Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Shoot1st who wrote (3805)	11/28/2000 8:07:56 PM
From: Steve K	Respond to of 6710

OT OT OT re: carbon monoxide Shoot1st, Perhaps I didn't express myself very well in my response to your first post. In your post you said that "There is no safe level of CO." I object to that statement because it appears to be a black and white answer to a question that only has gray answers. Taken to an extreme, your statement implies that it would be unsafe for me to breath even a single molecule of carbon monoxide. I raised the OSHA CO standard (50ppm / 8hr day) not to say that it is the definitive "safe" level but rather as a contrast to your no safe CO level statement (for those who care, the air in your house probably has 2-3 ppm of CO; see phymac.med.wayne.edu. As you are probably aware, any OSHA standard is based upon the best existing toxicological lab tests as well as any unintentional field "tests." As new results are obtained, the standard is raised or lowered to reflect the new data (the standard evolutionary approach to science). In regards to Dr. Thom's work, it appears to be fairly new (I examined his home page as well as a couple of review articles). Assuming that over time the scientific community agrees with it and believes that permissible CO levels need to be lowered, I would assume that OSHA will act accordingly. I'll let you have the last word. Steve