Disputes study
Steve Corbin
Monday, April 6, 2009
THE AIR QUALITY study story published in Saturday’s Gazette was a blatant attempt of Clean Air Emporia and its partner in the pro-ban movement, Tobacco Free Kansas, to influence the local election here in Emporia with quasi-research and a questionable “study”
We keep hearing about secondhand smoke in all their ads, but this test did not measure levels of secondhand smoke.
This “study” did compare indoor air fine particulate matter with outdoor fine air particulate matter in other words, air quality.
The “study” proved that indoor air is not as clean as outdoor air. Even a third grader would know that.
This “study” also seemed to imply that the air in a nonsmoking business was cleaner than the outside air.
The “study” was conducted on a Friday between the hours of 6 and 11p.m., peak hours for most bars and restaurants. In order for a study to measure the average exposure to air quality for an employee or customer the study would have to be conducted over a period of several days and different hours to reflect busy and slow times in the business.
Our first question is why the subterfuge? We have always welcomed an air quality test, conducted by a bonafide non-biased party agreeable to both sides of this debate.
Tobacco Free Kansas can hardly be considered non-biased.
Who were the volunteers ,and were they qualified to run the air-testing equipment?
Who paid for this test, tax dollars or foundation money?
Why test just bars and restaurants, why not include a gas station, bowling alley or the civic building during a basketball game?
If this test was held on March 13, 2009, why was the press release on the study released on April 3, 2009 the Friday before the election and published in the Gazette Saturday leaving little time before the election to rebut the “study”? The monitors used in testing fine particulate matter show immediate results of the test. Even if the staff members of Tobacco Free Kansas are really slow typers, this “study” should have been released by March 21, 2009.
The members of Emporia Open for Business have the opinion that this was yet another attempt by CAE to influence the local election with yet another unscientific and biased study, and the Emporia Gazette helped them in their efforts.
Steve Corbin
Emporia Open for Business
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
And most Emporia residents with any common sense or functioning brain cells agree with you, Steve. This so-called "test" was an under-handed scam, sham, and flim-flam play by a group of self-perceived social superiors intent on forcing their values and agenda on our entire community in order to feed their egos and display their power. The bogus study is a disgrace, as are the pathetic folks who claim to have conducted it and the Emporia Gazette for assisting them in the ploy.
April 6, 2009 at 2:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Happiness09 (anonymous) says...
When I read their "study" results I also wondered what that had to do with the price of tea in china.
April 6, 2009 at 2:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
EsqEB (anonymous) says...
The problem is Steve, is the soccor moms will see this and Vote Yes. Which is exactly what Walters and Grimwood wanted, they just assume the masses will not look any further than the surface to see what this really is. By doing so they have insulted the intelligence of every Emporian.
I wonder how many times in the next 24 hours the results will be talked about on Sauder's radio stations?
April 6, 2009 at 3:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
djdiablo (anonymous) says...
To the folks of CAE, words of wisdom by Fredrich Nietzsche....
"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments..."
April 6, 2009 at 3:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
brightliner (anonymous) says...
Nice job of re-raising the issue Steve. Saturday stories in the Gazette don't get much attention unless someone keeps them alive. You have succeeded.
April 6, 2009 at 3:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
brightliner,
My pleasure:)
Steve
April 6, 2009 at 3:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tell (anonymous) says...
Thanks Steve
The Saturdays so called study was crap. Here are the results of a study by anonymous people performed at undisclosed locations. Using some kind of equipment that checks air. Even High School journalist know better than to write that crap.
April 6, 2009 at 4:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tell (anonymous) says...
wow page 8 incredible!
April 6, 2009 at 5:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I for one would love to know the name of this non-smoking restaurant where the air, on a friday night, is maintained at thirty five to forty percent cleaner than the outside air. To do so this restaurant must either possess "clean room" technology,and/or be closed and sealed....or the outside air sample was taken in the uptakes of a coal fired powerplant's chimney. But I'm equally sure we will never learn any thing pertinent about this sham study...legitimized by the once-proud--now pathetic-- Emporia Gazette, because the damage is allready done. But I intended to keep demanding explanations and investigations into this sordid affair as long this tired old body can keep up the fight. Sorry Patrick, but it's not over yet.
April 6, 2009 at 7:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Repost:
Where are the studies about how healthy the community will be after a smoking ban divides it? Lines have been drawn and friendships have been weakened as not all people are capable of hearing dissenting opinion, much less of lively and passionate debate, without starting to dislike the other person. Neighbors with already weak tolerances of each other are turning spiteful toward each other. Business owners are feeling under attack by the very town they need to have a friendly relationship with for survival. Grudges and hard feelings are being formed to be harbored for years to come. How healthy is this proposed ban? So far, it seems pretty unhealthy to me.
