Smoking Bans Start Arguments
Whether you puff on them, hate them – love them or berate them – cigarettes are being banned from more and more bars, restaurants and cafes across the country. Smoking bans seems to hit on a nerve for everyone. The news is either heard with extreme joy or extreme irritation – all depending on whether you smoke, don’t smoke, own a bar, feel a ban infringes on your rights or wish the government instituted the ban years ago.
There are many controversies surrounding smoking or smoking bans – and everyone seems to have their own opinion on whether the move towards no smoking was right or wrong:
- Non-smokers: most non-smokers are happy for the ban, and insist that the government apply it to more places, including cars and homes – so that the children of smokers will not have to suffer in a smoky environment.
- Smokers: most smokers sense that the public is prejudiced against them. There are even a few who argue that the negative side-effects of smoking are not solidly proven by those carrying out the studies. There are less and less people to support this belief as more and more research is published about the risks of smoking.
- Business Owners: then there are the business owners who had to suddenly enforce the ban in their businesses, restaurants, clubs and bars. There are some businesses that still draw the same number of customers – but then there are others who have seen their businesses go belly up.
- Politically Minded: there is also a lot of smokers and non-smokers who oppose the ban simply because they think it is an infringement on their rights. They argue that once the door is open to government regulating the behaviors of the public, who knows what other rights will be taken away.
In my opinion, there are legitimate concerns on all sides of the argument. Undoubtedly there are benefits to the smoking ban – the most obvious being the safeguarding of public health. On the other hand, there are drawbacks to the ban – for instance the number of business owners who can no longer pay their bills because they lost their patrons to the few local clubs that are exempt from the smoking ban.
There are also the completely unforeseen, border-line outrageous side-effects of the ban. For example, how the ban has impacted drunk driving fatalities, spawned a generation of “healthy” cigarettes and linked barbeques to some of the same chemicals as smoke.
This article will give you a breakdown of my take on smoking bans including “the good, the bad and the ugly”.
-The Good-
Here are some good things that have been put into motion by the smoking bans:
1. Drop in Heart Attack Occurrence. This is an absolutely astounding fact! Heart attacks have long been associated with smoke, since the chemicals in smoke cause narrowing of the veins and arteries in the body, putting strain on the heart. Blood clotting is also a cause of heart attack that is often directly related to smoking.
2. Research done at the University of California found that after only 1 year of having the smoking ban in effect, heart attack rates were 17% lower than usual! Some of the individual towns studied by the University of California had more dramatic results – Helena, Montana had its heart attack rates cut in half only after 6 months of the smoking ban!
3. Healthier Work Place. Some estimate that working in a smoky environment for a long period of time can cut your life expectancy by 10 years! This is because the same diseases that come with smoking comes with inhaling second hand smoke. A smoke-filled workplace can be a non-stop source of secondhand smoke – working an 8 hour shift in a smoking environment is similar to chain smoking for all of those hours.
So now your favorite bartender or waiter can look forward to living a longer life with a decreased risk of developing cancer, COPD, stroke or heart attacks.
(But then again, if they choose to work in a smoky environment in the first place then avoiding smoke may not be at the top of their list. You would have to agree that no one made them work there – there are many other smoke-free callings and careers out there!)
4. Healthier Restaurants and Bars. No more smoky smelling clothing! Now your favorite clubs and nightspots are a healthy place to spend a few hours. A lot of businesses claim that the number of patrons has increased with the smoking ban in place – this probably means that all of the non-smokers who used to stay at home to avoid the smoke are getting out and having fun at their local tavern. Restaurants that are smoke-free and much better for their youngest customers – since children are at more risk from cigarette smoke because of their small, developing lungs.
5. VFW and Elks Clubs Boost in Members. Private clubs that do allow smoking are now in high demand. Some organizations like VFW posts and Elk clubs that used to have sparse numbers now are booming with new members (as long as they are exempt from the ban – many clubs that have banned smoking have given up their charitable donations or have closed completely because of it).
