Mark Snyder wrote: > 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 proposed a solution to this problem that was ridiculed, but because I am somewhat immune to ridicule I will propose it again. In any similar situation, in which there is repeated exposure to airborne contaminates, OSHA normally requires or recommends the use of respirators. There's no need to ban smoking. If employees are worried about they health they should be allowed to protect themselves. However, given how tentative the research is in terms of known probabilities of risk, I don't think that many would opt to. Michael Atherton Prospect 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
