Pyrrho
15th June 2003, 03:19 PM
Local story:
http://www.cleveland.com/medical/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1055669547166680.xml
Is this true?
"We all realize that second hand smoke kills 50,000 Americans a year," said Zone. "It's the No. 1 public health hazard we face. Clevelanders should be free to live and work in an environment free of these toxins."
This one is kind of funny...
But Patty Burgbacher and the other Sunoco clerks at the busy intersection of Turney and Rock side roads aren't likely to sign the no-smoking petition. Most of the clerks smoke on the job.
...they work at a gas (petrol) station!
According to this site
http://www1.umn.edu/perio/tobacco/secondhandsmoke.html
Secondhand smoke is the third leading preventable cause of disability and early death (after active smoking and alcohol) in the United States. For every eight smokers who die from smoking, one innocent bystander dies from secondhand smoke.
Then there's this site:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n3e.html
There are two classes of health hazards that have been linked to ETS: lung cancer and heart disease. Most of the public discussion has focused on the lung cancer estimates, whereas the heart disease estimates are both more speculative and much larger in magnitude. Let us consider each of these in turn.
The EPA’s assessment of the lung cancer risks was based on a review of 11 studies of family members exposed to ETS. Only one of the 11 studies indicated statistically significant effects at the 10 percent confidence level, and in some cases the influences were in the "wrong" direction. Such statistically significant results can occur on a random basis. Rather than dismissing the linkages as not well established, the EPA averaged the implications of the studies to obtain a risk estimate. OSHA reviewed the same set of studies and applied different weights to derive a somewhat lower risk estimate.
The scientific studies used for the EPA and OSHA risk assessments in no way adjusted for the changing character of the cigarettes between the time of exposure and the current period, when tar levels in cigarettes are much reduced. In addition, studies of household members, as in all existing ETS studies, involve individuals exposed to much greater concentrations and longer durations of cigarette smoke than in public smoking contexts. The difference is particularly important if there is a no-risk threshold or nonlinear dose-response relationship.
More fundamentally, the studies failed to include the usual kind of detailed multivariate controls that are the norm in economic analysis. Smokers who choose to live in polluted areas or who are married to other smokers will tend to incur nonsmoking risks correlated with ETS because of a difference in risk-taking propensities. For example, my past research with Joni Hersch of the University of Wyoming has established that cigarette smokers and those who do not wear seatbelts are much more willing to work at hazardous jobs. A higher cancer risk for family members of smokers would be consistent with that type of pattern.
...
Now let us consider ETS. OSHA estimates that between 144 and 722 people will die from lung cancer each year because of ETS. If the 74 million nonsmoking American workers exposed to ETS are exposed over their entire 40-year employment expectancy, their lifetime risk ranges from one in ten thousand to four in ten thousand. Thus, the risk of drinking chlorinated water falls between the two bounds of the risk range estimated by OSHA for ETS. When translated into lifetime risks as opposed to risks from a particular exposure, so that both the ETS risks and the chlorinated water risks being discussed by the Court are in the same time dimension, we find that the risks are quite comparable and are of the same general magnitude.
http://www.cleveland.com/medical/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1055669547166680.xml
Is this true?
"We all realize that second hand smoke kills 50,000 Americans a year," said Zone. "It's the No. 1 public health hazard we face. Clevelanders should be free to live and work in an environment free of these toxins."
This one is kind of funny...
But Patty Burgbacher and the other Sunoco clerks at the busy intersection of Turney and Rock side roads aren't likely to sign the no-smoking petition. Most of the clerks smoke on the job.
...they work at a gas (petrol) station!
According to this site
http://www1.umn.edu/perio/tobacco/secondhandsmoke.html
Secondhand smoke is the third leading preventable cause of disability and early death (after active smoking and alcohol) in the United States. For every eight smokers who die from smoking, one innocent bystander dies from secondhand smoke.
Then there's this site:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n3e.html
There are two classes of health hazards that have been linked to ETS: lung cancer and heart disease. Most of the public discussion has focused on the lung cancer estimates, whereas the heart disease estimates are both more speculative and much larger in magnitude. Let us consider each of these in turn.
The EPA’s assessment of the lung cancer risks was based on a review of 11 studies of family members exposed to ETS. Only one of the 11 studies indicated statistically significant effects at the 10 percent confidence level, and in some cases the influences were in the "wrong" direction. Such statistically significant results can occur on a random basis. Rather than dismissing the linkages as not well established, the EPA averaged the implications of the studies to obtain a risk estimate. OSHA reviewed the same set of studies and applied different weights to derive a somewhat lower risk estimate.
The scientific studies used for the EPA and OSHA risk assessments in no way adjusted for the changing character of the cigarettes between the time of exposure and the current period, when tar levels in cigarettes are much reduced. In addition, studies of household members, as in all existing ETS studies, involve individuals exposed to much greater concentrations and longer durations of cigarette smoke than in public smoking contexts. The difference is particularly important if there is a no-risk threshold or nonlinear dose-response relationship.
More fundamentally, the studies failed to include the usual kind of detailed multivariate controls that are the norm in economic analysis. Smokers who choose to live in polluted areas or who are married to other smokers will tend to incur nonsmoking risks correlated with ETS because of a difference in risk-taking propensities. For example, my past research with Joni Hersch of the University of Wyoming has established that cigarette smokers and those who do not wear seatbelts are much more willing to work at hazardous jobs. A higher cancer risk for family members of smokers would be consistent with that type of pattern.
...
Now let us consider ETS. OSHA estimates that between 144 and 722 people will die from lung cancer each year because of ETS. If the 74 million nonsmoking American workers exposed to ETS are exposed over their entire 40-year employment expectancy, their lifetime risk ranges from one in ten thousand to four in ten thousand. Thus, the risk of drinking chlorinated water falls between the two bounds of the risk range estimated by OSHA for ETS. When translated into lifetime risks as opposed to risks from a particular exposure, so that both the ETS risks and the chlorinated water risks being discussed by the Court are in the same time dimension, we find that the risks are quite comparable and are of the same general magnitude.