Epidemiology the science used to talk about secondhand smoke is a science of statistics.
And unlike Anti-Tobacco, which admits it lacks "the benefit of scientific studies disputing" that ventilation clears the air 1 we have that benefit.
Two studies conducted by the US Dept of Energy in andattached personal air monitors to non-smoking waiters, waitresses and bartenders during their working shifts in restaurants and bars where smoking was allowed in 17 US cities. In addition, researchers tested bodily fluids for internalized markers of ETS exposure.
Real life "exposures were considerably below the [safety] limits established by OSHA for the workplace. It's pretty clear that the environmental tobacco smoke dose is pretty low for most people.
Area and Personal Exposure Monitoring. The case against smoking bans restaurant study reports: In the Mesa AZ council had passed a ban on restaurant smoking.
The council contacted one of the tobacco control coalition members who visited the test site and indicated that indeed he couldn't see or smell smoke The council took that to be a green light and voted an amendment to the ordinance allowing smoking Here's what they did next: Attack the Messenger "The coalition got word that [engineering consultant X of the Y company] was in town, making the rounds with council members, providing in-depth information about the new technology.
The ventilation system that provably worked and that was neither manufactured nor installed by company Y was now renounced as a con job, not on its merits, but on guilt by association.
Tarred, feathered, and thrown out of town, the coalition convincing the council that it must have been "hoodwinked"-- even by its very own eyes and nose. Some of these arguments were made at last year's hearings before the New York City council: When did you stop beating your wife? Refuting this refutation is a no-brainer.
Also by anyone catching cold from the vent's draft. Further, in today's anti-tobacco world, where "advocates" are "linking" everything from impotence and female wrinkling to secondhand smoke, the possibilities for being sued with some prodding from the "advocates" become dangerously infinite.
No company in its right mind would dare to make any such blanket claim about anything on earth. Quote "There is unanimous agreement among all cognizant occupational environmental and public health authorities that ventilation cannot possibly control ETS.
March, We've already disproved his first point. In fact, it takes no position. It is still, as of now, in ongoing discussions on the subject of establishing new ventilation standards for all--including smoking-- venues. Current standards are now in place. Repace and the other "advocates," however, are pressing ASHRAE to refuse to establish standards that accommodate smoking, to refuse to explore the subject.
Quote "All ventilation can do is dilute pollutants, but since there is no threshold level for carcinogens, dilution will not do the trick. Daynard is one canny lawyer but alas a lousy scientist.
First rule of toxicology is " The dose makes the poison. Ventilation dilutes them further. Daynard's theory were true--we can't say this too often--no one should ever have a dental x-ray, fly in an airplane, drive through a tunnel, self-serve at the gas station, enter a dry cleaner's, or go out on a city street.
And finally, again, OSHA sets permissible all-day exposure levels for workers to, yes, carcinogens. Quote "The laws of physics dictate that ventilation or air cleaning technology cannot conceivably eliminate ETS exposure.
It would take tornado-like levels of airflow to reduce residual ETS concentrations to acceptable levels of risk.Smoking bans are the most obvious difficulty for those of us who enjoy cigars.
A good cigar could take an hour or more to burn, so huddling in the cold and rain to have one isn't an appealing option. the case against smoking bans (the abridged-- believe it or not-- version) c.
stewart, nyc clash, The Case Against Smoking Bans T HOMAS A. L AMBERT University of Missouri–Columbia School of Law In recent months, dozens of localities and a number of states have enacted sweeping smoking bans.
The bans generally forbid smoking in “public” places, which are defined to include not only publicly owned facilities but also privately owned. In recent months, numerous localities and states have banned smoking in public places (i.e., privately owned places to which members of the public are invited).
Such sweeping bans are typically justified on grounds that they alleviate externalities, shape individuals' preferences in a desirable manner, and reduce risks. This essay rebuts the externality, preference-shaping, and risk-reduction.
Rhode Island: Public Smoking Ban, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 2, , at A For examples of the For examples of the statutes and ordinances that were enacted, see C AL.
bans are warranted because indoor smoking involves a “neg-ative externality,” the market failure normally invoked to jus-tify regulation of the ambient environment. In addition, advo-cates assert that smoking bans shape individual preferences against smoking, thereby reducing the number of smokers in society.