Old Man

Check out Navien tankless heaters. I have the boiler and domestic hot water combo in my house and it’s been great. Expensive to buy, but cheap to run.

Thanks Ralph

Had my Xi 5 for 2 years. Love it. Don't over look it. On anchor, it holds Crestliner Fishhawk on spot even in heavy winds.

Thanks. The number of them out here makes it easy to capture images like this.

Thanks. It’s not hard to get shot’s like this in Sunset Country.

Actually, I have a series of photos of him sitting as I eased my boat closer and closer until he figured I was getting to close. This was the best of the in flight photos. Here's a couple more.

Hurts to read, just like this is for any single mom or struggling working family out there.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/12/02/justin-trudeau-billing-taxpayers-for-nannies-is-hypocritical-lisa-raitt-says_n_8695068.html

That hurts to read

Anything to do with Liberal governments usually hurts to read.

$37 Billion needlessly removed from the Ontario economy from 2006 to 2014. Another $133 Billion projected by 2032.

http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2015/12/02/ontario-consumers-likely-paying-billions-extra-for-hydro-one-decisions-auditor-general.html

Outstanding.

Westward Tools, sold by Acklands. Worth about $700 new. //www.acklandsgrainger.com/AGIPortalWeb/WebSource/ProductDisplay/globalProductDetailDisplay.do?item_code=WSWSAK347

Those are stunning shots. Great job

Your last statement is true.

 

The rest is well, ignorant at best.

 

That is the IDEA, but it is not truth.

 

Because most studies are indeed funded with a conflict of interest. And its almost impossible to get around, because the scientists participating in the studies cannot fund them personally.

 

Science is as corrupt as the government, for example. If what your saying is true about tour backround, you either know this or you were not paying attention.

 

Ah... tinfoil hat time. Any research that doesn't fit a persons agenda must be corrupt. So obviously 21 separate scientist where bought and paid for, 22 if you count the U of W author. So what is the magic number of studies or scientists required to prove something?

It's a shame I'm so ignorant about science, I wonder how I ever made a living at it, oh right I was bought off I forgot because I wasn't paying attention.

Whats your backround in science?

 

Im not patting myself on the back here, but you are completely wrong. That and your bursting nobodies bubble(not even the one you apperently live in)

 

I am pro marijuana yes, but scientifically I have zero ties to the issue and Im just an occasional smoker of little amounts.

 

This decision alters my life in no way, so Im looking at it without any conflict of interest.

 

21 peer reviewed studies mean little to nothing if the studies are flawed from the get go.

 

And "peer reviewed" also means nothing, as these people are often funded in some way or form from those that have held interest in said studies.

 

Can you go to pubmed, log in, present a study you feel worthy, and tell me about the results and what they mean?

 

I will wait patiently

 

Oh and studies done over decades also doesnt help your cause. Ie studies done during a "drug war", huge advances in technolgies etc deem many older studies irrelevant.

What peer review studies mean is that when a scientist concludes a research project, they write the results up in the form of a paper which includes the hypothesis of the study, a literature review of related studies, the methods used, sources or origin of the data, the amount of data, the way the data was analyzed, the conclusions from the analysis and submits it to a scientific journal, a board of his peers will sit review and pick apart if need be anything they may think falls short of sound research methods. This is done to assure that the quality of the information is sound because that information will be review and used by other scientists in furthering the research and knowledge within that field. The fact that the University of Washington author used (referenced) 21 separate studies in writing this gives it more credence than most of the non reference crap that is publish on the net nowadays,

My background in science is in biology and agriculture. I made my living as a plant breeder and through the years wrote and submitted many papers of my own to journals.

Dispute what you want, but the fact of what cannabis smoke contains is easily proven with the use of mass spectrometry and has been known for years.

Just because the article (based on 21 separate studies conducted over decades and submitted to peer reviewed journals) points out that smoke from cannabis contains many known carcinogens, 3 times the tar and higher levels of ammonia and hydrogen cyanide it must be junk compared with the Pseudoscience common nowadays that claims it's almost a health food. Sorry to burst your bubble with the facts. Smoke from cannabis is as harmful as smoke from any other source.

For your reading pleasure

http://adai.uw.edu/marijuana/factsheets/respiratoryeffects.htm

Personally I think the following are the best thirteen. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18 mind you, there's nothing bad about any of them

I suspect the oil level and engine light is just a coincidence. You have another issue, ie. malfunctioning O2 sensor, ignition issue etc. etc. Can be one of a 1000 parameters tracked by your cars power train control module. Only way to know for sure what it is, is to dump the codes. Either buy a OBDII code reader or take it in to get them read.