119. Hemoglobin is useful because it:
D

120. Which of the following diseases is caused by exposure to particles inhaled primarily in the workplace? (Examples: silica, coal dust, and asbestos):
E

121. Some inhaled air never reaches the lungs. Instead it fills the nasal cavities, trachea, and bronchi. These passages are referred to as:
C
122. Which of the following is NOT an obstructive pulmonary disorder?
B

123. Hypoventilating is:
A

124. Acidosis can result from hypoventilation. This means:
C

125. A pneumonectomy includes removal of:
B

Your question is about getting some reputable sites to do research with, so here they are:

—1. “Implementation report on the Council Recommendation limiting the public exposure to electromagnetic fields”, (European Community):
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_determinants/environment/EMF/implement_rep_en.pdf

—2. “Conclusions of the group of experts on health hazards and recommendations for reducing exposure of the population to RF electromagnetic fields” (English starts at page 7):
http://www.champagne-ardenne.sante.gouv.fr/ddass/fr/dd10/dossiers/bruit/www.sante.gouv.fr/htm/dossiers/telephon_mobil/pdf/chap_v.pdf

=== Excerpt ===

Page 08 of 12: “The group of experts recommend adopting an approach based on the precautionary principle to manage any potential risks associated with mobile telephony. (…) The general overall objective should be to reduce average exposure of the public to the lowest possible level compatible with service quality”

Page 09 of 12: “The group of experts recommend that ’sensitive’ buildings (hospitals, day care centers, and schools), located less than 100 metres from a macrocell base station, should not be directly in the path of the transmission beam.”

—3. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP):
http://www.icnirp.de/

—4. “Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic fields”, (ICNIRP):
http://www.icnirp.de/documents/emfgdl.pdf

=== Excerpt ===

Page 05: “Biological basis for limiting exposure (up to 100kHz)”
Page 11: “Biological basis for limiting exposure (100kHz-300GHz)”
Page 15: “Guidelines for limiting electro-magnetic field (EMF) exposure”

—5. “Exposure to high frequency electromagnetic fields (100 kHz-300 GHz), biological effects and health consequences”, (ICNIRP):
http://www.icnirp.de/documents/RFReview.pdf

–
Pascal

Set up an appointment with a lawyer knowledgeable in worker’s compensation, torts (preferably toxic torts), personal injury, and labor law. To get all these specialties in one interview, you probably will have to contact a firm.

Usually the initial consultation is free, and you can probably set up a contingency fee so you don’t pay unless you win (assuming you have a case).

2. Yes it has, and yes it was. And I supported it, we had a problem and we came up with solution to the problem.

3. No at the time there was decent research show that DDT was causing problems in the environment. Also DDT was losing its effectiveness, and we had replacements for DDT that cause less damage. But there is new research that DDT may not have been as bad as they said, so we might be seeing DDT again.

4. Maybe, but we’ll never know for sure, it would depend on how it was applied and what damage was done to the coating.

5. No I don’t celebrate anyone’s death.

6.) Would you be critical of companies/corporations that have adopted environmentally-friendly practices? For example, Microsoft has abandoned the use of PVC in its packing materials. Good or bad?

6. No it’s not up the companies/corporations to decide how they run their business. But if I don’t like what they are doing or if it raises the price too much then I will vote with my feet. So a business has many factors to consider with their customer hopefully being their main concern.

Bonus Question No we shouldn’t take anyone WORD about anything, we should require proof.

The only argument against environmental initiatives out of the ones in the questions that I haven’t heard offered is the asbestos ban linkage with the collapse of the World Trade Center.

His final question is drawing your attention to the fact that the anti-AGW theory spokesman and websites are Astroturf, not grassroot, and really a form of commercial advertising.

Logically, none of this has anything to do directly with the AGW question, but it does have a great deal to do with the attitudes that lead people (yourself perhaps included) to reject the scientific conclusion.

The questions he asks are classic examples of where a genuine concern has been taken up by special interest groups and blown out of all proportion as part of a ’cause’. (I always think of their rallying call “Think of the children! Won’t *somebody* PLEASE think of the children!”.)

Your friend needs to study epidemiology, statistical analysis and analytical logic and reasoning if he wants to engage with such heavyweight matters.

To take just one example – passive smoking.

The man who first scientifically proved a link between smoking and lung cancer was Sir (Dr) Richard Doll (Regius Professor of Medicine at Oxford University, Vice-President of the Royal Society, yada, yada, yada -this is a serious guy). He spent his entire adult life in researching and proving the link between smoking and ill-health. So, what did he have to say on passive smoking?

“”The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn’t worry me.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3826939.stm

~ He doesn’t say there is NO link. But this expert of experts of the link between smoking and cancer states quite unequivocally that the risk is vanishingly small.

Then, in 2003, the British Medical Journal published the results of what was by far the most comprehensive study on passive smoking so far: Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98 by J. Enstrom et al. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

Its conclusion? [QUOTE]

——————————-
“Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.”
——————————

~ Again, note that the study does NOT say that there isn’t a link between passive smoking and lung cancer, but that the evidence for a causal relationship simply isn’t there.

What’s fascinating about this study is that it was commissioned and funded for years by the American Cancer Society, until the results started to become clear, at which point they pulled funding and tried to bury the study. Enstrom et al understandably did not relish the works of many years disappearing and sought funding from any source, eventually reluctantly taking funding from a tobacco company – see http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_E._Enstrom and the scientist’s reply at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_E._Enstrom_in_his_own_words

This attempt to make the evidence fit the politics drew the following response from the editor of the British Medical Journal [QUOTE]

——————————
“Editor—Owing to the charged atmosphere surrounding the issue of passive smoking, our paper provoked strong reactions on bmj.com. The most disturbing reactions have come from the enforcers of political correctness who pose as disinterested scientists but are willing to use base means to trash a study whose results they dislike. They have no qualms about engaging in personal attacks and unfounded insinuations of dishonesty rather than judging research on its merits. The resulting confusion has misled many readers and diverted attention from the facts of the study.”
—————————-

~ Note that the editor of the British Medical Journal takes to task those who “pose as disinterested scientists but are willing to use base means to trash a study whose results they dislike”.

Of course, smoking is never good for your health or anyone else’s. It’s not that people say there is no risk at all from passive smoking, but the cold, hard scientific evidence does not prove a statistically significant causal relationship. This doesn’t mean that it’s okay to light up around children, for example, but facts are facts and this shows how they are twisted and misrepresented by special interest groups.

Your friend needs to think for himself a little more.

BTW, I am not a smoker.
.

Since there is no real proof that CO2 is the primary reason for the warming it’s the belief of most alarmist that we should trust in the holy church of climate science because we aren’t smarter than scientist, except for the stupid scientist that have alternate theories, or want to look at the data that is being used to build the climate simulations.

since you posted the question in the global warming section, one might presume that’s where your interests lie.
As you might suspect, i disagree with you.
Here’s a couple links that contain reasons that some folks who think global warming is not real often agree with, and why those reasons are incorrect.
As dawei said, feel free to post again to have more of a conversation on the subject.

http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
http://www.ecohuddle.com/wiki/global-warming-myths <== Dana’s explanation is probably the best.

(of course, there is the question of views on Obama, but maybe one item at a time is enough.)

On the next link it states that buildings done in the late 80’s also need inspected..for there were still alot of products in stock that contained asbestos..here is a paragraph copied from the below link..

We are planning on renovating our office or home, so what is next?
Any structure built prior to October 12, 1982, is required to be inspected for asbestos before any suspect materials are impacted. The inspection is required to be performed by a licensed inspector for structures built in the late 1980’s. We also recommend testing as some materials may still have contained materials. We work with many reputable licensed inspectors and can provide this service if so desired.

http://www.coloradohazard.com/faq.html

Read under “asbsestos abc’s” here which suggests asbestos in drywall finishes as late as 1989….
http://www.asbestosgarageremoval.com/

2)The clean air act was a good thing… do you notice how much easier it is to breath when you’re out of the city?

3)The pesticide DDT was not unfairly banned. It was killing the Bald Eagle. And… well… the bald eagle couldn’t be our national bird if it was dead.

4)idk

5)Well, the birthday of one. We already get Darwin’s birthday off! He was born the same day (same year, too) as Abraham Lincon

6)Good…PVC kills more PEOPLE than sharks kill people.

BONUS QUESTION: no

I think he’s just trying to get you to change sides, without being too obvious.

If you’d like to discuss the science of global warming and your reasons for being skeptical, feel free to post another question about that. You’ll get plenty of insightful responses.

It appears that fiberglass insulation is safer than asbestos, which was widely used in the past and later found to be responsible for health problems like malignant mesothelioma and lung cancer but all the facts about the toxicity of fiberglass insulation are not known.

This is just one of the reasons why Radiant Barrier Foil is quickly becoming the #1 choice for building insulation. You can apply it over the fiberglass insulation for double the energy efficiency.

Radiant Barrier Foil is a lightweight, reflective material made of a plastic substrate with a vapor-deposited coating of aluminum.

You need to get yourself moved to a different desk. Tell your employer that it is making you sick and that you don’t want them to have to be liable for huge medical bills.

You say you cannot afford to change jobs but can you afford to get mesothelioma if it is asbestos? Even if it is something else, you are breathing that in and your lungs could form scar tissue around the deposits. Any type of irregularity in the form or function of your lungs can cause cells to get out of whack with their dividing and that is the beginning of cancer. At the very least you could get one of a number of lung and/or respiratory conditions

You have to either change jobs or move to a different area. Dust that you can write in is not good! Especially when it isn’t dust! Put pressure on the health department and if you can, put pressure on your employers. Let them know that it could end up being more expensive if they do nothing.

Good Luck and think of your future. When you are lying in a hospital bed suffering, you will wish you got the heck away from that weird “dust”.