion. but it's $500 million to you and me. larry ellison is third at $41 billion. to get a sense of how rich they are, the national football league is the most financially successful sports league in the world. according to "forbes" magazine, the combined net worth of all 32 nfl families is $37.295 billion.

gates, buffet and ellison easily beat all teams combined. most of the top ten richest are a family affair. the koch brothers and charles and david tied at fourth at $36 billion each. combined this would match gates at $72 billion. the walton family takes up lots six through nine. walmart has held them to $136 billion. and don't feel bad for new york mayor michael bloomberg as he leaves office. he comes in at 10th at $31 billion. david rockefeller senior is the oldest person on the list at 98. youngers are mark zuckerberg and dustin moskovitz. they're 29. zuckerberg is worth $19 billion. and moskovitz at $5.2 billion. the average net worth,

$5 billion up from last year. the poorest on the list is ridiculously wealthy worth $1.3 billion. coming up, e-cigarettes have become a multi billion business but should they be marketed towards children? next. on august 20th,

>> e-cigarettes are called a healthier then cigarette. this do not include tar or other additives that make smoking so dangerous. but there are questions about what is in them. sales have shot up between $1 billion to $1.7 billion this year. reports are they will overtake traditional cigarette sales, those reach $80 billion every year. just how safe are e-cigarettes and how safe are they for minors.

thank you both for joining us. carl, i want to start with you. e-cigarettes do still deliver nicotine which is addictive and have health risks. why should e-cigarettes not be under the sill regulations that regular cigarettes have. >> they should be regulated in various ways. my organization supports, for example, bans on sales to minors. but we shouldn't confuse the effects of e-cigarettes to cigarettes. we're talking about a product 99% less harmful. certainly regulation is a good idea, the right regulation, we shouldn't be thinking of them as

at all similar to cigarettes in terms of their impact on public health. >> as carl says aren't e-cigarettes healthier, and would it help some people get off their addiction of cigarettes. is that not a good thing. >> i like to say that e-cigarettes are less dangerous than cigarettes. cigarettes are by far the most dangerous product on the market. to say that she's less dangerous is like saying jumping out the fifth story of a building is less dangerous than jumping out of the 50th story. if kids smoke cigarettes or take nicotine through e-cigarettes or other forms of tobacco it changes their brain development in ways that they never recover

from. while dr. phil lips i dr. phill, they still deliver forma foremaa hide and other compounds. the nicotine itself could have adverse health evacuates much i. >> it can increase your heart rate. your blood pressure can go up. it can cause nausea and diarrhea and it's addictive. but we've got caffeine out there, alcohol, caffeine perfectly available to children. why--why would e-cigarettes be worse? >> because nicotine is a way more addictive drug than caffeine.

in 1988 the attorney general said that nicotine was an addictive drug. it mimics in your brain nerve cells communicate with. when you put nicotine in your brain. changes the cells in your brain and the chemistry of your brain in ways that never totally reverse. the other thing which you said earlier which i don't think is true is that e-cigarettes help people from smoking. there are two population level studies of people using e-cigarettes to quit smoking. one shows that they don't work. and the other shows that people trying to quit e-cigarettes actually do worse than those who aren't using them. while e-cigarettes are dangerous than cigarettes and less polluting, they're exposing people to toxic chemicals and they're still polluting the air around people who are using th them. >> carl, your response to the

pollution and on whether the e-cigarettes can help people get off cigarettes? >> yeah, there is no question that e-cigarettes help people get off cigarettes. there are hundreds of thousands of americans over a million people worldwide who have quit smoking using e-cigarettes. the large majority of these when asked about their experience to quit spoking report every other method to quit smoking, they were able to quit. in terms of the risks, you mentioned caffeine. that's the perfect analogy. nicotine-absent smoke is very similar to caffeine. it's not all that more difficult to quit nicotine than caffeine. but people who switch to

e-cigarettes typically find they can take them or leave them after they've quit smoking for a while and they're using e-cigarettes. it's a different experience. they keep using e-cigarettes because they know it's low risk. it makes them happier and it improves their lives to use this em. all in all it seems like an upside on every side. in terms of the chemistry and exposures, we recently sponsored a systemic review by a professor in philadelphia. nine thousand observations from studies and concluded there was no reason to believe that the chemicals posed any risk. the nicotine speeds up your heart that creates minor risk. that's why it's 99% less harmful than smoking rather than 100

hers less harmful of smoking. it's basically in terms of abstinence in terms of total risk. let's get reaction. >> thanks, antonio. on twitter says, it's good to see e-cigs stories. now how do you quit addiction to nicotine. it's still an addiction. what do you say to that? >> i mean, i don't understand where dr. phil lips is getting his data. there are peer-reviewed studies of how cigarettes help people quit smoking in the population level and neither one of them actually shows that they help people quit. it may be some people use them and they do better, but what these big studies show is that for everybody that an e-cigarette might help quit there is one person or maybe one

more person who keeps from quitting. the real problem with e-cigarettes which we haven't talked about at all is what called dual use. most people who are using e-cigarettes are still smoking conventional cigarettes at the tamat the same time. >> there is the concern of the appeal to children because of flavors being added in the e-cigarettes. we've run out of time to address that further. i appreciate the discussion, this is a changing industry, and we'll see how it develops. i appreciate you both being with us tonight. the show may be over but the conversation continues on our website. www.aljazeera.com/consider this or on our facebook or google plus pages and you can also find us on twitter. we'll see you next time.

>> good evening, everyone, welcome to aljazeera. i'm john in new york, and here are the top stories. >> legitimate access to the navy yard. >> the u.s. government takes a closer look at how to check federal workers and naval bases after the navy yard shooting. they were just doing their jobs on monday when shots were fired. we're learning more about the victims. and the dc shooting is sparking a new debate over gun control in america.