HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0013.261 2002-2004 Retutal, Jamey pp
From: Konishi, AI l~Fr I
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 10:13 AM !1 t ?
To: Arakaki, James; Chung, Aaron; Elarionoff, LenM~ra({~~oTEphu~~red; Jacobson, Bob;
Leithead-Todd, B.J.; Reynolds, Joe; Safarik, Gary; Ty er,``''((SSLLrtit' 1 5Q
Subject: FW: Liability and Bill 260 G`~Jfv
OOUNT r c I~HgWA11
-----Original Message-----
From: Hawaii Rog [mailto:Hawaiirog@hawaii.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 6:38 AM
To: akonishi@inte~pac.net•, cohmayor@interpac.net
Subject: Liability and Bill 260
The basis for declaring much of second hand smoke a health hazard is based on an EPA study and
other reports citing the EPA study, plus antidotal evidence.
Considering that the EPA came up with a Relative Risk of 1.19 for second hand smoke, will this be
the new standard for the County in determining risk to its employees and the public?
For example, driving while using a cell phone; according to the New England Journal of Medicine,
you have a relative risk of 4 or more of getting into an accident, and that includes the hands free
model and within five minutes after the conversation has ended. Will the County be able to defend
itself from law suits occurring from such accidents? After all, you state that something with a relative
risk of 1.19 is concern for the health and welfare of workers and others.
Source of Cell Phone study: <htt~//content nejm.org/cai/content/short/336/7/453>
I hope the County is ready for some of these unintended consequences from Bill 260, and I hope that
we as taxpayers are not being put at greater financial risk just so that the council can gain political
points for a perceived risk.
Very truly yours,
Roger Schweitzer
Cahm. Na ' ~ , /
Ref. Tos
1 Ref. Dote