Anti-smoking advocates have fired the next volley in Emporia’s smoking ban debate, just four days before city voters decide the issue.
Tobacco Free Kansas coordinated the study, which was conducted March 13, according to Mary Jayne Hellebust, executive director of the group, which is pushing for a statewide smoking ban. In Emporia, the group Clean Air Emporia lobbied the city commission to approve a citywide smoking ban.
A second group, Emporia Open for Business, fought the proposal. When they lost the fight with commissioners, they took the battle to voters, securing enough valid signatures to push the issue to a vote. After the polls close at 7 p.m. Tuesday, Emporia’s voters will have spoken.
In the meantime, Hellebust on Friday released the results of the study, which she said was conducted with volunteers going into five Emporia businesses — three bars and two restaurants, one of which is a nonsmoking business. She declined to name the businesses surveyed.
“We think that would be a disservice to the businesses,” she said.
Because the group didn’t have time to survey all businesses, she said, “we didn’t think it was appropriate to name names and point fingers.”
During the survey, the volunteers carried air quality monitors, which Hellebust described as compact enough to fit into a medium-size purse. The monitors were attached to tubing that extended outside the purse and sampled the air. The monitors then generated reports of air quality, both inside the businesses and outside as the volunteers left a business or entered another.
The results, according to the study’s executive summary, showed that “the average level of fine particle indoor air pollution in sampled Emporia businesses that allow smoking was 72 times higher than the observed smoke-free restaurant and 32 times higher compared to the average outdoor air monitored on the same evening.”
But that comparison is like apples and oranges, said Steve Corbin, owner of Town Royal bar in downtown Emporia and a leader of the Emporia Open for Business group.
“When you’re inside a building, you’re not going to have the same clean air,” he said. “Those measures don’t mean a darn thing as far as we’re concerned.”
The anti-smoking advocates say the polluted air is especially a health hazard to workers in the bar who can’t avoid being exposed.
“Employees working full-time in the establishments permitting smoking would be exposed, on nights like the one sampled, to fine particle air pollution levels 9.3 times higher than the average 24-hour safe limit established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” the study stated.
But Corbin said he’d rather see comparisons to safe levels set by OSHA, the governmental agency which oversees workplace safety.
That won’t happen because OSHA’s measures of secondhand smoke in the workplace are below permissible emission levels, so its standards don’t include any for secondhand smoke.
For those registered Emporia voters who still want to vote on the question of whether or not the smoking ban should take effect, advance voting in the Lyon County clerk’s office closes at noon Monday. Polls throughout Lyon County will be open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Tuesday. Also on the ballot are Emporia city commission seats and school board slots in all three Lyon County districts.
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
More lies and undocumented, unscientific,"(studies?).
Who were the volunteers?
What brand and model tester was used?
Video tape of the complete test?
Did volunteers duck into the restroom and blow smoke in the tube?
Who paid for test?
The Test was conducted on a friday night between 6 and 11p.m. How long did the volunteer stay in each business to get their readings?
The reason the names of the businesses were not released, was not "Because the group didn’t have time to survey all businesses, she said, “we didn’t think it was appropriate to name names and point fingers.” The reason is because it was a bogus study and they would get their BUTTS sued. PUN INTENDED.
AND GWEN,
FOR YOU TO PUBLISH THIS IN A WEEKEND EDITION, WITHOUT PUBLISHING THE ACTUAL STUDY & WITH LITTLE PUBLIC REBUTTLE TIME SHOWS THE gazettes STAND ON THE ISSUE.
steve corbin
EOB
April 4, 2009 at 1:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
I called the office of Tobacco Free Kansas on Friday, just after lunch. The woman on the phone said the Director was out of the office, didn't know if she would be back all day. I asked to speak to anyone involved in the so called study, no, they weren't there either. I asked where on their website was the study. No, it's not on there. And, uh, oh yeah, the computers have been down all day. I would like to know if the Gazette verified this story by talking to the Director. Since she was not in how did you? Surely a paper of the quality of the Gazette would have wanted to assure themselves of the validity of this study! Members of the Tobacco Free Kansas Coalition receive huge grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and use this money to promote the use of Johnson and Johnson products, Nicoderm, Nicorette, and Chantix, amoung others. This was NO independent study, boys and girls! I can just imagine the "study" operatives sneaking into bathrooms and puffing smoke directly into their little tubes then leaving. I can truthfully say, that I HAVE NEVER seen such slime perpetrated on a community in a local election. Huey Long, move on over, Emporia has you beat!!!!! William White is spinning in his grave!
April 4, 2009 at 1:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smith_ron (anonymous) says...
There you go, Corbin. You got your air quality study. Of course you would dismiss it. It wasn't cooked to your desire.
April 4, 2009 at 1:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
I'm a woman and I carry a purse. Now if you are checking the air with a little tube hanging out of a purse, I don't have to tell you girls what air that was checking! Who were those volunteers!!!!!
April 4, 2009 at 1:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Is there no level of lying, trickery, deceit, and shameless behavior to which these anti-smoker meddlesome control freaks will not stoop? And for The Gazette to publish this bogus unsubstantiated drivel 3 days before the election is brazen complicity and disgustingly unprofessional.
I have lost all respect for anyone involved with introducing or supporting this despicable attempt to discriminate, eliminate rights, interfere with personal choice, dictate social behavior, and force one small narrow-minded group's preferences on an entire community.
For Walters, Sauders, Grimwood, or any other snooty self-perceived socially superior uber-nanny to be so arrogant as to feel qualified to dictate my personal life, rights, and choices is disgusting and totally unacceptable. All Emporians who value their rights, freedom, and the principles upon which our nation was founded should be outraged and forever etch those names into their minds.
I am just plain shocked at how low these ruthless and brazen elitists will stoop to feed their inflated egos and line their pockets with special interest and grant money.
We, the citizens, have control of this issue and these deluded divas... for now. We will relinquish control of our very lives and freedoms if we don't show up at the polls in extreme force on Tuesday to vote down this ridiculous issue and the crusading cronies who have broken all the rules in an attempt to cram it down our throats.
Use our nation's most powerful weapon to stop this madness: your vote. Vote "NO".
April 4, 2009 at 2:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
I certainly hope you put this in print for the comic value Gwen, because if anyone accepts this study as factual data, they are very poor students of science and common sense.
April 4, 2009 at 2:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
neighbor: Unfortunately, there are those who believe the endless barrage of inane garbage thrown out by CAE, Walters, Sauders, Grimwood, and their Kool-aid sipping mindless followers.
Fortunately, the vast majority of Emporians are far too wise to fall for the con being attempted by the smoking ban advocates and will tell them so with their vote.
Vote "NO" on Tuesday.
April 4, 2009 at 2:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
Wait a second...some anonymous "volunteers"
*sneaked a pocket-sized air quality testing device in a purse and through a little plastic tube sampled air in anonymous businesses
and
*made the claim that the "fine particle indoor air pollution was 72 times higher than the observed smoke-free restaurant and 32 times higher compared to the average outdoor air monitored on the same evening"
The Emporia Gazette printed these claims a fact without:
*printing the actual data
*checking the facts
*questioning why it was a secret study
Are you serious?
What a FRAUD.
Why was this a secret testing? A number on businesses have volunteered to have their air tested - why the need for secrecy?
What type of sampling equipment was used (brand, model, etc.).
What were the particulates detected? What are the actual parts per million of those particulates?
I want to see the testing done and I want to see the actual results, not an 'executive summary'
I smell FRAUD here, and the Gazette is involved. How much did they pay you to print this, Gwen?
The Emporia Gazette should be embarrassed and ashamed to have printed such an obvious scam.
Now we know that someone in Emporia has air quality testing tools. Lets have a real test. Open and transparent to the public with witnesses from both sides to observe the test and receive a copy of the results.
April 4, 2009 at 3:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gemini (anonymous) says...
As a ban supporter, I would also like to see the published study. Not because I believe the numbers were falsified or the method of collection was faulty, but to squash any accusations of fraud.
In a true scientific study, methods and materials should be disclosed, as well as data collections, tabulations and results discussed.
Surely the Emporia Gazette can satisfy our request for this information or direct us to someone who can because without strong, publicly-released scientific proof, an article like this on the brink of a ground breaking vote is incomplete journalism.
April 4, 2009 at 4:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
ron smith to quote Mr. O,
Now we know that someone in Emporia has air quality testing tools. Lets have a real test. Open and transparent to the public with witnesses from both sides to observe the test and receive a copy of the results.
It's the same old s--t, ron and if you can't see that you are blind. I offered my business for testing, real testing. Open and up front. By a reputable company agreeable to all parties.
