Believe me, the mistreatment of fat people by employers is in the future. Every time we allow one of these discriminations, we arm the activists with tools for further depredations of our liberties.
As harrassment is the only quantifiable success of all this activism, I can only assume that the attained results are the true motivation. Not surprising in a generation that made a fetish of "empowerment," a thinly veiled euphemism for bullying.
As pointed out earlier, CBS's "60 Minutes" recently broadcast a segment about this phenomenon which informed us that the city of North Miami has quietly rescinded their policy against hiring smokers as police officers as of two years ago. CNN has also done the same with their 13 year ban on hiring smokers.
This phenomenon will occur from time to time in response to ubiquitous anti-smoker publicity campaigns, but most companies can only maintain such policies for so long before human resource departments find there are just not enough quality applicants in just the pool of non-smokers. More than 30% of the working age population smokes.
While health-insurance cost is cited as the reason. At least one of the four people fired at WEYCO didn't participate in their health program. To justify this rationale, it's claimed it's for their own good.
In WEYCO's case, they are in the market to sell custom self-insured health products to businesses. I believe it is their underlying goal to create and promote a niche market for companies wanting to reduce costs, by the exclusion of higher risk catagories such as obesity and smoking. Michigan law prohibits them from engaging in fat discrimination for their own employees, but if they could, they would.
Perhaps someone should remind them that poverty and availability to healthcare, is the single greatest predictor of morbidity and mortality.
As for Scotts, while I'm not one to promote boycotts, I can surely say, I personally won't be using MiracleGro or any other Scotts products in the future.
"begin firing smokers in an effort to reduce health care costs" I would really be interested in seeing any data about health care costs of smokers vs. non-smokers. Is there any hard evidence, except the fact that insurances seem to charge higher premiums for smokers. I know many smokers around me, some way over 60, who have never seen a hospital from the inside.
And if there is evidence based on statistics, how does medical staff determine if e.g. a heart problem is caused by (not simply attributable to) smoking?
I'm concerned that the statistics finding smokers cost employers more dont adequately take into account the fact smokers are twice as likely to be blue collar workers. Of course, a blue colar worker is much more likely to be injured on the job, or to be exposed to dangerous substances in doing his job. And without taking worker status into account, it would look like smokers are twice as likely to suffer illnesses actually caused by blue collar exposure.
Besides, if sick or injured, a blue collar worker can't return to work as soon as his white collar counterpart simply because the work is likely more physically demanding. These possibilities could easily account for much of the difference between employer costs to hire smokers, if not adequately controlled for.
One way around this question is to look at the US Dept of Labor statistics on work loss days. In 1970, the average worker took 5.4 work loss days/year. By 1989, that number increased to 5.6 work loss days/ year. But remember, in 1970, twice as many workers smoked. If Scotts or Weyco fired half of it's smokers, why wouldn't they expect a similiar long-term trend just like the Dept of Labor reports for our whole nation?
And it doesn't just end there. The Dept of Labor also reports when a worker does get sick, in 1970 he had an average of 6.1 bed disability days, but in 1989, had 6.5 bed disability days. and in 1970, a sick worker had an average of 14.6 restricted activity days and in 1989, had 15.2.
So, concerning time-loss, it didn't apparantly benefit our nations' employers for half the workers to voluntairly quit smoking between 1970 and 1989. Why would Scotts and Weyco find a cost-savings benefit after excluding the few remaining smokers from their workforces?
Dave Kuneman
I know in Canada the government relies on "non Government Organizations for their info. Thes NGO's include canadian Cancer Society, Physicans for a smoke free Canada, Canadian Lung Society.
They do the research for the government, and the government basis legislation on it. I found this little miracle that they base the information on. http://www.smokefreeottawa.com/
2...outtabaceng.pdf
The document is a study of studies, and it bases the "facts" by using words such as estimate (29times), assume (4times), assuming (2times), approximately (6times). It tells the government exatcly how much smokers are costing Society. Now you may wonder why those numbers are important. Well, did you realize the document is only 14 pages long? Why are they basing legislation on assumptions and estimates? Is it no wonder they don't want to talk the methodology of their reasoning?? by using exact numbers upon many different estimates and assumptions they come to an exact figure for the government.
(P.S. I have a copy saved months ago, if the link dies) 
During a recent visit to a local Lowe's store, several employees were smoking in front of the store entrance, where a sign was posted that stated "Now Hiring; all employees must take drug tests."
Its quit hypocritical to argue that employers shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against cigarette smokers (who smoke an average 600 cigarettes per month), while remaining silent about the massive number of employers who discriminate against marijuana smokers (even if they smoke only one joint in a month).
Thanks to both of you. So I guess nobody really knows ... but many pretend to know.
Interesting, the paper from Canada!
Decreased productivity
Is productivity = time sitting at the desk?
