IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags smoke

Reply
Old 10th January 2007, 10:20 AM   #161
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 30,668
Originally Posted by strathmeyer View Post
Yeah, the whole problem that that particular episode was that they were debunking one story and acting like it solved the whole issue.

The issue isn't "does second hand smoke cause cancer," the issue is "do bartenders who can't be around second hand smoke deserve to be gaurenteed a working environment".
No, he does not, if the environment is "a bar where people can also smoke if they want to." If you don't like it, you should leave, not that you should jam your ideas down the bar's throat.

And, furthermore, that is not the real issue. The real issue is, "Can we smoke haters find a justification to get smoking banned everywhere? Hmmm, second hand smoke provides a mild threat. Let's feign we're suddenly concerned with the welfare of bar workers, when really we just hate smoke."

That's the real issue at stake here. "Follow the money".
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 11:26 AM   #162
Eos of the Eons
Mad Scientist
 
Eos of the Eons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 13,626
I thought P & T said they would revisit the issue in a future episode?

As a person with an allergy to tobaccy, I'm relieved I can now work, go to school, and patronize places without coming out wheezing, covered in a rash, and dealing with water blisters and itchy eyes, nose, ears, etc.

I tried to work for 3 months in a place where smoking was allowed (they didn't tell me this beforehand), and by the end of it I quit. It caused my allergies to flare, my mood to hit bottom for being so uncomfortable all the time, and for some reason I got all shaky and fatigued too. It really harmed my work performance in the office. Taking antihistamines every day really didn't help much, and they make me drowsy and irritable too, just minus as much itchy allergy symptoms, wheezing, and rash.

The restaurants I worked in way back weren't so bad, because they had much better ventilation and people maybe had one smoke after their meals. Workers weren't allowed to smoke in the kitchen, and that was pretty much smoke free. Made a difference. The office had the crap billowing around 100% of the time.

I'm glad I can go to any restaurant or establishment now without the steenk and allergy flare up for hanging around an hour or so. It's sooo nice.
__________________
Motion affecting a measuring device does not affect what is actually being measured, except to inaccurately measure it.
the immaterial world doesn't matter, cause it ain't matter-Jeff Corey
my karma ran over my dogma-vbloke
The Lateral Truth: An Apostate's Bible Stories by Rebecca Bradley, read it!
Eos of the Eons is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 12:33 PM   #163
cafink
Thinker
 
cafink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by Eos of the Eons View Post
As a person with an allergy to tobaccy, I'm relieved I can now work, go to school, and patronize places without coming out wheezing, covered in a rash, and dealing with water blisters and itchy eyes, nose, ears, etc.
Quote:
I'm glad I can go to any restaurant or establishment now without the steenk and allergy flare up for hanging around an hour or so. It's sooo nice.
I know exactly how you feel! The Louisiana State Legislature just enacted the "Lousiana Smoke-Free Air Act." It feels liberating to be able to dine in any restaurant without worrying about getting a table away from the smoking section.

Even stronger than that liberation, however, is a feeling of disgust stemming from the knowledge that my desire for a smoke-free environment is being satisfied not out of consideration for me as a customer, or because the business owner feels strongly about the cause, but because he's been bullied into it. His restaurant is a privately-owned business, and he ought to have the right to permit (or disallow) smoking in it every bit as much as I have the right to disallow (or permit) smoking in my privately-owned home.

Allow business owners the right to run their operation as they see fit. No law is necessary to tell them whether a policy is good or bad--a business owner will learn the difference when he balances the books.

A non-smoking policy (as in a restaurant, bar, or other place of business) is a good thing, in my opinion, because I don't like smoke. However, forcing others (as through legislation) to do anything--good or bad--is a bad thing.

Last edited by cafink; 10th January 2007 at 12:35 PM.
cafink is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 12:51 PM   #164
Merko
Graduate Poster
 
Merko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,899
Well, my libertarian principles tell me it should be all up to bar owners to permit smoking, or not. However..

This has been the case everywhere until a few years ago. How many non-smoking bars have you ever seen? I know that I haven't come across a single one. Ok, so we might then think that this is because the overwhelming majority prefers smoke in bars, so there's just no market for non-smoking bars.

Then, a few years ago, there was a new health regulation put in place in Sweden. Bars and restaurant were required to provide smoke-free, well-ventilated areas. It turned out practically nobody built ventilation, everybody just banned all indoors smoking.

So what happened, people stopped going to bars? Nope. There was a huge public outcry against the ban? Nope. Polls showed that 90% supported the law, after it was in place. There had been a lot of criticism before the law was passed, but very little of that was seen afterwards. The restaurant industry, who opposed the law beforehand, switched around when they saw the consequences.


So in the end.. my conclusion is more that this is one of those cases which show that market forces don't really express infinite wisdom. Sometimes a governmental 'push' can do wonders. And I'm sure if there is a market for smoking bars, there are some bars, somewhere, offering the legally required ventilation. I just haven't found any..
Merko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 01:26 PM   #165
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
Originally Posted by Beerina View Post
And, furthermore, that is not the real issue. The real issue is, "Can we smoke haters find a justification to get smoking banned everywhere? Hmmm, second hand smoke provides a mild threat. Let's feign we're suddenly concerned with the welfare of bar workers, when really we just hate smoke."
I think that summarizes the problem. The legitimate workplace exposure issue gets buried by the "smoke haters" looking for a justification. This means that the discussion rarely focuses on relevant issues, and that there is a large degree of mistrust about what people say the evidence shows.

Linda
fls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 01:51 PM   #166
jimlintott
Master Poster
 
jimlintott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,893
Quote:
Allow business owners the right to run their operation as they see fit. No law is necessary to tell them whether a policy is good or bad--a business owner will learn the difference when he balances the books.
I just grabbed this quote because it says what so many people say about the smoking bans.

Well, why shouldn't coal mines be allowed to employ ten year olds? Why does a factory need certain lighting and sound level standards? Workplace safety.

Many of you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that smoking is banned for the comfort of customers. Smoking is banned because it is a dangerous chemical that is not only cacinogenic but also contains a highly addictive drug. Why should the food and beverage industry get a free pass on workplace safety?
__________________
If you are going to throw caution to the wind, make sure you are standing upwind.
jimlintott is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 01:53 PM   #167
Ivor the Engineer
Philosopher
 
Ivor the Engineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,536
Hey Linda,

What about the argument that goes if you give smokers less opportunities to smoke then perhaps they'll smoke less? Or should personal fredom extend to allowing healthy people to kill themselves?