NOT SOME TEST WITH A $250.00 MACHINE HIDDEN IN SOMEONES PURSE WITH A TUBE STICKING OUT.
The reason they haven't named the businesses is because this study is bogus, and they know it and their attorneys know it.
Steve
EOB
April 4, 2009 at 4:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
“We think that would be a disservice to the businesses,” she said."
ARE YOU SERIOUS?? SERIOUSLY?? It's a disservice to the business NOT to release it! This survey is a JOKE, and I SINCERELY hope the Gazette publicly apologizes for it!
All I'm getting out of this article is CAE sent their brownshirts into 5 businesses in Emporia, then said, OHH, the air is dirty! We won't offer up any evidence or even any data, but the air is dirty!
April 4, 2009 at 4:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
rbow et al--
Are you freaking kidding me? You begged for someone to test the air in Emporia, it was done and now you don't believe the studies and are accusing them of cheating and lying! How completely predictable can you be? People have given you and your group tons of information stating the ill effects of SHS and you have been repeatedly saying prove it, prove it , prove it. Well they did and now you and your stubborness have to live with the results.
I had respect for you standing by your beliefs until now. You stooped to a whole new level calling the testers cheaters and calling out the Gazette for reporting the facts.
However, all of this arguing and name calling and disbelieving will be a moot point in 2 days. I sure hope you will believe the voters of Emporia when they put the ban in full force! Good day and good riddance!
April 4, 2009 at 5:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
Anyone supporting this "study", is either involved with the pro ban group or a complete idiot. This was a purely political move. What is astonishing, is that it was printed, 4 days before an election, on a Friday, when you can't get attorneys involved until Monday, and by the EMPORIA GAZETTE!!!!! Someone here needs to be checked out by the election board.
April 4, 2009 at 5:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smogman (anonymous) says...
And if you believe this ''study''. TONIGHT ON COPS...EPD goes undercover to locate the potentional dealers of death at local bars and clubs and resturants and motels and on and on and.....................sometimes you just have to vote NO
April 4, 2009 at 5:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
This just cracks me up!
What did you all expect was going to happen when they tested the air?
Did you really expect the air to be good for you?
April 4, 2009 at 5:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
slvr, you remember my supposed study that I had done with the school board offices? Meet CAE's version.
Why didn't the testers meet with the business owners?
What kind of equipment was used?
I can test the levels of fine particle pollution in your house and come up with the same levels quoted in the article, if I just knew the name and model # of the test machine.
If you believe this article, then I have lost all respect for your reasoning abilities.
I repeat the businesses were not named ,due to lawsuit concerns.
Way to Go Chris Walker, front page, on a weekend, with no published facts, and no time before the election for debating the "FACTS" of this study.
You should fire Gwen.
Steve
April 4, 2009 at 6 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
rbow--
You are a smart guy surely you can admit that the possibility exists that the tests were done properly and that their results may in fact be accurate?
I think it is more believeable that the tests were done properly and that results are accurate than that there is some big conspiracy being done by the CAE to falsify results. I don't believe that they would need to. As many people have posted SHS is harmful. It has now been proven to be harmful even in EMPORIA. I know I am shocked!!!
April 4, 2009 at 6:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
I just hope in fairness The Gazette will publish all of the facts along with names of businesses in Mondays paper.
And to remind everyone that fine particulate matter is everywhere, even outdoors. I would like to see the results of nicotine in the air study. That is the only by-product that can be attributed directly to smoking and SHS
Steve
April 4, 2009 at 6:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
rbow--
If you would please humor me for a minutes....I have a question for you and really anyone opposing the ban. Let's just assume that the results that were released today are 100% accurate....would you do anything different? Would you fight so hard against the ban? Would you instead vote YES? Would you run your business different knowing that you are allowing others to harm your patrons, employees and yourself?
April 4, 2009 at 6:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
rbow--
So can you admit that it is possible?
April 4, 2009 at 6:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justamarine (anonymous) says...
slvrnblck,
Please, you can't be this stuuuuuuuuuupppppppiiiiiiddddd. If this was a real test,don't you think that they would have posted all the results which bars, restaraunts, and named the people who did the test as well? Because if it was someone who is not familiar with how to properly use the equipment,the test could possibly become scewed. I want to know the persons qualifications on this equipment how and when they were trained. As well as the last time the machine was calibrated and by whom or what company. The business owners have already said come in and test the air in my business,so why the secrecy? I will tell you why you twit, because it did not happen. POINT BLANK, IT DID NOT HAPPEN.More lies from the CAE, if the supposed test went the other way you would be crying for all this information also. Next the CAE will have you believing that the sky is falling. And please stay away from cracks alcohol, it's not good for you.
April 4, 2009 at 6:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
slvr,
I didn't see SHS mentioned once in this STUDY. Only in the article: But Corbin said he’d rather see comparisons to safe levels set by OSHA, the governmental agency which oversees workplace safety.
That won’t happen because OSHA’s measures of secondhand smoke in the workplace are below permissible emission levels, so its standards don’t include any for secondhand smoke.
If it was on the up&up why sneak it through, and if it was Done March 13th, why release it to the press on a friday with only 4days until the election. What do you newspaper call that Gwen?
Steve
April 4, 2009 at 6:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
slvr
What I really expect is for adults that believe that shs is bad for them to stay away from it. It is very sad that it appears that I expect too much from my fellow "adult" citizens. Adults in this town can't even take care of themselves, or so it appears. Hopefully on Tuesday my faith in my fellow citizens will be restored and the majority will vote NO and say "We can handle this ourselves, thank you very much."
Do you honestly believe that this is the kind of test that has been asked for? Seriously? A test that no one was aware of? Everyone knew that Steve wanted a test, why not be upfront with him and say "Hey we're going to test your place now."? Why all the secrecy? Other than keeping consistent with the underhanded tactics that CAE has had since day one. So seriously how does this seem kosher to you?
April 4, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
rbow--
Just answer my questions please. I don't need to hear any more about your conspiracy theory. I know you have been painted into a corner with this article and you are grasping at straws. I would just like to hear your answer to my questions.
April 4, 2009 at 6:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
slvrnblck posted, "What did you all expect..."
What I expected was that the testing would be done in the open, with parties from both sides of the issue present. What I expected was to see the results - the actual "contaminants" that were detected and the measurement of said particles in parts per million so we could see whether or not the air violates OSHA standards.
Considering how CAE and some of the other ban supporters have been conducting themselves, I can't say I'm entirely surprised. Their entire campaign has been full of lies and deceit from the beginning.
Why the subterfuge? Why didn't they take Steve or any of the other business owners up on their offer to test their air? What are they afraid of? That everyone will see they've bee lying all along?
Cowards.
April 4, 2009 at 6:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
seriously--
They asked for the tests and the got them. I am sorry they don't like the results, but they are what they are. I believe they addressed why they thought it was wise to keep the tests secret. Were you expecting a heads up so that the bar owners could get all of the smokers out of their bar? I mean do you seriously think that they are making this stuff up?? The ramifications for falsifying this info is not worth it. Wouldn't it be more likely that if they did these tests and found nothing that they would just not release the results instead of making them up? The conspiracy theory is just a little far fetched.
April 4, 2009 at 6:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
IF THE STUDY WAS DONE ON MARCH 13TH,
WHY DID TOBACCOFREEKANSAS WAIT UNTIL FRIDAY APRIL 4
TO RELEASE A PRESS RELEASE?
COULD THEY BE TRYING TO INFLUENCE AN ELECTION?
I THINK THIS MAY BE A QUESTION ON THE IRS BOARD REVIEWING THIS FOUNDATIONS TAX EXEMPT STATUS.
Steve
April 4, 2009 at 6:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
slvrnblck- Your question is "let's assume that the information released today has been proven to be 100 correct", what would you do differently. You are probably one of the very few that are assuming that. It is assuming that has caused all this mess. Your contention is based on assumptions, and nothing else. Please go and push your nicotine replacement products elsewhere. Assuming things makes a ass out of you.
April 4, 2009 at 6:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
slvrnblck posted, "I mean do you seriously think that they are making this stuff up??"
That's exactly what I think.
April 4, 2009 at 6:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
MisterO--
What lies have been told by the CAE?
“Slander is the revenge of a coward, and dissimulation his defense”
April 4, 2009 at 6:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
Oops, I forget to mention, a "study" WAS NOT released. A press release was released. There is a BIG difference between the two, which the Gazette should have clarified. A press release can say anything, a study has to be very specific, and is subject to review, AND ridicule. As is a newspaper editor.
April 4, 2009 at 6:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
It appears you all are too afraid to answer the questions. Like I said, it is really hard when you all are drowning and gasping for air, but man up and answer the questions.