First they ban smoking on the premises, then they calculate the wasted time: "Assuming that an employee requires ten minutes to smoke a cigarette and five minutes to get to the smoking area and back, a smoker spends in total an average of fifteen minutes per day on smoking rituals, hence wasted time."
I usually had my coffee and my cigarette at the same time , together with my non-smoker collegues. Ban coffee breaks!
Blue collar workers usually smoke while working. White collar workers don't need a desk to work, their brain doesn't stop working while smoking. An informal meeting with others while smoking is as good as many of the useless formal meetings I attended in my life. And many white collar workers don't drop their hammer at the chime of the clock.
Increased life insurance premiums
"the formula used to calculate the additional cost of life insurance premiums attributable to employees who smoke" This doesn't say anything about the real cost nor does it say how they are calculated. It's a formula made up by the insurances so they can charge more, on no scientific grounds.
Costs associated with smoker's premature death
"The premature death of smokers deprives society and the smoker’s family of significant income during the most productive years of life"
But it frees jobs for unemployed, I'm inclined to say. What is premature death? When are the most productive years of life? Between 55 and 65? Many of my collegues (and my wife) at this age are jobless!
What they don't say of course, is that the same formula applies to any "premature" death, be that illness or accident.
They even come to the conclusion that premature death (smokers only!) is partly at the taxpayers expense, because dead people don't pay taxes!
If you take that to the extreme, not conceiving children is bad for taxes!
That's an excellent point Bill, "Now Hiring; all employees must take drug tests." Thank you for pointing it out. This is just another example of the unwarranted invasion into privacy caused by busybodies wanting to control others.
Why do we discriminate against marijuana smokers? Arguably one can say because marijuana use is illegal in most places, and the AMA recommended it be classified as a narcotic.
I'm just waiting for an anti-smoker film maker like Bob Reiner (prop 10 fame) to make a "tobacco control" film, which will be destined to rival the cult film Reefer Madness. In the black-and-white world of Reefer Madness, one puff of the Demon Weed instantly transforms the smoker into a horny, violent, cackling weed freak, twitching insanely with the spastic abandon of Crispin Glover on a pancake griddle. Maybe "The Truth" has plans for something like this?
But we can ultimately thank people like Harry Anslinger, head of the Bureau of Narcotics as he waged a propaganda campaign against Marijuana. Here are some of his claims:
There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."
"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."
"Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."
"Reefer makes darkies think they're as good as white men."
"Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing"
"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."
"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."
And he loved to pull out his own version of the "assassin" definition:
"In the year 1090, there was founded in Persia the religious and military order of the Assassins, whose history is one of cruelty, barbarity, and murder, and for good reason: the members were confirmed users of hashish, or marihuana, and it is from the Arabs' 'hashashin' that we have the English word 'assassin.'"
But without the publicity from the media through his connections with William Randolph Hearst, national attention would not have been made.
"Was it marijuana, the new Mexican drug, that nerved the murderous arm of Clara Phillips when she hammered out her victim's life in Los Angeles?... THREE-FOURTHS OF THE CRIMES of violence in this country today are committed by DOPE SLAVES -- that is a matter of cold record."
Utah was the first state to prohibit the use of Marijuana in 1915, at the urging of the Mormon Church. Of course we know how Mormons feel about caffeine and nicotine.
Which reminds me, since more people habitually use caffeine Bill, why not use that in your example of such hypocrisy?
BTW, I don't shop at Lowes either because of their bad policies towards employees, and total disregards of their privacy. Obviously you approve of such activity by patronizing their stores.
Re: Lowes
Oh and they sponsor Jimmey Johnson too. One more reason not to shop at Lowes! 
Congradulations Tony and his #20 Team!
Bill,
Is it not hypocritical then that Lowe's is not allowed to discriminate against women, Jews, blacks and fatties too, Bill? What's the difference?
How much of an employees personal life ought an employer be able to dictate and micromanage, anyway? Should an employer require employees go to church on Sundays? Should an employer require employees to be Chicago Cubs fans? Should an employer require employees not to eat sauerkraut? How far should this go?
Or do you truly believe that when one contracts as an employee of a company, one implicitly relinquishes any and all civil or constitutional rights as a condition of employment?
Well, Bill, the Drug War is just as unconstitutional a criminal enterprise as the anti-tobacco movement.
If employee "A" smokes and his wife does not, but is on the Company Insurance Policy, the net is 2 insured, 1 smoker. Employee "A" is fired.
If employee "B" does not smoke, and his wife does smoke and is on the Companies Insurance Policy, the net is 2 insured, 1 smoker. Employee "B" retains his job.
Tell me the Net savings to the Insurance Provider?
Zero.
This is proof of discrimination.
The simple answer to Ed Psycho's question is that women cannot change their sex, blacks cannot change their race, and the first amendment of the US Constitution protects the right of religous freedom.
