Breaking News 突發新聞 | | Forum 論壇 | | UK News 英國新聞 | | USA News 美國新聞 | | World News 世界新聞 | | Political News 政治新聞 | | Sci-Tech News 科技新聞 | | War & Terrorism News 戰爭和恐怖主義新聞 | | Sports News 體育新聞 | | Multimedia 多媒體 | | Set Homepage 設為首頁 | |
| |
 | Translate: 翻譯：               How industry money protects killer chemicals如何保護產業的金錢殺手化學品 Tuesday, September 9th, 2008 週二， 2008年9月9日 It happens almost every time. 它發生的幾乎每一次。 When a study is published linking a workplace chemical to serious disease, a scientist working for the industry disputes the findings. David Michaels, author of ‘Doubt is their product’, exposes industry’s dangerous tactics to protect its toxic favourites. 當進行一項研究，出版了連接工作化學品嚴重的疾病，科學家的工作，為業界爭議的結果。 國寶邁克爾斯，作者'無疑是他們的產品' ，暴露了業界的危險的手段，保護其有毒的收藏。 By通過 David Michaels朱邁克爾斯 | This strategy of “manufacturing scientific uncertainty” comes directly from the tobacco industry’s playbook. |這一戰略“製造科學上的不確定性”直接來自煙草業的劇本。 In fact, many of the same scientists who manufactured doubt for the cigarette companies are now performing that same task for a wide range of other industries.事實上，在許多相同的科學家，誰製造的，無疑為香煙公司現正執行相同的任務，範圍廣泛的其他行業。 How did we get here?我們是怎樣來到這裡？ In the 1950s, when scientists first showed that smokers had hugely increased risk of lung cancer, the cigarette companies ran a sophisticated public relations campaign to raise doubts about the increasingly definitive scientific evidence.在20世紀50年代，當科學家首次表明，吸煙的巨大肺癌風險加大，捲菸公司冉一個複雜的公共關係運動，以提高疑慮日益明確的科學證據。 The companies realised that if you could argue about the science, then you could avoid having to address solutions: how to help people stop smoking.公司意識到，如果你可以辯稱，關於科學，那麼你就可以不必地址解決方案：如何幫助人們戒菸。 But even when that didn’t work, Big Tobacco could always fall back on the argument that smoking was a choice – whatever the risk, smokers made the choice themselves, and that it was their right to do so.但即使沒有工作，大煙草總是可以依傍的說法，吸煙是一種選擇-無論風險，吸煙者作出自己的選擇，這是他們有權這樣做。 The result was the creation of an industry of scientific consultants who specialise in “product defence,” and the recognition by corporate spin experts that manufacturing doubt works – do it well and you can stop government regulators, or at least slow them down for years.其結果是創造一個產業的科學顧問誰專注於“產品”辯護，承認公司自旋專家認為，製造業無疑工程-做得很好，你可以停止政府的監管機構，或者至少是緩慢下來了多年。 In 1969 an executive at Brown & Williamson, a cigarette maker now owned by RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company, unwisely committed to paper the perfect slogan for his industry’s disinformation campaign: “Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public.” Big Tobacco has lost all respect and credibility, but the practices it perfected have proliferated.在1969年1長官在布朗與威廉森，捲菸製造商現在所擁有的雷諾煙草公司，不明智地致力於文件完美的口號，為整個產業的造謠運動： “毫無疑問是我們的產品，因為它是最好的手段，競爭與身體其實'存在於心中的普羅大眾。 “大煙草已失去所有的尊重和信譽，但它的做法，完善有激增。 A growing trend that disingenuously demands proof over precaution in the realm of public health.越來越多的趨勢disingenuously的要求，證明以上預防措施的境界市民的健康。 Product defence 產品辯護 In field after field, year after year, conclusions that might support regulation are always disputed.在該領域後場，年復一年，結論可能會支持規例都是有爭議的。 Animal data are deemed not relevant, human data not representative, and exposure data not reliable.動物的數據被認為是不相關的，人類的數據不具代表性，暴露的數據並不可靠。 Whatever the story — workplace chemicals that cause cancer, diesel exhaust, global warming, sugar and obesity, secondhand smoke, plastics chemicals that may disrupt endocrine function — scientists in the “product defence industry” will manufacture uncertainty about it.