6. More “Quitters”. In some areas, the ban has inspired renewed efforts to quit smoking. New York City reports that adult smoking is down 19% – which translates into 240,000 less smokers in NYC’s population. Banning smoking from public places like bars should lend a hand to those trying to quit. However, other areas have actually reported an increase in smoking among working class men since the ban.
This is partially because of the way that nicotine affects your brain. The more nicotine that enters your body, the more nicotine receptors are developed in your brain to absorb the chemicals. A smokers brain would have billions more of the receptors than a non-smoker. Being in a place where you can smell smoke, or see someone else smoking in enough to switch on the receptors that cause your nicotine cravings. The smoking ban cuts the number of times a “quitter” will be irritated by the nicotine receptors during a night out, making it easier to quit.
-The Bad-
Here are some negative effects of the smoking ban:
1. Bars and Restaurants Driven Out of Business. For some areas, the smoking ban has taken such a toll on their businesses that owners are closing their doors for good. Certain states, like Delaware (40% decrease in profits) have had a substantial loss in profits since the smoking ban took effect.
2. For business owners, this is a nightmare scenario – and for employees it means that their jobs hang in the balance. Clubs like VFW Posts and Elk Clubs that were listed in the “Good” category above can just as easily fall into the “Bad” category all depending on whether they were excluded from the smoking ban or not. These organizations were once known for their charitable gifts to the community – but now their money making events like Bingo no longer attract a crowd. Now they struggle to keep their doors open.
3. Job Loss: It goes without saying that businesses that have been hit hard by the smoking ban will be forced to lay off employees. Previously flourishing small bars and nightclubs have had to tighten their belts now that they have to ban smoke. For many owners, their business was their livelihood – and losing their business spells financial ruin for them.
Employees have reason to worry as well. In general, bartenders, waiters and waitresses make very little money per hour, because the greater part of their income comes from tips. The loss of smoking patrons means that they get fewer tips, and as a result, their bills become harder and harder to pay.
4. Erosion of Personal / Property Rights. For many smokers and non-smokers, the government imposed bans on smoking in public places represents a dangerous stance. Is it right for the government to ban the use of a completely legal product on private property? (i.e. any property that is owned by a private citizen. Private Citizens are the rest of us who aren’t holding a public office . . . so that means most of us).
They see this as infringing on the rights of the public – and that the future may bring more of these controlling mandates on personal or public matters. Perhaps a ban on greasy, fast food meals will be next – or maybe a nationwide ice cream ban? Obesity is the fastest growing cause of avoidable diseases and deaths in the U.S., so this would only be the next logical step towards better public health. How would you feel if the government began regulating what meals a restaurant was allowed to serve you – or what food you were allowed to eat in your own home?
5. “The Quitters”. Yes, I know – the Smoking Ban Smoking “Quitters” was listed as a “Good” outcome of the smoking ban, but it can just as easily be categorized as “Bad”. This is because the average smoker burns up to 200 calories more per day because of their habit. Also, since nicotine is an appetite suppressant, they are less hungry throughout the day. When someone quits smoking, the most common means of coping with the withdrawal is eating.Once taste buds get back their ability to taste after smoking is stopped, food will taste better and be almost irresistible.
Though the average quitter gains 10-20 pounds, roughly 10% of all quitters will experience 30 pounds or more in weight gain. This means that out of those 240,000 people who quit smoking in NYC, 24,000 of them are joining the ranks of people who are in danger of becoming morbidly obese. Ironically, many of the same diseases linked to smoking are linked to obesity (heart attack, stroke, high blood pressure, cancers, asthma, depression, etc).
-The Ugly-
Here are some very strange facts about the smoking ban:
1. More Drunk Driving Deaths. No one wants to die in a hospital bed as a result of breathing second hand smoke. How about being run down on the road by an inebriated smoker? Strangely enough, the smoking ban actually increases your chances of dying in a car accident.