And just think of the dry cleaning bills everyone will save on.
Ivor the Engineer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 02:09 PM   #168
cafink
Thinker
 
cafink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by jimlintott View Post
I just grabbed this quote because it says what so many people say about the smoking bans.

Well, why shouldn't coal mines be allowed to employ ten year olds? Why does a factory need certain lighting and sound level standards? Workplace safety.

Many of you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that smoking is banned for the comfort of customers. Smoking is banned because it is a dangerous chemical that is not only cacinogenic but also contains a highly addictive drug. Why should the food and beverage industry get a free pass on workplace safety?
I don't think the food and beverage industry should get a free pass on workplace safety. At least, not any more so than any other industry. Until your post, however, no other industry was discussed.

Since you asked specifically: I would be in favor of relaxing the governmental regulations on workplace safety. A person does not have to work in a factory whose conditions he deems unsafe any more than he does in a restaurant or bar that permits smoking.

Because safety is important to me, I would be totally in support of a private organization that judged workplace safety. Workers who value their safety (a group that I would hope includes all workers!) would be free to seek employment only with those firms who volunarily complied with this organization's policies and whose workplace environments were deemed safe.

Because freedom is also important to me, I don't believe the government should have anything to do with this process.

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer View Post
What about the argument that goes if you give smokers less opportunities to smoke then perhaps they'll smoke less? Or should personal fredom extend to allowing healthy people to kill themselves?
I'm not Linda, but if you happen to be interested in my opinion:

Of course it should. What kind of freedom do I have if I don't have the freedom to do something stupid or harmful to myself?

Last edited by cafink; 10th January 2007 at 02:21 PM.
cafink is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 02:33 PM   #169
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by cafink View Post
Since you asked specifically: I would in favor of relaxing the governmental regulations on workplace safety. A person does not have to work in a factory whose conditions he deems unsafe any more than he does in a restaurant or bar that permits smoking.

Because safety is important to me, I would be totally in support of a private organization that judged workplace safety. Workers who value their safety (a group that I would hope includes all workers!) would be free to seek employment only with those firms who volunarily complied with this organization's policies and whose workplace environments were deemed safe.
So, let's try this out on a scenario based on a question I posted earlier (that nobody has yet answered) ~

Originally Posted by baron
Would you find it acceptable to scrap fire safety legislation in privately-owned businesses? Oh, this club doesn't have a fire escape but that's OK because the business owner doesn't want one. People don't have to go if they don't want to, right?
The club owner, being lazy, declines not to comply with the voluntery safety organisation. He opens his club and a fire occurs. The club burns down and because there is no fire safety equipment or fire escape, everyone dies.

In your view, it would not be the club owner's fault the these people died, it would be the employees' fault for choosing to work in an unsafe environment, and presumably the customers' fault for going there?

Does this seem reasonable?

If this seems a little extreme, then let's examine your ideas further ~

Quote:
Workers who value their safety (a group that I would hope includes all workers!) would be free to seek employment only with those firms who volunarily complied with this organization's policies and whose workplace environments were deemed safe.
So, a packer decides to look for a job in a factory. To do this, you are saying this person needs firstly to be fully conversant with all hundreds of potential safety risks in that factory and be able to evaluate them against the measures put in place by the company (assuming public disclosure of these measures is not voluntary also). In other words, in addition to being a factory packer, this person also needs advanced health and safety training combined with an inordinate amount of free time in order to evaluate the safety of each prospective establishment.

Does this seem reasonable?

And let's not even broach the subject of workers who don't have the luxury of choice and need to grab work where they can get it.

Last edited by baron; 10th January 2007 at 02:36 PM. Reason: added rather crucial "not"
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 03:08 PM   #170
Greyman
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 70
Originally Posted by baron View Post
So, let's try this out on a scenario based on a question I posted earlier (that nobody has yet answered) ~



The club owner, being lazy, declines not to comply with the voluntery safety organisation. He opens his club and a fire occurs. The club burns down and because there is no fire safety equipment or fire escape, everyone dies.

In your view, it would not be the club owner's fault the these people died, it would be the employees' fault for choosing to work in an unsafe environment, and presumably the customers' fault for going there?

Does this seem reasonable?

If this seems a little extreme, then let's examine your ideas further ~

So, a packer decides to look for a job in a factory. To do this, you are saying this person needs firstly to be fully conversant with all hundreds of potential safety risks in that factory and be able to evaluate them against the measures put in place by the company (assuming public disclosure of these measures is not voluntary also). In other words, in addition to being a factory packer, this person also needs advanced health and safety training combined with an inordinate amount of free time in order to evaluate the safety of each prospective establishment.

Does this seem reasonable?

And let's not even broach the subject of workers who don't have the luxury of choice and need to grab work where they can get it.
Lets look at some of the safety factors here.

A fire will damage you. Heavy crates falling on you will damage you. Excessive volume <extreme> will damage you. Excessive chemicals will damage you.

See a pattern forming in what our current safety laws prevent?

In all cases things we have laws protecting against WILL cause damage, not may increase the risk of damage, WILL cause damage.

Show me conclusivly that second hand smoking is as harmful as the majority of these factors and you may have a point. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.
Greyman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 03:10 PM   #171
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer View Post
Hey Linda,

What about the argument that goes if you give smokers less opportunities to smoke then perhaps they'll smoke less?
Like seatbelt and helmut laws? What about it?

Quote:
Or should personal fredom extend to allowing healthy people to kill themselves?
Do I have a duty to try to stop you from killing yourself? Yes. Part of belonging to a social group means recognizing that individual members have value and that we have a responsibility for the care of others. This means that it should not be made difficult for you to make informed choices. And that it is reasonable to provide an environment in which it is easier for you to make choices that you consider to your benefit.

Personal freedom should extend to allowing healthy people to make choices that could include death as an outcome. But that shouldn't serve as an excuse for neglect on our part. It is a delicate balancing act, and anti-smoking laws for the sake of reducing opportunity shows us where the line is, I think.

Quote:
And just think of the dry cleaning bills everyone will save on.
So you are in favour of stifling the growth of small businesses?

Linda
fls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 03:15 PM   #172
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
Originally Posted by Greyman View Post
Lets look at some of the safety factors here.

A fire will damage you. Heavy crates falling on you will damage you. Excessive volume <extreme> will damage you. Excessive chemicals will damage you.

See a pattern forming in what our current safety laws prevent?

In all cases things we have laws protecting against WILL cause damage, not may increase the risk of damage, WILL cause damage.