But many employers discriminate against fat people (that's why you don't see fat ballerinas, fashion models, jockeys or fitness trainers).
Just as fat people can lose weight, smokers can overcome their cigarette addiction.
Bill, you skirted the main issue in an attempt to make these company decisions appear mainstream.
ed psyco's questions were these.
"How much of an employees personal life ought an employer be able to dictate and micromanage, anyway? Should an employer require employees go to church on Sundays? Should an employer require employees to be Chicago Cubs fans? Should an employer require employees not to eat sauerkraut? How far should this go?
Or do you truly believe that when one contracts as an employee of a company, one implicitly relinquishes any and all civil or constitutional rights as a condition of employment?"
They would seem easy enough to answer, so why avoid them?
Well, Bill, I guess you're partly right, since I couldn't find a fat professional jockey. But a casual search on Google turned up the following:
No such thing as an overweight ballerina? Here's one that is taking legal action to get her job back with the Bolshoi Ballet.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/
n...1039014,00.html
No such thing as an overweight fashion model? Here's a whole page full.
http://www.linkdiscovery.com/
bbw...w_modeling.html
No such thing as overweight fitness trainers? Here's an article from the 1 September 2005 New York Times, entitled "New Breed of Trainers Are Proving Fat is Fit" about, well, overweight fitness trainers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/0...5070&
oref=login
But in any event, Bill, like Zippy said, you're skirting the main issue:
Just how much of their civil and constitutional rights ought a person give up when they become an employee?
You couldn't find an overweight Jockey because the overall weight of the Horse/Jockey combination is weighed.
You can add weight to this combination, which is often the case, but it's pretty darned hard to reduce the overall weight.
Not many overweight championship race horses, so it is the Jockeys weight that must be limited.
I think Bill knew that, but was stuck for idea's.
Sorry Bill, but keep trying.
OBTW, how about that pull back of the Hennipen County Minnesota Ban.
Mark one up for the good guys......
I am employed by Scotts. I am a smoker. Obviously I disagree with the policy. One thing I keep reading about is the health and fitness center that Scotts has spent millions on for the employees. Ummmm.....it's at corporate headquarters in Marysville, OH. I work in Iowa!!! This policy is worldwide, not just in Marysville OH!! Sure, Scotts is providing support to quit smoking but I have smoked for 30 years and never miss work, still very active, don't want to quit and just contributed to the higher insurance rates by having neck surgery caused by playing on a company sponsored softball team!!! I'm amazed that this invasion of privacy can be allowed. People have mentioned that I can find another job. This is a town of 10,000 people. There are few jobs here. I have been in the same profession for 30 years and would probably have to relocate to a city to find a job that I am qualified for. Leave family and friends? I guess I'll quit smoking if that's the only choice I have....but will I be a happy employee??
We as consumers have a responsibility to stand up to corporate america. I have a way that we can help all those that are being discriminated against! First smokers then drinkers then high blood pressure, diabetics, obisity? What will be next. I for one will now sell all my stocks in any company that enforces these policys. I will also not buy their products. My husbad served our country proudly but as he say's now "For what purpose?" So corporate america can tell us what we can and can't do on our own time. I call upon all Americans to do the same, boycot all companies that interfer with employees free time. Yes, if you do not want employees smoking in the work place that is your right but when they are not on your clock there lives are none of your business.
To think I used to use your product. NO MORE
I agree.....My Dad and thousands like him fought to keep this country free in WW2.....they were ALL smokers! Even though I don't smoke, and none in my extended family do, I will boycott Scotts products.....Turfbuilder, Miracle gro, round up, etc. This IS/was the land of the free....if health costs are too high, by god, we need universal health insurance....We're a nation og hedonists, c'mon. Scotts needs to be kicked to the curb
Currently recovering at home from 2nd heart attack in 7 years. Quitting the noxious tobacco habit Saturday after c. 45 years. Perhaps you'll enjoy this video I recorded 1989.
If so, help me get it published..!
Hi Rob. Couldn't get the video to work, so I'll try again tomorrow.
I quit 10+ years ago. When I was going through withdrawal I finally understood how people could "lose it".
Thank heavens for the nicotine gum (I found the patches to be less effective).
It's not that way for everyone, so there's hope that it could go easier for you.
Good luck to you. Come back and post if things get rough. I'll check back and see if there's some way to help out.
Scotts Miracle grow should look at the products they are putting out. Chemicals that stink and can't be good for your health or the environment.
I think it is "do as I say, not as I do".
Scotts must not like smokers' money either.
Since I am a smoker I don't feel I can be their "perfect person" and they won't see my hard earned dollars.
Linda
Companies like Miracle Gro and there
attitude towards smokers should be hit where it hurts. In there billion dollar plus profit margin. A company with there attitude should not be allowed to be in business in what is supposed to be a free United States. Lets see how they like it when there customers stop buying there products. When that happens Miracle Gro's Ceo's won't have to worry about smokers anymore. As they themselves will be out looking for a job. Besides the chemicals that they sell are more dangerous to human health then the cigarettes.
