David Michaels, President Obama's pick... (1 Viewer)

Norwajun

Desert Critter
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
3,269
Reaction score
3,823
Age
55
Location
Inyokern, CA
Offline
to be the new head of OSHA is being scrutinized by conservatives because of his views on "junk science."

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/0...ions-about-osha-nomin-31249.html?pagewanted=1

Personally, as a Safety Professional, I think he would be a good choice. He definitely has the scientific background, and is not going to be swayed by big business.

It is a well-known fact in my profession that OSHA has actively fought altering the permissible exposure limits for many workplace substances for years. They continue to rely on outdated data and refuse to accept the more stringent limits set by the NIOSH, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Bottom line, OSHA is staffed largely by civil servants, NIOSH by scientists. For instance, Benzene is a carcinogen found in gasoline. OSHA set the permissible exposure limit of 1 ppm, NIOSH at 0.1 ppm. That is a huge difference, and a large potential exposure envelope.

A lot of talk in professional circles has begun about how Michaels has publicly labeled firearms in the workplace as a public health hazard, and should be regulated as such. While I may not necessarily agree, it is an interesting way to look at the issue.

Personally, I think it may do OSHA some good to have a Director with some teeth, and an opinion that hasn't been given to him by his bosses.
 

Saint77

Burrrrrrrsitis!
Joined
Nov 5, 2001
Messages
12,237
Reaction score
1,641
Age
53
Location
Columbus, Ohio
Offline
A lot of talk in professional circles has begun about how Michaels has publicly labeled firearms in the workplace as a public health hazard, and should be regulated as such. While I may not necessarily agree, it is an interesting way to look at the issue.

I disagree, I think its a very odd way of looking at firearms in the workplace.

Does he think LEO and Military should not carry arms on the job or something?

I understand the implications of firearms in the workplace, but they arent cigs, no one is breathing the fumes from my pistol, or inhaling second hand smoke or whatever.

And, in most cases, you cant conceal or open carry in the workplace, anyway.
 

Shawn

SR is my life!
Joined
Jul 9, 1998
Messages
13,504
Reaction score
3,603
Age
56
Offline
99.9% of the time that you hear the label "junk science" applied, the person using the label has an ulterior motive and is full of crap.

And usually the one's using the term don't know the first thing about any kind of science.
 

Shawn

SR is my life!
Joined
Jul 9, 1998
Messages
13,504
Reaction score
3,603
Age
56
Offline
Guns don't kill people...bullets do.
 
OP
Norwajun

Norwajun

Desert Critter
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
3,269
Reaction score
3,823
Age
55
Location
Inyokern, CA
Offline
I disagree, I think its a very odd way of looking at firearms in the workplace.

Does he think LEO and Military should not carry arms on the job or something?

I understand the implications of firearms in the workplace, but they arent cigs, no one is breathing the fumes from my pistol, or inhaling second hand smoke or whatever.

And, in most cases, you cant conceal or open carry in the workplace, anyway.

True, but I also said I may not necessarily agree. I haven't delved deeply enough into the context of his statement to formulate an informed opinion yet. However, I believe he was excepting those professions that carry a weapon as a part of their job.
 

Saint77

Burrrrrrrsitis!
Joined
Nov 5, 2001
Messages
12,237
Reaction score
1,641
Age
53
Location
Columbus, Ohio
Offline
Guns don't kill people...bullets do.

I must have some duds, because I keep tossing them at people and all they do is fall to the ground :mad:

After googling this dude up, it seems his name is attached to quite a few opinions about him, many not so favorable. :hihi:
 

Taurus

More than 15K posts served!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 20, 1997
Messages
26,377
Reaction score
16,605
Age
53
Location
Yacolt, WA
Offline
From the article, it seems the Right has a problem with his views on junk science in that he opposes it.
 

Saint77

Burrrrrrrsitis!
Joined
Nov 5, 2001
Messages
12,237
Reaction score
1,641
Age
53
Location
Columbus, Ohio
Offline
True, but I also said I may not necessarily agree. I haven't delved deeply enough into the context of his statement to formulate an informed opinion yet. However, I believe he was excepting those professions that carry a weapon as a part of their job.

:9:

Seems like hes an easy target for rightwing attacks, considering his views. Which do fall in line it seems with many in the Obama administration. Well, at least when it comes to firearms. The "junk science" thing im not sure on.
 

