Comments by BillHannegan
Page 1 of 1
Posted on July 12 at 5:28 p.m.
The Clean Air Emporia website contains a hugely misleading claim that needs to be clarified. Twice the website makes this claim:
"During an 8 hour work shift in a smoky bar, an employee can inhale secondhand smoke equivalent of smoking 16 cigarettes (4short of a pack)."
http://www.emporiansfordrugawareness.com......
http://www.emporiansfordrugawareness.com......
16 cigarettes is a trick number. Clean Air Emporia is merely saying that the chemical NDMA (N-nitroso-dimethylamine) is more present in secondhand smoke than in actively inhaled smoke. It takes 16 cigarettes actively smoked to equal the NDMA exposure a bartender receives after eight hours at work in a smoky bar. Does this mean that a nonsmoker becomes almost a-pack-a-day passive smoker by taking a job in a smoky bar? Hardly. The actual smoke a bartender breathes in the smokiest bar as measured by total tobacco-specific particles inhaled equals about one-fifth of a cigarette per eight-hour shift, or one cigarette per 40-hour week.
http://www.ehponline.org/members/1999/Su......
Of course, affordable air filtration machines can reduce these fractional smoke exposures to near zero.
Post a comment
Posted on July 12 at 5:20 p.m.
The Clean Air Emporia website contains a hugely misleading claim that needs to be clarified. Twice the website makes this claim:
"During an 8 hour work shift in a smoky bar, an employee can inhale secondhand smoke equivalent of smoking 16 cigarettes (4short of a pack)."
http://www.emporiansfordrugawareness.com...
http://www.emporiansfordrugawareness.com...
16 cigarettes is a trick number. Clean Air Emporia is merely saying that the chemical NDMA (N-nitroso-dimethylamine) is more present in secondhand smoke than in actively inhaled smoke. It takes 16 cigarettes actively smoked to equal the NDMA exposure a bartender receives after eight hours at work in a smoky bar. Does this mean that a nonsmoker becomes almost a-pack-a-day passive smoker by taking a job in a smoky bar? Hardly. The actual smoke a bartender breathes in the smokiest bar as measured by total tobacco-specific particles inhaled equals about one-fifth of a cigarette per eight-hour shift, or one cigarette per 40-hour week.
http://www.ehponline.org/members/1999/Su...
Of course, affordable air filtration machines can reduce these fractional smoke exposures to near zero.
On Smoking ban
Posted on July 11 at 11:41 p.m.
Despite what former Surgeon General Carmona has said, controversy remains concerning secondhand smoke. According to the most recent Gallup Poll, nearly half of Americans are not convinced that secondhand smoke is a severe health risk. The controversy has been further fueled by a recent UCLA study, the longest-running and highest-quality secondhand smoke study ever done, completed "too late" (2003) to be included in Surgeon General Carmona’s report, that found no link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer or heart disease.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/f...
Posted on July 11 at 10:08 p.m.
Elected officials and voter have a right to complete information when considering new public health laws that will curtail the personal freedoms of citizens and the property rights of business owners.
Is a smoking ban really necessary to protect the health of workers? OSHA, the government agency charged with
the protection of worker health, doesn't think so and so has opted not to impose a workplace smoking ban. OSHA has established PELs (Permissible Exposure Levels) for all the measurable chemicals, including the 40 alleged carcinogens, in secondhand smoke. PELs are levels of exposure for an 8-hour workday for which, according to OSHA, any health risk is small enough to be tolerated. OSHA explains that under normal workplace circumstances, secondhand smoke “exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs)”
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp....
“Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace
with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded."
-Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Ass't Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp....
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp....
Posted on July 11 at 12:08 a.m.