I am a smoker as well and frankly I think Scotts is alienating a large group of people for no good reason. I think one of the best arguments is the fact that it is unconstitutional for them to ban smoking outside of work but I also agree with the questions regarding overweight employees, what about people with pre-existing conditions, etc? Will they be allowed to work there? Of course we would be healthier if we didn't smoke but if we do we are punishing ourselves, we shouldn't lose our jobs because of it. I understand healthcare costs increasing and I understand a need to decrease them if at all possible but I think the bigger issue in this is what kind of control a company has over their employees. I believe in the military you can only technically have sex in the missionary position...so is my company going to tell me that as well? They'd probably have to fire 75% of America if that were the case! I'm sure this sounds ridiculous but I'm afraid that's where it's going. This will never stop at just smoking.
75% to 90% of doctor visits are due to stress related problems.
Stress also weakens the resistence to illnesses.
For smokers, not smoking causes stress. Smoking relieves stress feelings as we saw in the aftermath of 9/11 when smoking rates revived in NYC.
So anti-smoking measures in the workplace increase the stress level and therefore have a negative effect on the average health level of smokers.
So what are we actually doing here?
You should all hang your heads in shame. You pollute the earth with chemicals for the sake of a greener lawn with no weeds and you have the audacity to target someone who smokes? At your next board meeting after you have gorged yourselves with alcohol and driven there in your gas guzzling Mercedes and SUVs try and focus your alcohol soaked brains on one fact. We're all God/s children and subject to wrong thinking but should that make you deprive otherwise good people of the right to support their family. i will pray that you re-think your decision.
Do you think it's just a coincidence that a high ranking official of the R.J. Reynolds tobacco company is leaving her seat on the board of directors at Scotts/Miracle Gro in January??? Don't know for sure but it sure sounds like she may have a conflict of interest. At least she's giving up the right seat.
my spouse works in iowa also. been there over 7 years. and both of us smoke. with the new policies, not only does she have to quit, but so do I, otherwise she won't be able to carry insurance on me. This gym doesn't benefit anyone here. I've heard nothing of the stop smoking programs available. and, after this goes into effect, they are going to start targeting a broader group of people. The generally not so healthy. If they don't fill out the wellness survey, they don't get insurance. if they do, they have to follow doctor recomendations, or you get higher rates. This is far from being just a way to attack smokers, they are trying to bankrupt the company by not being able to employ anyone. No one will be able to afford to work with them, they won't be able to get insurance. but they'll be healthy! so i guess they won't need it.
Who the hell is kidding who here! What the hell does Scotts sell! Nothing but carcinogens! come on!
Where the hell does this company think these chemicals go after a good nice rain? Right into our freaking drinking water! This country is totally out of control if we stand by and let companies like this start taking control of our lives outside of the work place!
We are all #!!!*&^%^%$!
Excellent point Kim!!! Scotts is not exactly in the best position to be lecturing the world on public health!
To Bill:
The 1964 SG terrys report on tobacco called it's use habituation, C.E. Koop and his political health attack smokers and tobacco companies changed the word habituation to "addiction" used as anti smokers talking point.
I drive the same route to work every day, Am I an addict? How about the human traits that you do in a repetive manner? You must be an addict also. New speak and new world revisionists "only smokers are creatures of habit and addiction"
gimmee a break
Scotts, the public health care company (as long as it increases benefits)!
"Despite Scotts learning in 1971 that the vermiculite it was obtaining from W.R. Grace Co.'s mine in Montana was contaminated with asbestos, the company failed to inform its workers until 1976. Even then Scotts downplayed the risks."
"In 1986, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded that asbestos exposure at any level has the potential to cause cancer and in 1989 prohibited the manufacturing, importation, processing and distribution of most products containing asbestos. This ban was overturned in 1991, after a three-judge panel of the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the agency did not adequately consider the economic effects of the ban." [emphasis added by my]
"In November 2002, The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) took Scotts to court for failing to register two pesticides before selling and distributing them in New York State. The unregistered pesticides included a new formulation of Grubex that contained the active ingredient halofenizide. This product was subsequently denied registration, because of concerns about groundwater contamination, [...] During the course of the registration review, it was discovered that Scotts had sold Grubex to retail stores throughout the state, including stores on Long Island. Scotts was fined $300,000 and was required to pay $900,000 towards an Environmental Benefit Project [...]."
"Carbaryl Carbaryl is an insecticide used in a variety of Scotts' products, including Ortho Bug-Geta Plus - which the company claims is safe to use around fruit and vegetables [...].