Show me conclusivly that second hand smoking is as harmful as the majority of these factors and you may have a point. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.
It is more reasonable to compare regulating second-hand smoke to regulations protecting us against other carcinogens. Your argument breaks down in that situation.

Linda
fls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 03:15 PM   #173
Deus Ex Machina
Critical Thinker
 
Deus Ex Machina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 495
Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer View Post
Hey Linda,

What about the argument that goes if you give smokers less opportunities to smoke then perhaps they'll smoke less? Or should personal fredom extend to allowing healthy people to kill themselves?
well that argument went out of the window when I turned 18.

It is not up to anyone else to "give" me opportunities, less or more, in order to control my health.

You seem to forget that something is going to kill you and no act of congress/parliament is going to change that.

I've made my decisions and my trade offs. If do not force you to follow my judgements on this, why would you feel the need to force me to follow yours?

I happen to enjoy smoking while I am having a few beers. I am quite willing to forgo expecting a non-smoking bar to accomodate my wishes and avoid going there. I would expect the same courtesy from non-smokers about going into a bar that permits it.

Ah well, I can, for the moment, sit out on my deck with Stella Artois in one hand, a cigaret in the other and enjoy a good sunset or mooonrise over the Colorado plains.

That is, of course, until the puritan gestapo decide that I am not allowed to smoke on my own property, that beer is the brew of the devil and must be banned and they find a way to tax sunsets.

[rule 8] 'em all.
__________________
My principles? They are very much for sale and surprisingly cheap. I take credit cards.

Last edited by Deus Ex Machina; 10th January 2007 at 03:19 PM.
Deus Ex Machina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 03:22 PM   #174
cafink
Thinker
 
cafink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by baron View Post
So, let's try this out on a scenario based on a question I posted earlier (that nobody has yet answered) ~

The club owner, being lazy, declines not to comply with the voluntery safety organisation. He opens his club and a fire occurs. The club burns down and because there is no fire safety equipment or fire escape, everyone dies.

In your view, it would not be the club owner's fault the these people died, it would be the employees' fault for choosing to work in an unsafe environment, and presumably the customers' fault for going there?

Does this seem reasonable?
Firefighting is one of the few duties that I think probably should be handled by the government. That's because, unlike smoking, a fire has the potential to harm even those who don't patronize the offending establishment. A building that is on fire poses a threat to surrouding buildings and to people in the area.

Therefore, I don't think it's unreasonable to enact mandatory, government-enforcable fire safety regulations, just as we have right now in the United States.

Quote:
If this seems a little extreme, then let's examine your ideas further ~

So, a packer decides to look for a job in a factory. To do this, you are saying this person needs firstly to be fully conversant with all hundreds of potential safety risks in that factory and be able to evaluate them against the measures put in place by the company (assuming public disclosure of these measures is not voluntary also). In other words, in addition to being a factory packer, this person also needs advanced health and safety training combined with an inordinate amount of free time in order to evaluate the safety of each prospective establishment.
No. I did not, in fact, say that. If you'll re-read my previous post, you'll surely notice that I specifically supported the establishment of a private safety organization. The packer doesn't need to know anything about workplace safety; he need only trust this safety organization to alert him to potential safety hazards, much like he trusts the MPAA to alert him to films that might be inapropriate for his children, much like he trusts Consumer Reports to alert him to the drawbacks of the new cell phone he's thinking of purchasing, and much like he trusts the government to do the exact same safety-monitoring job right now.

This organization needn't operate significantly differently than existing regulatory agencies, with the important exception that the government would not be involved, so participation and compliance would not be compulsory.

Last edited by cafink; 10th January 2007 at 03:24 PM.
cafink is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 03:22 PM   #175
malha111
Student
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 34
We have a nationwide ban on smoking in all establishments wich serve food and/or beverages here in Sweden. I'm a former smoker (quit half a year after the ban, but not because of it and still smokes when I drink alcohol) and I must say it's a wonderful thing. And after all — it's not that hard to go outside to have a smoke.
malha111 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 03:29 PM   #176
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,416
Originally Posted by Hittman View Post
What matters is that tintinus is a very real illness that can cause very real pain, for days, for someone exposed to loud noises.
Not to make light of your statement, but is that the disease where you slowly turn into a Belgian reporter with a cowlick and a white dog?
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 03:30 PM   #177
Greyman
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 70
Originally Posted by fls View Post
It is more reasonable to compare regulating second-hand smoke to regulations protecting us against other carcinogens. Your argument breaks down in that situation.

Linda
I agree and was speaking to this discrepancy in Barons challenge that ignoring fire safety <and other work safety measures> is the same as allowing second hand smoke.

I may have taken Barons post differently than it was meant. It wouldn't be the first time.

Speaking of carcinogens. What are the workplace safety measures in place re: carcinogens? How does secondhand smoke measure up when compared to them?

Last edited by Greyman; 10th January 2007 at 03:34 PM. Reason: i r a gud spelr
Greyman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 03:35 PM   #178
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,416
Originally Posted by fls View Post
It is more reasonable to compare regulating second-hand smoke to regulations protecting us against other carcinogens. Your argument breaks down in that situation.

Linda
Particularly re: "chemicals". Benzine "may" cause damage. Vicose "may" cause damage. Heavy metals "may" cause damage. Coal dust "may" cause damage.

Ionizing radiation "may" cause damage. Depends on a lot of unpredictable factors, such as intensity and duration of exposure and genetic predisposition.

So, exposure to toxins, mutagens, carcinogens, teratogens, &c, is covered by occupational code.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 03:42 PM   #179
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 90,529
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
I thought there were ground rules for cancer studies. Like exposure must double the rates, elimination/treatment must halve the rates, otherwise statistics/clusters can overly influence a study. Look at the 2,000,000 deaths in this country every year, 2,500 hundred extra from hand-me-down smoke is a pretty small risk.
Casebro, all research results of this nature include statistical analysis giving the probability the results are from chance alone. Results are typically reported as confidence [level] of P<5 or P<1 meaning less than 5% or 1% respectively, chance of a false result.

There are no ground rules as you are describing per se. Maybe someone described the statistical analysis in over-simplistic terms and that is what you are recalling.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 03:45 PM   #180
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 90,529
Here I am again thinking this is a new thread and when I post I see there are 5 pages and it's an older thread. I have to start remembering to check that. D'oh

Never mind, the above was probably addressed in the previous 5 pages.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 03:46 PM   #181
Greyman
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 70
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
Particularly re: "chemicals". Benzine "may" cause damage. Vicose "may" cause damage. Heavy metals "may" cause damage. Coal dust "may" cause damage.