April 4, 2009 at 6:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justamarine (anonymous) says...
slvr-
you posted;
I mean do you seriously think that they are making this stuff up?? The ramifications for falsifying this info is not worth it.
Yes, I seriously believe they are making this up. Because the ramifications,would be serious, that is why they did not name the supposed places. You are kinda slow now aren't you? If it wasn't documented it didn't happen. We want names of the places and the reports and who filed the findings. Who were the volunteers? Come on, stop with the run around slvr.
April 4, 2009 at 6:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
I love how all of you people against the ban are suddenly so concerned with test results proving how unhealthy SHS is and how much more dangerous it is for you that you are claiming that the results are made up. Do you think that this info is bad for your cause?
April 4, 2009 at 6:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Could the air in my bar be 72 x dirtier than outside air?
Yes it could if i had 72 dirty people in there.
Nothing in this study mentioned smoke or shs.
And nothing said the levels of fine particulates were dangerous. Ask any scientist or you local doctor should know, in order to get the exposure rate for a worker such as a bartender, you would have to do a at least 8Hour testing to average when the bartender was busy and when not so busy. The news release stated the "testing" was done at all locations between 6 and 11 p.m. Were there 5 monitors at all 5 locations for the full 5 hours, or did we do a little bar-hopping. Were the testing tubes changed at each location to avoid cross-contamination if only 1 monitor was used?
You see I have seen too many "studies" thrown out by all kinds of people, to believe everything I read without seeing the facts.
And why the subtrifuge? I freely offered my business to be tested on it's busiest night, Fri. 6-11.
April 4, 2009 at 7:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justamarine (anonymous) says...
It's not information, it's propaganda becuase they know deep down that they are going to lose and are grasping at straws to trying and sway the people that are on the fence. But anyone with the least bit of common since knows the truth.
And remember people.
Vote YES for RUDOLPH HESS
April 4, 2009 at 7:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
slvr
"I mean do you seriously think that they are making this stuff up?? The ramifications for falsifying this info is not worth it. Wouldn't it be more likely that if they did these tests and found nothing that they would just not release the results instead of making them up?"
At this point I haven't seen evidence that they aren't making it up. They probably aren't, I'm sure that there was some kind of test done but the way it was done is suspicious. There is a lot that the CAE has done that is rather underhanded you must admit.
To think that all this could have been avoided if people would have just avoided shs on their own. It's all very sad.
April 4, 2009 at 7:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
Keep grasping Steve.....
April 4, 2009 at 7:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
seriously--
What has been done that was underhanded?
April 4, 2009 at 7:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
slvrnblk: You must be kidding, or are so brain-washed and biased to be totally out of touch with reality. If this "test" had even a hint of legitimacy, the results would have been released, the locations revealed, and it would have been done immediately after the fact with television coverage and a brass band.
If you buy a word of this scam and blatant attempt to deceive, then you are as pathetic and low as those who concocted this bogus test and the poor excuse of a newspaper that printed this disgusting pack of lies.
April 4, 2009 at 7:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smogman (anonymous) says...
I remember a science experiment in high school, the results seemed to be obvious before the experiment was conducted, so when the results were different, we listed the results as what we expected. The teacher knew we lied about the results and gave us all F's. Just the facts man.....Vote NO
April 4, 2009 at 7:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justamarine (anonymous) says...
Steve,
This bobble-head is trying to get under your skin. If he had any sense or honor,he would admit that this could not have happened the way they say it did. Pure and simple,because if the results would have come out different,he would be crying about,who,what when where,and how. He fell off the buses step this morning,and he wasn't wearing his helmet and hit his head, so don't be to hard on the guy.
Rob
April 4, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
slvr.
I'm not grasping, the damage has been done. It is too late to do any thing about this "Study" now.
Tell you what though, after the election, when the lawyers are through and we all have the official facts of the study, I'll rent one of those handy monitors. Maybe you and I can go around to a lot of different places in Emporia and duplicate this "Study" We can even do your house and mine.
We may come up with a few more things we can Ban. Whatya think?
Steve
April 4, 2009 at 7:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
Bj--
I am the one who is biased? If that ain't the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is.
Do you really think it is more probable that someone is making the results up, risking their name, reputation and possible persecution than the results actually being accurate?
Test results were released then suddenly all of these anti ban supporters come out accusing the CAE, the newspaper and the testers of lying and cheating. It seems like pretty desperate tactics from someone losing the fight.
April 4, 2009 at 7:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Rob,
Oh I don't know the news release could be verified by the facts of the "study", but Gwen Larson seems to be the only one around here that recieved the official study results, and she hasn't shared them yet. Maybe monday nights paper will have a front page article with the actual study paramaters in it. I keep trying Tobacco Free Kansas for details since Fri. noon and no-one is home.
You have to admitt the timing was perfect:
News Release on Friday 10:00 a.m.
No one in office who could comment on news release the rest of the day.
Emporia Gazette publishes "story/Rumor" in Sat. paper front page.
Election Day only three more days away.
Not enough time to prove or dis-prove or dispute the "findings"
Election Outcome Bought
JUST ANOTHER GREAT DAY
IN EMPORIA, KANSAS
Steve
April 4, 2009 at 7:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smogman (anonymous) says...
Bj the Gazette could use a writer of your ability......thanks
April 4, 2009 at 7:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smith_ron (anonymous) says...
RBOW and friends. You are amazing...you challenge, practically beg, for someone to test the air, and when they do, and it backs what any person with an ounce of common sense knows, you trash it. What's even sadder is that you wouldn't even have questioned the study had it supported your view.
Face it...SHS is a health issue. You know, I know it, and a whole bunch of highly credible health agencies know it, too. Even if the ban is voted down, it won't change the fact that you are allowing your customers to be POISONED all in the name of profits.
If you don't like the test results, find another independent agency to verify the results.
Bottomline: Business owners DO NOT have the right to poison the public in the name of money. They DO have a responsibility to provide a safe and healthy environment for their customers.
IF You can't stomach that, get out of the BUSINESS!!
April 4, 2009 at 7:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gemini (anonymous) says...
Why don't we all step back from the insults and wait for the Gazette's response? If this is a legitimate study as I believe it is, the data will become available to us.
And for results of a scientific study to be collected, analyzed and reported within 3 weeks is quite exceptional. Certainly there is no "agenda" pertaining to the timeliness of the article other than it being reported as it came available.
However, if I am incorrect, only my faith in the Gazette will be broken. I will stand by my vote of YES because regardless of this study, SHS is still a poison with the ability to harm many.
April 4, 2009 at 7:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Rob,
Did you notice the study was done on a fri night during all bars/restuarants peak hours?
Done on March 13th, 2009.
News release dated Friday April3, 2009 @10:48 a.m.
Why the long wait, between the study and it's release?
COULD IT BE?
Kansas Tobacco Free is trying to influence an election?
Sounds like something a squid would do.
April 4, 2009 at 7:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
slvrnblck posted, "test results proving how unhealthy SHS is and how much more dangerous it is for you "
What results, slvrnblck? Huh? Have you seen any test results? I haven't.
April 4, 2009 at 8:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
Hey Stevie: You screwed up. You should have done an air quality test when you had the chance. Oh wait, maybe you did. Somewhere I seem to recall you stating you had done an air quality test, and it showed YOUR bar as having dirty air (as well as the school district office, I believe).
Sounds to me like the latest test just confirms what you already told us: Your Bar Is DIRTY!!
Now, is that anyway to treat your customers???
April 4, 2009 at 8:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smogman (anonymous) says...
BREAKING NEWS - AIR STUDY - QUALITY RELEASED - NONE
April 4, 2009 at 8:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
gemini, YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING! EVEN YOU CAN'T BE THAT DENSE?
Once we find out the facts, and I am sure we will, the monitors used in this "study" come with an instintanious read out of fine particulate matter.as well as programing compatable with any laptop. What I am saying is they knew the levels of their"test" that night.
Any secretary just transcribes the test results to paper and hits copy.
This release was timed purposly and I think that the authorities investigating it will come to that conclusion.
Steve
April 4, 2009 at 8:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gemini (anonymous) says...
Rbow--
Sounds like you are a conspiracy theorist. Let's hear the facts before anyone starts concocting stories how CAE et al. schemed and plotted to destroy the "evil" kingdom of SHS.
If what I believe regarding this study is incorrect, then I will most certainly apologize for my misguided faith in this particular study and buy you a beer. But until then, I stand by what I've said.
April 4, 2009 at 8:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
Steve,
I don't doubt that this isn't some big coincidence that the results came out when they did. I am sure it was all part of a strategy and I am sure that you would have done the same if you had done the tests and the results that you had were in your favor. However, I think it is unfortunate that you and others are so quick to claim that the results were fixed instead of taking your lumps like a man.