According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, headaches, memory loss, muscle weakness and cramps, and anorexia are caused by prolonged low-level exposure to carbaryl resulting from cholinesterase inhibition. The chemical is also a suspected carcinogen and has been implicated in a variety of other health problems."
"Malathion is another insecticide used in several of Scotts' products, [...] According to the US Agency for Toxic Substances, malathion interferes with the normal function of the nervous system. Exposure to high amounts of malathion in the air, water, or food may cause difficulty breathing, chest tightness, vomiting, cramps, diarrhoea, watery eyes, blurred vision, salivation, sweating, headaches, dizziness, loss of consciousness, and death."
"Below are just a few of the chemicals used in Scotts' pesticide products:
# Triforine – recognised developmental toxicant and suspected immunotoxicant.[106]
# Resmethrin - recognised developmental toxicant and suspected neurotoxicant.
# Permetrin – suspected carcinogen and endocrine, gastrointestinal and reproductive toxicant."
[... list goes on ...]
"According to Environmental Defense, there is insufficient data available for a safety assessment of all of these chemicals. In other words Scotts, having completely failed to adequately assess their safety, is subjecting millions of people worldwide to a cocktail of chemicals that are recognised, or suspected, to be harmful."
More about Scotts health program for the world (sorry, forgot the link for the above citations): http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=370
GREAT FIND Benpal!
I THINK THE SCOTT'S OWNER SHOULD BE UP THERE WITH SADAM , TRYING TO MAKE PEOPLE STOP SOMETHING THEY HAVE BEEN DOING FOR A LONG TIME.IS JUST COMUNESIUM.. HE IS A MAN THAT IS OUT TO RUN THE WORLD. AND WHO THE HELL GIVES HIM THE RIGHT TO TELL ANYONE WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN'T DO...HOW WOULD HE LIKE IT IS SOMEONE WAS TO PUT A STRICK CAMAND ON HIM..MAYBE SOMEONE SHOULD TELL HIM TO LOSE THE BEARD, AND GROW SOME HAIR. THEN HE CAN CONTINUE TO GIVE CAMANDS. BUT UNTIL THEN HE NEEDS TO BACK OFF.. HE DIDN'T GIVE BIRTH TO US AND HE IS NOT GOD...IF HE LOOSES ALL THE PEOPLE THAT SMOKE MAYBE IS COMPANY WONT RUN AS WELL AS IT HAS BEEN..THEN HE WILL SEE THAT SMOKING OR NOT, IT DOESN'T MAKE THE DIFFERENCE ON HOW THEY DO THERE WORK. SMOKERS HAVE BEEN AROUND A LOT LONGER THAN HE HAS BEEN ALIVE. AND WHO IS TO SAY THAT HIS SCOTT'S MIRACLE GROW DOESN'T CAUSE CANCER, HE PUTS PALUTENTS INTO THE AIR WE BREATH ALSO. THERE ARE ALOT WORSE THINGS IN THIS WORLD THAN CIGARETTE SMOKERS.... LIKE CEMICAL PLANTS,CAR EXAUSTS,CORDLESS PHONE BATTERIES,JUST TO NAME A FEW...SO IF HE WANTS TO PICK ON SMOKERS HES GOING TO HAVE SOME ANGRY PEOPLE IN HIS FACE.
Benpal - OMG what a post!
If I had a hat I'd put it on just to take it off to you.
I guess flapping a ponytail doesn't carry the same cache...
But as we've all noticed, it's the companies transferring liability to victim blame that need and use the scapegoating, aided by 'industry-friendly' government officials, in many cases ex-CEO's who don't seem to have recognized any need for a priority shift when moving into public service.
Various insurance companies had begun to refuse insurance coverage for asbestos workers by 1918, but the strategy of the NONETHELESS INSURED chemical/asbestos company leaders was to attribute lung cancer - the most common cancer caused by asbestos exposure - to smoking.
The EWG site I googled for is currently down, but here's the URL for the cache:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=ca...clnk&cd=1&
gl=ca
'"Asbestosis, lung or colon cancer claims whether comp or liability, from asbestos workers or those working with asbestos materials, are one thing, but the general public exposure and claim potential is much more serious."
'— 1969 The Travelers Insurance Co. memo'
And using the high rates of smoking among high-risk groups such as mining and factory workers, the bulk of liability for lung cancers is transferred to victim blame.
http://www.lkaz.demon.co.uk/ban54.htm
'The Canadian government's continued resistance to “national and international efforts to ban asbestos around the world,” is condemned by Dr. Joe LaDou in his paper: The Asbestos Cancer Epidemic.7 Highlighting the role of Canada in prolonging the use of chrysotile asbestos in countries “that do not recognize and report health effects,” 'LaDou predicts:
“The asbestos cancer epidemic may take as many as 10 million lives before asbestos is banned worldwide and exposures are brought to an end…The asbestos cancer epidemic would have been largely preventable if the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labor Organization (ILO) had responded early and responsibly… The WHO and ILO, along with many other public health agencies, need to step forward with a clear demand for an international ban on asbestos and plans to accomplish the goal.”
