Just posting this up cause we have had two somewhat contrary stories recently:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journali...s-indoors-says-World-Health-Organisation.html
Whenever I read these things though I have to ask if the writers can actually read:
http://www.vaporwebvending.com/docs/studytwo.pdf
I have found maybe 4 articles refuting the idea that second hand vaping is a significant threat, and only one saying there is even a remote chance of it having a noticeable effect on air quality for bystanders, no points for guessing which lobbyists funded the one.
Journalists annoy me with how they twist information.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journali...s-indoors-says-World-Health-Organisation.html
Whenever I read these things though I have to ask if the writers can actually read:
http://www.vaporwebvending.com/docs/studytwo.pdf
I have found maybe 4 articles refuting the idea that second hand vaping is a significant threat, and only one saying there is even a remote chance of it having a noticeable effect on air quality for bystanders, no points for guessing which lobbyists funded the one.
Journalists annoy me with how they twist information.