Ionizing radiation "may" cause damage. Depends on a lot of unpredictable factors, such as intensity and duration of exposure and genetic predisposition.

So, exposure to toxins, mutagens, carcinogens, teratogens, &c, is covered by occupational code.
Which is why the word "excessive" is in there.

They are regulated to levels that don't harm or are drastically less harmful.

Is secondhand smoke at its most common levels as harmful as any of those "toxins, mutagens, carcinogens, teratogens, &c." at levels that required regulation?

If so, where did you learn this and can you share this evidence.

If not, at what level would secondhand smoke be as harmful as the levels of those "toxins, mutagens, carcinogens, teratogens, &c." at levels that required regulation and is this level attainable in a bar worker situation?
Greyman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 03:51 PM   #182
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,416
Originally Posted by cafink View Post
No. I did not, in fact, say that. If you'll re-read my previous post, you'll surely notice that I specifically supported the establishment of a private safety organization. The packer doesn't need to know anything about workplace safety; he need only trust this safety organization to alert him to potential safety hazards, much like he trusts the MPAA to alert him to films that might be inapropriate for his children, much like he trusts Consumer Reports to alert him to the drawbacks of the new cell phone he's thinking of purchasing, and much like he trusts the government to do the exact same safety-monitoring job right now.
Wouldn't work: the government's greatest power is surprise inspections. Consumer Reports has access to these cellphones whether the manufacturer wants it or not, so we have fair reports. In the case of a restaurant, they 'clean up nice' for scheduled inspections, but 99% of infractions are caught on surprise visits, with business as usual.

Also: private evaluators run the risk of holding back due to litigation, and reduce their scope accordingly. They also have smaller budgets. Remember: most restaurant problems revolve around food contamination or adulteration (read: horsemeat), testing for which requires labs and staff in every municipality. Consumer Reports' entire budget wouldn't cover the restaurants in one city, much less all those interested.

The other problem with restaurants revolves around the concept of currency: restaurants change owners and managers frequently, so they need to be tested at least annually. More if there are complaints. Do we really want to have to *buy* a copy of the Restaurant Reviewer every time we want to grab a cheeseburger? Who could offord that?

Judging by the number of businesses that join the BBB (fewer than 1% of businesses join the BBB), there probably isn't much interest in objective, private, third-party oversight.

And judging by the number of businesses that break the rules because they think they can get away with it (my FIL is a municipal health inspector, and I worked in a lab doing immunoassays testing for adulteration), it is interesting how little damage a bad reputation does a restuarant. Especially in small towns where most of the business is through-traffic.



Originally Posted by cafink View Post
This organization needn't operate significantly differently than existing regulatory agencies, with the important exception that the government would not be involved, so participation and compliance would not be compulsory.
Which means it would be like the BBB: irrelevant.

I don't know how many times I've heard my friends say: "I'll complain to the BBB!" I ask: "Are the business in question a member?" "No." "Then why would they care? You might as well call your mom."

My motto regarding public health: "A stitch in time saves nine." Common sense, really. Why should the bankrupt family with the dead father be responsible for seeking justice for a wrongful death, when the whole mess is easily avoidable?
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 03:58 PM   #183
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 90,529
Originally Posted by Greyman View Post
....

Speaking of carcinogens. What are the workplace safety measures in place re: carcinogens? How does secondhand smoke measure up when compared to them?
OSHA federal regulations break down exposures by route of exposure, biohazards and separately for handling hazardous materials.

Here is the section on airborne contaminants.

All states must meet federal standards and some states just use the standards directly and have OSHA enforcement as well. A fair number of states have their own SHA and have additional requirements and enforce them via the state agency. In states with their own health administration, federal government agencies within the state like the VA hospitals still only fall under OSHA regulations.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 03:59 PM   #184
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
Originally Posted by Greyman View Post
I agree and was speaking to this discrepancy in Barons challenge that ignoring fire safety <and other work safety measures> is the same as allowing second hand smoke.

I may have taken Barons post differently than it was meant. It wouldn't be the first time.
I see. I also don't know if Baron used the example because he/she considered it comparable or whether it was chosen because it makes the issue more obvious.

Quote:
Speaking of carcinogens. What are the workplace safety measures in place re: carcinogens? How does secondhand smoke measure up when compared to them?
I started to answer this question and then realized that I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "measure up". Can you elaborate?

ETA: Nevermind. I see you answered my question in another post. I'll take another go at answering your question.

Linda

Last edited by fls; 10th January 2007 at 04:02 PM.
fls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 04:00 PM   #185
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,416
Originally Posted by skeptigirl View Post
Casebro, all research results of this nature include statistical analysis giving the probability the results are from chance alone. Results are typically reported as confidence [level] of P<5 or P<1 meaning less than 5% or 1% respectively, chance of a false result.

There are no ground rules as you are describing per se. Maybe someone described the statistical analysis in over-simplistic terms and that is what you are recalling.
I think what he meant was that there is an established standard for 'concern'. In non-cancer studies, we not only look for statistical significance, but also clinical significance.

An example in my own field was an antiviral that reduced viral load by 90%, with a p<=.01. So, this means it really did reduce viral load, from a statistical point of view. The problem is that a 90% reduction in viral loads from, say, 10,000 to 1,000 is still a dead patient, so there is no value in the product.

In reverse (imaginary example), there could be statistical proof that a carcinogen increases the risk of cancer in a population, p<=.01. OK: it really does. But it increases the risk by one billionth of a percent, so let's let this one slide.

We talk often about the fact that 'the dosage makes the poison', and my Merck confirms that pretty much everything has a TD50 or now the new ED50 standard. But not everything is considered 'carcinogenic enough to ban.'



So: there is no burning bush on this, but the Standard Mortality Ratio is popular. I found a handy online calculator: SMR
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 04:13 PM   #186
jimlintott
Master Poster
 
jimlintott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,893
Originally Posted by cafink View Post
I don't think the food and beverage industry should get a free pass on workplace safety. At least, not any more so than any other industry. Until your post, however, no other industry was discussed.

Since you asked specifically: I would be in favor of relaxing the governmental regulations on workplace safety. A person does not have to work in a factory whose conditions he deems unsafe any more than he does in a restaurant or bar that permits smoking.

Because safety is important to me, I would be totally in support of a private organization that judged workplace safety. Workers who value their safety (a group that I would hope includes all workers!) would be free to seek employment only with those firms who volunarily complied with this organization's policies and whose workplace environments were deemed safe.