And a quote from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE):
"In heavily exposed populations there have typically been as many, sometimes up to five times as many, excess lung cancers as there have been mesotheliomas..."
But while it's not been possible to attribute deadly mesothelioma and asbestosis, (both caused only by asbestos fibres) to smoking, despite long-running efforts on the part of the asbestos industry, lung cancer in smokers is typically and automatically labelled as due to smoking - and now second-hand smoke continues the usefulness of the scapegoat as smoking rates drop, in 'explaining' the equal proportions among high-risk groups regardless of smoking status.
It's claimed by asbestos interests that while asbestos fibres working through to the OUTSIDE of the lung can independently cause cancer, cancer WITHIN the lung (where fibres most often impale cells to remain until death) somehow requires smoking to appear in most cases, although asbestos (like radon) is a complete carcinogen and needs nothing beyond its own presence and physical properties to potentially 'knock-out' genetic controls to cause cancer in any cell it pierces - apart from complex chemical reactions caused by asbestos fibres producing cancer and other disease, most frequently in the lungs.
And while many people have developed asbestos-related diseases from short-term/summer/student jobs, only the mesothelioma and asbestosis claims are accepted, as lung cancer has too many other causes and in smokers is almost invariably claimed due to this alone or in a claimed 'multiplicative effect' discovered by industry scientists such as Doll at a time when nearly all exposed smoked, leaving very few never-smokers to give any indication of a lower rate in non-smokers because of this.(?)
This strategy of transferred blame and liability is common among all toxic industries, various of such corporations having poured millions to hundreds of millons of dollars into partnerships with universities around the globe which are now refusing tobacco (possibly the only industry not working toward victim blame for virtually all disease and almost the only 'outsider' with resources or incentive to disprove their claims) research funding, initiating campus smoking bans and producing studies showing that only victim blame produces disease already proven to be caused by the produce of these industries.
http://www.btinternet.com/~ibas/
...eath_by_asb.htm
"The focus of Congress is protecting businesses not victims and their families..."
(working links to EWG site and the timeline at) http://reports.ewg.org/reports/a...stos/documents/
Used exactly as directed, asbestos (like many other products, substances and pollutants) kills - and it's something nobody wants in thousands of unlabelled products, their homes and other buildings, sidewalks and roadways (so frequently drilled to release fibres en masse apart from normal wear releases), gardens, potted plants, vehicles, indoor and outdoor atmosphere and bodies.
But the permanent accumulation in our lives and lungs continues to build for industry profit, to our perpetual cost.
Not only is asbestos not banned, despite the historical and current rates of disease, premature, agonizing death and the calls for banning which show the trail of asbestos across the globe, but the companies profiting are protected from their victims.
Only our personal choices are to be accused, restricted, banned and controlled; industry rules our lives, and the rules are destructive to life itself.
And in view of publicity regarding insurance-related industries carefully ridding themselves of smokers a year prior to the toxic RIP cigarettes imposed by law, one recalls the previous knowledge of insurance companies regarding asbestos contamination and effects to wonder why all liability for employees not testing clear of tobacco use was so throughly abandoned, and why concerns of disease appearance often in five years or so are expressed just prior to enforced RIP, with increased toxicity declared of no moment by those intent on eliminating smokers.
Following the exposure of millions during wartime to heavy asbestos use in shipyards, as well as radiation exposures incurred in mining, processing and experimenting with uranium in the race to build the atomic bomb, and exposures to various chemical carcinogens, when government was denying liability for lung cancer in veterans who were smokers, and when Doll - serving the U.S. and other government as well as industry in pronouncing such killers as Agent Orange safe, and personal choices instead responsible for health issues - discovered that none of his employers were responsible for more than a very small proportion of disease appearing in their workers and consumers through their own filthy personal habits, Lorillard was somehow convinced to produce billions of cigarettes with asbestos 'micronite' filters from about 1952 to about 1957, creating a massive wave of asbestos-related disease specifically in smokers and the greatest degree of confounding probably in history, but which is mentioned ONLY in regard to asbestos history and NEVER among epidemiologists merely counting diseases and matching them up with persons who smoked, ignoring the multitude of smokers (assuming only this brand used asbestos, which is uncertain) who were unknowingly subjected to the direct inhalation of asbestos causing not only lung but lip, mouth, throat and other cancers - because asbestos was protected by government using it even in gas masks intended to preserve lives long enough to fight.
http://www.aliciapatterson.org/A...evin/
Levin.html
'About the Companies
Lorillard, Inc. (formerly P. Lorillard Co.). is the country’s 4th-largest cigarette maker, producing such brands as Newport, Kent, True, and Old Gold, as well as small cigars and chewing tobacco. In 1986, Lorillard had sales of nearly $1.6 billion, excluding taxes, turning out over 47 billion cigarettes for an 8.1 percent share of the U.S. market.