April 4, 2009 at 8:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
April 4, 2009 at 8:21 p.m. ( permalink )
justamarine (anonymous) says...
Keep the Faith Brother,
Everyone that I have talked to agrees that this is a rights issue. I have been communiating with everyone I know that lives in the city limits to get the word out. And they are voting no for there own reasons. I think the timing of the article is as the say, a little perplexing to me and to those that know the truth. I truley believe that EOB will win this election.I believe that the other group CAE will end up eating crow.Especially when the findings are found to be bogus.
Yea, I saw the dates kind of fishy to me.
Here is what I would like to know, but I bet they don't have the stones to produce.
If this was a real test,don't you think that they would have posted all the results which bars, restaraunts, and named the people who did the test as well? Because if it was someone who is not familiar with how to properly use the equipment,the test could possibly become scewed. I want to know the persons qualifications on this equipment how and when they were trained. As well as the last time the machine was calibrated and by whom or what company. That is if this test was acutally done.
Just to let you know I was a volunteer, I lit up a smoke and stuck it next to the thingy mcbob for 2 hrs it cost me 2 packs of smokes to do this. They said that they will reimburse a carton of smokes for doing the test. That was nice of them wasn't it? It could of happened that way couldn't it?
Rob
April 4, 2009 at 8:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gemini (anonymous) says...
Steve--
Sorry, you're wrong. :) I had nothing to do with the study or the release of it. This is the first I've heard of any field research performed by either party. I'm just a patron of yours that will always be, regardless of the outcome. My stance is and has remained that you cannot ignore the science...SHS is harmful and therefore support the ban.
Amanda Logsdon
April 4, 2009 at 8:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Irish:
If I insinuated that you beat your wife and kids on a daily basis without any proof to back it up, you'd be pi--ed, Right?
Welcome to the club owners world.
Still no proof that the levels of shs or indoor pollutants are above acceptable levels set by OSHA. It is The Agency that deals with WORK PLACE SAFETY.
This study proves nothing except indoor air is dirtier than outdoor air. I hope they didn't spend to much money on this study, any 3rd grader could have told them that.
Steve
April 4, 2009 at 8:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justamarine (anonymous) says...
Steve,
I have a case of pledge being sent over to your bar. It's kinda dusty,kinda like cracks house.
Rob
April 4, 2009 at 8:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
What I would like to know about the validity of this test, is what standard did the volunteers use to calibrate their so-called purse size air quality intruments by and what training did they have to use such equipment ?
Why were there no unbiased, witness along to witness the validity of the testing ?
Why was this testing not done by an unbiased outside, independent air quality sampling firm, that was agreed upon by both interested parties and had or has no vested interest in the outcome of the test ?
The most important question is.
Why was this test coordinated by Tobacco Free Kansas and not coordinated and over seen by an outside, unbiased party or firm that has or had no vested interest in the outcome of the test?
Why all the secrecy about the businesses that were tested ?
Wouldn't those business have a right to know that some one had tested their air quality and would have the right to be notified of the results, if those results were indeed both valid and truthful ?
Further, what was the brand name and quality of the testers used ? As most hand held testers cost between $800.00 and $5,000.00, depending on the quality and the number of tests to be done.
Also, apparantly all these so-called testers and tests did was to test the air-borne particulates in the air. Most of the so-called cancer causing ingredients in tobacco products, such as cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco or any tobacco product that is burned converts to a possible gaseous state when heated. Therefore you would need to carry an instrument that would test not only particulates, but also would analyze for the different gaseous polutants present in the ambient air, indoors and an instrument that would do that type of testing would not be able to be carried in a purse and would need a knowedgable technician to calibrate, operate and desypher the readings !
Therefore I would say that this secret, supposed legitimate test proceedure is as bogus as it could get, along with the bogus, so called results of such a bogus excersize !
Since the testing was done on March 13th, nearly 30 days ago, why were the so-called relevant and true test results not made public knowledge until April 4th, only 3 days before the public vote on the smoking ban ?
And what indepent, unbiased lab, that has no vested interest in the outcome of this issue, verified the test results as valid and true ?
I have been involved in the testing of certain things that would affect the general public. And I in fact know that your test equipment has to be calibrated to a certain standard before even attempting to test anything and the person gathering the samples and testing them had better be trained to use the equipment and know what they are doing !
Citizens of Emporia do not be fooled or taken in by this blatant attempt by Tobacco Free Kansas and the CAE to sway the vote in their favor !
VOTE NO !
April 4, 2009 at 8:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
Stevie: Wouldn't matter how I felt if you could offer proof, such as the study cited above does. There are 14 health agencies, and 151 countries who all have agreed that second-hand smoke is a problem, according to Wikipedia. I'll go with the majority, thank you. Gemini is right. You can't ignore the science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_...
If I were you, I'd start asking your customers what will keep them coming back to the bar after the ban is passed. You're pretty intelligent, I believe. Surely you can come up with something to keep the customers coming in.
April 4, 2009 at 8:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
Methusla: I see you are still piling on the crap. Give it up. Nobody believes you.
Irish "The M___ Terrorist" Emporia
April 4, 2009 at 8:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
Ahhhh Meth...don't get upset. I'm just joking you.
I apologize.
April 4, 2009 at 8:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smogman (anonymous) says...
You all have me so paranoid now, that I am now wearing a cotton breathing mask all the time. A customer ask me the other day '' Why does your mask have a hole in it?'' I replied '' so I can smoke ''
April 4, 2009 at 8:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justamarine (anonymous) says...
Hey Irish,
I just looked up that post from wikipedia,
your wrong, it say shs creates well being and great health.
You see you can go the wikipedia and get to say anything you want it to say.
you twit
April 4, 2009 at 8:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Here is some info on Air Quality test instruments,
Understanding specifications and performance of indoor air quality test instruments
Measurement issues and air quality standards. Though firm standards for indoor air quality outside the industrial setting are limited, accurate measurement is important nonetheless.
Making the numbers add up:
Understanding specifications and performance of indoor air quality test instruments
Air quality test instruments must deliver accurate and verifiable performance, both to ensure precise and reliable air quality diagnosis, and to provide credible answers if results or procedures are challenged. The air quality professional’s reputation depends on the quality and performance of the test tools in use, as well as on the user’s understanding of instrument specifications, technologies, applications and maintenance. In this paper we examine:
Measurement issues and air quality standards. Though firm standards for indoor air quality outside the industrial setting are limited, accurate measurement is important nonetheless.
Instrument specifications. Not all specs are created equal. Definitions of instrument performance and accuracy may varyfrom one manufacturer to another, making it a challenge to determine which instrument delivers the required performance.
Instrument drift and calibration. Over time, test instruments can and will drift out of spec. Instrument testing and calibration, following the schedule and methods recommended by the manufacturer, are vital to ensuring the accuracy of air quality measurement. Calibration should be documented for verification.
April 4, 2009 at 8:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justamarine (anonymous) says...
Meth,
There you go nice post.
April 4, 2009 at 8:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
Wikipeida may not be the impeccable source that we would like, but in this case, they are on the money.
April 4, 2009 at 8:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
P.S. The characteristics of test technologies. The sensor technologies used to measure some air quality parameters have limited stability. Instrument performance may be affected by such factors as altitude, ambient temperature and barometric pressure unless the user takes steps to compensate.
Issues in air quality measurement
The measurement of indoor air quality is influenced by a variety of factors, including the characteristics air exhibits as a fluid and gas, the standards of accuracy we must meet when making measurements, the performance characteristics of air quality test instruments and the way we use and maintain those instruments.
The fluid nature of air. The subtleties of air quality measurement begin with the very nature of air. Measuring air quality is not like measuring a two by four. Because it is a gas, air is compressible. Its density varies with changes in altitude, temperature and barometric pressure. Unless compensation is dialed in when instruments are set up, or compensation circuits are built into the instruments, changes in air density can affect the accuracy of some air quality measurements. Unless it carries large quantities of pollutants, air is invisible. Instruments are needed to determine the levels of chemicals or particles borne along by the air. The principal indoor air quality characteristics we measure include:
• Air temperature
• Humidity
• Airborne particle sizes and numbers. In sensitive environments such as medical facilities, the type of particles (such as the species of mold or bacteria) is important.
• Gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), a byproduct of respiration that can indicate the rate of fresh air exchange into an indoor space, and carbon monoxide, a poison.
Limited and imprecise standards. Outside the industrial workplace, absolute standards for most indoor air conditions and air pollutants do not exist. Guidelines, not specific limits, are the rule. Government has been slow to establish specific standards to control levels of indoor air pollutants.