Because freedom is also important to me, I don't believe the government should have anything to do with this process.

I find that to be a little 'those who ignore history are destined to repeat it'. We have so many workplace safety regulations because at one time we didn't and industry acted irresponsibly. Working people paid with their lives and their health. The suggestion that they can find another job doesn't wash because not everyone can. If you are uneducated and not mobile job choices can be very limited. The least we can do for these poeple is give them a safe place to work.

Think of it this way, the governement is just protecting your freedom to have a safe job to provide for your family. Workplace safety is a matter of public interest and matters of public interest are the job of the government. But I'm Canadian and therefore virtually a communist.
__________________
If you are going to throw caution to the wind, make sure you are standing upwind.
jimlintott is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 04:17 PM   #187
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 90,529
OSHA has no tobacco smoke rules AFAIK.

If this is current, Calif. has a workplace ban with the following exceptions.
Quote:
Workplaces, or portions thereof, not covered by Labor Code Section 6404.5 (AB-13) smoking restrictions:1

* 65% of the guest rooms of hotels, motels, and similar transient lodging;
* Lobby areas of hotels, motels, and similar transient lodging designated for smoking (not to exceed 25% of the total lobby floor area or, if the lobby area is 2,000 square feet or less, not to exceed 50% of the total lobby floor area);
* Meeting and banquet rooms except while food or beverage functions are taking place (including set-up, service, and clean-up activities or when the room is being used for exhibit activities);
* Retail or wholesale tobacco shops and private smokers lounges;
* Truck cabs or truck tractors, if no nonsmoking employees are present;
* Warehouse facilities with more than 100,00 square feet of total floor space and 20 or fewer full-time employees working at the facility, but does not include any area within such a facility that is utilized as office space;
* Theatrical production sites, if smoking is an integral part of the story;
* Medical research or treatment sites, if smoking is integral to the research or treatment being conducted;
* Private residences, except for homes licensed as family day care homes, during the hours of operation and in those areas where children are present;
* Patient smoking areas in long-term health care facilities.
* Breakrooms designated by employers for smoking, under specified conditions (see page 2 of fact sheet); and
* Employers with five or fewer full or part-time employees, under specified conditions (see page 1 of fact sheet).

1An exemption for gaming clubs, bars, and taverns expires January 1, 1998.


WA state has banned all workplace smoke indoors
Quote:
You must:

Prohibit tobacco smoke in your office work environment


WAC 296-800-24005

Exemption:

The minimum criteria specified in this rule don’t apply to outdoor structures provided for smokers such as gazebos or lean-tos that maintain the 25 feet distance from entrances, exits, windows that open, and ventilation intakes that serve an enclosed area where smoking is prohibited.
It says offices but it was extended to restaurants and bars last year.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 04:35 PM   #188
baron
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
Originally Posted by cafink View Post
Firefighting is one of the few duties that I think probably should be handled by the government. That's because, unlike smoking, a fire has the potential to harm even those who don't patronize the offending establishment. A building that is on fire poses a threat to surrouding buildings and to people in the area.
So you're OK with the fact the entire clientel and workforce would perish in the fire, your only concern is if the fire spread to other buildings? All for the want of giving the business owner more leeway in how he runs his business.

Originally Posted by cafink View Post
No. I did not, in fact, say that. If you'll re-read my previous post, you'll surely notice that I specifically supported the establishment of a private safety organization. The packer doesn't need to know anything about workplace safety; he need only trust this safety organization to alert him to potential safety hazards
So... it's optional whether the business owner actually applies any safety measures, but it's compulsary that he allows the safety organisaton to compile a safety report on their business. You didn't mention that, much like you didn't mention that this voluntary set-up excludes fire safety laws.

OK, so the business owner declines to make his business 100% safety compliant. The safety organisation assess the safety of the the business (presumably under law, or how else would they persuade the business owner) and publishes the report.

The worker reads the report and acts accordingly.

The next day, the business owner makes some changes to his safety arrangements, as he is evidently entitled to do because he is under no regulatory compulsion. Does he inform the safety organisation? If so, do they come right back and do another study? What if he doesn't tell them? Their report is instantly worthless and there's no comeback on the business owner because he's complying with the law.

Do you not see how such an arrangement is totally and utterly unworkable, not to mention appallingly dangerous?
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 04:38 PM   #189
cafink
Thinker
 
cafink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
Wouldn't work: the government's greatest power is surprise inspections. Consumer Reports has access to these cellphones whether the manufacturer wants it or not, so we have fair reports. In the case of a restaurant, they 'clean up nice' for scheduled inspections, but 99% of infractions are caught on surprise visits, with business as usual.
I'm not sure I understand how this is germane to the issue of private versus governmental safety regulations. If the government's current workplace-safety measures are enforced chiefly by surprise inspections, then our theoretical private safety organization's measures could also be enforced chiefly be surprise inspections. What is the problem?

Quote:
Also: private evaluators run the risk of holding back due to litigation, and reduce their scope accordingly. They also have smaller budgets. Remember: most restaurant problems revolve around food contamination or adulteration (read: horsemeat), testing for which requires labs and staff in every municipality. Consumer Reports' entire budget wouldn't cover the restaurants in one city, much less all those interested.
An evaluator who holds back due to litigation is not an effective evaluator. If indeed there is a demand for organized workplace-safety measures (as I believe there is), then this ineffective evaluator will find himself out of a job, supplanted through market forces by someone who is willing to do the job effectively--no need to have the government interfere here.

Quote:
The other problem with restaurants revolves around the concept of currency: restaurants change owners and managers frequently, so they need to be tested at least annually. More if there are complaints. Do we really want to have to *buy* a copy of the Restaurant Reviewer every time we want to grab a cheeseburger? Who could offord that?
If monitoring a restaurant's health and safety record through, say, a commercial monthly publication, is inconvenient, prohibitively expensive, and otherwise undesirable, then I can assure you that such monitoring will not take that form. I imagine that an effective safety organization would require participating restaurants to post their health and safety records in a conspicuous location. I imagine, too, that the businesses themselves would likely foot the bill (instead of the consumer directly), as it would be in their best interest to be able to advertise their compliance.

Consider the MPAA's movie ratings system for an analogous situation. A parent doesn't have to buy a magazine every time he wants to see if a particular movie is appropriate for his child. A movie's rating is prominently displayed in all advertising material, and an archive of ratings is freely available for perusal at the MPAA's web site. The movie studio, not the customer, foots the bill to have a film rated and to have that rating easily available for anyone who wishes to look it up.