Lorillard is a subsidiary of Loews Corp., which also has hotel, insurance, and watch manufacturing interests, and a controlling, 25% stake in CBS, Inc.
'Hollingsworth & Vose, based in East Walpole, Mass., is a privately held manufacturer of specialty paper and filter materials, with annual sales of more than $100 million, according to Paper Age magazine
'The company has plants in Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, Mexico and England. Over the years, Hollingsworth & Vose’s product line has included gasket materials, and fiberglass and asbestos media for use in gas masks and oil and air filters.'
Was the (self-insured?) tobacco company such a relatively small part of this one subsidiary (with CBS included in later asbestos lawsuits) and with smokers unlikely to sue over what was likely to be perceived as self-inflicted disease, that it could be sacrificed by the parent company in a strategy protecting larger and more lucrative areas threatened by potential bankruptcy if the truth about widespread asbestos use and public exposure became known and the potential millions of lawsuits exploded in the asbestos, insurance industry's and government's faces?
The article is slanted to present tobacco as a greater hazard than asbestos, despite 80% of those heavily asbestos-exposed developing lung damage and disease, with a 40% rate of cancer appearance.
But it does make it obvious that government officials had no problems with the use of asbestos, that cancer appears with asbestos exposure rather than tobacco use, and that blame is assigned to tobacco use even with asbestos provably present. TBC
Hi, guys,
If we can get a general idea of the times, and an emphasis on a few examples of what was contained in the links above, this may aid understanding.
From the industry document collection in the EWG site listed previously:
'The cover up'
"KEEP THIS INFORMATION MOST CONFIDENTIAL"
'By the late 1940s, asbestos manufacturers, industries that used significant amounts of asbestos in their operations, and their insurance companies all acknowledged internally that asbestos caused lung cancer, asbestosis and mesothelioma. Rather than adopt safety standards, switch to safer products, or provide protections for workers, these companies went to extraordinary lengths to conceal the truth about asbestos from workers, the public and the press. In some cases company officials went so far as to monitor the health of workers while deliberately withholding the results of this monitoring from them. Typically, however, worker health was not actively monitored, but decisive information on the dangers of asbestos was held secret. In other cases, companies interfered with and even rewrote scientific study results, restricted key information on asbestos hazards to management while keeping it from workers, and deliberately failed to label, or altered labels on, products.
'A 1949 Exxon document described above illustrates the point. The document lists the diseases from asbestos exposure as "Silicosis, Fiberosis, Erythema & Cancer of Lungs" under the banner "COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL: Not For Publication In Present Form."
'Asbestos diseases are latent, taking decades to appear after initial exposure. This latency period allowed companies to use workers for decades, knowing they were being injured or perhaps even killed by their work, yet also knowing that the men and women on the job would have no early warning that they might die from the asbestos they were exposed to.
'For companies like Exxon, DuPont, and Dow that were sufficiently removed from basic asbestos manufacturing, withholding this information was relatively simple — workers would not ordinarily think of asbestos risks — and concealing information was a very effective way to reduce compensation payouts.'
This - in the continuing boom of war-time exposure diseases for which multiple governments did not wish to be held liable - is the atmosphere in which the world was to be completely convinced that not asbestos (or radiation or artificial chemicals) but personal choices - especially smoking, were either directly or indirectly responsible for disease.
And it was then that the first major studies (by industry scientists like Doll) began to appear showing that industry - and governments - were not liable for the great bulk of ills caused by asbestos and other exposure.
It was the actions of the victims themselves - and nearly all the high-risk smoked to some extent, or had done so at some time - responsible, and even factories where the lung cancer rate was known to be 10 times higher than expected among asbestos-exposed workers could hardly be blamed if their employees smoked.
This later quote from Dr. Mancuso covers issues already established:
'1958 National Gypsum Memo
'But perhaps the most authoritative account of the dangers of asbestos can be found in a blistering 1964 report from a medical doctor hired by Philip Carey Manufacturing, in which the doctor describes in no uncertain terms to the company's legal department the health hazards of asbestos to the company's workers and customers. (The doctor was fired soon after the company received his report.)
