Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-17-2008, 03:34 AM
 
109 posts, read 285,737 times
Reputation: 41

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH View Post
That is simply incorrect. Here is the relevant link:

Safety and Health Topics: Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) - OSHA Standards

Again, OSHA is applying a very limited standard, the one contained in Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act, which is the one I quoted before. Their mandate is not, as you claimed, to establish limits where any harm to humans could occur.

OSHA has done air quality sampling and sets limits according to ppm/ppb of benzene and other chemicals that can cause harms to humans.......you are trying to make it seem all osha is tasked with is mechanical harm within a workplace.......osha is tasked with protecting workers,workers are human and as such its humans with respect to chemicals they must set pels to...........second hand smoke does not constitute a health risk according to limits of chemicals osha has set to what harms human beings.


Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS)
Because the organic material in tobacco doesn't burn completely, cigarette smoke contains more than 4,700 chemical compounds. Although OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke......


{In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.............}

read that above........................

For further information to offer to employers/employees as guidance, you may wish to review a document published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about the health effects from environmental tobacco smoke, A Fact Sheet: Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking. Additional information on indoor air quality in general can be found on the Indoor Air Quality Technical Links page on the OSHA website.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-17-2008, 03:38 AM
 
Location: Hell with the lid off, baby!
2,193 posts, read 5,787,805 times
Reputation: 380
Too much bureaucracy and red tape.....I'm getting a headache
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2008, 03:41 AM
 
109 posts, read 285,737 times
Reputation: 41
This is from a congressional meeting on EPA 1993 environmental smoke study
which was thrown out by judge olsteen as junk science...........your smoking ban isnt going to pass the test of time...........the political winds are a changing and your smoking ban is part of the reason why.....................
As you can see its politics driving the smoking bans while prostituting medical science and environmental science to achieve the end...........check the robert woods johnson foundation they are the ones financing these bans thru the ACS and ALA.........JUNK SCIENCE 101



HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. BLILEY, JR.
JULY 21, 1993

Mr. Chairman, I am testifying today in order to report to the
Subcommittee the results of my extensive investigation of the EPA's handling
of the controversy surrounding environmental tobacco smoke or "ETS". As you
know, in the past the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of this
Committee has conducted hearings on EPA's abuses of government contracting
requirements. So pervasive is the level of abuse that Chairman Dingell has
characterized EPA's pattern of contract mismanagement as a "cesspool". EPA's
Inspector General recently has confirmed that such abuses also have taken
place in connection with a number of EPA contracts involving ETS, and the O
and I Subcommittee's own investigation is continuing.
In addition to various contractual improprieties, however, my own
investigation suggests that in its consideration of ETS, the Agency has
deliberately abused and manipulated the scientific data in order to reach a
predetermined, politically motivated result. EPA's risk assessment on ETS
released in January of this year claims that ETS exposure is responsible for
approximately 3,000 lung cancer cases per year in the United States.
Analysis of the risk assessment reveals, however, that EPA was able to reach
that conclusion only by ignoring or discounting major studies, and by
deviating from generally accepted scientific standards.
EPA's willingness to distort the science in order to justify its
classification of ETS as a "Group A" or "known human" carcinogen seems to
stem from the Agency's determination early on to advocate smoking bans and
restrictions as a socially desirable goal. EPA began promoting such policies
in the mid-to late 1980s, ostensibly as part of its efforts to provide
information to the public on indoor air quality issues. The Agency then
decided to develop the ETS risk assessment to provide a scientific
justification for smoking bans. The risk assessment thus was never intended
to be a neutral review and analysis of the ETS science. Rather, it was
intended from the start to function as a prop for the Agency's predetermine
Not surprisingly, therefore, the process at every turn has been
characterized by both scientific and procedural irregularities. In addition
to the contracting violations mentioned at the outset, those irregularities
include conflicts of interest by both Agency staff involved in preparation of
the risk assessment and the members of the Science Advisory Board panel
selected to provide a supposedly independent evaluation of the document. I
will not itemize each and every one of these improprieties. Instead, I ask
consent that a memorandum providing full details of the history of EPA's
handling of ETS be included in the record. The memorandum summarizes the
results thus far of my investigation into the Agency's handling of ETS and is
based on publicly available documents, extensive correspondence between
myself and former Administrator Reilly, and interviews conducted by my staff
with the responsible EPA officials.
The ETS risk assessment is far from an isolated example of EPA's
approach to the use of science in policy making. The Agency's propensity to
scare the public first and ask scientific questions later is both notorious
and well-documented. Alar, dioxin and the removal of asbestos from schools
are other examples. In fact, concern that EPA's pursuit of media headlines
rather than good science was undermining the Agency's credibility caused
former Administrator Reilly to convene an expert panel in early 1991 to
assess EPA's use of science. The expert panel issued a report in March 1992
entitled "Safeguarding the Future: Credible Science, Credible Decisions."
The report states that "[c]urrently, EPA science is of uneven quality and the
Agency's policies and regulations are frequently perceived as lacking a
strong scientific foundation." The expert panel also cautioned EPA, in terms
that are directly relevant to the Agency's work on ETS, that "science should
never by adjusted to fit policy, either consciously or unconsciously."
Unfortunately, in the case of ETS there appears to have been a conscious
misuse of science and the scientific process to achieve a political agenda
that could not otherwise be justified.
EPA betrays its own lack of confidence in its tortured statistics by
refusing to incorporate the results of the ETS-lung cancer study by Brownson
and coworkers. The Brownson study, one of the largest and best designed
studies ever conducted, was funded in part by the National Cancer Institute.
The study looked at exposure to ETS in a variety of settings, at home, at work
and in social environments. The study reported no significant association
between ETS and lung cancer among nonsmokers in spousal or work settings or
from childhood. Even using the highly questionable statistical methods adopted
by EPA in the ETS risk assessment, inclusion of the Brownson study would show
no significant risk of lung cancer from exposure to ETS.
Evidently, publication of the Brownson study caused no small degree of
consternation at EPA. In order to avoid incorporation of the Brownson
study's results into the risk assessment and invalidating EPA's claim that
the epidemiology shows a significant risk, EPA rushed to issue the final
report in early January. Mr. Chairman, given this sort of behavior, in my
judgment we must be very cautious about allowing scientific pronouncements
from EPA to drive public policy decisions.

