Not sticking around, just thought you lot would like to know that the Drexel meta-analysis has now been accepted for a peer reviewed publication. This one to be exact.
The myth of second hand vape
- Thread starter p.opus
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Given that the editor's picks are 'Bathroom scales accurate and consistent' and 'Housework is not good exercise', I look forward to the BMC peer review dispelling the myth of 2nd hand vapour once and for all
(not to disparage StormFinch's post - I just found it funny)
*Edit* oh, and special mention to Job insecurity affects work stress - seriously, people get paid to do this kind of 'research'???
Last edited:
What is the reward to bystanders of Wifi (those that choose not to make use of mobile devices)?
Also, if these yet unnamed rewards could come from other technology rather than Wifi, wouldn't it be in best interest of all to aggressively pursue that technology (given the risks)?
Which shoes do I put myself in...
The shoes of a person who climbed to the top by any means necessary?
Or the shoes of a person who somehow made it to the top by doing the right thing?
Because my answer would depend on that.
Please show me the studies that will 100%-ly support your statement.
There are people at the top that made it by doing the right thing! This may come across as me being a smart ... but in reality it's admonishing our culture because I honestly don't believe such a thing happens. I'd be happy if it did but... it doesn't really happen. No way.
Well, for the first scenario, I imagine I would not allow vaping indoors.
And I'm not sure the second scenario is realistic.
Hmm... I'm generally inclined to agree but there's always exceptions to the rule - I can't think of any politicians I'd put on my list of 'people that do the right thing' but I do rather think that Elon Musk is a pretty good example of a genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist
Oh - and there's this guy too
I already tried to announce this twice on this thread. No acknowledgement whatsoever. *sigh*
It should at least give more credence to that study. Thank you for trying also.
Nice journal. Not.
Tax SSBs to reduce consumption?
Ack. Social Engineering via taxation. One of the vilest acts a government can commit.
Tax SSBs to reduce consumption?
Ack. Social Engineering via taxation. One of the vilest acts a government can commit.
Well, for the first scenario, I imagine I would not allow vaping indoors.
And I'm not sure the second scenario is realistic.
Jeeze DC.
I hope you're Not Implying that Everyone who manages a Company or sits on a Board of Regents is a Cold Hearted ....... who would Crawl over his own Mother's Grave to Claw their way to the Top?
Because that Really Isn't True.
Yeah... There are some. But Most are just people thru Hard Work, and sometimes some Luck, were able to get into a Position where they are.
I already tried to announce this twice on this thread. No acknowledgement whatsoever. *sigh*
It should at least give more credence to that study. Thank you for trying also.
It is great that the study will now be published. And peer-reviewed too
And I think I said so as well, in this thread
... that may have got lost in all this "Ring around the Rosie" stuff, however.
I already tried to announce this twice on this thread. No acknowledgement whatsoever. *sigh*
It should at least give more credence to that study. Thank you for trying also.
I don't recall seeing anything about Peer Review of the Drexel Paper.
But it was a Fast Moving Thread.
I think it is Great Development.
All I can tell you is that I would allow vaping indoors, because it's the right thing to do.
But if I made decisions like that, I would never be a CEO or probably even a College Chancellor.
EDIT: Although I will say there is UC Irvine and their decision to allow e-cigs
EDIT: And you probably noticed that I thought that was amazing
EDIT:
Last edited:
Fair Enough.
But No Sooner than you Enact your Indoor Vaping Policy, One of your Best, Most Senior Members of your Staff storms into your office in a Rage and Demands that you Stop Someone from Vaping next to her desk.
And if you don't, she is going to get a Lawyer. Or Quit. Or Both.
Great. Now what do you Do?
Whip out my 44 and shoot her right between the eyes. My defense will be she left me no choice I asked her politely to play nice with everyone and she refused. This type of person is the bain of our society and some might grieve her loss the world is a better place for her not polluting its air any longer with her black mailish behavior and intolerant ways.
The benefit to a business having WiFi is that it brings customers in. There is no benefit to those that don't utilize it, but as I said, the potential risks (to those bystanders) is outweighed by the rewards (those that do use it)
Now, you could argue that a business could benefit the same way by allowing vaping, but that's currently not the case. In a few years, maybe, but not now. The average business would turn off more customers than it would gain by allowing vaping - which is the main reason for not allowing vaping, not health risks.
...
EDIT: Although I will say there is UC Irvine and their decision to allow e-cigs
EDIT: And you probably noticed that I thought that was amazing
EDIT:
JSYK - The UCI Policy is Good. But do understand that it doesn't mean that e-Cigarettes can be Used Anywhere on Campus.
WHAT ABOUT E-CIGARETTES?
Individual campus units may manage e-cigarette use in their own environments as they deem appropriate up to and including prohibiting their use.
FAQ: UCI Smoke-Free Policy Task Force
and...
"Vasich emphasized that e-cigarettes emit vapors, not smoke. Also, he added, individual areas of the campus, such as an office or classroom, have the authority to ban e-cigarettes."
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/cigarettes-595590-campus-tobacco.html
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