With few exceptions, science has yet to convince lawmakers that indoor air contaminants cause specific health problems that demand legislation. In 1994, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) filed a notice of proposed rulemaking for indoor air quality in non-industrial workplaces, but withdrew the proposal in 2001. The management of indoor air quality remains primarily a private, not public, concern.
Test instrument performance. Another important consideration is the accuracy of test instruments over time and in varying environmental conditions. Instrument standards and performance specifications, together with appropriate testing and calibration, are the keys to making accurate, repeatable and defensible measurements.
April 4, 2009 at 9 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justamarine (anonymous) says...
I changed it a lttle bit. I don't think you will want to agree with what it says now. Sorry lol
April 4, 2009 at 9 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
It amazes me how this article is getting all the anti ban folks in an uproar. I thought you guys think this is a rights issue. The fact that you are all getting so bent out of shape and so defensive proves that you think this is about the health and safety of the public and have just been hiding behind the "business rights" mask.
April 4, 2009 at 9:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Irish:
There are 14 health agencies, and 151 countries who all have agreed that second-hand smoke is a problem, according to Wikipedia. Please don't count on wikipedia for undisputed, scientific facts. Anyone in the world can edit the posts on that sight, or did'nt you know that?
And Did you read the news release?
The only person that mentioned SHS was me.
The test didn't test for smoke or SHS, it tested for fine particlulate matter in the air. Something entirely different.
IF THESE TESTS WERE VALID,(and the jury is still out on that), THE ONLY THING, THEY PROVED WAS INDOOR AIR WAS DIRTIER THAN OUTDOOR AIR.
Steve
April 4, 2009 at 9:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smogman (anonymous) says...
I wonder, if the local ban passes and state ban passes. Which law is in force here ?
April 4, 2009 at 9:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
rbow--
Why then was the smoky air 72 times more polluted than the non smoky air?
April 4, 2009 at 9:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
irishemporia posted, "Wouldn't matter how I felt if you could offer proof, such as the study cited above does."
The only "proof" the study cited above shows is that the "executive summary" (translation: someone's interpretation) supposedly says there are comparatively more particulates in the air in the smoking establishment than there is outside. According to Gwen, it also states that the air OUTSIDE has comparatively more particulates that the air in a nonsmoking establishment.
Quote from the article, "“the average level of fine particle indoor air pollution in sampled Emporia businesses that allow smoking was 72 times higher than the observed smoke-free restaurant and 32 times higher compared to the average outdoor air monitored on the same evening.”
The executive summary of the so-called study doesn't list the particulates that were detected, nor does the so-called study list the amount of particulates detected in parts per million so that the levels can be compared to the OSHA standards.
None of us knows what the study shows because none of us have seen it.
"You can't ignore the science."
What science???
April 4, 2009 at 9:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
smogman--
Typically you can't go against the State ban but you can make it stricter. For instance we wouldn't be able to have our speed limits faster than the State guidelines but we could make them slower.
April 4, 2009 at 9:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justamarine (anonymous) says...
more customers wher in the ones that smoked.
April 4, 2009 at 9:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
Stevie: I agree, but picking up a line from the EOB/Methusla playbook, since this particular Wiki fact backs my case, I believe it. Now, show me a Wiki fact that backs your POV and I will call it crap!!
You gotta love America!!
April 4, 2009 at 9:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justamarine (anonymous) says...
that should (were)
April 4, 2009 at 9:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
Quoting the quote: "Quote from the article, "“the average level of fine particle indoor air pollution in sampled Emporia businesses that allow smoking was 72 times higher than the observed smoke-free restaurant and 32 times higher compared to the average outdoor air monitored on the same evening.”"
72 times higher in a smoking business than a non-smoking business...and that leaves you questioning the results? How long did it take your teacher to convince you that 2+2 really did equal 4?
April 4, 2009 at 9:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
slvrnblk, None of the smoking ban opponents believe that this is entirely a health issue and is more a rights and power issue. Yes we, inparticular I get upset when I read that six volunteers did so-called scientific testing. Especially when I myself did testing to protect the general public from getting illness and diseases.
Did you not read any of the information I posted on how testing must follow certain proceedures and parameters ?
If you did, you either did not understand it or do not want to understand it !
April 4, 2009 at 9:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
slvr,
you have at least two distinct personalities that are fighting each other for control over your body. This conflict can eventually lead to a complete breakdown of your thought process. This finding is a direct result of a study of your posts on this forum. Don't ask me for proof, or who did the study, and don't even threaten a lawsuit, because you are anonymous. A figment of someones warped sense of humor.
Steve
April 4, 2009 at 9:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smogman (anonymous) says...
hey slvr it just a free rights issue, CAE using it as science for politics is the problem, never have I met so many non-smokers who are so outraged by this political ploy.
April 4, 2009 at 9:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
Still grasping eh Steve?
April 4, 2009 at 9:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
slvr
Wow this forum is filling up fast. The CAE did all they could to keep this from a public vote. The CAE was unwilling to compromise, at all. The CAE makes it seem as though there are no restrictions on tobacco sales or use and many people are ignorant enough to believe them. The way this test was conducted and many aspects of it are now being concealed for no apparent reason. Many other things have struck me as less than on the up and up with the way these people operate since I started watching this unfold. I have lived here pretty much my whole life and I have seen how these people operate. When I was in school I gave them the benifit of the doubt and chalked it up to immaturity and assumed they would grow up and realize everything in life couldn't be exactly their way. I was wrong apparently. Their bubbles haven't burst yet and they still live as if they are the stars of the show and the rest of us are just extras. It's very sad and pathetic just like adults who can't simply avoid something that they believe is killing them. It all just has a putrid stench.
April 4, 2009 at 9:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
C'mon, Stevie: A figment? Next thing you know, you'll be trying to convince there is no Santa Claus.
April 4, 2009 at 9:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
irish;
amaze us with your math skills. How much higher were the levels of fine particle indoor air pollution in the Non-smoking restaurant than outdoor air?
steve
April 4, 2009 at 9:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
Oh Stevie: I flunked math. That's why I hang out in the bars!!
April 4, 2009 at 9:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
irish, It is amazing how you will believe the results of six volunteers dredged up by Tobacco Free Kansas and the CAE as valid and true scientific fact, when it is actually the worst, as you say, " CRAP " that has been seen on this thread !
You only want to believe what you deem as fact and truth as only you see it to be, even when it is indeed " CRAP " !
My last posts on testing proceedures and instrument use, etc. was taken directly from a website of one of the worlds largest and best test instrument manufacturers in the world !
VOTE NO !
April 4, 2009 at 9:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justamarine (anonymous) says...
2+2= What ever the CAE wants it to be
April 4, 2009 at 9:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
Meth (yes I broke my promise and read one of your posts): Can you disprove it? I certainly believe the Gazette would not hang its reputation on an unsubstantiated test. At least you finally admitted plagiarizing your material.
April 4, 2009 at 9:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
C'mon, Meth: Prove the study wrong. Get your EOB buddies to fund a test. Compare the results. IF the ban passes, and y'all can prove that it was based on fraudulent information, I'll be the first to ask the city to reconsider.
C'mon Meth...don't be afraid. Rally the troops.
April 4, 2009 at 9:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
I am off to bed to dream of a land where the bar air is clean and the beer isn't watered down. Oh to dream such a dream!!
April 4, 2009 at 9:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smogman (anonymous) says...
Again, as Joe Friday said '' just the facts man '' Vote No or bend over...........
April 4, 2009 at 9:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gemini (anonymous) says...
Irish...
Exactly my point!! Until we find out the truth behind the study (the methods and materials, data collected, etc) we are arguing over NOTHING.
With this many posts regarding the very controversial article, I would hope that the Gazette accommodates our request and provides a full report.
Amanda Logsdon
April 4, 2009 at 9:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Thank You Amanda,
I think I will give it a rest until crack or gwen shows up here with some facts.
Good night all.
Steve
April 4, 2009 at 9:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smogman (anonymous) says...
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
April 4, 2009 at 9:41 p.m. ( permalink )
ksgram (anonymous) says...
YOU ALL are totally missing the point!!!!! Granted, the air in bars is smokier than on the street...duh...Steve has been begging to have his air tested out in the open not "under cover".
It doesn't matter if the bar air is "polluted" if the patrons choose to go there. WAKE UP!!!! WHAT THE H@@@ is wrong with you people???? NO one is forcing you to go into the businesses that allow smokiing. When I go to Town Royal, I know that it's gonna smell smokey, I accept that, my choice. I don't go into convience stores that allow smoking because I don't want to smell it, MY CHOICE! You may think it strange that I'll go certain places that allow smoking, but not others...well that is what all this about. CHOICE. The choice of the customers but most of all the CHOICE of the owner of the business. If a business is thriving, that shows that there are people who want to patronize the business just the way it is being run. NO Need for government intrevention.