A study done at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee compared the number of drunk driving fatalities in areas where smoking was banned versus areas where smoking was still allowed. The results were surprising and suggest that smokers are willing to drive longer distances just to find a bar where they can light up and enjoy a couple of drinks.Before the bans took effect, a smoker could walk to the local tavern. Now, he must take to the road and drive to a neighboring county or state that allows him to smoke in public. Getting behind the wheel in the first place, plus the added travel time means that there are more drunk drivers swerving down the road in smoking ban territory than in smoke-friendly areas. It just seems like if the smoke doesn’t kill you one way, it will kill you another way.
2. Cigarette Companies Developing “Healthy” Cigarettes. Huh? Healthy Cigarettes?
British American Tobacco is hard at work developing a new, less toxic cigarette. It sounds crazy, but the truth is that they have been able to reduce the toxins in their new cigarettes by up to 90% compared to conventional cigarettes. To test their new product, they recruited a room full of smokers to puff on the cigarettes and then tested biomarkers in their saliva and urine and compared those levels to regular cigarettes smokers and non-smokers.
So, will cigarettes get a healthy, new, image makeover in the future? British American Tobacco would like to think so.
3. Every-Day Sources of the Same Toxins. If you escape the cigarette smoke, then what about the frying pan full of bacon – or the barbequed shrimp – or the gas station? These are just a few sources of pollutants that are the same as those found in cigarettes. Cooking bacon fills the house with volatile nitrosamines that are the same as those found in cigarette smoke.
Eating barbequed food exposes you to polyaromatic hydrocarbons that are also found in smoke. Standing at the gas station to fill up your car – or filling up the lawn mower with gasoline – can easily fill your lungs with a heavy dose of benzene that is present in both gasoline fumes and cigarette smoke. These are just a few examples of other toxic situations that you encounter everyday. Has the smoking ban really made life safer? I guess so – as long as you don’t drive a car or other gas-powered vehicle to your favorite bacon and barbeque-free night spot.
Was placing a Government Ban on Smoking the Only Way?
Whether you are a smoker or not, it sure seems like there were other options to explore before an all out ban was called into effect.
If the government wants a nation of non-smokers, maybe the solution would be taxing cigarettes even more heavily – or making them illegal altogether. No, they can’t do that because big tobacco pours way too much money into political contributions and has a VERY powerful lobby. Plus, the loss of tax income to the government would be staggering.
Maybe the solution is segregating smokers and non-smoker by creating pro-smoke and anti-smoking bars? It sounds extreme, but it would certainly give customers and employees more options. We don’t need laws for this option – just progressive thinking bar owners.
Another plausible solution would be having smoking hours after the dinner rush – when most people stop at the bar for a drink and a smoke. Pros – prevent children from the heaviest of smoke levels. Cons – unless the business does something to clean the air between the night time smoking hours and the daytime crowds – one could argue that a lot of the smoke is still in the air.
What about improving the air inside the bars? This seems like the easiest solution.The challenge is that the most prominent technology in the smoke removal industry were electrostatic smoke eaters. See, companies that made these machines played on the bar and business owners wishes of not wanting to spend money on filters. So, they created electronic smoke eaters that didn’t require filters. Problem solved, right?
Hardly…
See, the electronic smoke eaters required time consuming, messy cleanups. If you don’t maintain them properly – the effectiveness drops off considerably. (meaning, they stop working) So, based on the poor maintenance and even worse performance – the bar and restaurant industry got the incorrect impression that smoke eaters don’t work. So, they stopped trying to solve the problem altogether.
Had more businesses tried filter based smoke eaters, they would have had a workable solution. Perhaps if this were the case – bar owners would have solved their own problems and the government could have stayed out of it altogether.
While no smoke removal system is perfect, a HEPA filter based smoke eater that also has a carbon filter for gases, fumes and odors and a pre-filter for the heavy particulate can do a great job. And when you get enough power to filter the air 10-12 times an hour – you can really make a dramatic difference in the air quality.
So what do YOU think about the smoking bans?
Are you a smoker?
Are you a non-smoker?
Are you a business owner?
How have these smoking bans affected you – positively or negatively?
Please leave a comment below.
Government power is the real health hazard
The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling from sea to sea
has nothing to do with protecting people from the “threat of second-hand
smoke” but are themselves symptoms of a far more grievous threat: a
cancer that has been spreading for decades throughout the body politic,
reaching even the tiniest organs of local government. This cancer is the
only real hazard involved – the cancer of unlimited government power.