Do you have any particular reason to think that things would work so drastically differently when it comes to health and safety?

Quote:
Judging by the number of businesses that join the BBB (fewer than 1% of businesses join the BBB), there probably isn't much interest in objective, private, third-party oversight.
Is it possible that this is because we already have governmental oversight? Do you suppose that the elimination of that governmental oversight might make private oversight more attractive?

Quote:
And judging by the number of businesses that break the rules because they think they can get away with it (my FIL is a municipal health inspector, and I worked in a lab doing immunoassays testing for adulteration), it is interesting how little damage a bad reputation does a restuarant. Especially in small towns where most of the business is through-traffic.

Which means it would be like the BBB: irrelevant.

I don't know how many times I've heard my friends say: "I'll complain to the BBB!" I ask: "Are the business in question a member?" "No." "Then why would they care? You might as well call your mom."
If consumers don't care about a restaurant's reputation with regard to health and safety, from whence did the pertinent governmental regulations arise? If there is enough interest in health and safety to justify governmental interference, then there is enough interest to support the private equivalent.

Quote:
My motto regarding public health: "A stitch in time saves nine." Common sense, really. Why should the bankrupt family with the dead father be responsible for seeking justice for a wrongful death, when the whole mess is easily avoidable?
Because I should not be held responsible for the actions of others, any more than I would expect them to be held responsible for my actions, which is exactly what happens when the government gets involved in something that could be more effectively handled by the private sector.

A bar or restaurant is a private establishment, and any health issues pertaining to it effect only those who consciously choose to patronize or to work in that establishment. If the father consciously choose to put himself in a dangerous environment, then, inasmuch as he can be held accountable for his own actions and choices, there is no wrongful death for which to seek justice.
cafink is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 04:50 PM   #190
phyz
Muse
 
phyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by Euromutt View Post
I do find it curious to note that, contrary to Penn's statement, no such update was actually issued in the third season, nor is there any mention on the website. Perhaps, upon closer examination, their researchers found that the most recent study mentioned left few things to be desired as well.
I think you're being too generous here. He said their was an acknowledgment and there wasn't. My fading memory suggests it was going to be tossed off in a promo. Not the show itself, but an ad for the show.
__________________
Dean Baird
Phyz Home Page - The Blog of Phyz - Images, Photographs, and Pix
Only dead fish go with the flow.
phyz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 04:50 PM   #191
cafink
Thinker
 
cafink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by baron View Post
So you're OK with the fact the entire clientel and workforce would perish in the fire, your only concern is if the fire spread to other buildings? All for the want of giving the business owner more leeway in how he runs his business.
I am never completely okay with the death of another human being, but neither am I okay with telling other human beings what they can and can't do, even if they decide they want to do something dangerous, like work in a restaurant that permits smoking, race cars for a living, go bungee jumping, or eat a lot of fried food every day.

Quote:
So... it's optional whether the business owner actually applies any safety measures, but it's compulsary that he allows the safety organisaton to compile a safety report on their business. You didn't mention that, much like you didn't mention that this voluntary set-up excludes fire safety laws.
If I didn't mention it (and I didn't), why do you assume that's what I meant?

If a business owner does not want to give a private safety organization access to the materials necessary for that organization to compile a safety report, then that is his choice to make. He will have to live with the consequences of that choice, such as reduced business from a clientele that is mindful of safety and unlikely to patronize an establishment that does not comply with the organization's safety measures.

Quote:
OK, so the business owner declines to make his business 100% safety compliant. The safety organisation assess the safety of the the business (presumably under law, or how else would they persuade the business owner) and publishes the report.

The worker reads the report and acts accordingly.

The next day, the business owner makes some changes to his safety arrangements, as he is evidently entitled to do because he is under no regulatory compulsion. Does he inform the safety organisation? If so, do they come right back and do another study? What if he doesn't tell them? Their report is instantly worthless and there's no comeback on the business owner because he's complying with the law.
He does whatever he would do in the same situation if he were dealing with the government, as he actually does in the United States today.

There's no legal comeback because he's complying with the law. But as he is no longer complying with the policies of the private safety organization, he is no longer able to advertise his business as compliant, and he suffers whatever comeback that entails. For a public that is safety-conscious enough to justify governmental safety regulations, that surely includes an appreciable decline in patronage.

Quote:
Do you not see how such an arrangement is totally and utterly unworkable, not to mention appallingly dangerous?
No, I don't--certainly not any more so than the existing government-enforcable arrangement.
cafink is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 04:52 PM   #192
jimlintott
Master Poster
 
jimlintott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,893
With this hypothetical private safety organisation who is going to watch that they are doing the right job? Who will watch that they don't take bribes or put undue pressure on someone? Who will define what they are supposed to do?

Let me guess. Mmmm. The government?

It's the government's job. No need for a middleman. It would probably end up being duplicated by the government anyway.

Would this private safety organisation be for profit? If so I can guarantee there will be corruption. Not that the government can't be corrupt but we at least attempt to hold them accountable at election time.
__________________
If you are going to throw caution to the wind, make sure you are standing upwind.
jimlintott is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 05:01 PM   #193
cafink
Thinker
 
cafink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by jimlintott View Post
With this hypothetical private safety organisation who is going to watch that they are doing the right job? Who will watch that they don't take bribes or put undue pressure on someone? Who will define what they are supposed to do?
The consumer who will recognize as worthless an organization rendered ineffective by bribery, poor management, and the like. The MPAA somehow implements a workable movie ratings system without government intervention. The ESRB somehow implements a workable video game ratings system without government intervention. What makes them immune to the problems that you seem so sure would cripple a similar organization that monitors the health and safety practices of businesses?

Quote:
Would this private safety organisation be for profit? If so I can guarantee there will be corruption. Not that the government can't be corrupt but we at least attempt to hold them accountable at election time.
If the only consideration is corruption, then I will choose the private sector over the government every time. Private organizations can be held accountable, too, you know. If you don't think their product or service is worth what they charge for it, then don't patronize them. They'll soon see the error of their ways, I assure you.

No such checks are in place for analogous governmental bodies, whom we can't choose not to patronize.
cafink is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 07:40 PM   #194
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,416
Originally Posted by cafink View Post
I'm not sure I understand how this is germane to the issue of private versus governmental safety regulations. If the government's current workplace-safety measures are enforced chiefly by surprise inspections, then our theoretical private safety organization's measures could also be enforced chiefly be surprise inspections. What is the problem?
This means the restaurants wouldn't participate. They participate today because the government has access to police enforcement.