"There is an irrefutable association between asbestos and cancer. This association has been established for cancer of the lung and for mesothelioma. There is suggestive evidence... for cancer of the stomach, colon and rectum also. There is substantial evidence that cancer and mesothelioma have developed in environmentally exposed groups, i.e., due to air pollution for groups living near asbestos plants and mines. Evidence has been established for cancer developing among members of the household. Mesotheliomas have developed among wives, laundering the work clothes of asbestos workers. Substantial evidence has been presented that slight and intermittent exposures may be sufficient to produce lung cancer and mesothelioma. There should be no delusion that the problem will disappear or that the consumer or working population will not become aware of the problem and the compensation and legal liability involved." (Bowker, pg. 171)'
'A 1975 insurance industry memo summarized non-workplace exposure as a major risk facing the industry. Forty percent of housewives and 50 percent of blue-collar workers had identifiable asbestos fibers in their lungs at death. The author concluded that, "It is now found (that) the public in general is or has been exposed to asbestos products to a far greater degree than previously recognized." [Source: Insurance industry memo 10/09/75]
'Exxon memo
'On June 18, 1975, The Travelers Insurance Company's Catastrophe Products Committee laid out "facts" well known to the asbestos industry and its insurers at the time:
"1) Asbestos causes cancer. Once asbestos fibers are ingested by a person, in no matter how small a quantity, they remain in the body and can be the cause of cancer 10 or 20 years later. There is no known way of removing the fibers from the body.
'2) Asbestos is used in a wide variety of products: insulation, roofing, chemicals, wallboard, piping, etc."
'— 1975 The Travelers Insurance Co. memo'
Due to continual and accumulating product exposures, we all now have asbestos fibres in our lungs, and industry has argued - even in the case of employees - that less than a million fibres per wet gram of lung tissue (standard used to be dry grams, but wet decreases the count, which actually only includes a very limited category of those actually present...) indicates common, not occupational, exposure.
Smoking/ETS is supposed to be the cause without which poor helpless little proven complete carcinogens like universally present (thanks, guys) asbestos and radon could not cause disease - and since the discovery that - among all industry and vehicular emissions - diesel exhaust alone* (with hard carbon particles remaining in the lung after death to be found concentrated in cancers when looked for, like asbestos fibres) is thought to be (in specifically conservative estimate) the cause of 580 cancers per million in the U.S., the explosion of tobacco blame now covers all ills, with air pollution and asbestos exposures no more problem than a hundred thousand artificial industry chemicals to which we're exposed, a number of these already tested for found in our bodies - all this carried by the smoke of a herb failing to produce the effects of these others yet somehow responsible for them all.
'Manipulating the media
'As word began to trickle out to the mainstream media about the appalling hazards of asbestos, controlling information flow and manipulating the media became a top priority for the industry. In June 1973, at a meeting of the Asbestos Textile Institute, asbestos industry representatives predicted the deaths of tens of thousands of employees from asbestos disease, and then noted that "the good news" was that the public was still vastly unaware of the problem.
'The meeting's guest speaker, an executive from the Asbestos Information Association, began his presentation by laying out the facts:
"First, there is no doubt that the inhalation of substantial amounts of asbestos can lead to increased rates of various types of lung disease, including two forms of cancer. These are facts which cannot be denied, even if they do not apply in all circumstances and under all conditions. The medical literature is full of solid evidence linking asbestos to disease. In my office, I have on file more than 2,000 medical papers dealing with the health risks of asbestos and hundreds more are published every year."
'— 1973 Asbestos Textile Institute memo
'The presenter plainly stated that insulation workers "were and still are dying from asbestos disease at an appalling rate."
'Figures were put forward about what the industry expected to happen to its workers:
"Our prediction is that approximately 25,000 past and present employees in the asbestos industry have died or will eventually die of asbestos-related disease."
'— 1973 Asbestos Textile Institute memo
'Then came the "good news:"
"And the good news is that despite all the negative articles on asbestos-health that have appeared in the press over the past half-dozen years, very few people have been paying attention."
'— 1973 Asbestos Textile Institute memo
'Finally, the guest speaker laid out his thoughts about media coverage of asbestos issues:
"The press relations battle will therefore be won, not when the media starts to print positive or balanced articles about asbestos, but when the press ceases to print anything about asbestos at all. As long as negative news on asbestos-health continues to be generated, the media will continue to eat it up. The media will only cease to carry such stories when the generation of negative news ceases. It is as simple as that. Positive or balanced stories are a chimera, since they are, by definition, not newsworthy."
'— 1973 Asbestos Textile Institute memo'
Gee, how did the tobacco industry wind up being accused of the documented behaviour of the asbestos/chemical companies and others, with the worst accusation of all being that they denied having done so?
Look up some of the documents used to proclaim cigarette manufacturers as the comparative worst.
* http://www.scorecard.org/env-
rel...hap_diesel.html http:www.informaworld.com/smpp/
content~content=a725256584~db=all
http://www3.interscience.wiley.c...STRACT?
CRETRY...
Oops & apologies - I'm guessing I shouldn't be focussing on my dog (obviously, dog 1st - other stuff later) when I need to preview to check URLs, especially when obvious deletions need to be made from copied sections...
For the above URLs, try http://www3.interscience.wiley.c...RETRY=1&
RETRY=0
http://www.informaworld.com/
smpp...25256584~db=all
3 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
