Court's Risk Levels Of Ets Exposure example essay topic

Smoking has been a part of our society since tobacco was discovered in the Americas. It can be found just about everywhere by observing people as they go through their day-to-day activities, watching TV or going to a bar or restaurants and in peoples homes. It has been claimed that secondhand smoke can affect the general health and well being of people exposed to it. The health and well being of these people is a concern of government officials. In return restrictions and laws have been made to try to regulate Environmental Tobacco Smoke [ETS] in public places. Since more and more information has been presented displaying the negative aspects of smoking, the government has begun to regulate smoking in public places.

The claim is that everyone who is exposed to secondhand smoke has the potential to develop respitory illness and lung cancer. An Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] document titled "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders" was released in January of 1993 and furthered that argument. The document provided information on some of the health effects of ETS. The EPA has contended that ETS is causally associated with lung cancer in non-smoking adults and classified ETS as a Group A carcinogen. It was also found to worsen symptoms of one million children in 1993 that were already diagnosed with asthma (Garrison 45).

ETS also produces an increased risk of development of acute lower respiratory infections, middle ear infections, asthma, and respiratory irritation in children exposed at home (Smoak 129). In fact "Mothers who smoke 10 or more cigarettes a day actually can cause as many as 26,000 new cases of asthma among their children each year" (Mahler-Voss ler 40). Also, in 1986 the Surgeon Generals report, the 1986 review by the National Academy of Scientists, and a review paper published in Britain all links to ETS respiratory illness in children and lung cancer in non-smokers (Smoak 130). If the case about children who were exposed to ETS in their household, then one could see how a bar setting where smoking was allowed could potentially present the same risk.

People who did not choose to partake in the risks associated with smoking would still be exposed to the air-borne toxins simply by being in the same area. ETS is as toxic or even more toxic than what the smoker actually inhales. This mainstream smoke that the smokers inhales contains 4000 identified substances and of these identified substances, almost four-dozen of them are known to be carcinogenic (Smoak 131). ETS, also known as secondhand smoke, is a mixture of the mainstream exhaled smoke and side stream smoke, which is smoke and other components that are released from a burning cigarette (Smoak 131). Secondhand smoke has been a serious issue to those Americans who do not smoke because of the increased risk of being in an area contaminated by cigarette smoke and the possibility of associated health risks of secondhand smoke. The Surgeon General first issued warnings of the dangers of smoking in 1972 and later in 1993.

This endorsed the EPA's Report of the dangers of secondhand smoke (Garrison 44). One solution to this risk was to separate smoking and non-smoking areas in public places such as restaurants and waiting areas. Non-smokers then stated that separation of areas was not enough because the smoke simply drifted from one area to the other. This is not only a threat to the potential customers, where ETS is present, but is also a threat to the employees. Al Gore and Bill Clinton made a radio address on August 9, 1997. Bill Clinton talked about new solutions to the potential threats that ETS has on non-smokers in the workplace.

"I [have signed] an executive order that... bans smoking in all federal Facilities under the control of our administration. In August 1998, every federal agency and office building, every visitor's center at every national park, every facility owned or leased by the executive branch must be smoke-free. Now, this order does allow agencies to designate smoking areas for their employees who smoke, as long as these areas are ventilated to the outside and nonsmoking employees do not have to enter them. Our federal workers and the thousands of people who visit federal facilities will now be protected from the risk of secondhand smoke". (Smoak 130) However, in order to understand the validity of all these statistics like, the EPA reports and the Surgeon Generals reports, their needs to be a consideration for human bias or flawed studies concerning ETS and its impact on nonsmokers. Sull um states that the people have to take into account misclassification for some or all of the observed differences caused by secondhand smoke (53) such as lung cancer or heart disease.

Even though there may be misclassification, the truth behind ETS is hard to distinguish. In order to look at the effects that ETS has on the human body, the people need to be able to distinguish the actual cases where ETS has affected people from the different exposures and lifestyles that may have caused diseases such as, lung cancer or heart disease. Both the Occupational Safety, Health Administration (OSHA) and the U.S. Congress along with support from the EPA, have stated that there is a link between such health risks and ETS and have pushed for regulation (Viscusi 104). Only links and assumptions have been made about the risks with no significant statistics. OSHA conducted a series of eleven studies trying to determine the significance of the effects of ETS to display how regulation of smoking in public places is necessary. Of the eleven studies conducted, ten of them failed to show statistically significant linkage of the effects of ETS and health conditions.