無論故事-工作場所的化學物質，致癌，柴油車尾氣中，全球氣候變暖，糖和肥胖，二手煙，塑膠化學物質，可能會破壞內分泌功能-科學家在“產品國防工業”將生產的不確定性。 The “debate” over global warming is perhaps the most pernicious outgrowth of tobacco’s strategy. “大辯論”的全球變暖可能是最有害的產物，煙草的戰略。 We can expect to see the scientists who last year claimed uncertainty about humans’ role in climate change now asserting that there is so much uncertainty about the public health impacts, or the technology required to reduce carbon emissions that we must undertake more research before setting new policy.我們可以期待看到誰的科學家去年聲稱的不確定性，人類'的作用，在氣候變化，現在斷言有那麼多的不確定性，市民對健康的影響，或所需的技術，以減少二氧化碳排放量，我們必須進行更多的研究之前，設置新的政策。 I call it Denying Climate Change 2.0.我稱之為否認氣候變化的2.0 。 While much of the media has learned to be sceptical about manufactured uncertainty in the climate debate, less public attention is trained on the pervasive use of doubt-for-hire in other industries whose products threaten the health of workers and consumers.而許多媒體獲悉，被懷疑製造的不確定性，氣候的辯論，不到公眾注意的是，受過訓練的就普遍使用，無疑為租用，在其他行業，其產品的威脅工人的健康和消費者的利益。 In Doubt is their product: How industry’s assault on science threatens your health I dissect industry’s campaigns to manufacture doubt about a series of important workplace hazards, including asbestos, benzene lead, aromatic amines (dyes and rubber chemicals that cause bladder cancer), beryllium, chromium 6, diacetyl (the artificial butter flavor component that has killed or damaged the lungs of dozens of workers – Hazards 101) and ergonomic hazards.在無疑是他們的產品：如何業界的進攻，科學威脅您的健康i剖析行業的活動，無疑是製造了一系列重要的工作場所的危險，包括石棉，苯，鉛，芳香胺（染料和橡膠化學品造成膀胱癌） ，鈹，鉻6 ，雙乙酰（人工奶油風味的組成部分已死亡或損壞的肺部數十名工人-危害1 01）和符合人體工程學的危險。 I focus largely on the US, because this country dominates the worldwide standard-setting process. i的重點主要是對美國，因為這個國家佔主導地位的全球標準制定進程。 When our regulators allow manufactured uncertainty to weaken or delay protections, workers across the world suffer the repercussions.當我們的管理部門允許製造的不確定性，以削弱或延遲的保護，工人在世界各地受到的反響。 Standard response 標準回應 I have had the opportunity to witness at close range the process of manufacturing scientific doubt.我有機會親眼目睹在近距離製造過程的科學疑問。 In the Clinton administration, I served as US Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety, and Health in the Department of Energy ( DOE ), the chief safety officer for the nation’s nuclear weapons facilities.在克林頓政府中，我擔任美國助理國務卿環境，安全和衛生署在能源部 （ DOE ） ，行政安全主任，為國家的核武器設施。 I ran the process through which we issued a strong new rule to reduce exposure to beryllium, a metal vital in nuclear weapons and now used in consumer products like golf clubs.我參加的過程中，通過我們發出了強烈的新規則，以減少暴露於鈹，金屬至關重要的核武器和現在用在消費產品，如高爾夫俱樂部。 Beryllium causes lung disease at extremely low exposure levels, and it causes lung cancer.鈹肺疾病的原因，在極低的暴露水平，它的成因肺癌。 After leaving the government, I was able to obtain a collection of secret documents which showed that the beryllium industry has run a 30 year campaign industry attacking any study that questioned the old, out-of-date OSHA standard.之後，離開政府，我是能夠獲得的集合，秘密文件顯示，鈹工業已運行30年的運動產業的攻擊，任何研究，質疑歲，不合時宜職業安全與衛生署的標準。 Chromium 6 is another industrial chemical featured in Doubt is Their Product.鉻六是另一個工業化學品精選無疑是在他們的產品。 For more than five decades, we have known chromium 6 is a powerful lung carcinogen.五年以上20年來，我們都知道鉻六是一個功能強大的肺癌致癌物。 But in the US, it has never been regulated as cancer-causing.但在美國，它從來沒有規管的癌症造成的。 