I’ll accept that the distinction among these various types of things in the air may well be technical jargon. In my work, the distinction is sometimes important. It is also one of my pet peeves. We all have them. And yes, vapor implies that it eVAPORated from a liquid.
Now if only someone could explain to us the difference between mist and fog…
That’s easy: Mist is falling.
The distinction may be important for health and safety, and it makes sense to point out the physical difference between the nature of these different things as you have done. But it does not make sense to try to impose a restricted “jargon” definition from your particular technical field on a word that’s widely used both colloquially and in other technical fields. To most people, “fumes” simply does not mean what it means to you, and no amount of peeving will make it so. Are you planning to start a campaign for chemistry labs that are not heating metals to rename their fume cupboards?
And these are all examples of aerosols, and aerosols are a particular type of dispersion.
I have accepted earlier that it may be technical jargon. I don’t know what more you want from me. I’ll continue to differentiate among them so I can tell by the word used what the origin of the aerosol is. You may use whatever term you prefer.
I’m not suggesting that it’s unimportant to differentiate between the various physical forms. But it is likely to detract from your point if you mistakenly frame the issue as one of ignorant misuse of vocabulary by others, which it is not. In order to “nitpick” or have a “pet peeve”, you must at least be technically correct (which we all know is the best kind of of correct); or pushback will inevitably result, most especially on SDMB.