The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom
menace but rather, if it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction?
Should anti-smoking activists satisfy themselves with educating people
about the potential danger and allow them to make their own decisions,
or should they seize the power of government and force people to make
the “right” decision?
It seems they’ve made their choice. Loudly billed as measures that only
affect “public places,” they have actually targeted private places: restaurants,
bars, nightclubs, shops, and offices – places whose owners are free to set
anti-smoking rules or whose customers are free to go elsewhere if they don’t
like the smoke. Some local bans even harass smokers outdoors.
The decision to smoke or to avoid “second-hand” smoke, should be made by
each individual according to his own values and assessment of the risks.
This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding every aspect of
their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend or love, whether
to go to college or get a job, whether to get married or divorced, and so on.
All these decisions involve risks; some may have harmful consequences or
invite disapproval from others. But the individual must be free to make these
decisions because his life belongs to him, not to others, and only his own
judgment can guide him through it.
Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Smokers are
a minority, practicing a habit often considered annoying and unpleasant to
the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the power of
government and used it to dictate their behaviour.
That is why these bans are far more threatening than few stray whiffs of
tobacco smoke while waiting for a table at your favourite restaurant. The
anti-smoking crusaders point in exaggerated alarm at those tiny wisps while
they unleash the systematic and unlimited intrusion of government into our lives.
Good overview – but I would like to make a couple of points.
The science of second hand smoke is far weaker than public health advocates would like for you to know. The easiest to prove or disprove this is the heart attack studies. The first study of this kind was the study you noted. Helena,MT had a 40% drop in heart attacks the year after the ban was instituted.
Sure, this sounds like all the evidence you need. One problem with it is that its a small sample. Lets compare this to baseball. You own a baseball team and its time for a new contract on one of your players. He comes to you and says – in one series last year I had ten hits in twenty five at bats with three home runs. Impressive numbers no doubt. As the owner, are you willing to pay him based on one series. Or would you rather pay him based on his average all season? The stats on the full season give you a better picture do they not.
This is the same with heart attack studies. There are several of these small sample studies with staggering numbers. Even worse, they then add all these small sample studies in a meta-analysis to increase it size. Your baseball player just added up all his good games and left out the bad ones. When the numbers are done on a aggregate of the whole population these trends disappear. Recent studies of England, Australia, Italy and the US all at full population levels all showed no correlation. Heart attacks dropped no more than in cities or countries that had bans then those that didn’t.
You make the decision – pay your player based on his season long stats or the average of the games he played good in?
The drop in heart attacks is not only bad science but dare I say fraudulent science. Each and every ”miracle” study has been debunked and shown to be nothing more than the smoking ban proponents making up the ‘’facts’’ in an effort to justify the ”bad & ugly” consequences of smoking bans. Read all about some of the studies here: http://cagecanada.blogspot.com/2009/02/anti-tobacco-dogmatists-have-no-regard.html More recent ”miracle” studies have also been debunked. http://cagecanada.blogspot.com/2010/04/toronto-miracle.html
As for second hand smoke causing any significant harm to bystanders, you may want to examine the literature on this page: http://fightingback.homestead.com/
In short, the only benefit of smoking bans is that people who hate the smell of burning tobacco are no longer annoyed. This is hardly a good reason to turn citizen against citizen and to cause economic havoc in the hospitality industry. The free market was adapting quite nicely in catering to everyone’s preferences without the anti-tobacco lobby’s heavy-handed interference.
The author of this article is trying to present all sides in a well balanced opinion. However, most of the heart attack studies have been debunked.
http://www.heartland.org/article/26821/Smoking_Ban_Health_Miracle_Is_a_Myth.html
The Great Helan Heart Attack Fraud
http://cantiloper.tripod.com/canti11.html
The 1992/93 EPA report was thrown out by a judge for fudging the numbers. Essentially, the standard for scientific significance which demonstrates if a variable has an effect at all was lowered. But the judge’s ruling doesn’t stop the anti-smoking advocates from citing bad science.