April 6, 2009 at 7:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
Steve,
May the road rise to meet you,
may the wind be always at your back.
May the rain fall softly on your fields....
And until we meet again
May God hold you in the palm of his hand.
I admire you folks in Emporia so much,
You're incredible!
Vote No tomorrow, and take your town back from the grant funded nincompoops trying to run it. This is YOUR town. YOU pay taxes, you don't take them. God bless the veterans and those who have fought before for our rights.
April 6, 2009 at 7:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tell (anonymous) says...
Oh4theluv
Well said. what good is any of this if it rips us apart?
We need to come together as a community not become hateful towards one another, no matter what the outcome the damage has been done.
April 6, 2009 at 8:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
rbow--
You asked me to read this with an open mind and I believe I did.
I think you make some valid points but I think that you didn't view the initial report with an open mind.
In your letter you said that the tests did not test SHS but it tested particluate matter. I would think that a logical explanation for the difference in particluate matter between a smoking and a non smoking establishment very possibly is the SHS.
The inside aire quite possibly could be cleaner than outside air due to air filters and the fact there is no car pollution in the inside air.
You questioned the time of the test. Personally, I don't give 2 hoots what the air quality of a place is when no one is there. I want to know what it is like when people tend to be there. In bars and restaurants that happens on Friday nights between 6-11.
I agree that TFK could be biased. But I still don't think they made up the info.
I have to assume that the people who were conducting the tests knew what they were doing but I understand your point.
I think it is irrelevant who paid for the tests personally. I know where you are coming from but I think that you are questioning this to fuel your conspiracy theory.
I do think other places should have been tested but the 2 biggest things that everyone is talking about is bars and restaurants so I understand why.
I would have liked the tests to be done over several days. I don't know why they didn't. Maybe they didn't have time or ran out of resources or maybe they thought the evidence was sufficient.
I think the reason the test was revealed when it was, was definitely related to when the vote was. It is a hot debate and I think it was strategy. What I don't understand is why the EOB didn't do their own tests and why they didn't use the media, even after this as a better platform for their own agenda. I think that I have heard an equal number of ads on the radio from both parties and I think the Gazette has done a very good job of not choosing sides. I know that you think they pulled a fast one on you but the article is very fact based and has arguements from both sides. I think calling out Gwen is completely uncalled for and instead of doing that you could have used her to better illustrate your defense which is the "rights" side. If you truly think this is a rights issue as you have claimed all the way through then it makes no difference what the results of the test were....whether it be 72 times more or 7000 times more.
April 6, 2009 at 9:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
77flint (anonymous) says...
these posts are so darn educated i am getting smarter by the seconds. it's mind boogling....whew
April 6, 2009 at 10:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JohnDoe (anonymous) says...
Steve, thank you for pointing out how asinine the study is. Who would really argue that indoor air is "more clean" than air outside? The simple concept of "wind" should be the only explanation as to why that is the case. Who's even making an argument that second hand smoke is healthy? How about the air inside the waiting room at the doctor's office? I'm sure that inside air couldn't make anyone sick, or could it? How could that be?!?!? No one smokes in there. Needless research, moot points.
Apparently these "researchers" have plenty of time to fritter away so I'll offer up a suggestion. Perhaps they should test air quality in Lincoln Village, Four Seasons, and houses near the highway. All of that exhaust, tire particle polution, and of course litter can't be good for anyone. Perhaps CAE should try to ban I-35. That sounds about as ridiculous as trying to tell business owners how to run their business. Vote No.
April 6, 2009 at 10:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
77flint: If "these posts are so darn educated" that you are "getting smarter by the seconds", it appears it will take years for you to attain an IQ even approaching average. At this point, you are still incapable of properly capitalizing, punctuating, or spelling. And what the heck is "mind boogling?" Is that anything like mind-boggling?
If you find these blogs to be so stupid, don't read them. And by all means, don't enter anymore of your sophomoric comments. That alone would raise the literacy level of a blog by 20 points.
April 7, 2009 at 12:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
YY4U
You forgot to add (pats 77flint softly on the head). LOL Toooo funny!
April 7, 2009 at 8:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
slvrnblk;You stated:
You questioned the time of the test. Personally, I don't give 2 hoots what the air quality of a place is when no one is there. I want to know what it is like when people tend to be there. In bars and restaurants that happens on Friday nights between 6-11.
I STATE:
For a scientific test of contaminated air that employees and customers are exposed to ON AVERAGE, the test would have to be taken over a period of a workers shift and different days, and shifts. For this study to estimate the exposure based on a few peek hours is not scientific.
YOU STATED:
I agree that TFK could be biased. But I still don't think they made up the info.
I STATE:
The info may not be made up, but it certainly not valid to the quality of air in a business.