Originally Posted by cafink View Post
An evaluator who holds back due to litigation is not an effective evaluator. If indeed there is a demand for organized workplace-safety measures (as I believe there is), then this ineffective evaluator will find himself out of a job, supplanted through market forces by someone who is willing to do the job effectively--no need to have the government interfere here.
The market forces are for them to hold back. There will be no entry from a new player.

My sister has the same problem understanding that for some markets, there is *no possible player*. She is in a community with no cable and thinks it's a 'conspiracy'. No: it's just basic economics.

There's no convincing her, though. For some people 'The market' is sort of a God: it will provide! Of course, when it doesn't, there needs to be somebody to blame (Satan's role). Usually goes to government, liberals, socialists, feminists, tree-huggers. Whoever. Just so the religious don't have to abandon their creed.

The other solution for dealing with an 'informed' public is FUD. Just start up a competitor, and provide paid-for information. Of course, you have to hide behind a few layers of legal ownership, but as long as the restaurants keep making their payments, they'll get good reviews.




Originally Posted by cafink View Post
If monitoring a restaurant's health and safety record through, say, a commercial monthly publication, is inconvenient, prohibitively expensive, and otherwise undesirable, then I can assure you that such monitoring will not take that form. I imagine that an effective safety organization would require participating restaurants to post their health and safety records in a conspicuous location. I imagine, too, that the businesses themselves would likely foot the bill (instead of the consumer directly), as it would be in their best interest to be able to advertise their compliance.
Yet, it is the law that they do this today, and many are fined for 'forgetting' to post their business licences. Or even to get a buisiness licence. They share your view: too much government interference. If they want to cut meat in the men's room, then who's to tell them not to? (One of last week's findings in Vancouver).

So, the short answer: *********** morons who buy an ongoing concern with a good repuation, and discover 'the hard way' (ie: by poisoning people) how to do it properly. Of course, they declare bankruptcy immediately, so the grieving families recieve no compensation.

A stitch in time.




Originally Posted by cafink View Post
Consider the MPAA's movie ratings system for an analogous situation. A parent doesn't have to buy a magazine every time he wants to see if a particular movie is appropriate for his child. A movie's rating is prominently displayed in all advertising material, and an archive of ratings is freely available for perusal at the MPAA's web site. The movie studio, not the customer, foots the bill to have a film rated and to have that rating easily available for anyone who wishes to look it up.
I specifically pointed out why this is a bad analogy: I'm sure Vancouver is typical: restaurant management changes approximately three times per year. Last year's good restaurant is this year's worst offender. You want to know what food will be like *today*, not three owners back.

Zagat *rates* restaurants. We already have that service. A rating is not the equivalent of safety testing: sales will not go to zero based on MPAA rating... it helps a market self-identify. There is no market for toxic food: it is simply destrucitve. And there is an incentive for restaurants to sell it (it is undetectable by the consumer, and harm is usually deferred and ambiguous, so it is difficult to successfully sue the vendor - I'm thinking specifically of carcinogens).

A better analogy with videos is: what if videos could be made cheaper with PCBs? We have manufacturing and trade laws to prevent companies from distributing materials that are a health risk without specific disclosure. Is there a market for PCB-laden DVDs?


Originally Posted by cafink View Post
Do you have any particular reason to think that things would work so drastically differently when it comes to health and safety?
Yes. As mentioned above. Furthermore, the stakes are higher. Nobody dies from watching the wrong rating of movie. People die from bad food preparation and serving.

Secondly, once you've seen the movie, you know what you got, and you know if you've been scammed. How do you know if the meat you ate was actually chicken? How do you know if it was laden with coliforms? Carcinogens?




Originally Posted by cafink View Post
Is it possible that this is because we already have governmental oversight? Do you suppose that the elimination of that governmental oversight might make private oversight more attractive?
"attractive", maybe. But the first thing people will do is what they did the last time there were only private evaluators: the history is that government oversight was the choice of informed and intelligent voters who determined that this was the most efficient and reliable way to ensure food safety. Unfortunately, people had to die first.






Originally Posted by cafink View Post
If consumers don't care about a restaurant's reputation with regard to health and safety, from whence did the pertinent governmental regulations arise?
They were always interested. But no private solution worked, so the public solution was implemented.




Originally Posted by cafink View Post
If there is enough interest in health and safety to justify governmental interference, then there is enough interest to support the private equivalent.
"Interest" isn't the same thing as economic demand. I have "interest" in gold bars in my sock drawer, and a cure for cancer. Ain't gonna happen just because I'm "interested".







Originally Posted by cafink View Post
Because I should not be held responsible for the actions of others, any more than I would expect them to be held responsible for my actions, which is exactly what happens when the government gets involved in something that could be more effectively handled by the private sector.
And yet, for generations, the private sector failed. "more effectively handled by the private sector" is counter to evidence: an article of faith. A mantra, if you will.





Originally Posted by cafink View Post
A bar or restaurant is a private establishment, and any health issues pertaining to it effect only those who consciously choose to patronize or to work in that establishment. If the father consciously choose to put himself in a dangerous environment, then, inasmuch as he can be held accountable for his own actions and choices, there is no wrongful death for which to seek justice.
Of course there is: the restaurant is making an implicit claim: "we will not kill our customers." If nobody could be held accountable for serving poison, I see a world where a lot of people get poisoned. I also see a world where everything is cheaper, because it carries a huge associated risk.

Even if we can assume that the risk-discount was applied to the lethal meal: would you like to live in a world where you feared every bite? Further: consider two societies: one that protects, versus one that does not. Over time, the one that rejects the opportunity to monitor easily-avoidable risks will find itself with children running in the streets looking for rotting food while the other grows healthy children. Maybe a better society will come along and outcompete us, but right now, it looks like the laissez-faire economies are failing in comparison. When my sister was in Vancouver, she bought meat 'off the record' from the Picton farm to stick it to the regulator. Food for thought.

Heck, Sealand's up for sale!




I've been to ex-Soviet republics (I was born in Lithuania), and this is the attitude indeed: no regulation, so caveat emptor. What is the result? Commerce implodes. Nobody trusts the butcher, the baker, or the candlestick maker. If somebody started a testing organization, the butcher would bribe them, so nobody would trust *them* either. Result: there is no economic demand for vendor evaluation! Unemployment is high (who would invest in capital, when there's no justice if you were defrauded?) Counterfeitting is rampant (whenever I go, I am asked to bring medicines, because if I bring them, they know they're genuine).

