P-D Editorial 9/13/2010: “Quelle surprise! Our view * Clearing the air of a secondhand smoke screen.”

Comments submission reminder:
1) Please provide your full name
2) Character limit is 1,000. Please check before submitting as those over will be returned or rejected.

The following St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial appeared a couple of weeks ago but is highly pertinent, especially in view of the developments of the past week, during which MoGASP conducted undercover measurements at the Double D Lounge with a view to putting Bill Hannegan’s claims of super air quality in that smoking venue to the test.

Below is a photo taken in the back portion of the Double D Lounge where a pool table and dart boards are located. On the ceiling are mounted two large smoke eaters, one nearest the camera, the second at the far end. Seated in the foreground are three young women, two holding cigarettes. The photo was taken on Saturday, September 25, 2010, shortly before 10:00 pm.

Rear section of DD’s Irish Pub & Karaoke, formerly the Double D Lounge,
with two ceiling-mounted smoke eaters

Were we doing anything underhanded? Not as long as the test adhered to strict scientific standards, which was the case.

Below are three of Hannegan’s comments, posted on the Post-Dispatch’s website on September 9 following a story by Post-Dispatch reporter, BLYTHE BERNHARD, titled “Study: Venues with smoking have more nicotine in air,” published that day:

Bill Hannegan said on: September 9, 2010, 1:05 am
I challenge the Wash U ETS researchers to test the air at the Double D Lounge, a St. Louis County bar featuring five of the most powerful air purification systems ever made running 24/7. These units remove all the components of secondhand smoke from bar air. If the air at Double D Lounge is found to be have a substantial amount of nicotine, then I’ll concede their point.

Bill Hannegan said on: September 9, 2010, 1:19 am
“Purification systems can remove the appearance and odor of smoke, but not all of the small particulate matter that can reach the lungs.” The air purification machines at the Double D Lounge remove all the components of secondhand smoke, including the smallest particles.

Bill Hannegan said on: September 9, 2010, 8:49 am
Newstchuck, we would be very interested in having the air of the Double D Lounge tested.

Comments by Hannegan like the above helped persuade MoGASP to conduct Indoor Air Quality tests about which Hannegan is now apparently crying foul.

Below is the editorial, evidently sparked in part by Hannegan’s comments:

Quelle surprise!
Our view * Clearing the air of a secondhand smoke screen.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial
Monday, 9/13/2010

As St. Louis voters prepared to cast their ballots on clean indoor-air laws last fall, opponents trotted out a familiar argument:

“Modern filtration systems have all but eliminated the dangers of secondhand smoke, ” wrote Bill Hannegan, who headed a group opposing the smoking bans, in a letter to the Post-Dispatch.

It’s a seemingly compelling argument with an interesting provenance.

Unfortunately, it is not true. Washington University researchers measured nicotine levels in 10 bars and 10 restaurants in St. Louis County. Their results were released last week: Places that allow smoking had 31 times more airborne nicotine than those that don’t.

Fully half of the establishments tested had ventilation systems. The ventilation systems didn’t help.

Bars and restaurants with ventilation systems actually recorded higher nicotine levels than restaurants and bars with no ventilation systems. Researchers suggested that may be because of the ventilation systems “recycling the air back into the same space.”

The American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers – the people who sell, design and install ventilation systems – wouldn’t be surprised at the results. The group issued a statement in 2005 saying that ventilation systems cannot protect against secondhand smoke.

A Tufts University study of restaurants and bars with state-of-the-art ventilation systems reached the same conclusion in 2006. That same year, U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona reported that filtration systems don’t work.

A 2008 study on nicotine levels in 10 St. Louis bars reported that indoor air pollution levels in bars that allow smoking were six times higher than in those that did not.

Notice a pattern here? Mr. Hannegan doesn’t. He told Post-Dispatch reporter Blythe Bernhard last week that he’s not willing to concede the point.

It turns out that the idea that ventilation is the solution to secondhand smoke came from the tobacco industry. We are shocked. Shocked.

A 1988 strategy document prepared by the Tobacco Institute, an industry front group, laid out the rationale: “The argument of ‘freedom of choice’ with regard to workplace smoking is becoming increasingly difficult to sell. The concept of ‘indoor air quality’ (with an emphasis on science) has much more credibility and will draw a wider audience.”

That document is among thousands that became public after attorneys general from 48 states settled a lawsuit against the tobacco companies in 1998.

The Tobacco Institute’s report set out a strategy to “promote ventilation as the best solution to all indoor air-quality problems, including smoking.”

At about the same time, Philip Morris was launching its “ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) Strategy.” Its goal, according to another confidential document, was to use “clean-air technology as a means of promoting smoking tolerance.”

The document lays out plans for downplaying the risks of secondhand smoke, as well as a plan of attack on what the company calls “‘politicized’ science.”

It’s no surprise that 20 years later, addicts and apologists are using the same playbook in their rear-guard defense of smoking. The surprise is that anyone would pay attention to them.

After all, since those strategic smokescreens first were dreamed up 22 years ago, 9.5 million Americans have died from tobacco-related causes.

RFT 09/28/2010: “Wash. U. Study Got it WRONG: Smoke Eaters Do Work”

This submission by Tony Palazzolo was the con opposing my pro on the recently released Wash. U. study on nicotine levels in 20 local bars and restaurants, 18 of which allowed smoking. He hangs his argument on what a lot of other pro-smoking proponents believe: that the amount of nicotine vapor present in the air in even the smokiest bars or restaurants tested is well below the OSHA standard.

