Smoking Ban part 2, original by Timber Loftis

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: quote: Originally posted by Rokenn: quote: Originally posted by Thorfinn:No, the only way to prevent that is to take away the power of the gummint to give some people special treatment in the first place, since there will always be ways to get money around, even if it is a briefcase full of cash given to the brother-in-law of the guy who hands out pardons...

If you honestly believe that there is a way of taking away the power of the government from giving it's friends special treatment then you are more of an idealist them I am. If you reverted to an anarchist society you might. But the powerful will always attempt to hand out special favors to their friends and supress the ones they do not like. It's pretty much human nature. [/QUOTE]Actually, I think I am more of a realist than you. I know that people will try to give special treatment to their friends, so you need to try to eliminate any political power that is subject to significant abuse.

Ashcroft scares me, so giving him even more sweeping powers with the so-called "US Patriot Act" seems like an incredibly bad idea... [/QB][/QUOTE]Well that atleast is something we can agree on [img]graemlins/cheers.gif[/img] , personally I feel Mr Ashcroft is one of the most dangerous people in the country, atm.

As for the issue of dispersing power in an effort to elimanate favoritism, I feel that is an impossible goal. The second a power dynamic starts in any organization you will have the same old problems cropping up. And if you dispersed the power so finely to keep it at a minium nothing would ever be accomplished or decided.

[Thorfinn]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Thorfinn: Sorry, but the "safe" level of Micardis, for instance, is going to depend on whether you have high blood pressure or not...

Well, then, as far as society is concerned, the "safe" level assumes someone who has high blood pressure. [/QUOTE]Not true. Since I don't have high blood pressure, I would have a much lower "safe" level than Mrs. Thorfinn, since I would have side-effects with no offsetting benefits.

[Thorfinn]

Rokenn: And if you dispersed the power so finely to keep it at a minium nothing would ever be accomplished or decided.

Why do you say that? We disperse the power of deciding what kind of soap Jewel-Osco stocks clear down to the individual consumer. Yet despite the fact that no one is forcing J-O purchasing agents to stock any particular brand, at any particular level, this happens totally without direction from gov't or consumer, they happen to have enough on hand to satisfy pretty much everyone, pretty much all the time.

Why do you believe that the same doesn't apply to other decisions?

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: quote: Originally posted by Rokenn: quote: Originally posted by Thorfinn:Sorry if it sounds like that, but define "safe". For instance, numerous pharmaceuticals are highly toxic, and even have potentially life-threatening side-effects, but the trade-off is that the condition it is intended to treat is worse than the side-effects. Sorry, but the "safe" level of Micardis, for instance, is going to depend on whether you have high blood pressure or not...

Yes I know that many pharmaceuticals and everyday nutrients become unsafe at certain levels (even water). But can you truly say there is any safe level of tar, nicotine, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide, and benzene?

BTW Nicotine makes a great pesticide. [/QUOTE]Let me turn the question around. At what point does tar, nicotine, CO, etc. become unsafe? Can you say that there is any increased risk at the fractional parts per trillion detection limits we have today? Where does the risk start? [/QUOTE]The EPA website has detailed info on these and other nasty compounds here is the info on Benzene

Carcinogenicity Assessment for Lifetime Exposure Substance Name -- Benzene CASRN -- 71-43-2 Last Revised -- 01/19/2000 Section II provides information on three aspects of the carcinogenic assessment for the substance in question; the weight-of-evidence judgment of the likelihood that the substance is a human carcinogen, and quantitative estimates of risk from oral exposure and from inhalation exposure. The quantitative risk estimates are presented in three ways. The slope factor is the result of application of a low-dose extrapolation procedure and is presented as the risk per (mg/kg)/day. The unit risk is the quantitative estimate in terms of either risk per ug/L drinking water or risk per ug/cu.m air breathed. The third form in which risk is presented is a drinking water or air concentration providing cancer risks of 1 in 10,000, 1 in 100,000 or 1 in 1,000,000. The rationale and methods used to develop the carcinogenicity information in IRIS are described in The Risk Assessment Guidelines of 1986 (EPA/600/8-87/045) and in the IRIS Background Document. IRIS summaries developed since the publication of EPA's more recent Proposed Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment also utilize those Guidelines where indicated (Federal Register 61(79):17960-18011, April 23, 1996). Users are referred to Section I of this IRIS file for information on long-term toxic effects other than carcinogenicity

All these compounds are known to be bad. It's not like they are brand new chemicals that just apeared yesterday.