(Viscusi 104) With this information, OSHA could not say that there were no health effects related to ETS. Then, how big of a risk is necessary to be labeled a "significant risk"? Viscusi makes a good argument using the 1980 OSHA Benzene case (AFL-CIO vs. American Petroleum Institute), which says that the Supreme Court stated that the risk of contracting an illness from drinking chlorinated water was one-in-a-billion and would not be considered a significant risk. However, the risk from exposure to gasoline vapors being one-in-a-thousand would be significant. Using this information Viscusi goes on to conduct a "test". He wanted to know, how ETS would fare against the risk levels for significance set by the Supreme Court.

Viscusi says that putting ETS risk levels in these terms will help see how ETS risks are related (Viscusi 122). "The amount of water people drink per day from different sources ranges from 2.1 to 2.9 quarts". To be conservative, he assumes that people drink nine glasses of chlorinated water per day. Viscusi also states "I will also assume, that the risk is linear with the number of glasses and that there is no cumulative effect". He adds the person who drinks nine glasses per day for the assumed lifetime of seventy years will consume 229,950 glasses during their lifetime.

Viscusi says if the court was right, then the lifetime risk from the water is two-in-ten thousand. OSHA estimates that between 144 and 722 people will die from lung cancer due to ETS per year. For the 74 million non-smoking Americans are exposed over their 40-year employment, the risk says Viscusi is one-in-ten thousand to four-in-ten thousand. This means that the risk for ETS and drinking chlorinated water fall in the same boundaries. "These calculations translate into lifetime risks as opposed to risks from a particular exposure, so that both the ETS risks and chlorinated water risks discussed by the court are in the same time dimension. The risks of ETS are quite comparable to the level of risks that the Supreme Court views as non significant enough to warrant regulation" (Viscusi 123).

Viscusi ultimately makes a good point saying, the risks according to the Supreme Court's risk levels of ETS exposure is not significant. This assumption is made based upon the fact that there is no cumulative effect of ETS. Viscusi's argument that the effects of ETS are non-cumulative is a flawed, even though he is an expert on the topic and has received funding for his research by many notable sources like the Harvard Law School, and National Bureau of Economic Research. This might make people think about ETS and its effects. Does any one really know if ETS is a health risk or not? Has anyone ever been in a house in which people smoked and helped him or her move out?

When they take the pictures and posters off the walls there is a noticeable outline of the picture. Has anyone ever seen a picture of a smoker's lung cut in half? All the black substance stuck to the lung is an accumulation of tar. The cilia, which are like hair in the lungs, soon disappear after large amounts of toxic substances are inhaled (Harrison 19). So, why wouldn't ETS inhaled by a non-smoker be harmful? The accumulation of tar on the walls and the difference in shade of color, could that not be possible in the lungs of an employee who works at a bar?

"It is not out of concern for bartenders that the prohibitionists are determined to outlaw smoking in bars" (O'Shea 136) but rather, it is the last thing they are concerned in doing. ETS is a serious topic that most of these people are overlooking. All of these factors must be accounted for before people push this topic aside. Another problem with Viscusi's argument is that people can choose to smoke or not. Can humans choose to live with out water for an extended period of time? No, the body requires water to live or after a few days without water, dehydration will ultimately cause death.

Viscusi overlooked this issue, that people need water in order to live and people do not need cigarettes to live. Therefore the validity of Viscusi's argument could be questioned yet again. In the case of secondhand smoke more research needs to be done. Even though the issue is controversial, the evidence is equally controversial. Many studies have been done on the topic of ETS, however many studies have not yet explored all the possibilities and long-term effects of ETS. Officials will continually crack down on this issue as more information is gathered and more is known about ETS.

But in the meantime, the smoke filled rooms are a present health risk to those who choose not to smoke and jeopardize their health. Personally, as a smoker, the issue of ETS highly concerns me. Many people complain about ETS saying that it is a nuisance and that someone should do something about regulating it. The government has started regulations on ETS, but the regulations are not focused on certain aspects and areas, which affect the average American. While my experience is not steeped in research, the day after going to smoke filled rooms like in restaurants and clubs, I have sneezed sooty mucus into a tissue and coughed due to hazy conditions where ventilation was far from good. This is anecdotal evidence, but after looking at the way statistical information has been weighted to conform to the author's purpose or organization sponsoring the study, one can see how the people have been manipulated and intimidated by American courts, agencies, and public opinion.

ETS is an ongoing issue that needs to be addressed so that the non-smoker is not jeopardized..