Please let me suggest a non threatening, painless alternative to a smoking ban. The Emporia City Commission could simply require venues that allow smoking to purify their air 15 times or more per hour thru both electronic and HEPA air filtration machines separate from the establishment's regular HVAC system as air filtration engineers recommend. Such air purification would not only remove tobacco smoke, but also viruses, bacteria, chemicals, pollen, dust, mold, fungi and, most importantly, radon decay products, which the EPA claims causes 21,000 lung cancer deaths per year, seven times more than secondhand smoke is reputed to cause. Commercial and industrial air filtration machines are affordable and readily available. Venues that allow smoking could be retrofitted without expensive ductwork or other construction costs. Here are a few companies offering this
technology.
http://www.air-quality-eng.com/
http://www.smokeeaters.org/
http://www.industrial-maid.com/commercia...
http://aircleaningequipment.com/items.ph...
http://www.nosmokeking.com/home2.html
http://www.jdstools.com/index.asp?PageAc...
http://www.fivehawk.com/technology.htm
http://www.casinoair.com/site/1272069/pa...
http://www.airistar.com/src/CEM_12_05.pd...
The CDC even recommends that such air filtration systems be installed in buildings as a way of protecting workers from airborne chemical, biological or radiological attacks:
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2003-136/
I don't work for any tobacco or air filtration company. I just see this technology as a public health solution that would provide truly clean air to Emporia and not hurt business.
Sincerely,
Bill Hannegan
Posted on July 11 at 12:05 a.m.
Furthermore, smoking bans have other negative unintended consequences that someone needs to point out:
Recent research has shown that a smoking ban would not reduce the overall exposure of non-smokers to secondhand smoke and would actually increase the exposure of young children to smoke as smokers are displaced to their cars and homes.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications.php?p...
Surprising research by two University of Wisconsin economists, published this month in the Journal of Public Economics, finds that communities that impose a ban on smoking in bars experience, on average, a 13 percent increase in drunk-driving fatalities. The researchers suggest that the increased death toll is because smokers will drive farther to find venues in which they can both smoke and drink, as well as bar patrons drinking more and being more affected by alcohol when they cannot smoke. Furthermore, the study found that the rate of drunk-driving deaths increased the longer the ban remained in place.
Posted on July 11 at 12:02 a.m.
Dear Mayor Agler and Emporia City Commission:
Government should always err on the side of freedom and property rights. I believe than an independent consideration of the evidence will show that Emporia can responsibly tolerate smoking in "over 21" bars and restaurants if appropriate air filtration and ventilation measures are in place. Numerous independent studies of the highest quality call into question the dangers of secondhand smoke, prove the efficacy of ventilation and air filtration systems to eliminate all airborne hazards in bar and restaurant air, and establish the harm a smoking ban would do to bars and restaurants.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?art...
Indeed, Federal Reserve economist Dr. Michael Pakko studied the economic effects of a smoking ban that included bars in Columbia, Missouri. Dr. Pakko found the Columbia bar business down 11 percent due to the smoking ban. Restaurants that serve alcohol are down 6.5 percent. Though many Columbia businesses were already smoke-free before the smoking ban was imposed, Dr. Pakko shows that the smoking ban caused a 3.5 to 4.0 percent drop in the Columbia bar and restaurant business overall. Dr. Pakko determined that Columbia lost $60,000 of tax revenue due to the ban during its first half year. Emporia could suffer similar losses.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/regecon/o...
http://research.stlouisfed.org/econ/pakk...
http://www.columbiatribune.com/2008/Mar/...
Page 1 of 1
Posted on July 15 at 1:16 a.m.
Rather than a smoking ban, why not just clear the smoke with affordable, available technology?
http://www.air-quality-eng.com/
http://www.smokeeaters.org/
http://www.industrial-maid.com/commercia...
http://aircleaningequipment.com/items.ph...
http://www.nosmokeking.com/home2.html
http://www.jdstools.com/index.asp?PageAc...
http://www.fivehawk.com/technology.htm
http://www.casinoair.com/site/1272069/pa...
http://www.airistar.com/src/CEM_12_05.pd...
On Smoking ban