April 4, 2009 at 9:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
irishemporia posted, "72 times higher in a smoking business than a non-smoking business...and that leaves you questioning the results? How long did it take your teacher to convince you that 2+2 really did equal 4?"
Yes....and 32 times higher than outdoor air, which indicates that the air outside is more deadly than the air in a nonsmoking business. Since this is supposedly a health issue, are you now ready to ban breathing outside?
And since you seem need people like CAE and the government to do your thinking for you, I would expect it took a considerably less time to convince me that 2+2=4 than it did you.
April 4, 2009 at 10:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
irish, exactly what are you accusing me of plagarizing ?
If you are referring to the info about testing equipment and the use of such, then yes I got it from one of the largest makers of test equipment in the world. That is no different than anyone else doing the same thing with the info they post on these threads, even the perfect you !
If you are referring to my testing " things " or a " thing " to keep that publicly used " thing " safe for public use and consumption, I did do that kind of testing about 25 years ago, and do no a little something about testing and test equipment !
So since you have done more than your share of plagarizing, don't accuse anyone of plagarizing unless you are innocent of plagarizing yourself, which you are not, innocent, that is.
VOTE NO !
April 4, 2009 at 10:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
I'm back...Meth...show me even one post that I plagerized from somewhere else.
April 4, 2009 at 10:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Wasp (anonymous) says...
"Tobacco Free Kansas coordinated the study, which was conducted March 13, according to Mary Jayne Hellebust, executive director of the group, which is pushing for a statewide smoking ban."
Yea, That sounds real objective!
The only reason I wish I lived in Emporia right now is so I could VOTE NO ON TUESDAY!
April 4, 2009 at 10:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
irish, I do not have to prove the tests wrong, the way the so-called tests and gathering of test samples were conducted and the questionable expertise of the people conducting the tests, with no independent witnesses, to make sure the gathering of test samples were above reproach and above suspicion and who have no vested interest in the outcome of the test, results, makes this whole test proceedure suspect ! The first thing the scientific community would do is deem the test results as invalid or questionable ! Any and all so-called scientific tests and the results of such tests must be carried out by an unbiased accredited testing facility, organization or lab, with no vested intest in the outcome of the tests and then be verified by a second or even a thid credible source, such as an unbiased organization or testing facility and its scientists and technicians and must reach the same results, within certain limits and parameters, before the results of any test or tests can be deemed valid and true !
And since the expertise or credentials of the six volunteers that did the sample gathering is not known, and apparantely there were no unbiased wittnesses present during the sample gathering and testing. And there has been no expert second or third unbiased testing done on the samples gathered. The only conclusion can be one of skeptisism as to how valid and true the test results truly are ! And as for the Gazette they deem this as " NEWS " and news sells papers and thats what the Gazette or any news media cares about, selling news and making money !
Oh, yea, irishemporia, just some more as you say " CRAP '' that just happens to be fact !
VOTE NO !
April 4, 2009 at 10:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
C'mon Meth. It is not that you won't, it is that you can't.
April 4, 2009 at 11:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
irishemporia, I have never said that I did not use or post information that was totally mine, now have I . But apparantely you cannot tell the difference between what is my posts that I personally have stated and what I have used from various sources, just like everyone else has done ! And yet you don't call anyone else uneducated, ignorant or tell them what they post is " CRAP ", like you did me, right at the start, and when I got angry and retaliated to you in a like manor or worse you get all bent out of shape !
Well, just exactly what kind of response did you expect, huggs and kisses !
Again if you expect an apology from me you will have a very long wait !
Now you are starting the same thing all over again !
You know full well you have used info from other sources, that were not your own.
April 4, 2009 at 11:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
irishemporia, I didn't say that I can' t or won't, I said that I don't have to, big difference.
Can you prove that the test results are valid and true, if so why don't you, but remember the rules I stated to having scientific sampling gathering and testing results to be validated as correct, acceptable and true ! LOL
I am done talking to you !
April 4, 2009 at 11:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wyse_guy (anonymous) says...
So who got the big pay of from this crap this town is such a big joke.That just goes to show how far money will take you in this town.
Maybe we should bring someone in who is really qualified to run one of these test instead of someone sneaking around hiding like a snake in the grass.
Is this how this town is going to be ran now stabing our buissness owners in the back then running off and hiding?
Was the person who took the test qualified to do so??
How can the test readproperly unless it is held inthe air?
Why didnt OSHA test the air if it was rumor that it was so unsafe? It has to have full airflow.
Maybe it was the body ordor of the person taking the test.William Allen White is turning over in his grave because of greedy people instead of printing the truth. I have already stopped doing business at 2 places where they had vote yes signs in the windows.
This whole city is corrupt.
April 5, 2009 at 12:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
77flint (anonymous) says...
All hail Steve he's so GRRRREEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!
April 5, 2009 at 12:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
romano1784 (anonymous) says...
The results, according to the study’s executive summary, showed that “the average level of fine particle indoor air pollution in sampled Emporia businesses that allow smoking was 72 times higher than the observed smoke-free restaurant and 32 times higher compared to the average outdoor air monitored on the same evening.”
Well hello hello all. Lets ignore for the time being the fact that the "tests" were conducted by the pro-banners. Without knowing what businesses were tested how can anyone take this seriously? What would be the outcome of indoor air pollution in Town Royal, versus say Tyson Fresh Meats? If it is a health issue I would like the answer since I am an employee in this town I'd like to know what I'm exposed to. How about S&S Cafe and Norfolk Iron and Metal? Club Orleans and Menu Foods? Everyone getting the comparison chart so far?
The factories affect the employees on a daily basis with smog, chemicals, oil, ect. the other businesses I labeled, for the most part, affect those that patronize them. If this is a REAL health issue, why haven't I heard, from day one with this ban, the pro-banners complain about the respiratory ailments caused by any places of business other than those that allow indoor smoking?
Prolonged use of alkali is proven to cause lung cancer and emphysema. And when used as a foaming cleaner affects not just the person using it but anyone in the enclosed area who is breathing. Do we ban it now, no I forgot. It serves a purpose and is a necessary evil, unlike the death-causing, dark and sinnful cigarrettes.
Anyone here read the actual paper? I found 14 Vote yes pics there, Who is the gazette voting for?
April 5, 2009 at 2:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
wyseguy,
"This whole city is corrupt."
Not all of it.
Matt Slater
Emporia Open For Business,
Online Director
April 5, 2009 at 2:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
"When they lost the fight with commissioners, they took the battle to voters"
It's hard to win a fight with people on the other side.
April 5, 2009 at 2:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Let me try and explain how tests, expecially scientific tests must be conducted in order to be validated as unbiased, true and fact.
1. The gathering of test samples must be done " objectivly " by someone who is not connected in anyway to either side of the issue and who has no vested interest in the outcome of the tests.
2. The testing must be done by at least two or more independent, objective test facilities or labs, using qualified scientists to test the samples and all of the testing facilities, labs and scientests must have the same test results within certain guidelines and parameters for the samples being tested.
3. If the test facilities or labs do not or cannot arrive at the agreed upon test results withing certain guidlines or paramenters. Then those particular test results must assumed as being invalid or untrue.
This is the way sampling and testing must be done, in order for the sampling and tests to have credibility and validity and to account for or eliminate methodoligic errors, bias and fraud.
I for one do not believe that the so-called tests conducted by Tobacco Free Kansas and the CAE were done properly to make them valid, true and certainly lack credibility ! Also just because the Gazette printed the fact that tests were done and the results of the test, doesn't give the sampling methods, the volunteers or the results of the tests credibility !
VOTE NO !
April 5, 2009 at 8:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
For those who may be interested here is some info from the "Air Quality Siences " website.
Particulates and Ultrafine Particles
What Particulates Are
Particulate is a general term used for a type of air pollution that consists of various types of particles suspended in the air we breathe. Particulates that are small enough to be breathed in come in a variety of sizes, shapes, and levels of toxicity. Examples of particulates that may be found in indoor environments include:
Bacteria
Viruses
The feces of dust mites
The body parts of cockroaches
Dander from cats and dogs
Fungal spores
Pollen
Particles in tobacco smoke
Particles from combustible appliances
Asbestos fibers
Of recent concern are ultrafine particles (UFPs), which are less than 0.1 micrometer (µm) in diameter. They are a problem because they cannot be detected with the sampling equipment usually used to measure other particulates. Instead, a commercially available ultrafine particle counter must be used to measure the amount of these particles.