Secret minutes of the Chrome Coalition [1], the chromium employers’ trade association, reveal that when the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA ) was finally considering a new workplace exposure standard, the chromium industry brought in some of the nation’s top product defense scientists, to design a sophisticated counter attack.秘密分鐘的鉻聯盟[ 1 ] ，鉻雇主貿易協會，顯示當美國職業安全和健康管理局（ 奧沙 ）終於考慮新的工作接觸標準，鉻業帶來了一些國家的Top產品國防科學家，要設計一套精密的反擊。 The chromium manufacturers also sponsored an important study which showed that chromium 6 caused lung cancer at levels far below the OSHA standard in effect at the time [2], but those results were never revealed until I discovered them.鉻製造商也舉辦了一個重要的研究表明鉻六所造成的肺癌水平遠遠低於職業安全與衛生署的標準，實際上在當時的[ 2 ] ，但這些結果顯示，從來沒有，直到我發現他們。 Deadly tactic 致命戰術 These examples are not exceptional.這些例子也不例外。 I report on corporate efforts to manufacture uncertainty about asbestos, lead, vinyl chloride, diacetyl, and a host of other chemicals.報告對公司的努力，製造的不確定性，石棉，鉛，氯乙烯，雙乙酰，以及一系列其他化學品。 Doubt is their product is filled with never before published documents, like the never-published letter from the medical director of DuPont stating that 100 per cent of the men who made beta-naphthylamine ( BNA ) at one factory developed bladder cancer [3].無疑是他們的產品是充滿了以前從未出版的文件一樣，從未公開信由醫務主任的杜邦公司指出，百分之一百的男性是誰β -萘胺（ 國籍法令 ）在一廠開發的膀胱癌[ 3 ] 。 DuPont also produced other bladder carcinogens in that same factory; at least 450 workers at the plant developed work-related bladder cancer [4].杜邦公司還製作其他膀胱致癌物質在同一個工廠;至少有450名工人在工廠發展與工作有關的膀胱癌[ 4 ] 。 One of the chemicals closely related to BNA made at that plant was ortho-toluidine (OT).其中的化學物質密切相關的國籍法令在該植物是鄰-甲苯胺（酒店） 。 Through a series of DuPont letters, reports and papers, the book demonstrates that DuPont managers witnessed this development and growth of this tragic epidemic, yet refused to acknowledge that OT could also cause bladder cancer, shipping the chemical out without proper warnings.通過一系列的杜邦公司的信件，報告和文件，這本書表明，杜邦公司經理見證了這一發展和增長，這一悲慘疫情，但拒不承認酒店也可以導致膀胱癌，航運化學列沒有適當的警告。 As a result, dozens of workers exposed to OT in a plant in Niagara Falls New York, USA , have developed bladder cancer.因此，數十名工人暴露於城市旅遊局在一家工廠在尼亞加拉瀑布New York ， 美國 ，制定了膀胱癌。 For many years, DuPont and other manufacturers have disputed the link between OT and human bladder cancer.多年來，杜邦公司和其他製造商已有爭議之間的聯繫，城市旅遊局及人膀胱癌。 Earlier this year, the International Agency for Research on Cancer evaluated OT and reached the same conclusion I did, too late for the Niagara Falls workers: OT is a human bladder carcinogen.今年早些時候，國際癌症研究機構評估，職能治療，並達成了相同的結論，我本來，為時已晚，為尼亞加拉瀑布的工人：酒店是一個人膀胱致癌物質。 In researching this book, I uncovered a many documents like the DuPont bladder cancer ones.在研究這本書，我發現了許多文件，如杜邦膀胱癌。 Some of these documents are shocking.其中一些文件是令人震驚。 To ensure they can be used by activists, public health practitioners and regulators, I have posted every reference in the book, with links to all of the “smoking guns,” at DefendingScience.org.以確保他們可以使用由活動家，公共衛生從業人員和監管機構，我已發布的每一個參考在這本書中，鏈接，所有的“吸煙槍， ”在defendingscience.org 。 Doubt is their product powerfully demonstrates that conflicted science is not good science.無疑是他們的產品，有力地表明，科學的衝突是不好的科學。 If a scientist is paid by a polluter or a manufacturer of dangerous products, her or his judgment is inevitably clouded by that financial relationship; this is true even for scientists who have great integrity and who try to be honest.如果是一位科學家所付出的污染者或製造商的危險產品，她或他的判斷是無可避免的陰雲籠罩著金融的關係;這才是真正的科學家，甚至誰有很大的完整性和誰嘗試誠實。 