So the same cannot be said for vehicle exhaust? There is a safe level of vehicle exhaust but not smoking? A safe level of coal burning?
If any and all exposure is cancer causing why did it not make the chart as a leading cause?
Here is the full blown study that answers all our questions. This breaks down the levels by OSHA via direct exposure over a 40 hour work week or 8 hour day
Look at the chart after each chemical breakdown.
1 is the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed nearly all individuals could be exposed up to one hour without experiencing other than mild transient adverse health effect or precieving a clearly defined objectional odor.
http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/urban/natpapp.pdf
200 something pages. Tobacco burning is listed as potential suitors for a small handful of cancer causing agents. However if you look at the OSHA chart representing a 40 hour work week of exposure the amount of concentrated exposure on each one listing tobacco burning as a source is up in the 100X category for almost all of them.
So as far as OSHA is concerned any chemical with the ability to cause cancer associated with tobacco burning would have to expose the average person in a concentrated area 100X the basic mg amount an hour over a 40 hour work week. Thats a pretty profound chart don't you think?
The only chemical that even comes close (10 times the base amount in a concentrated area) is further down the list and the main culprit is diesel fuel however it lists a potential source of tobacco burning as well.
So as far as the EPA is concerned its bad but the exposure as far as OSHA is concerned is 10-100 times the base amount in a concentrated area over a normal 40 hour work week.
I think I've found my answer. If you can't read or understand the chart I'm sorry but this clearly defines the levels of acceptable carcinogens from cancer causing agents that are air-bourne.
So really there is an argument to be made over the concentration of exposure vs. just any exposure. As far as I'm concerned there is no concern of cancer being caused unless you're exposed at a minimum 10X the base amount an hour for a 40 hour work week like diesel fuel or 100X times the amount similar to a wood buring stove over the same period of time.
Your people and its their study.
Practically, this makes sense enough. Logically, it's a fallacy: appeal to authority.
You do your argument no favors by exaggerating the harm of casual exposure.
The refusal of EPA to assign a confidence interval to SHS exposure consistent with other known carcinogens is fishy on its face, and undermines my confidence in it's opinion, yes.
I'll readily admit I'm no expert. That doesn't mean I have to bow and scrape to technocrats who want to manage everyday life..
Winehole the EPA refused to list confidence interval of SHS exposure but I listed an EPA study above where OSHA did.
Surely Blake will find a way to argue against his own peoples study but the smoking gun is listed pretty clearly on the report.
10x to 100x the base exposure of a recognizable odor in a concentrated area where you can't remove yourself over a 40 hour work week.
or sniffing paint cans?
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any place where I've said "damn, I can't stand it in here.......too much vehicle exhaust and/or coal burning"
good questions.If any and all exposure is cancer causing why did it not make the chart as a leading cause?
Here is the full blown study that answers all our questions. This breaks down the levels by OSHA via direct exposure over a 40 hour work week or 8 hour day
Look at the chart after each chemical breakdown.
1 is the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed nearly all individuals could be exposed up to one hour without experiencing other than mild transient adverse health effect or precieving a clearly defined objectional odor.
http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/urban/natpapp.pdf
200 something pages. Tobacco burning is listed as potential suitors for a small handful of cancer causing agents. However if you look at the OSHA chart representing a 40 hour work week of exposure the amount of concentrated exposure on each one listing tobacco burning as a source is up in the 100X category for almost all of them.
So as far as OSHA is concerned any chemical with the ability to cause cancer associated with tobacco burning would have to expose the average person in a concentrated area 100X the basic mg amount an hour over a 40 hour work week. Thats a pretty profound chart don't you think?
The only chemical that even comes close (10 times the base amount in a concentrated area) is further down the list and the main culprit is diesel fuel however it lists a potential source of tobacco burning as well.
So as far as the EPA is concerned its bad but the exposure as far as OSHA is concerned is 10-100 times the base amount in a concentrated area over a normal 40 hour work week.
I think I've found my answer. If you can't read or understand the chart I'm sorry but this clearly defines the levels of acceptable carcinogens from cancer causing agents that are air-bourne.