Unless you are going at assert that all the studies saying they are bad are based on bad science.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: quote: Rokenn: And if you dispersed the power so finely to keep it at a minium nothing would ever be accomplished or decided.

Why do you say that? We disperse the power of deciding what kind of soap Jewel-Osco stocks clear down to the individual consumer. Yet despite the fact that no one is forcing J-O purchasing agents to stock any particular brand, at any particular level, this happens totally without direction from gov't or consumer, they happen to have enough on hand to satisfy pretty much everyone, pretty much all the time.

Why do you believe that the same doesn't apply to other decisions? [/QUOTE]Because researching what the safe level is of a new chemical compound is a bit more complicated then deciding who many cans of soup to order. Would you trust the quality of your drinking water to the guy at your local mini-mart? Or how many tanks the army needs?

[Timber Loftis]

Sorry, Thorfinn, I misunderstood what you were saying - having no knowledge of the drug you were referring to. What I mean is you should assume the "eggshell victim" when deciding what is a socially safe level of a pollutant or toxin. With ethanol emissions, for instance, the general odor level limits assume a 10% rule, that is there are 10% of society that can smell it more, and you only have to control emissions such that 90% of society isn't bothered. In keeping with the notion of protecting minorities and minority views, I think 10% of society is too many people to make suffer. If you're going to regulate it go for 1%, or better yet .001%.

While I hate over-regulation, and I do want smaller government I do not see how we can minimize it the way you describe. We must still give it enough power to police certain things, like murder and such. A completely private enterprise system would result in mini-baronies, with everyone in a town or a neighborhood cowtowing to the local "Boss Hogg." Take a look at privatized fire fighting in that crappy movie "Gangs of New York." Take a look at privatized corporate police forces in Cyberpunk. I know, you would disband the corporation, but you can't disband partnerships. Parterships exist without government. Same problem, different name.

[Thorfinn]

I know these compounds have been around. Please don't be so condescending.

BTW, you didn't quote Section II which lists the lifetime exposure limits, you just showed the explanation of that section, as near as I can tell.

But you should also read the text a little closer. You will see that they used linear extrapolation to get a "safe" limit. Toxicologists actually reject this method. Taken to the extreme using extrapolation, you could set the limit for potato chips at 0 chips per day, by doing a test that shows that people who eat the equivalent of 50 billion chips per day have 100% fatality rate, and that people who eat 5 billion also have 100% fatality. Drawing a straight line between these points, and extrapolating out to 0 chips, you see there is still a 100% fatality rate, something clearly ludicrous.

This is exactly what you said before when you said that it was reasonable to assume that less concentrated smoke was just less risky. It was arrived at by extrapolation. It completely ignores everything we know about toxicology...

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: I know these compounds have been around. Please don't be so condescending. BTW, you didn't quote Section II which lists the lifetime exposure limits, you just showed the explanation of that section, as near as I can tell. But you should also read the text a little closer. You will see that they used linear extrapolation to get a "safe" limit. Toxicologists actually reject this method. Taken to the extreme using extrapolation, you could set the limit for potato chips at 0 chips per day, by doing a test that shows that people who eat the equivalent of 50 billion chips per day have 100% fatality rate, and that people who eat 5 billion also have 100% fatality. Drawing a straight line between these points, and extrapolating out to 0 chips, you see there is still a 100% fatality rate, something clearly ludicrous. This is exactly what you said before when you said that it was reasonable to assume that less concentrated smoke was just less risky. It was arrived at by extrapolation. It completely ignores everything we know about toxicology...

Sorry, did not mean to come off sounds condescending, but then stating that I should state what the unsafe levels kind of comes off that way as well.

So basicly you are saying that the EPA safe level limits are bogus?

[Thorfinn]

Timber, I disagree that you have to regulate for the eggshell cases. I am allergic to dogs, for instance, as are millions of other Americans, yet I hardly think we should liquidate all puppies just so I don't have to take antihistamines and assume the risks you impose on me, by your mere ownership of a puppy.

Rokenn, you tell me. How many tanks do you need?

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: Timber, I disagree that you have to regulate for the eggshell cases. I am allergic to dogs, for instance, as are millions of other Americans, yet I hardly think we should liquidate all puppies just so I don't have to take antihistamines and assume the risks you impose on me, by your mere ownership of a puppy. Rokenn, you tell me. How many tanks do you need?

I don't want any tanks, I hear they get terriable gas milage. [img]smile.gif[/img]


no more replies for me, heading home.