You stated:
I have to assume that the people who were conducting the tests knew what they were doing but I understand your point.
I State:
The very fact that volunteers from Tobacco Free Kansas were used to conduct this study proves the results cannot be taken seriously, There was bias from the monitors.
You Stated:
I think it is irrelevant who paid for the tests personally. I know where you are coming from but I think that you are questioning this to fuel your conspiracy theory.
I state:
If this was paid for by a grant from big-pharma, then the conspiracy theory would be valid.
If paid for by tax dollars, I would state that a study such as this one was a complete waste of time and tax dollars.
You Stated;
I do think other places should have been tested but the 2 biggest things that everyone is talking about is bars and restaurants so I understand why.
I State:
I don't care what people are talking about. This ban is for every building in Emporia with the exception of private homes, so other businesses should have been tested.
YOU STATED:
I would have liked the tests to be done over several days. I don't know why they didn't. Maybe they didn't have time or ran out of resources or maybe they thought the evidence was sufficient.
I state:
An incomplete test makes it an invalid test, plain and simple.
What did yoou teacher give you for a test grade if you didn't complete it?
I am posting this today because I have already voted.
VOTE NO
CHOOSE WHERE YOU GO!
Steve
April 7, 2009 at 9:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
slvrnblck (anonymous) says...
rbow--
I voted also and I voted YES!
Steve, I really do understand where you are coming from, I hope you understand where I am coming from. I think we see this from 2 completely different angles. I think that with what you and the EOB did by forcing this to a vote was great. I think that is where it should have been from the beginning. So I definitely give you credit for that. You stand up for what you believe in (no matter how wrong you are :-) ...sorry had to throw that in there) and I respect that also. I think that for the most part you have stuck to your guns and tried not to revert to insults. The only issue I have with your campaign was the attack on the Gazette and Gwen. I think that they have done a very good job staying unbiased and that even though this report came out when it did, I don't think they are the ones at fault.
Regardless, we will soon know the outcome of the public vote (props again) and we can all move on from this.
What in the world are we going to debate tomorrow?
slvrnblck
April 7, 2009 at 12:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Happiness09 (anonymous) says...
Espeb: Sounds like you are suggesting that "soccor moms" aren't too smart.
April 7, 2009 at 4:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
77flint (anonymous) says...
u guyes wreallie sett mee strate u r soo simarte
April 7, 2009 at 4:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Crackinsack: Your inability to comprehend is unmatched.
"They say being pro-SHS is about rights, but they apparently don't care about your rights if you don't speak English as a primary language..."
If you live in the USA and don't speak English, you either just arrived and haven't learned our language yet, have been here long enough to learn but don't respect our nation or heritage enough to do so, are here just to milk the system, live under the radar as criminals, or are here illegally. If the reason they don't speak the language is other than the first one, they have no rights.
Do you not understand that, Crack? If you sneak into a nation illegally, you are not a citizen and are, by definition, a criminal. Therefore, you are a non-entity and have no rights.
Exactly what part of the word "illegal" do you not understand?
April 7, 2009 at 4:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Whoops! School must be out. I see 77flint is on line. Poor little feller needs to find some playmates.
April 7, 2009 at 5:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jmcmannis (anonymous) says...
I voted as well and it was a resounding no. Even though I had to reread the question 5 times. It takes a bit to deciper lol.
April 7, 2009 at 5:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smogman (anonymous) says...
Judging by the number of angry non-smokers I have spoke to, I think the ban will fail by at least a 30% margin.
April 7, 2009 at 6:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
77flint (anonymous) says...
B.J. what an appropiate name for a.....
You have played the part well. You more than likely have no idea what I am saying.
April 8, 2009 at 10:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
No one does.
April 8, 2009 at 11:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
77flint (anonymous) says...
seriouslylamefolks speaking for the group of him, himself, and no one else.
April 8, 2009 at 1:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ksgram (anonymous) says...
It's not polite to make fun of people like 77, he may just be off his meds :)
April 8, 2009 at 1:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Deepthoughts (anonymous) says...
Perhaps 77flint is one of the many who have recently lost a job, so has nothing better to do than blog all day. Must be in a bad mood since the majority of the comments I've seen were rude.
I thought it was just a bad April Fool's Day joke when I saw flint's name pop up, but nope, she's bbaaaaaacccccckkkkkkkk!!!!
April 8, 2009 at 2:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
77flint (anonymous) says...
ks slipped me a few grams of ignorance
is that deep thoughts by jack handy if so we have a celeberty on our blogs
April 8, 2009 at 2:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
77flint (anonymous) says...
here's a rude comment "you have stupid writing and nobody likes you!"
April 8, 2009 at 2:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
drvrbowz (anonymous) says...
soon they'll be asking you for "your papers".....Gestapo?
April 14, 2009 at 8:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )