Highlights: A study this summer found that using a single gas stove burner on high can raise levels of cancer-causing benzene above what’s been observed from secondhand smoke.

A new investigation by NPR and the Climate Investigations Center found that the gas industry tried to downplay the health risks of gas stoves for decades, turning to many of the same public-relations tactics the tobacco industry used to cover up the risks of smoking. Gas utilities even hired some of the same PR firms and scientists that Big Tobacco did.

Earlier this year, an investigation from DeSmog showed that the industry understood the hazards of gas appliances as far back as the 1970s and concealed what they knew from the public.

It’s a strategy that goes back as far back as 1972, according to the most recent investigation. That year, the gas industry got advice from Richard Darrow, who helped manufacture controversy around the health effects of smoking as the lead for tobacco accounts at the public relations firm Hill + Knowlton. At an American Gas Association conference, Darrow told utilities they needed to respond to claims that gas appliances were polluting homes and shape the narrative around the issue before critics got the chance. Scientists were starting to discover that exposure to nitrogen dioxide—a pollutant emitted by gas stoves—was linked to respiratory illnesses. So Darrow advised utilities to “mount the massive, consistent, long-range public relations programs necessary to cope with the problems.”

These studies didn’t just confuse the public, but also the federal government. When the Environmental Protection Agency assessed the health effects of nitrogen dioxide pollution in 1982, its review included five studies finding no evidence of problems—four of which were funded by the gas industry, the Climate Investigations Center recently uncovered.

Karen Harbert, the American Gas Association’s CEO, acknowledged that the gas industry has “collaborated” with researchers to “inform and educate regulators about the safety of gas cooking appliances.” Harbert claimed that the available science “does not provide sufficient or consistent evidence demonstrating chronic health hazards from natural gas ranges”—a line that should sound familiar by now.

  • Eheran@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because any other form of government did (and does) not have the same problem to an even greater extent?

    • reversebananimals@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Lol that you’re being downvoted.

      Everyone knows there were never any cover ups under Communism! RBMK reactor? Completely safe, comrade!

      /s

      • theneverfox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That could be pretty easily described as state-owned capitalism… Position in the party was your capital, influence, and authority all rolled into one conveniently bribed package. You could describe the whole USSR as a nation-state megacorp… Make the borders open and do better marketing, and it might as well have been called Soviet Energy Corp. Although, if we go full corpo-fuedal, that’s probably not far off the mark

        They even had the global trade and horrific externalities down - remember how everyone started to starve, and how their weapons were always disappearing onto the black market? It was all sold off - it all got shipped overseas and sold so a party member could have a nest egg stored in Switzerland. They even did the whole “Irish potato famine” thing where they kept exporting food while people starved

        I seriously have no idea what Lenin was smoking… He built a government that took all of the downsides of capitalism, and focused them in one convenient institution. It’s the perfect government system you’d make to manage humans if you’ve never actually met a human or seen a government before

        It seems to me that centralization is the key problem with every modern system… Big just has a way of going bad

      • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Mostly because communism is not a form of government, but an economic system. A communist economy can be run by a democratic government or an authoritarian one. Same as capitalism.

        Some communist economy governments were terrible, others weren’t so terrible, but all of them were sabotaged every step along the way of changing their economic systems by Capitalist interests.

        • Eheran@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Sure, mostly because of that minor mistake and not because of the majority of people here liking to hear something like that. “Capitalism bad” = upvotes, regardless of how little it has to do with the topic at hand.