As a result, we cannot rely on the judgment of these scientists when considering how to best protect workers from toxic exposures.因此，我們不能依靠的判斷，這些科學家在考慮如何以最佳方式保護工人免受有毒風險。 Activists, unions and scientists need to demand that our government agencies rely on independent studies conducted by independent scientists, not ones bought and paid for by the producers of the hazards.活動家，工會和科學家需要的需求，我們的政府機構，依賴於獨立進行的研究，並由獨立的科學家，不是買和費用由生產者的危險。 The mission of health and safety activists, as well as public health and environmental agencies, is to reduce hazards before people get sick or the environment is irreparably damaged.該特派團的健康和安全的積極分子，以及公眾對健康和環境的機構，是為了減少危害之前，人們生病或環境是不可彌補的損壞。 We don’t need certainty to act.我們不確定性，需要採取行動。 It is time to return to first principles: use the best science available, but do not demand certainty where it does not exist.現在是時候返回的第一原則：用最好的科學可用，但不確定性的需求，它不存在。 References:參考文獻： 1. 1 。 Secret minutes of the Chrome Coalition.秘密分鐘的鉻聯盟。 [pdf1] [pdf2] [pdf3] [ pdf1 ] [ pdf2 ] [ pdf3 ] 2. 2 。 Collaborative cohort mortality study of four chromate production facilities, 1958-1998, September 2002 [pdf]協作隊列死亡率研究4鉻鹽生產設施， 1958年至1998年， 2002年9月[ PDF格式] 3. 3 。 June 18 1947 letter from the manager at DuPont’s Chambers plant [pdf] 1947年6月18日的信中，從經理，杜邦公司的商會植物[ PDF格式] 4. 4 。 25 October 1991 email from Robert Weiss MD [pdf] 1991年10月25日的電子郵件從羅伯特魏斯海事處[ PDF格式] This article was first published in Hazards Magazine, 103, August 2008此文章是首次出版，在危險的雜誌， 103號， 2008年8月 Have Your Say: How industry money protects killer chemicals 有您這樣說：行業的錢，如何保護殺手化學品 Please read our請閱讀我們的 posting guidelines before posting發布指引，然後再發布 . 。 Alternatively或者 you can discuss this report here您可以討論此報告在這裡 . 。 3 Responses to “How industry money protects killer chemicals”三月的反應， “如何保護產業的金錢化學品殺手”
Related News 相關新聞
| Go to Forum去論壇 | Latest Topics最新主題  Email This Page To A Friend 電子郵件此頁給朋友 Latest Headlines 最新的新聞標題
More更多 Breaking News突發新聞  Archive 存檔
|
About 大約 | | DVD Store DVD的商店 | | Opinion 民意 | | Reviews 評語 | | Special Guests 特別來賓 | | Webmasters 網站管理員 |
The views expressed in the RINF news wire and newsletter are the sole responsibility of the author (s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the webmaster. 所表達的意見，在rinf新聞電線和通訊是唯一的責任作者（ S ）和並不一定反映的意見，網站管理員。 RINF.COM: Breaking News & Alternative Media is Copyleft - Copy & Distribute Freely. rinf.com ：突破新聞與其他的媒體是copyleft的-複製及分發自由。 News Forum 新聞論壇 |
In 1977, “Building 6: The Tragedy at Bridesburg,” by Willard S. Randall and Stephen D. Solomon, documented how the Rohm & Haas company (possibly best known for “Plexiglas”) managed to hide the carcinogenicity of bis-chloromethyl ether for decades. 1977年，在“建設6條：悲劇在bridesburg ， ”威拉德美國蘭達爾和Stephen四索羅門，記載如何羅姆＆哈斯公司（可能是最出名的“樹脂玻璃” ）管理，以隱藏的致癌性之二-氯甲醚數十年之久。
“Manufacturing scientific uncertainty” exists in other venues, such as the never-ending war by fundamentalist religious creationists against evolution - see, for instance, “製造科學上的不確定性”的存在，在其他場地，如無休止的戰爭，宗教原教旨主義creationists反對的演變-例如，見 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dover_trial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/dover_trial . 。 The creators of “intelligent design” creationism have no science to contribute to the discussion, but they work very hard to sow the seeds of doubt against evolution, which is the cornerstone of modern biology.創造“智能設計論”神創論有沒有科學的討論作出貢獻，但他們的工作很努力地播下種子疑問，對演變，這是基石，現代生物學。