Last edited by harleyrider1978; 09-17-2008 at 03:52 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2008, 04:11 AM
 
Location: Hell with the lid off, baby!
2,193 posts, read 5,787,805 times
Reputation: 380
Gee, the EPA lying, say it ain't so? Much like they didn't lie about the health hazards at ground zero. Sarcasm intended I know that's frowned upon on this board, but oh well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2008, 04:12 AM
 
Location: Purgatory
396 posts, read 835,791 times
Reputation: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by xyzpdq View Post
Well, then, I URGE smokers not to break the law, so that I don't have to call the cops.

If a smoker isn't able to accommodate me by putting out his or her cigarette, I'm not going to accommodate the smoker by holding back from calling the police.
As a Paramedic, I will tell you this (agreeing with a few other posters): Do NOT call 911 for something small like someone smoking. I deal with real emergencies every shift and I also know that there are people that have been CHARGED for something called Abuse of the 911 System. Calling 911 for someone smoking in a "no smoking zone" is not a real emergency. A real emergency is a Cardiac Arrest or a Shooting or an MVA, etc. BTW, for those that want to argue that obesity is not a public health issue and is only an issue for those that are obese, think about this: I had to have knee surgery because of lifting obese patients. I have a protruding disc in my neck from lifting obese patients. When I say 'lifting' I'm not just talking about a quick lift. There are a number of times where it means carying these people down 3 or more flights of steps. I'm also not talking about someone that's 250 pounds. I am talking more like 300+ and 400+ pounds. And no, where I worked when I still had to do that kind of lifting, we did not have those electric and automatic stretchers.
BTW, I am a smoker, and I have stopped going out as much. That saves me money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2008, 04:18 AM
 