Because these UFP particles weigh almost nothing, they stay airborne for a long time, easily move from one area of a building to another, and can travel through cracks in walls and floors, unlike other particles.
Sources of Particulates
Particles small enough to be breathed in have been found in restaurants, sport arenas, and residences with smoking. Particulate sources include:
Environmental tobacco smoke
Woodburning stoves and fireplaces
Unvented kerosene space heaters
Gas-fired ranges, furnaces, dryers, and water heaters
Vacuum cleaning and house dust
Now how many of the above particulates were detected in the so-called Tobacco Free Kansas and CAE coordinated tests of the businesses that were tested in Emporia ?
How many of the above listed particulates could or may cause illnesses or diseases in humans, etc. ?
Were the particulates that were discovered in the Emporia businesses identified and tested for illness or disease causing factors ?
How many of these particulates are or may be found in a persons own home and may be part of the cause of illnesses and diseases you/we may be experiencing in our everyday lives ?
You see there can be many contributing factors that could be contributing to all of us contracting illnesses and diseases not just smoking/SHS/ETS .
And if nothing else, the title of the organization that coordinated these so-called tests should tell you something, ie, Tobacco " FREE " Kansas.
Do not fall for the smoke screens or scams of the Tobacco Free Kansas or CAE groups, sense and sensibility !
VOTE NO !
April 5, 2009 at 9:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
April 5, 2009 at 2:15 a.m. ( permalink )
methusla (anonymous) says...
P.S. Sorry, I meant to say, Do not fall for the smoke screens or scams of the Tobacco Free Kansas or CAE groups, use your own common sense !
VOTE NO !
April 5, 2009 at 9:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
Gwen, how was this "study delivered to you? By email? Hand delivered, by hellebust? I spent all Friday afternoon trying to locate her, or ANYONE at the Tobacco Free Kansas organization. They said no one was in, and they had no idea when anyone WOULD be in,except the girl who answered the phone, and that all the computers had been down all day. Did YOU hold this press release until Friday? When did you receive it, and how? Since the paper has received so much money in the ad campaign for the ban, just how much cooperation are you giving these people? VERY curious! And do you have the complete report of the study, or not?
April 5, 2009 at 9:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
What this article has really accomplished is to poke a stick into a hornet's nest. By having these so called "volunteers" test the air quality without allowing the other side to have their own "volunteer" present, Tobacco Free Kansas is playing dirty pool. Now, there will be an even greater turnout of NO voters -- guaranteed!
We NO voters can recognize the lack of ethics here. This is the typical BS being put forth by the CAE nasties. Dirty politics as usual.
April 5, 2009 at 10:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I am appalled that the Gazette chose to publish the supposed result of this alledged "study" with no attempt at verification four days prior to an election on the issue. As a holder of a BS degree in Journalism I can assure you that this story violated virtually every aspect of newspaper integrity and professionalism. As such, I for one, intend to ask the Gazette to show cause why I should not cancel my subscription. I can only hope that other readers interested in fair play and honesty to the same thing.
April 5, 2009 at 10:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
Biscuit: Where did you get your degree?
April 5, 2009 at 11:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
Irish--
Does it matter?
I know I can always count on you to massacre a straw man!!!
April 5, 2009 at 11:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
"This is the typical BS being put forth by the CAE nasties. "
Create, I agree with you 100%. The only problem is that this BS shouldn't have been put on the front page of the local newspaper, because BS is precisely what this "study" is.
April 5, 2009 at 11:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
“the average level of fine particle indoor air pollution in sampled Emporia businesses that allow smoking was 72 times higher than the observed smoke-free restaurant and 32 times higher compared to the average outdoor air monitored on the same evening.”
If I'm reading this right, doesn't this say that the outdoor air was dirtier than the air in the non-smoking business?
April 5, 2009 at 11:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
romano1784 (anonymous) says...
Hey josies you hear about the FDA taking over tobacco prices and advertising? Didn't realize tobacco had legally been pronounced a drug.
April 5, 2009 at 12:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Romano,
I thought that fell under one of the three food groups.
Nicotine, caffeine, and alcohol.
April 5, 2009 at 12:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
By the way, for those of you who want to quote wikipedia, here's another quote for you.
"Despite many known instances of electoral fraud, it remains a difficult phenomenon to study and characterize. This follows from its inherent illegality. Harsh penalties aimed at deterring electoral fraud make it likely that any individuals who perpetrate acts of fraud do so with the expectation that it either will not be discovered or will be excused after the fact."
Matt
P.S.--This will not be excused after the fact.
April 5, 2009 at 12:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
romano1784 (anonymous) says...
It may just be me thinking "wild" thoughts but, CAE sent five volunteers to five businesses to measure contaminates in the air. I'm all for scientific studies, but how can they legally post a "study" like this without any backing? If someone was sent into my business to test the air quality I would like to know that the person was A: Qualified; B: Unbiased; and C: had enough respect for me, my property, and my business to inform me that I was being tested. This is just a perfect example of espionage. There is no other word for it.
April 5, 2009 at 12:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
on the lighter side, an observation from a lady friend in Hutch.
"Just out of curiousity. If the spies were carrying the little testers in their purses with a tube hanging out, wouldn't that be more likely to test the air level around their crotches? Now THAT'S a scary thought!!! We need to know the names of these girls so we can protect the pubic, oops, I mean the public.
laughing steve
April 5, 2009 at 12:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
If Gwen Larson doesn't lose her job over this act of gross injustice and incompetence, the Emporia Gazette will lose what little credibility it still had. Even a reporter on a high school newspaper would know better than to publish a story like that with no substantiation or investigation into legitimacy.
As for the shameless, lying, despicable people who dreamed up, approved, and carried out this bogus "test", some of whom are (supposedly) respected business owners and even elected government officials, they should all be publicly censured and shamed at least, and prosecuted at most.
I am deeply saddened and ashamed that this kind of disgraceful behavior takes place in our community. I am even more saddened and ashamed to think that the people who did this live in our community and are in positions of trust, power, and responsibility.
We know their names. Remember them; and beware.
April 5, 2009 at 12:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
If anyone here is really mad about this "article"
Chris Walkers home phone is 342-1881.
Your welcome,
Steve
April 5, 2009 at 12:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
They take this "study" Mar. 13, and don't release it to the newspaper until the Friday before the election, and people are on here saying that's ok?
"Tobacco Free Kansas coordinated the study, which was conducted March 13, according to Mary Jayne Hellebust, executive director of the group, which is pushing for a statewide smoking ban."
This statement doesn't bother you? There is no way this group would try to twist the results? ARE YOU SERIOUS? This is not science! As far as I'm concerned, Gwen and TFK, this is election fraud. I've emailed Gwen about it, but HOPEFULLY there are enough people in this town that are smart enough to realize how bogus this "study" was, that Gwen's inbox is full.
April 5, 2009 at 12:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
Simple solution. You people that want Town Royal, and other establishments to be non smoking. Call the owner, find out what they would sell for, and buy the business. Then make it non smoking. I don't know how it could be any simpler. And since you say being smoke free would pack in the business, you would be wealthy. That would show your honorable intent. Or just buy it and close it down. Let's see if you REALLY believe in the cause.
April 5, 2009 at 12:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Irish.....I got my degree from Arkansas State University....Class of 1977....Magna Cum Laude....SO WHAT11111.
April 5, 2009 at 12:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Mad? How about totally outraged! For the CAE jackboots to stoop this low and for the Gazette, a once proud and respected newspaper, to publish this drivel, is beyond any definition of fair play and acceptable ethics.
Chris Walker, Lefty Kelley, and bought and paid for Gwen Larson should all be run out of town so some legitimate journalists can move in and run our local newspaper.
Do these anti-smoking idiots have no shame?
April 5, 2009 at 12:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
biscuitboy: My cousin also graduated from Arkansas State with a journalism degree. He is now president of the Arkansas Press Association. Do you know him?
April 5, 2009 at 12:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Irish....It seems strange to me that you are in need of specifics as to my credentials at the same time you are asking me to accept your so called results with no accredidation what so ever. This entire episode has the smell of an attempt to throw an election, and as such may be open to legal recourse.
April 5, 2009 at 1:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
"This entire episode has the smell of an attempt to throw an election, and as such may be open to legal recourse."
Am looking into that right now.
April 5, 2009 at 1:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lookup (anonymous) says...
After months of following all this, several points I'd like to make, or have answered possibly.
I, too, am ashamed of the Gazette with this 'National Enquirer" style of story. But what can we expect in Jim Barnett's hometown.
Will we become the pass-by town on the turnpike when ALL the motel rooms are non-smoking? How will that effect our economy?
