Saturday, June 23, 2007

Clearing the Air correspondence with OSHA

Clearing the Air recently wrote to Minnesota officials within the Department of Labor and Industry, here is their partial response and Clearing the Air's rebuttal:

In your June 12, 2007, e-mail message, you questioned why OSHA was absent from the on going secondhand smoke debate.

Federal OSHA did propose an indoor air quality rule in 1994. It was met with vigorous opposition and was subsequently withdrawn in 2001.

Most of the debate about secondhand smoke has centered on protecting patrons. By federal law, OSHA's jurisdiction is limited to employers with employees...

With all due respect Mr. Isakson it appears to me, and thousands of others, as though OSHA caved into pharmaceutical nicotine special interests and pressure.

And regarding your assertion:

Most of the debate about secondhand smoke has centered on protecting patrons.

The fact of the matter is that tobacco control activists know that they cannot justify smoking bans on this claim.....so all smoking bans in the last couple of years have been justified as protecting the health of employees (Minnesota's included).

And since all the secondhand smoke
air quality test results (measuring for specific trace chemicals) conducted by pro-smoking ban groups around the world prove that secondhand smoke levels are far safer than OSHA permissible exposure limits (PEL).....it's time for OSHA to develop a spine and stand up for its PELs. Especially in light of the fact that remaining silent on the issue brings about more unneccesary smoking bans, countless business closings, and higher unemployment rates.

Smoking bans may seem politically correct to the politicos and
pharmaceutical nicotine special interests that fund them, but they damage local economies, and when the air quality testing is analyzed.....they are certainly not justified.

It's time for OSHA to stand up to these rent seeking bullies, and speak the truth......if your permissible exposure limits are acceptable for
welding smoke in the workplace......then they are acceptable for the far, far, less hazardous secondhand smoke component levels.

Related:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/06/will-there-be-showdown-between-osha-and.html

Air quality testing of secondhand smoke by pro-smoking ban researchers prove levels are far SAFER than OSHA permissible exposure limits for indoor workplace air quality. (see link below:)

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/05/peer-reviewed-and-bmj-published.html

Also visit our sponsors at bottom of webpage
  • Why a Non-Smoker Fights the Pro-Smoking Ban Lies
  • Is RWJF, a 501(c)3, violating IRS rules by funding pro-smoking ban lobbyists?
  • RWJF funds and promotes universal healthcare policies which are the basis for and primary objective of Obamacare
  • Boycott these special interests (J & J) who destroyed the hospitality industry & jobs
  • Is the smoking ban movement fueled by pharmaceutical nicotine interests?
  • Now that smoking bans have been implemented, what can be done?
  • How do smoking ban lobbyists profit from smoking bans?
  • Pharmaceutical interests project the alternative nicotine marketplace to be $4.6 billion +
  • WHO report secondhand smoke doesn't cause cancer
  • Do smoker's cost society more money than non-smoker's? NO
  • Do smoker's cost society more money than non-smoker's? Part 2
  • Why does UCSF researcher Stanton Glantz support smoking bans?
  • OSHA standards prove SHS is not a health hazard
  • Tired of the nanny-state, big, socialized, corrupt, government legislation coming out of our state and federal capitols these days? Vote Republican in November 2010 & 2012
  • NRA.org

    Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

    SILVER BULLET GUN OIL CONTAINS 13% USDA LIQUEFIED PIG
FAT

    "Though we may not be able to protect your business property rights, we certainly support your Second Amendment Rights"

    Shop for Aircleaners

    Combustion Engine Emissions Eliminator (CE3)