On 6/4/04 6:16 AM, "Michael C. Libby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Cigarette smoke is toxic? No it isn't. I inhaled a bunch of it last > night because I was near some smokers and I didn't even get sick, let > alone die. That's some poison!
I think Terrell Brown already answered this point sufficiently, so I won't go further with it. > Usually when I use the word "toxic" I mean that ingesting the alleged > toxin will cause immediate illness or death. I have no doubt that > cigarette smoke contains some compounds that can legitimately called > toxins. The problem is that apparently the quantities found in cigarette > smoke are not toxic. However, I will take a minute to help Michael and others understand that there are two different kinds of toxicity. The first is acute toxicity, which is used to describe the level of exposure to a substance that can harm you quickly. Then there is chronic toxicity, which is used to describe the level of exposure that may not harm you quickly, but does cause harm eventually over a longer period of time. > I mean, water is toxic if too much is inhaled. > Should we ban water, like the town of Aliso Viejo nearly did in > California > (http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,1176710,00.html)? This is patently absurd, but I'm willing to make a deal with Michael if he's up to it. I will forgo exposure to cigarette smoke for a month if he forgoes exposure to water for a month and then we'll check back and see how healthy each of us is. > Maybe we should avoid the use of misleading words like "toxic" when it's > clear that no one is dying from a simple exposure to smoke (aside from > people with existing conditions, allergies, etc). Apparently the problem > for smokers is long term, repeated, daily, frequent exposure to this > smoke. Which is exactly what chronic toxicity refers to. And is exactly what is happening to employees in bars and restaurants that allow smoking. > You're right, we don't always need a study to prove something. But in > this case we do. The common sense of it just doesn't hold up. The body > handles a wide variety of toxins and invasive organisms with miraculous > ability. To assert that infrequent, indirect exposure to secondhand > smoke is somehow different than exposure to other environmental hazards > flies in the face of reason. Yes, studies must be done and they must be > beyond reproach before we base public policy on the idea that casual > exposure to smoke is "toxic". This is a common argument put forth by those who wish to defend the status quo, whether the issue is banning smoking or some other threat to public health. It's all based on the risk assessment model for resolving issues involving public health or the environment. Toxicologists have defined risk as being based on a basic formula of toxicity x exposure and have traditionally focused on trying to identify the levels of exposure for which risks are insignificant or deemed "acceptable." This risk assessment approach assumed that people and corporations have the right to do anything they choose (so long as it is legal) until some third party can prove that harm has occurred, at which point a lengthy process of dispute resolution can begin, often requiring decades of effort and millions of dollars. This system requires that harm must occur and must be proven to occur before alternative actions will be considered. The great harms from leaded paint, from leaded gasoline and from asbestos come to mind. In sum, risk assessment asks the question, "How much harm is acceptable" or "How much harm can we get away with?" and then tries to limit activities to keep the harm within those boundaries. And the burden of proof of harm was placed on those being harmed -- it was up to them to prove they were being harmed before alternative actions would be considered. Consider lead in paint, for example. As early as 1897, some paint companies knew enough about the dangers of lead to advertise that their paints were NOT made with toxic lead. Obviously, if one paint company knew it, all paint companies knew it - or should have. A least-harmful alternative was available in 1897. But from 1897 to 1976, risk assessment was used to justify the continued use of toxic lead in paint and many paint companies continued to use it. First the risk assessors said 60 micrograms in a tenth of a liter of blood was "safe" for children. Large numbers of children were severely poisoned by this assessment, and so a new "risk assessment" established that 40 micrograms was "safe." More children were badly poisoned by this "safe" amount, so a new risk assessment was undertaken: "Twenty micrograms is safe -- and this time we've got it RIGHT," said the risk assessors -- but more children were poisoned, their IQs diminished, their ability to concentrate ruined, their capacity to cope with stress destroyed -- they became aggressive, even violent, they dropped out of school and headed for life in prison or permanent low-wage hell, or they committed suicide. All thanks to mistaken risk assessments. Today, some risk assessors still claim 10 micrograms of lead is "safe," but many scientists and doctors know this isn't true and wonder if even 2 micrograms of lead in a tenth of a liter of blood deserves to be called "safe." So while we sit around and twiddle our thumbs waiting for the scientists to build up the overwhelming pile of research that secondhand smoke is toxic that folks like Michael insist upon before a ban can be enacted, people continue to be harmed. I hope that our city council members will recognize that such harm can be prevented. I hope those who aren't yet supporters of the ban will consider CM Don Samuels' sentiments, which were quoted in the latest issue of the Northeaster. Samuels stated that he "tends to shudder" when faced with decisions that involve life and death and further stated that "More people will die this year from secondhand smoke than died at the Twin Towers. But because we're not seeing pictures of soot-covered people coughing, it doesn't demand the same visceral call for action. We do know that people die slow, torturous deaths from smoking. I worry that, in 20 years from now, if and when we eventually do it [ban smoking], we'll see in hindsight what we tolerated and pussyfooted around because of political issues, we'll be amazed and ashamed of ourselves. We're already embarrassed by what we've let the tobacco industry get away with so far. We need to take a long historical view here." I've also chuckled at the folks who like to argue that since smoking is legal, it should be allowed in bars and restaurants. Imagine if you can the idea of someone trying to introduce cigarettes to the marketplace today rather than hundreds of years ago. Such a product would never make it into the stores. Regulators would review the request and say something along the lines of "You want to sell people a stick of dried leaves wrapped in paper that burns just inches from their face and that they suck on one end to inhale the smoke, which contains some 4,000 chemicals known to have toxic characteristics? Are you crazy? Get outta here with that foolishness!" Don Samuels called it right. The only reason cigarettes are even still legal at all is because of politics (and corporate influence). And what a price we all pay for that. Mark Snyder Windom Park 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