Here’s some other findings that have been taken so far out of context it defies the imagination:
2006 Surgeon General’s Report (excerpts)
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke and female fertility or fecundability. No data were found on paternal exposure to secondhand smoke and male fertility or fecundability.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy and spontaneous abortion.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and neonatal mortality.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and cognitive functioning among children.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and behavioral problems among children.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and children’s height/growth.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy and childhood cancer.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke during infancy and childhood cancer.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between parental smoking and the natural history of middle ear effusion.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between parental smoking and an increase in the risk of adenoidectomy or tonsillectomy among children.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure from parental smoking and the onset of childhood asthma.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between parental smoking and the risk of immunoglobulin E-mediated allergy in their children.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and an increased risk of stroke.
Studies of secondhand smoke and subclinical vascular disease, particularly carotid arterial wall thickening, are suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and atherosclerosis.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among persons with asthma.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among healthy persons.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and chronic respiratory symptoms.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in persons with asthma.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in healthy persons.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and a worsening of asthma control.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
And finally…..
The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and odor annoyance.
Source: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondh...
The new Tobacco Prohibition
I would like to take the time to tell the entire community about a falsehood so big that everyone who believes in freedom should be appauled.
This falsehood is so big it resonates from historical fact forward to this day. This falsehood is so big billions of dollars have been spent to make it believable to those of us who dont take the time to look up the facts.
We all remember reading about alcohol prohibition,but did you know there was also tobacco prohibition going on before alcohol became such a target of the last nanny staters.
Our great grandparents lived thru prohibition and the great depression,they also lived thru tobacco prohibition.
Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.
1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. “Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity” (Dillow, 1981:10).
1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.
1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. “You can’t do that on Fifth Avenue,” the arresting officer says.
1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: “Business … is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do.”
1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.
1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.This one you can google.
Now onto the falsehood……
We have been told for years by smoke free advocates that second hand smoke is the cause of everything from johnnys ear ache to cousin ED’S lung cancer. But wheres the proof!!!
Remember they claim 50,000 deaths a year yet,there are no bodys not even mass graves of the dead to second hand smoke.We await the names of these victims.
A simple stroll down historys road say 10 years or so and we start to get at the truth……
A federal Judge by the name of osteen got a case dropped in his lap in North Carolina,the case was that of EPA’S study on second hand smoke/environmental tobacco smoke.The judge an anti-tobbaco judge by reputation spent 4 years going thru the study and interviewing scientists at EPA and came to the conclusion :
JUNK SCIENCE
”EPA’s 1992 conclusions are not supported by reliable scientific evidence. The report has been largely discredited and, in 1998, was legally vacated by a federal judge.Before its 1992 report, EPA had always used epidemiology’s gold standard CI of 95 percent to measure statistical significance. But because the U.S. studies chosen[cherry picked] for the report were not statistically significant within a 95 percent CI, for the first time in its history EPA changed the rules and used a 90 percent CI, which doubled the chance of being wrong.
This allowed it to report a statistically significant 19 percent increase [a 1.19rr] of lung cancer cases in the nonsmoking spouses of smokers over those cases found in nonsmoking spouses of nonsmokers. Even though the RR was only 1.19–an amount far short of what is normally required to demonstrate correlation or causality–the agency concluded this was proof SHS increased the risk of U.S. nonsmokers developing lung cancer by 19 percent.”
So here we find that second hand smoke was made a political scapegoat by EPA.Lets not forget how EPA has reworked the global warming studys just this last summer. Where its top scientists paper was rebuked because it didnt carry the EPA’S stand that global warming was real.
The political shenanigans surrounding SHS/ETS go deep not only with the government and its health agencies but also to the big pharmaceutical companies and non-profit orginizations aka ACS,ALA,AHA and a meriad of others. All lobbying for smoking bans and their weapon of choise Propaganda paid for by big pharma and tax dollars. Studys made to order that second hand smoke is deadly. Take a memory note here too,over 250 studys on shs/ets have found it safe.
Yet a simple look at the chemistry shows us that its:
About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it qickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.
