LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Correct, I haven't.Originally Posted by finlay666
Without knowing who, or what they say, I can't make much of that.
She said a fair bit more than that, but I'll grant you, she makes some good points .... much of which is based on a criticism of the many studies being based on assessment by toxicologists rather than epidemiologists. Both represent fair ways of looking at things, but I'll grant, she makes a good case for epidemiology.
Yes, a court decision which was subsequently thrown out by the Court of Appeals 4th Circuit, on multiple grounds including that the plaintiffs didn't have standing to challenge the report, that Osteen was wrong in that the report was an Administrative Procedures Act final agency action, that the EPA did follow relevant procedures and that any not followed were not grounds for vacating the report anyway, and that Osteen's court had exceeded it's authority for judicial review. A pretty firm slap down for Osteen whom, it appears, got it wrong on several bases and didn't have the authority to act anyway.
Or are we supposed to conclude that one judge was right and the Court of Appeals are part of a conspiracy? If we are to place any reliance on the authority of the federal Court to throw it out, we implicitly have to place greater reliance on the Court of Appeal to chastise him and throw it right back in again.
I'm working my way through the various IARC monologues, and it's hard going, but I'd rather try to establish what it said than rely on a news report by an organisation that, allegedly, has very suspect objectivity. Heartand's own website is fairly unapologetically pro-smoking, has had management of tobacco companies (Philip Morris) on it's board, if the recipient of tobacco funding funding. Roy Marden said in 1994 that he was
He was a member of Heartland's board, and the Manager of Industry Affairs for Philip Morris (a tobacco company). As late as 2006, Heartland partnered with the National Association of Tobacco Outlets to run "a campaign to change public opinion about tobacco."working with the Heartland Institute in the planning of a health policy forum for state-level think tanks to develop a unified strategy and action plan, and in the use of their fax-on-demand technology to promote health care positioning consistent with our interests to legislators, public opinion makers and the public
While the fact that Heartand seems to have a long-standing and intimate relationship with the tobacco industry doesn't necessarily mean that what they say is false, it certainly leads me to suspect that it's going to have a very definite spin and means I'm not going to place much credence, personally, in their objectivity.
As I said earlier, there are certainly problems with designing analyses of data to draw cause and effect conclusions, and that's the basis of the toxicology versus epidemiology argument, there being a whole raft of hard to assess factors that distinguish between whether a substance can cause, for instance, cancer, and whether it actually does, on any significant scale. But, it's those very awkward factors that mean that statistical analysis is going to be about all we have to rely on, and from what I've seen and read, the evidence for cause and effect is substantive.
My view is that if you're deciding a case like a smoking ban, you have to balance the rights of smokers to smoke where they want, against the rights of non-smokers not to be affected (whether medically or just by the thorough unpleasantness of other people's smoke), and you have to draw a balance because there's one thing in all this that is absolutely certain - whether you impose a ban/restriction or don't impose one, a lot of people aren't going to be happy with the situation. Given the situation, I think there is sufficient medical grounds, let alone social ones, for a ban on smoking in public places because we didn't ought to be waiting for categoric proof of the dangers before we act to protect people, and I still haven't seen anything to alter that opinion. If it can be clearly shown that no significant risk exists from second hand smoke, then perhaps it'll be time to look at it again, and decide if the smoker's right to smoke in public places trumps other people's right to not have smoke inflicted on them in public places. Personally, on that basis alone and regardless of medical harm or not, I support a ban because I'm sick of other people's smoking ruining my meals in a restaurant, for example. Now it's my turn, and the turn of others like me, for peaceful enjoyment, and the smokers can either wait for a fag, or go outside.
Reply With Quote
