In light of these findings, the best that the study authors could do to implicate electronic cigarettes as a human health hazard was to proclaim that "e-cigarettes are not emission-free." If that is the worst thing that thsee researchers can say, then it certainly doesn't appear to rise to the level of a known health hazard for which government intervention is necessary at this time.

What the story demonstrates is that Dr. Glantz has a pre-determined set of conclusions about electronic cigarettes and the tobacco companies' role in inappropriately marketing these products to addict a new generation of kids. When presented with information, he jumps to an immediate interpretation and conclusion that supports his pre-determined schema. Instead of exercising critical judgment and objective evaluation of the evidence, he immediately twists the facts to support his pre-existing position. Dr. Glantz is just one example of a phenomenon that characterizes a number of researchers and tobacco control groups that are vehement opponents of electronic cigarettes for ideological, rather than valid scientific reasons.

According to an in the Sand Paper, the New Jersey state legislature has passed legislation that would ban smoking in all state parks and beaches, with no exceptions. Smoking would also be banned in municipal parks, but localities would be allowed to designate 15% of the park as a smoking area.

LAST：Top sales wonderful stuff super atomizer ce5 clearomizer 2013 |NEXT：online shopping original smok revive DCT dual rebuild cartomizer dct