I have seen laissez-faire economies: they're a total mess. People are *afraid to buy*.

The trick is to recognize a balance, and trust the republic. It fosters commerce, the health of the citizenry, and - most importantly - it responds to their directive. You can disagree with it, and rail against the system, but I propose that the reason this argument has received no traction is because the electorate knows better and sees this approach as in their best interest.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 07:53 PM   #195
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,416
Originally Posted by jimlintott View Post
With this hypothetical private safety organisation who is going to watch that they are doing the right job? Who will watch that they don't take bribes or put undue pressure on someone? Who will define what they are supposed to do?

Let me guess. Mmmm. The government?

It's the government's job. No need for a middleman. It would probably end up being duplicated by the government anyway.

Would this private safety organisation be for profit? If so I can guarantee there will be corruption. Not that the government can't be corrupt but we at least attempt to hold them accountable at election time.
This'll be my last OT post (this seque s/b in politics section). What has degraded my laissez-faire hopes was working in a large company, which has an entire department dedicated to undermining objective opinions by buying the magazine in question (through several layers of confusing ownership) or just picking up the phone and threatening to pull advertising until the magazine changed their 'story'. The final blow was Accenture: they got their hands-off legislation and allowed corporations to self-regulate with an auditor, but no oversight. And then they paid off the auditor. Everybody saw this coming.

But every now and then, maybe we have to let go the reigns a bit and demonstrate why public oversight has its place. As long as its reversible, and nobody gets poisoned, I'm all for it.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 08:01 PM   #196
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,416
Originally Posted by cafink View Post
If the only consideration is corruption, then I will choose the private sector over the government every time. Private organizations can be held accountable, too, you know. If you don't think their product or service is worth what they charge for it, then don't patronize them.
1. you need to have an immunnoassay lab to test for food adulteration. If you don't have one, how do you know to vote with your dollars? How would you know if they were 'approving' a company that was using diatomatic earth to filter their fryer oil (ie: serving carcinogens)? Do you have a GC/MS? These are my tools of the trade.

2. right now, antitrust laws prevent monopoly. in a laissez-faire environment, monopoly or cartel in most markets will follow swiftly. Voting with your dollars means abandoning the product or service.

Originally Posted by cafink View Post
No such checks are in place for analogous governmental bodies, whom we can't choose not to patronize.
Two advantages:

1. Transparancy. You are entitled to see government documents. You are not entitled to see private companies' documents.

2. They're called 'elections', and they're better than voting with your dollars, because every stakeholder has equal say.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2007, 08:15 PM   #197
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,416
Originally Posted by jimlintott View Post
I find that to be a little 'those who ignore history are destined to repeat it'. We have so many workplace safety regulations because at one time we didn't and industry acted irresponsibly. Working people paid with their lives and their health. The suggestion that they can find another job doesn't wash because not everyone can. If you are uneducated and not mobile job choices can be very limited. The least we can do for these poeple is give them a safe place to work.

Think of it this way, the governement is just protecting your freedom to have a safe job to provide for your family. Workplace safety is a matter of public interest and matters of public interest are the job of the government. But I'm Canadian and therefore virtually a communist.
There's a book that relates to this: Plagues and Peoples (William H. McNeill). The author does touch base with the failure of private sector solutions to public health outcomes. Specifically, the cities used to turn over public health concerns to the private or church-run hospitals and they were just monuments to incompetence. Government efficiency was a night and day comparison.

We see this more recently with the Canadian decision to take blood distribution out of the hands of the Red Cross: the HIV/HepB fiasco was a massive betrayal of the public's trust by a private sector organization. My friend's mother was infected (hip surgery). Why the Red Cross put swimming instructors in charge of the nation's blood supply is beyond me. See: Gift of Death (Andre Picard)
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2007, 01:52 AM   #198
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 90,529
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
...
An example in my own field was an antiviral that reduced viral load by 90%, with a p<=.01. So, this means it really did reduce viral load, from a statistical point of view. The problem is that a 90% reduction in viral loads from, say, 10,000 to 1,000 is still a dead patient, so there is no value in the product.
...
Which virus was that?

We don't eliminate HIV in any case nor Hep C in all cases yet reducing viral loads has tremendous results in many cases.

I understood your point but he was talking about both evidence of benefit and evidence of causality.

And if a cancer treatment resulted in an average 90% reduction of the tumors, some of those people might have 100% reductions or at least have a bit more time on the planet. If you are dying of cancer, a month most certainly does have value.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2007, 02:27 AM   #199
Ivor the Engineer
Philosopher
 
Ivor the Engineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,536
Originally Posted by fls
Do I have a duty to try to stop you from killing yourself? Yes. Part of belonging to a social group means recognizing that individual members have value and that we have a responsibility for the care of others. This means that it should not be made difficult for you to make informed choices. And that it is reasonable to provide an environment in which it is easier for you to make choices that you consider to your benefit.

Personal freedom should extend to allowing healthy people to make choices that could include death as an outcome. But that shouldn't serve as an excuse for neglect on our part. It is a delicate balancing act, and anti-smoking laws for the sake of reducing opportunity shows us where the line is, I think.
So is that trying to equate the "choice" to smoke with, say, the choice to go skiing?

Smoking is a conditioned habit and physical drug addiction. So "choice" isn't quite the right word is it?

Also, if I ski correctly and sensibly, I don't damage my health. In fact I may even get fitter. How should someone smoke correctly to not damage their health? There's only one outcome with smoking.

So given it is the responsibility for society to care for others, why not find healthier ways for nicotine addicts to get their fix? Some kind of refillable Inhaler?
Ivor the Engineer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2007, 06:55 AM   #200
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer View Post
So is that trying to equate the "choice" to smoke with, say, the choice to go skiing?
I think so.

Quote:
Smoking is a conditioned habit and physical drug addiction. So "choice" isn't quite the right word is it?
That same description, with some variation, would apply to many of our choices. Don't people choose to go skiing because it's exciting (i.e. conditioned release of adrenaline, endorphins, etc.)?

Quote:
Also, if I ski correctly and sensibly, I don't damage my health. In fact I may even get fitter. How should someone smoke correctly to not damage their health? There's only one outcome with smoking.
Casual smoking results in little harm (if any) while receiving the benefits of participating in a social activity, relaxation, etc.

Quote:
So given it is the responsibility for society to care for others, why not find healthier ways for nicotine addicts to get their fix? Some kind of refillable Inhaler?
Nicotine isn't the point. People don't take up the activity to fill a need for nicotine.

Linda
fls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:20 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.