253
Highlights: A study this summer found that using a single gas stove burner on
high can raise levels of cancer-causing benzene above what’s been observed from
secondhand smoke. A new investigation by NPR and the Climate Investigations
Center found that the gas industry tried to downplay the health risks of gas
stoves for decades, turning to many of the same public-relations tactics the
tobacco industry used to cover up the risks of smoking. Gas utilities even hired
some of the same PR firms and scientists that Big Tobacco did. Earlier this
year, an investigation from DeSmog showed that the industry understood the
hazards of gas appliances as far back as the 1970s and concealed what they knew
from the public. It’s a strategy that goes back as far back as 1972, according
to the most recent investigation. That year, the gas industry got advice from
Richard Darrow, who helped manufacture controversy around the health effects of
smoking as the lead for tobacco accounts at the public relations firm Hill +
Knowlton. At an American Gas Association conference, Darrow told utilities they
needed to respond to claims that gas appliances were polluting homes and shape
the narrative around the issue before critics got the chance. Scientists were
starting to discover that exposure to nitrogen dioxide—a pollutant emitted by
gas stoves—was linked to respiratory illnesses. So Darrow advised utilities to
“mount the massive, consistent, long-range public relations programs necessary
to cope with the problems.” These studies didn’t just confuse the public, but
also the federal government. When the Environmental Protection Agency assessed
the health effects of nitrogen dioxide pollution in 1982, its review included
five studies finding no evidence of problems—four of which were funded by the
gas industry, the Climate Investigations Center recently uncovered. Karen
Harbert, the American Gas Association’s CEO, acknowledged that the gas industry
has “collaborated” with researchers to “inform and educate regulators about the
safety of gas cooking appliances.” Harbert claimed that the available science
“does not provide sufficient or consistent evidence demonstrating chronic health
hazards from natural gas ranges”—a line that should sound familiar by now.
omg, is this for real? weird how recent conspiracy rumbling about gvmnt taking away gas stoves may have been covering for a real conspiracy. First I’ve read about benzene in stove fumes. Like cooking w/gas
The whole concept of industry co-writing laws and regulations has utterly failed. How much precedent do we need?
Lobbyists are not counselors, it’s just legalized corruption. This is not a healthy part of democracy, but eroding trust.
It’s working against the people.
We know this. Reagan knew this when he opened the door for lobbyists.
According to Marx ( Das Kapital ) corruption of the government towards the interest of the owning class is inevitable.
We still don’t know an effective way to keep government public serving. Marx recommends the end of hierarchy, but that model needs some development.
But yes, government is intended to serve the public and when it doesn’t (such as with regulatory capture) that is government failure. US federal and state governments typically fail, only rarely enacting policy consistent with public interest.
I think if you read beyond Marx there are several ideas that are valid alternatives.
Not that I am a well informed political scientist (so speculating robust political systems is well beyond my pay grade), but I am certainly open to ideas.
Here in the States we haven’t been able to engage in some basic improvements, like disposing of the Electoral College, which was a white-power motivated backdoor from the beginning. So finding the path from regulatory-captured late stage capitalism is going to be a challenge.
The problem is that you want people knowledgeable in the subject to have input, and unfortunately knowledgeable people are usually those that work in the industry as they are up to date with the latest tech, challenges, information, etc.
If you didn’t have that input it would just be politicians and lawmakers making the rules all willy nilly with no real understanding of the nitty gritty details.
There does need to be a better way, but I don’t know what it is.
sometimes it’s a good influence on some otherwise self absorbed politicians. Most of them are going to vote for whatever gets them reelected. trick is to use the system to benefit everyone. Each pol has a staff of career law-writers who know far more than their boss but make them look good for a paycheck. I worked in a college with lots of premadonna phDs whose ignorance about technical details made it hard to sit through a speech without laughing. Smaller scale politics over projects the rank and file had to implement for a paycheck. Still managed to do useful work now and then.