Did this really all start because the members & friends of CAE can't enjoy their steak at Bruff's? Does the ban have to be so strict? Even the state ban is tolerable compared to the one proposed here. Thank you for any enlightenment someone could pass my way. I've already voted NO & know of many non-smokers also voting No because this is just TOO STRICT! Vote No & tell the Gazette you're ashamed of them.
April 5, 2009 at 1:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Bjnemp....Roy Ockart was my faculty advisor and one of my primary instructors....as well as a top notch journalist. The photo on the
APA website however looks to young to be that Roy Ockart as he would appear today and may be his son. Whatever the case I certainly know the name and spent many hours learning from Roy.
April 5, 2009 at 1:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jmcmannis (anonymous) says...
Yeah this is all horse............I smell a rat and it is dirty and under handed what CAE and the Gazette did.
Is there any way to prove that the election was bought and if so what can we do to fight another one of our rights away being stripped away.
Waiting 30 days before publishing those studies and waiting till the weekend of the election with no time to rebutt and everyone convenietly gone. This vote has been bought
Time to return to public tarring and feathering.
April 5, 2009 at 1:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
Actually, Barnett could write one check and buy every smoking establishment in town! Come on Jim, cough it up. This was your idea. Do us all a favor! All business owners, call Barnett and leave pertinent sales info. This is a done deal. He'll buy you out, or SHOULD explain why not!!!
April 5, 2009 at 2:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
Biscuit: So nothing. I have a friend who has a J degree from K-State. I thought you might know each other.
April 5, 2009 at 2:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I believe that this so-called test and the alleged valid and true results are a sham, instigated by Tobacco Free Kansas and the CAE ! I am even wondering if any testing took place at all ! And the idea of waiting until April 4th to publish the results in the Gazette, especially since the supposed sampling and tests took place on March 3rd, was a planned move to try and STEAL or FIX the public vote in their favor and I also believe that this was a despicably desperate move on their part ! I also believe that even after all the rhetoric of how they had the vote in the bag by a large margin, in reality I believe that they knew that the vote was going to be very close, maybe even was against them and the smoking ban would be repealed or killed and this was the motive for their desperate and despicable move ! And the sad this is, the Gazette that used to pride itself on being a fair and unbiased newspaper, either got suckered by the Tobacco Free Kansas and CAE groups or was a part and partner to this despicable act of desperation !
If you as citizens of Emporia do not want to become just another lackey community and live your/our lives under the dominating heel and be dictated to by a certain few individuals and group of individuals and lose your/our freedoms, rights , civil liberties and dignity ! Then, the only right choice is VOTE NO !
April 5, 2009 at 2:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
olddog (anonymous) says...
Smoking ban should provide compromise
Alex Pedersen (Thursday, April 2)
http://www.esubulletin.com/articles/o...
All in all, this all-encompassing smoking ban should be left to the market and to the owners of the establishments that it affects to decide.
Tyranny stinks much worse than cigarette smoke.
April 5, 2009 at 3:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ksnewsie (anonymous) says...
Smoking ban necessary part of health codes
Matt Bulicz (Monday, March 30)
http://www.esubulletin.com/articles/o...
April 5, 2009 at 3:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Another thing I would like to know is.
Where were these so called purse sized, plastic tube, sample gathering instruments placed on the table, bar, floor, etc.. The placing of such test sample gathering instruments also has a great deal in the accuracy of the sample gathering and test results. Also the gasses and possible particulates emmited by the plastic tubes used to gather samples would also have a profound affect on the validity of the sample and testing as the platic tube itself would have a certain amount of particulates and Benzene eminating from it that could also affect the test results, that is why such testing equipment would not have any plastic sample gathering tubes.
FYI, most plastics do have a certain amount of Benzene in them and Benzene is also alleged to be in tobacco, tobacco smoke/SHS/ETS. Also Benzene can be found in many of the everyday products almost everywhere !
So if you are going to conduct a good valid sampling and test proceedure you had better be familiar with whatever instrument you are using and know how to calibrate it, and be able to factor in all of the parameters of all the variables that could, may and do affect the quality of the sample, because the test is only going to be as good as the sample quality !
What I am saying is, you just can't go out on the street, etc, and ask for any old volunteer and give them a sample gathering, test instrument and expect to get a true, valid, quality, sample or get a good, true and valid test result !
It does take some amount of knowledge and training to gather good test samples for valid, credible and reliable scientific test results, that can be viewed as valid and credible. That is why most of the time, however not always you usually have a credible and knowlegable person gathering scientific test samples, not some off the street volunteer !
Any flaw or cross contamination of the test sample will result in a flawed, unreliable, invalid and uncredible test result !
That is just the truth of the matter !
Without knowing who gathered the test samples or what credible testing facility or facilities and scientists tested and verified the quality of the samples. I can not accept the test results as valid, true or credible !
VOTE NO !
April 5, 2009 at 3:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
What I'd really like to see is this so called "study" take place in and sample the air in one of San Francisco's pot houses, which they are trying so hard to legalize at the same time they try to make smoking OTHER "cigarettes" illegal.
1) Would it show a higher or lower level of contaminants than outside air?
2) Would anyone really care?
LOLOLOL
April 5, 2009 at 3:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
Very peculiar. This supposed "important study" is not mentioned in the Topeka Capitol Journal, The Wichita Eagle Beacon, The Salina Journal, The Hutchinson News. I would think it would be in EVERY paper! It is also NOT on the website of the Tobacco Free Kansas Coalition. What's up with that? Do they think that just Emporians are stupid?
April 5, 2009 at 4:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pingeon (anonymous) says...
driveonby - The first thing I did when seeing this article was go to the Tobacco Free Kansas Coalition's website and was surprised I could not find anything mentioned about this. The way this whole thing was released, it really makes me wonder what actually happened.
This thing is waayyy to secretive. And don't ask because we're not going to tell you any details.....
April 5, 2009 at 4:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jmcmannis (anonymous) says...
Well I say if we find this influeneced the vote for or against it. We call the Feds into it and demand a investigation into Voter fraud and have Gwen if she is part of it run out of town along with Walters, Sauder and all the right stripping thugs who spit on the freedom that was given to us by the blood of the men and women who died to give us freedom.
Vote No for your rights
Dont tread on me
April 5, 2009 at 5:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ksnewsie (anonymous) says...
Call the feds and report who? The Gazette falls undere the First Amendment, and the Tobacco free people are just playing politics...and seem to be pretty good at it, right or wrong.
April 5, 2009 at 5:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Q-- How do you piss off half of Emporia?
A-- Ask Gwen!
April 5, 2009 at 5:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
I wonder how many of these comments are going to get deleted Monday morning?
April 5, 2009 at 5:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justamarine (anonymous) says...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
I don't really know if any of the members of the CAE ever studied this in school or not, but I would like them to give me some insight on how they view this document.
April 5, 2009 at 5:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
blulitespecial (anonymous) says...
As I recall,a real instrument to conduct any test is not that small and portable.Even my sound real time analyzer was 1800 bucks to buy used,and requires OSHA re-certification.No way in heck do I loan it out.Some air samplers (such as those used in confined industrial spaces,ships,and tank manufacturing - yup,we have a large tank builder here) are almost that small.They are OSHA certified,and to be used by trained operators only.These smaller samplers are for warning the people inside the space as to lack of oxygen or explosive atmosphere - not to "record" data. One good toot by a person in a large room will exceed the level of 'gas' allowed by law. A little carpet cleaner will register on these things they used.
The air sampling was done with toys,and is not a "study". It's a lawsuit waiting to happen.
April 5, 2009 at 5:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glarson (anonymous) says...
Moved to a forum:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/...
April 5, 2009 at 6:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
I am no lawyer, law scholar or judge, but I would think that if it turns out this whole test scheme by the Tobacco Free Kansas coalition or the CAE was a sham to influence votes in the upcoming public vote. The Kansas Attorney General would possibly have grounds to launch an investigation into " Fraud " charges being lodged against the Tobacco Free Coalition and the CAE and possibly others who had a hand in the shenanigans of such an egregious scheme !
The following is a law definition of " Fraud " !
fraud - 7 results
Sponsored Links ADT ® Official Site
Call 1-888-356-5194 Today to Get Expert Security Advice from ADT!
www.ADT.com
White Collar Defense
Aggressive Lawyers, Proven Results! Call 1-800-459-2500 24x7 Statewide
www.UnitedDefenseGroup.com
fraud /frɔd/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [frawd] Show IPA
–noun 1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.
3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time.
4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.
After reading the law, definition of fraud, what do you, the people think !
April 5, 2009 at 6:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )