Secondhand Lighting
The International Agency of Research on Cancer, the cancer arm of the World Health Organization, will be adding overnight shift work as a probable carcinogen. A likely reason for increased incidents of cancer in night workers: reduced production of melatonin -- a naturally-produced hormone that can suppress tumor development -- due to exposure to lighting at night.
This conclusion is not solid by any means, but it does raise a question: Will the do-gooders fight to ban shift work and night lights?
For consistency sake, they would have to fight to ban all shift work and night lights just as they are fighting to ban all smoking. Wouldn't they? If not, and the worker is allowed to assume the risk of night work in return for gainful employment, then shouldn't all smoking laws be repealed? For consistency sake anyway.
Comments (21)
Don't forget that sunlight causes cancer, too. Outdoor work needs to be simultaneously outlawed.
Published: November 30, 2007 11:41 PM
Actually, the finding doesn't surprise me. But the reason may have to do with a different causal factor than the one blamed.
A large chunk of the industries in which shift work is prevalent are involved in continuous-process industries (and in which "rotating" shifts is the favored pattern); many produce chemicals and refined petroleum, categories involving contact with substances known to be carcinogenic. And a significant portion of the industries involved in ordinary shift-work (where workers remain on a specific shift for extended periods--sometimes their entire working lives) are those involved in machine-work and metal fabrication; workers are exposed to both metallic oxides and finely-divided metal and abrasive particles--which, again, are known causes of cancer.
I haven't seen the study and so don't have any idea whether these other factors were considered or compensated in its structure. It would seem that either elaborate comparative studies would be necessary to compensate the factors mentioned above--or else, the subjects would need to be drawn from job less exposed to such atmospheres (such as comparing rates between night watchmen and daytime security guards).
or daytime and nighttime cab drivers, etc.
Published: December 1, 2007 1:46 AM
"Googled" up melatonin and cancer. The articles pretty much keep discussing the same thing. Here's an example:
http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/news/20030714/hormone-melatonin-slows-breast-cancer
Makes one think twice about falling asleep while reading.
Published: December 1, 2007 5:34 AM
I think we all know that the anti-smoking people are not going to do anything to try and end/limit shift work. They are just a bunch of teetotalers who dislike smoking, and they only use the excuse of higher risks of cancer, etc., as a justification for their anti-liberty, prohibitionist, do-gooder, policies. Historically speaking, the prohibitionist of the 1800's thought of themselves as being progressives. Government schools and a national currency were platforms the Prohibition Party supported. So it completely fits that these days it is the same kind of people supporting policies that will eventually lead to a full prohibition of smoking.
Published: December 1, 2007 9:31 AM
>>This conclusion is not solid by any means, but it does beg a question: Will the do-gooders fight to ban shift work and
night lights?
"This conclusion" may raise a question, or cause a further question to be asked, but it does not "beg" a question.
"Begging the/a question" is a logical fallacy, not a mental exertion. It refers to circular reasoning, assuming the premise.
Example: He is my father because he is my dad.
Ë
Published: December 1, 2007 9:43 AM
My father is always telling me that he read somewhere about an oncologist who inserted sterile dimes into rats. Some of them developed cancer. His conclusion: money causes cancer.
Published: December 1, 2007 10:09 AM
Ë,
You are correct. Changed. Thanks!
Published: December 1, 2007 11:08 AM
"They are just a bunch of teetotalers who dislike smoking, and they only use the excuse of higher risks of cancer, etc., as a justification for their anti-liberty, prohibitionist, do-gooder, policies."
I've never said anything about banning smoking, because I know that smokers can become a particularly rabid bunch when you suggest to them that their smoke is bothering you. But in point of fact, it is unrealistic to believe that one's smoke doesn't affect the people around you.
The smoke gets in your hair, your clothes, and in my case I used to have to take medication before going to any kind of social event. Between the cost of the dry cleaning and the side affects of the drug, I frequently chose to stay home.
As far as I'm concerned, the term "do no harm" means not foisting one's smoke upon another person. If you want to smoke in public, I'm not going to stop you, providing you figure out a way to keep it to yourself!
Published: December 1, 2007 12:31 PM
It appears that living causes cancer.
Published: December 1, 2007 1:23 PM
Yes, a sure cure for the terrible and otherwise incurable problem of mortality is death.
Published: December 1, 2007 3:57 PM
>As far as I'm concerned, the term "do no harm" means not foisting one's smoke upon another person.
The first rule is that you can't steal. Telling people they can't smoke in THEIR homes or in THEIR businesses is theft. If you can argue that theft is not harmful to the one stolen from (otherwise called a VICTIM), then I, for one, am very interested in what you have to say.
Published: December 1, 2007 4:18 PM
"Telling people they can't smoke in THEIR homes or in THEIR businesses is theft."
Never have I felt like a victim for accommodating guests' medical problems (or religious practices for that matter), nor have I ever considered them to be guilty of theft. Quite frankly, I would prefer they tell me if they're allergic to a particular type of food or substance rather than sit there and suffer in silence like martyrs, only to find out the next day that they're sick as a dog.
And if a person such as yourself resents the accommodation of guests' medical problems, I would simply refuse an invitation to your home.
As for restaurants, I used to resent it when their non-smoking sections were not smoke free.
Published: December 2, 2007 1:48 AM
"Don't forget that sunlight causes cancer, too. Outdoor work needs to be simultaneously outlawed."
I wouldn't go that far; but it would have been better if in the 70's there had been a greater effort made to make available information concerning a relationship between skin cancer and exposure to the sun. I could have limited my exposure by wearing long-sleeved shirts and slacks while working full-time outdoors and would most likely have avoided an episode of skin cancer in my 20's. But, hey, your comment was really funny.
Contrary to what you might believe, I am not in favor of an abundance of government regulations; however, experience has taught me that it pays to take a little time to research the research before dismissing it. Should the research on melatonin prove viable, it might take nothing more than a $10 pair of glasses with special filters to correct the problem. I have no issue with solutions that might reduce insurance premiums.
Published: December 2, 2007 3:37 PM
IMHO,
We've known about the dangers of tobacco smoke for decades -- both firsthand and secondhand smoke.
What is (was in Ohio) stopping the clientele and workers of bars, restaurant, bowling alleys, etc., from using gas masks or similar devices?
Seems as if the solution has been available all along. So, why the need for government laws and regulations? Why does the collective we believe it has control over someone else's property?
By the way, I am not dismissing the research. I only state that it is not conclusive -- the researchers' conclusions, not mine.
Published: December 2, 2007 4:56 PM
I worked night shift doing cleaning in a major
chain restraunt for a 9 years period. The thing
is I did have my bedroom good and dark so I could
sleep from 2pm to 10pm. If it's simply the lack
of "dark time" that causes the problem everyone on
night shift should just do what I did back then.
If anything I had less trouble sleeping when I was
on the overnight shift than when I worked day shift
or my current evening shift job.
Published: December 3, 2007 12:23 AM
The study was published the same day my work held a floor meeting (I work for a financial printing company that is always open).
My favorite moment from the meeting was when one of the third shift typesetters cut off my boss's boss to let him know that, if the study was true, a quicker solution was that his health was for sale.
I dropped a decent chunk of change on some very effective, double sided, double lined honeycomb blinds for my windows (because of the honeycomb design, the holes for the draw strings are contained within the blinds and don't let any specs light through). Makes sleeping from 3-10 PM very easy. Also, white noise like my fan or humidifer help a lot.
It's not hard to sleep during the day if you (A) live alone, or (B) let the people you live with know that 7 PM to you is the equivalent of 2 AM for them, and seeing as you'll be awake at 2 AM on your off days, they'd better treat 7 PM like 2 AM if they don't want you treating 2 AM like 7 PM.
Published: December 3, 2007 1:15 AM
"What is (was in Ohio) stopping the clientele and workers of bars, restaurant, bowling alleys, etc., from using gas masks or similar devices?"
How does one eat or drink while wearing a mask?
So, why the need for government laws and regulations? Why does the collective we believe it has control over someone else's property?
First of all, I am not for government regulation nor am I part of the "collective." I have never used force to stop someone from smoking. I would frequent establishments that claimed to have "non-smoking" sections, only to find out that such was not the case. And when I am in a situation where I cannot avoid smoke, then it is someone else who is in control of my health, which I consider to be my property.
Try snapping a vertebrae from coughing and then follow it up with a year's recovery from back surgery. You might understand why I want people to keep their smoke to themselves. It's why I spoke of doing no harm.
Published: December 3, 2007 1:19 AM
IMHO, you are the only person who I have ever heard make the claim that second hand smoke is responsible for a snapped verabrae. It sounds like a one in a million scenario and not one that the rest of the population should really be worried about. The rest of the population cannot adjust their lives and businesses to your health concerns.
I would frequent establishments that claimed to have "non-smoking" sections, only to find out that such was not the case.
And yet you still frequented them even after you discovered their deception? Why not just leave the premise if the non-smoking section was not adequate, or get a to-go box or something along those lines?
BTW, contrary to your earlier assertion, I am not a smoker.
Published: December 3, 2007 10:35 AM
How is there a situation where you cannot avoid smoke???
Someone smokes at your job? If it means that much to you, quit your job. Your employer should set the rules at work, not whiners like you. If you're the owner, have a smoke free workplace - problem solved.
Someone smokes where you want to eat? Leave. The restaurant owner should set the rules for what people can do on his property not whiners like you. If you own a restaurant, make it smoke free - problem solved.
Someone lights up in your house, tell them to get the hell out. You get the point. I live in the heart of tobacco country and honestly cannot remember the last time I was around a smoker. I just won't put up with it but I refuse to whine about people's right to do what the want with their own property. Grow up.
Published: December 3, 2007 2:47 PM
Seems to me the beef here is against lighting in general. Lots of people do NOT work at night, yet sit in light when it's dark outside just as I'm doing right now.
Does the fact that I'm not WORKING right now alleviate the cancer-causing effects of exposure to light? If so, retirement is even better than I thought it was - I expect to be proof against (light-induced) cancer the rest of my life.
Or maybe the beef is against sleeping in light, whether daylight or that stuff most night workers use. I sleep in the dark. Just in case my retirement immunity doesn't work as supposed.
Published: December 4, 2007 6:02 PM
This is probably so far down in the post list that it will never be seen, but I like it too much to pass on telling:
My Dad was the president of the Libertarian chapter in Kansas City for a while. He did not smoke. Many of his other libertarians did. The chapter did vote that their meetings would be non-smoking. Some of the smokers still smoked in the meetings, so my dad made a sign
"If you will not smoke in my air, I will not spit in your drink"
I don't believe that he ever had to spit in anyone's drink.
I don't recall the other posting, but I did read somewhere on mises.org about property rights protecting air quality, and that only government interventionism prevents individuals from suing others about air quality "rights infringement". If you are on another's property, you wouldn't "own the air". The restaurant "owns the air" on the restaurant property. They are free, within the law, to set policy on how their air is used. If you own your own home, you "own the air" over your property. You can then set policy.
Published: December 7, 2007 9:04 AM