So really there is an argument to be made over the concentration of exposure vs. just any exposure. As far as I'm concerned there is no concern of cancer being caused unless you're exposed at a minimum 10X the base amount an hour for a 40 hour work week like diesel fuel or 100X times the amount similar to a wood buring stove over the same period of time.
Your people and its their study.
Go ask the surgeon general why he states what he does as fact.
down here in australia its banned in most public places, including pubs/clubs and certain areas of teh casino is smoke free, and smoking in an enclosure where there is a child around is also banned, smoking in a car is also banned if theres a child in the vehicle.
they are thinkn about getting rid of the packaging on ciggy packets.....hahahah fkn lame.
also gp's dont like treating smokers for some reason, but hey watever floats ur boat. Hence the smokers contribute alot of tax through there ciggy purchases anyway, who just want to be treated the same like everyone else.
if you get rid of ciggys in the country, that be a huge blow to the federal budget imo.....
Its all right there for you to read. The government has been pushing its own agenda based on half truths and biased reports without presenting the facts using the same protocol for this type of testing. A slanted view plain and simple. I've provided you with the proof and the full study done by your people that clearly defines the levels of cancer causing particulates that pertain to SHS. I'm guessing your government decided to leave those parts out. Lying by omission some would call it. You're more than welcome to continue to deny it.
no different than restaurant and other business codes.
You do your argument no favors by exaggerating the harm of casual exposure.All I've done is copy and paste from the SGs report.
The SG is the expert and he states it as fact. Sorry, but your opinion that he's wrong means nothing unless proven otherwise in a court of law.The refusal of EPA to assign a confidence interval to SHS exposure consistent with other known carcinogens is fishy on its face, and undermines my confidence in it's opinion, yes.
I'll readily admit I'm no expert. That doesn't mean I have to bow and scrape to technocrats who want to manage everyday life..
I want Blake to call the EPA study that cites OSHA levels an out right lie.
You haven't a leg to stand on if you don't. Because its all laid out factually by your people in that study. You were just not told the entire story.
Oh, ok.....I believe the docmuneted experts, but I'm the one with the slanted view.
Since you got it all figured out, why aren't you running to the media with this important information?
You'd better hurry before they enact the full force ban on smoking.
No, you want the surgeon general to call the EPA study that cites OSHA levels an ouright lie.
Thanks for the heads up, B2B. In such a long thread, it's easy to miss a detail.
Governments can regulate the workplace. No argument from me on this. That doesn't mean it's always necessary or wise to do so. Should science trump everything in a democratic society? I think not.
I also want to know how the EPA is "my people"
too much
No I just want the SG to report all the facts. Be honest and stop supporting the stripping of peoples rights with half truths.
I have provided the burden of proof. However nothing will change. We are slaves to our freedom of government.
Its your people because you used their studies to support what the SG says. Better put the SG uses parts of their studies to support his claims which you use to support your opinion.I also want to know how the EPA is "my people"
too much
There's a DOE study(1994) out there explaining exactly why OSHA didn't follow the EPA's recommendations.
It's called "Choices in Risk Assessment" and is yet another gov't agency ripping the EPA's methodology.
Pgs.177-197 on SHS/OSHA
True enough. But it it might mean something here, where legal validity and appeals to authority don't count for as much.
This is a discussion board. We trade in opinion.You have to convince people. So far, you haven't done a great job, Blake. IMO, your adversaries have been more persuasive in the thread. That doesn't mean they're right or you're wrong. It just means IMHO that they've made the better case.
Well I just supplied you with proof that the SG only presents half if not less than half of the full truth of the actual findings. I don't need a court of law to display the entire picture.
Furthermore my argument was more about people rights than anything. Which by law I've proven.
Then I proved using OSHAs facts in the EPA study that SHS isn't what its made out to be by the SG.
We have provided the full burden of proof. We won the argument. The SG didn't lie he just didn't tell the whole story. I proved that to you.