Saint77

Burrrrrrrsitis!
Joined
Nov 5, 2001
Messages
12,237
Reaction score
1,641
Age
53
Location
Columbus, Ohio
Offline
From the article, it seems the Right has a problem with his views on junk science in that he opposes it.

From what im reading, its the opposite? :shrug:

Michaels also has links to wealthy breast implant lawyers, who relied on junk science to drive silicone implants from the market, even though they remained available to consumers in most other Western countries because of their lack of major health risks. (The lawsuits over silicone also harmed patients who need life-saving silicone products like silicone shunts that had nothing to do with breast implants or cosmetic procedures, making them scarcer, less available, and more expensive).



Michaels wants to reverse the Supreme Court’s Daubert decision limiting the use of junk science.
 
OP
Norwajun

Norwajun

Desert Critter
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
3,269
Reaction score
3,823
Age
55
Location
Inyokern, CA
Offline
His bio:

http://www.gwumc.edu/sphhs/faculty/michaels_david.cfm

Professor Michaels is an epidemiologist with extensive experience in research, regulatory and public policy, and program administration. Dr. Michaels is Research Professor and Interim Chair in the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health (EOH) at the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services, and directs the Department's doctoral program.

Since joining the School in 2001, much of Dr. Michaels' work has focused on the use of science in public policy. He directs The Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP), bringing together an interdisciplinary group of scientists to examine the use and misuse of science in two forums in which public policy is shaped: the courts and the regulatory arena.

Dr. Michaels is the author of Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health (Oxford University Press, 2008), as well as articles in Science, JAMA, Scientific American, the International Journal of Epidemiology, the American Journal of Public Health and numerous other scientific publications. He was guest editor of a special issue on Scientific Evidence and Public Policy in the American Journal of Public Health, and of an issue of Law and Contemporary Problems entitled Sequestered Science: The Consequences of Undisclosed Knowledge...


I think he's not liked on the right because he appears not willing to keep the status quo on exposure limits for many substances used in industry. It will be an interesting confirmation process, one I will definitely be paying attention to.
 

BIG E

SR is my life!
Joined
Aug 11, 2008
Messages
15,128
Reaction score
31,675
Offline
Personally, I think it may do OSHA some good to have a Director with some teeth, and an opinion that hasn't been given to him by his bosses.
You don't OSHA has teeth. OSHA can fine you or shut you down quicker than anyone. They can slap a fine on you for not having a MSDS on liquid paper. I guarantee OSHA could come to your company and $100000 in fines without breaking a sweat.
 

Shockmo

Shocking....isn't it?
Joined
Jul 17, 2001
Messages
4,441
Reaction score
1,129
Offline
99.9% of the time that you hear the label "junk science" applied, the person using the label has an ulterior motive and is full of crap.

And usually the one's using the term don't know the first thing about any kind of science.

Thank God Shawn is here to set you guys straight ...otherwise i would've had to do it.
 

Taurus

More than 15K posts served!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 20, 1997
Messages
26,377
Reaction score
16,605
Age
53
Location
Yacolt, WA
Offline
From what im reading, its the opposite? :shrug:

What's funny (in a black-humor, Orwellian sort of way) is the charge of "junk science" coming from that quarter.

His editorial and explanation for why he opposes Daubert can be found here:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=849664#

Basically his position is that the richer you are, the more BS you can afford to fling at the judge in your case, the more minute and granular your objections can become and the better chance you stand of having your version of 'science' prevail in court.
 

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
10,707
Reaction score
10,509
Offline
From the article, it seems the Right has a problem with his views on junk science in that he opposes it.

The right has a problem in some way with 98% of everything Obama does.
 

Shockmo

Shocking....isn't it?
Joined
Jul 17, 2001
Messages
4,441
Reaction score
1,129
Offline
The right has a problem in some way with 98% of everything Obama does. That is undisputed.

UNTRUE. It's 99%. They didn't like the way he tied his shoes today. Loops too big. Get your facts straight before you post.
 

Taurus

More than 15K posts served!
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 20, 1997
Messages
26,377
Reaction score
16,605
Age
53
Location
Yacolt, WA
Offline
Actually, it's 132%.

100% of the things he's actually done and another 32% worth of things they just completely made up.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

 

New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

 

Headlines

Top Bottom