Location: Hell with the lid off, baby!
2,193 posts, read 5,787,805 times
Reputation: 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morale Officer View Post
As a Paramedic, I will tell you this (agreeing with a few other posters): Do NOT call 911 for something small like someone smoking. I deal with real emergencies every shift and I also know that there are people that have been CHARGED for something called Abuse of the 911 System. Calling 911 for someone smoking in a "no smoking zone" is not a real emergency. A real emergency is a Cardiac Arrest or a Shooting or an MVA, etc. BTW, for those that want to argue that obesity is not a public health issue and is only an issue for those that are obese, think about this: I had to have knee surgery because of lifting obese patients. I have a protruding disc in my neck from lifting obese patients. When I say 'lifting' I'm not just talking about a quick lift. There are a number of times where it means carying these people down 3 or more flights of steps. I'm also not talking about someone that's 250 pounds. I am talking more like 300+ and 400+ pounds. And no, where I worked when I still had to do that kind of lifting, we did not have those electric and automatic stretchers.
BTW, I am a smoker, and I have stopped going out as much. That saves me money.
I hear ya. I am a firefighter/emt myself, and former 911 dispatcher. I love when people dial 911 thinking they have an emergency. Granted, some people panic and don't know what to do, or who else to call. But the general public would not believe the stupidity that comes in through those phone lines.

And I'd also like to add that there isn't an endless phone bank of 911 lines, there are only so many. So while you're calling 911 to report a smoking violation, someone who may genuinely have an emergency can't get through! Have you ever heard of having to be put on hold when calling 911? Well, that's why. Because people tie up the emergency number with non-emergencies. So I reiterate, as many others have backed me, DO NOT dial 911 to report this, there is a toll free 800 number to do so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2008, 10:05 AM
 
20,273 posts, read 32,907,757 times
Reputation: 2910
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleyrider1978 View Post
OSHA has done air quality sampling and sets limits according to ppm/ppb of benzene and other chemicals that can cause harms to humans........
Again, "can cause harms to humans" isn't the standard OSHA uses when setting PELs. And having provided a definitive link from OSHA about their actual standard, and your having provided nothing to contradict that link, I view the matter as settled.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2008, 10:10 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
29,653 posts, read 34,161,455 times
Reputation: 76723
What I find fascinating about this discussion is that harleyrider is trying to convince people that cigarette smoke isn't dangerous and that all of this banning is a government conspiracy. I know many smokers, and they all know it's not healthy, it's a bad habit, it's expensive, but they do it anyway. The debate about what people have the right to do and when they can do it has been enlightening. It's just really surprising to come across someone arguing that smoking itself is harmless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2008, 10:19 AM
 
2,488 posts, read 2,917,280 times
Reputation: 830
I think he is just saying second hand smoke is harmless. I posted this on the smoking thread on the PA forum.

Some guy is trying to argue that he is going to get cancer when he walks by people smoking outside. This is the most illogical thing that many people think. It is 10,000 times worse probably breathing in air pollution from cars and industry then smelling cigeratte smoke when walking past somebody. Actually inhaling the cigeratte smoke is bad, but smelling it when walk past somebody.....please.

When I use to smoke, I freakin hated people who waved their hands around their nose or faked cough when they passed me. It is freakin rude. As I was not harming them in anyway, and they had no right to "harass" me. If anybody on this forum is one of those abnoxious anti-smokers that do this when they pass people smoking then please stop. It just makes you look more retarded than the person killing theirselves on cigerattes.

Another thing is, people have a different philosphy on life. Just because you don't smoke and want to live to 90, many smokers dont care. You don't need to call names, and act like you are better than others for making your choice. Alzheimer's disease runs in my family. WHen I smoked I thought I would rather die of lung cancer at 65 than having Alzheimers crapping my pants from 72-80.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-17-2008, 10:54 AM
 
20,273 posts, read 32,907,757 times
Reputation: 2910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awesomo.2000 View Post
When I use to smoke, I freakin hated people who waved their hands around their nose or faked cough when they passed me. It is freakin rude. As I was not harming them in anyway, and they had no right to "harass" me.
You may not have been giving them lung cancer on the spot, but who says you weren't harming them? If they found your smoke irritating to breathe, that is a harm--a small harm when compared to getting cancer, but a harm nonetheless.

Again, it really seems to me smokers are sometimes overlooking the basic fact that their smoke is entering other people's bodies against their will, and they don't like it. Even holding health consequences aside, you just don't have a right to bother other people like that, whereas they have every right to tell you they don't like it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top