4 % is carbon monoxide.
6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms……
(1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).
Now, how odd that when we search the smoke free activists sites not one of them mentions that water vapor and air are the main components of second hand smoke. Is this just a fluke or an outright omission to further their political healthscare against the general public.
The last informative tid bit I have for you is what does OSHA have to say about all this secondhand smoke stuff.
Here is where it gets interesting,it seems John Banzhaf, founder and president of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) decided to sue OSHA to make a rule on shs/ets not that OSHA didnt want to play ball with him,its just that the scientific facts didnt back up a rule to start with.
Now for a rule to happen Osha has to send out for comments for a period of time and boy did the comments fly in, over 40,000 of them….Osha has whats called PEL’S and limits for an 8 hour period of exposure to chemicals in indoor environments…[epa is in charge of outdoor air]some smoke free groups have tried to use 30 minute air samples using epa monitoring to create a air borne healthscare.
The actual standard to use is OSHA’S
The EPA standard is to be used for OUTSIDE ambient air quality and it is the average over a period of 3 years.
The proper standard to compare to is the OSHA standard for indoor air quality for respirable particulate (not otherwise specified) for nuisance dusts and smoke. That standard is 5000 ug/m3 on a time-weighted average (8 hours a day, 5 days a week) and is intended to be protective of health over an average working life of 30 years!
This is where second hand smoke really becomes a joke,remember its nearly 90% water vapor and air…..now lets get to the facts of toxicology and dose makes the poison:
According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke……..
They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA’S minimum PEL’S on shs/ets…….Did it ever set the debate on fire.
They concluded that:
All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.
For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes
“For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes
“Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.
Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.
“For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes
For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time
The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.
So,OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :
Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997
WHAT! DILUTED BELOW PERMISSABLE LEVELS
By the way ASH dropped their lawsuit because OSHA was going to make a rule and that rule would have been weak and been the law of the land,meaning no smoking bans would ever have been enacted anywhere,simply because an open window or a ventilation system would have covered the rule.
Let me also tell you that the relative risk for shs/ets by the SG report of 2006 was a 1.19 ”EPA study is whats used to call it a carcinogen”……milks is a 2.43 and that glass of chlorinated water your about to drink is a 1.25 yet these things aren’t determined to be a carcinogen….The gold standard in epidemiology is a 3.0….Now had the SURGEON GENERAL included 2 other shs/ets studys the relative risk for disease from shs/ets would have been nearer a.60-.70 meaning it would have a protective effect against ever getting disease.
But,what each of us has is years and years of exposure and the knowledge that our kids all grew up around shs and generations of others,yet we are here alive not dead from a lousy 30 minute exposure to shs as stanton glantz tries to claim…..thats another story and its just as crazy as all the rest of smokefree’s claim about shs/ets.
Oh! have you heard the one about ”laugh” thirdhand smoke or third hand drinking.
Like I said their claims border beyond that of any reasonable persons commomsence.
The next time you see a healthscare claim
consider the source.Especially if it comes from a government or non profit agency!
I THINK – NO, I KNOW – THAT PEOPLE WHO DON’T SMOKE ARE JUST GETTING THEIR JOLLIES OFF OF US NICOTINE ADDICTS. I know it’s bad for us, but these days I don’t put too much stock in newer reports that come out on the evening news. People just want something to complain about much of the time, and the fact that the media and the government support them just gives them such a thrill! WOULDN’T IT BE NICE if the government could find a way to just ban everything that people find irritating or annoying? There wouldn’t be any fat people on airplanes; no one smacking at restaurants; no smelly people in the grocery store or standing in line; no uncontrollable children in public; no dogs barking; no drunks hanging all over customers in bars. The government could tax fattening food and fine people who don’t bathe daily or whose kids or dogs cause a peace disturbance. By the way, why don’t they ban drinking in bars?
(ALSO, I CAN’T FOR THE LIFE OF ME SEE WHY THEY DO NOT ENFORCE DOGS BARKING AT ALL HOURS OF THE DAY OR NIGHT!!!)
I GUESS M