Gail is right that ACSH has taken a generally apologetic stance on most issues involving chemicals. Their director, Elizabeth Whelan, describes herself as a lifelong conservative, more Libertarian then Republican.
http://www.prwatch.org/improp/acsh.html This to me make ACSH's stance on tobacco all the stronger. It means they reached a position based on the overwhelming evidence available, even though it disagreed with their normal ideological leanings. They joined organizations such as the American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association and a host of other organizations that have recognized how deadly cigarette smoke is. On a side note, while doing some googling myself, I came across this interesting television show segment that aired in Missouri: http://www.legallyspeaking-tv.com/2smoke.htm It talked about the potential liability that restaurant and bar owners might face for causing their employees to be exposed to secondhand smoke. Some lawsuits have already been won by patrons with respiratory problems suing under the American Disabilities Act that secondhand smoke prevents them from visiting certain establishments. Mark Snyder Windom Park On 6/5/04 1:59 PM, "Gail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is a bit out of sequence as it was rejected for being too long. Still > I'd like to try again. In the June 3 Mpls Digest, Vol 6, Issue 5, Mark Snyder > replied to mplsgordon with a disdainful critique of the research he had cited > and an even more disdainful reference to the Cato Institute. > It's always possible to discredit a source: we all do it, sometimes > unconsciously. The scorn Mark feels for the Cato Institute is no more than > that felt by others for the Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal - both > of which his preferred source, the American Council for Science and Health, > quotes on its web site, as proof of its bona fides. In my own haphazard and > unscientific way, I googled and found this at www.mindfully.org : > "ACSH is heavily financed by corporations with specific and direct interest in > ACSH's chosen battles. Since it was created in 1978, it has come to the > enthusiastic defense of virtually every chemical or additive backed by a major > corporate interest. In many of these cases, investigative journalists already > have exposed direct connections between ACSH and its funders. But in almost > every instance, it takes little effort to discover which funder in the list > below has a vested interest in supporting ACSH's message." A few of this > site's examples of ASCH being too much inflenced by corporations include its > claim that synthetic chemicals in the environment do not disrupt the human > endocrine system, that cholesterol is not linked to heart disease, and that > fossil fuel restriction to combat global warming would destroy global > economies and lead to increased poverty-related illness. Sixty-six funders are > named in the list they cite, including about every chemical and oil company > I've ever heard of, followed closely by pharmaceuticals, breweries, wineries, > companies widely known for animal-testing, 3rd world exploiters, and so on. > ACSH receives 76 percent of its funding from corporations and corporate > funders, and 17 percent of its funding from private foundations, according to > Congressional Quarterly's Public Interest Profiles. REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