The argument is over. The only argument left is what to do with a SG that has passed off information as an absolute truth when its proven only to be a portion of the truth.
Answer:
Probably nothing. We're slaves to the system.
I'd sure like Blake to admit that he's wrong though. Not holding my breath.
Right, this is the court of public opinion which doesn't count for much.
And what a shock that you feel I haven't been more persuasive in this thread, being that you picked a side. Frankly, I couldn't care less if 50 unbiased voters got in here and said I sucked at arguing........
The ultimate argument is that the surgeon general in his official capacity made an official statement that it is FACT that SHS is harmful. You can post all you want about this EPA report or that one but at the end of the day, you have NOTHING to combat this because it is now considered FACT.
Again, if you guys have it all figured out that the government, the EPA, the university researchers and the surgeon general are all lying, then why are you wasting time trying to convince me that they are lying?
Why aren't you hounding the WOAI Troubleshooters?
Since we have current laws that say "you do not have the right to do whatever the F you want to do in your own business" then no, you really haven't.
I'll admit that you're wrong.I'd sure like Blake to admit that he's wrong though. Not holding my breath.
SG Carmona was fired.
ing Blake. What a ing moron. What more proof does this wad want.
You're wrong. I proved you wrong with the OSHA EPA report. Are they not the athorities for the facts?
The SG has reported half truths as finite fact. I don't care what athority he has because we've provided the entire study by the same source with all the information that was omited.
SG said SHS was bad. He didn't cite at what levels.
I provided that proof from the very same sources he uses to tell us the SHS is bad.
I didn't prove that SHS wasn't bad I proved that via the studies that SHS smoke is considered cancer causing at 10x to 100x the base level in a concentrated area over a 40 hour work week.
You have your answer. To continue to cite a half truth makes you the dumbest person alive.
you are misdirecting your fukwad rants. Again for the what, 37th time now, I'm just quoting the SG.
Wrong. I already quoted it at least twice.SG said SHS was bad. He didn't cite at what levels.
He stated there is no safe level.
Good job. Now take all your hard work and go to the media.I provided that proof from the very same sources he uses to tell us the SHS is bad.
I didn't prove that SHS wasn't bad I proved that via the studies that SHS smoke is considered cancer causing at 10x to 100x the base level in a concentrated area over a 40 hour work week.
again, misdirection. You mean it makes the SG the dumbest person alive.You have your answer. To continue to cite a half truth makes you the dumbest person alive.
It would be. The cig tax is a very nice addition to anyone'e budget. It's why they also want to tax cola next....
on the flip side, it's also one of many reasons why marijuana it still illegal. People would be able to grow it in their backyard and there would be no way to tax it.
huh?
"Richard Henry Carmona, (born November 22, 1949), is an American physician who was a former vice admiral in the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps and served as the 17th Surgeon General of the United States. As Surgeon General, Carmona served as the head of the Corps. Appointed by President George W. Bush in 2002, Carmona left office at the end of July 2006 upon the expiration of his term. After leaving office, Carmona was highly critical of the Bush Administration for interfering with and suppressing scientific findings which conflicted with the Administration's ideological agenda.
In 2006, Carmona released a landmark Surgeon General's report on the health effects of secondhand smoke.[3] Carmona's report underlined the risks of secondhand smoke exposure; at the time of the report's release, Carmona stated: "The debate is over. The science is clear: Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard."[4] The report encouraged the adoption of indoor smoking bans and noted that such bans did not appear to have a harmful economic effect on bars and restaurants. After leaving office, Carmona testified before Congress that the Bush Administration had tried for years to "water down" his findings on the dangers of secondhand smoke, and had pressured him not to testify in the tobacco industry's racketeering trial.[5]
In earlier testimony before the U.S. Congress, Carmona had stated that he would not object to a ban on all tobacco products "if Congress chose to go that way." The Bush Administration distanced itself from this statement.[6]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carmona
what's this? You mean this guy actually went against towing the Bush company line?
golly gee.
I guess that speaks volumes for the amount of money the government thinks they can make taxing tobacco vs. fighting it like marijuana.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote