When discussing the issue of second hand smoke, how reliable are the statistics and information disseminiated from the CDC, American Cancer Society, National Institute of Health? There are these and many other organizations that insist ETS is very harmful, but I can't tell, because other studies say the opposite and that they are wrong.
People like to bring up the OSHA action that revoked the ETS standards that were going to be applied and a case in which a judge "vacated" ETS research.
I am very confused on this issue. If all their information is wrong, why are most of the major medical organizations advocating it? Or is the information against it just a silly hoax? I would think the above organizations are reliable.
Second Hand Smoke and Impact Accuracy
Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
-
Boyish-Tigerlilly
- Sith Devotee
- Posts: 3225
- Joined: 2004-05-22 04:47pm
- Location: New Jersey (Why not Hawaii)
- Contact:
-
Broomstick
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 28822
- Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
- Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest
As a general rule, the CDC, ACS, and NIH are reliable institutions. Two of them are funded by the US government, but until the current adminsitration were subject to relatively little political pressure. Even now, they tend to resist the ideological bullshit of the current White House. The NIH is more politicized than the CDC.
OSHA is a government regulatory agency charged with occupational safety, but has long been suspected (sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly) of being the tool of Big Business. Their standards are minimal, and even allow for long-term damage in some occupations. For example, it is expected that nuclear reactor workers will be exposed to hazardous amounts of radiation as part of their occupation and a certain number will, long-term, suffer serious health effects as a result. The sound levels permitted for steel workers, as another example, will cause hearing damage long-term - but that's somehow OK if the people can still carry on a conversation, nevermind the constant tinitus and measurable loss of their upper hearing range.
So, OSHA historically has allowed levels of toxins and health hazards that, while not immediately fatal, do cause permanent damage. On the other hand, the CDC and NIH are interested in determining and controlling these hazards from a medical viewpoint, that is, avoiding long term damage, and the ACS is dedicated to the eventual erradication of cancer and reduction not only of harm but risk. Given that, can you now see how the CDC, ACS, and NIH would declare something an unacceptable hazard that, nonetheless, OSHA tolerates as, for lack of a better term, acceptable collateral damage in an industrial society?
OSHA is a government regulatory agency charged with occupational safety, but has long been suspected (sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly) of being the tool of Big Business. Their standards are minimal, and even allow for long-term damage in some occupations. For example, it is expected that nuclear reactor workers will be exposed to hazardous amounts of radiation as part of their occupation and a certain number will, long-term, suffer serious health effects as a result. The sound levels permitted for steel workers, as another example, will cause hearing damage long-term - but that's somehow OK if the people can still carry on a conversation, nevermind the constant tinitus and measurable loss of their upper hearing range.
So, OSHA historically has allowed levels of toxins and health hazards that, while not immediately fatal, do cause permanent damage. On the other hand, the CDC and NIH are interested in determining and controlling these hazards from a medical viewpoint, that is, avoiding long term damage, and the ACS is dedicated to the eventual erradication of cancer and reduction not only of harm but risk. Given that, can you now see how the CDC, ACS, and NIH would declare something an unacceptable hazard that, nonetheless, OSHA tolerates as, for lack of a better term, acceptable collateral damage in an industrial society?
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
-
Boyish-Tigerlilly
- Sith Devotee
- Posts: 3225
- Joined: 2004-05-22 04:47pm
- Location: New Jersey (Why not Hawaii)
- Contact:
Ahh thanks. That seems to work well with the new information I got. I spent all night searching, because something had to be up.
I recently found out that the ETS standards the judge supposedly attacked, thus handing the case to the Tobacco company, and thus embarassing the EPA, was totally bogus. Apparently, the American Heart Association claims that the Big Tobacco corporations that funded the defense bribed scientists to falsify the scientific evidence to make it look as if ETS wasn't harmful. THat's probably why all those major medical institutions still claim ETS is bad; they were never wrong, but rather defamed.
I recently found out that the ETS standards the judge supposedly attacked, thus handing the case to the Tobacco company, and thus embarassing the EPA, was totally bogus. Apparently, the American Heart Association claims that the Big Tobacco corporations that funded the defense bribed scientists to falsify the scientific evidence to make it look as if ETS wasn't harmful. THat's probably why all those major medical institutions still claim ETS is bad; they were never wrong, but rather defamed.