Except that OSHA doesn’t HAVE a standard applicable to airborne nicotine from smoking!

Mr. Palazzolo also criticizes the study’s authors for not identifying the actual venues, although actually this is not uncommon. The reason may simply be to avoid the kind of threat of a lawsuit to which Missouri GASP has just been subjected by both Bill Hannegan AND Tony Palozzolo after I voluntarily informed Mr. Hannegan of the undercover study we had conducted the day before at the Double D Lounge in Brentwood.

Messrs. Hannegan and Palozzolo may say now that they were just trying to offer MoGASP a friendly warning, but that certainly isn’t how it came across. It was more a case of clear intimidation, even copying Marth Brothers, the suppliers of the smoke eaters in the bar we tested, in many of the e-mails.

Below is the actual e-mail I received from Bill Hannegan so that you can judge for yourself if this was just friendly advice:

From: keepst.louisfree@gmail.com
Subject: Re: DD’s Irish Pub & Karaoke, formerly Double D Lounge
Date: September 26, 2010 12:30:29 PM CDT
To: [Martin Pion's e-mail]
Cc: michael@marthbrothers.com, scott@marthbrothers.com, tonypalazzolo@hotmail.com

Mr. Pion,

I have to warn you that there could be liability issues here. Be very careful about damaging the reputation of or injuring the business of the Double D Lounge or Marth Brothers with the results of tests conducted without the owner’s permission or cooperation.

Bill

Below is pasted Tony Palazzolo’s OpEd reproduced from the Riverfront Times web post:

Tuesday Tussle
Wash. U. Study Got it WRONG: Smoke Eaters Do Work
By Tony Palazzolo, Tue., Sep. 28 2010 @ 2:46PM

Tony Palazzolo is an active member of Keep St. Louis Free and a strong believer in personal rights.

Tony Palazzolo is an active member of Keep St. Louis Free and a strong believer in personal rights.
​Earlier this month Washington University released a study on air quality in smoking-allowed and smoke-free bars and restaurants in St Louis. They used nicotine as the marker to gauge environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) levels in all venues.

If you accept the conclusions of the study you should probably never leave the safe confines of your home. While nicotine was present in all venues it was on average thirty one times higher in smoking-allowed venues. This, they say, is proof that the air in these venues is deadly. What they left out of the press release that the nicotine levels were, at worst 500 times safer than OSHA standards in the establishments tested. Even at 31 times higher, it is still 500 times more dilute than would be considered harmful by OSHA. These are not arbitrary numbers but rigorously-tested standards developed by OSHA for all environments.

The other “finding” in this study is that they were surprised that establishments with ventilation had higher levels of nicotine.

According to the study, ventilation purportedly adds nicotine into the air. Even if the dubious claim that ventilation “just recirculates” ETS were true, it wouldn’t add more smoke to the environment. Even if systems were 100% ineffective they would have similar levels of ETS, not more.

​A basic tenet of research is that all the information is released along with the study. In order for the research to be validated it needs to be replicated with similar results. Washington University not only withheld the venues that were tested but also the ventilation systems in use at these venues. Researchers are usually eager to release all the data resulting in such important findings. Why then would they withhold important data with a study that rewrites the laws of chemistry?

This is what is commonly referred to as “science by press release”. The point of the study was not the effectiveness of ventilation. It was to spread fear and misinformation to the public. They believe the public lacks the common sense and intelligence to question their results. The study was never meant to be scrutinized. It was meant to be released to the media and used as sound bytes in future press releases.

With, the results of the test showing air quality to be 500 times safer than OSHA standards. With, their conclusions not supported by any data they released. With their nonsensical findings that ventilation acts as a multiplier of ETS. We should all question what the researchers at Washington University were smoking.

Note: Read Martin Pion’s response: Wash U. Got it RIGHT: Smoke Eaters Don’t Work

RFT 09/27/2010: “Clandestine Air-Quality Test Upsets Bar Owner, Smoking Ban Opponents”

This is what happens when you take Bill Hannegan at his word and conduct an investigation in a smoking-allowed public facility he holds up as a model, but you don’t involve him in the testing. He gets miffed and starts threatening to sic lawyers on you.

I’m deeply disappointed in Bill, I must say.

But in the RFT blog below it’s nice to be compared to (now Sir) Sean Connery in his role as James Bond – 007, even if I think it’s the furthest thing from the truth imaginable!

Oh, of course, it’s because I have a British accent: that’s what Sean and I have in common, although he was born in Edinburgh, Scotland, and I was born in London, England. In other words, almost in the same place!

Below is a 500 word excerpt of RFT reporter Chad Garrison’s blog on the web:

Smoking Bans
Clandestine Air-Quality Test Upsets Bar Owner, Smoking Ban Opponents
By Chad Garrison, Mon., Sep. 27 2010 @ 4:55PM Comments (2)
Categories: News, Smoking Bans

That mysterious British agent with a drink in his hand? It's not 007.

For anyone puzzled by the silver-haired gentleman with the English accent observed acting suspiciously at Double D’s Lounge on Saturday night, here’s an explanation:  

His name is Martin Pion and he was there collecting air quality measurements that he plans to test for nicotine and other pollutants.

“It was a clandestine operation,” the 70-something Pion tells Daily RFT.

Still, Pion — who in 1984 founded Missouri Group Against Smoking Pollution (Mo-GASP) after arriving in the states from his native England — managed to make the most of his hour at Double D’s.

It was only when Pion started taking photos that he aroused suspicion.

“An employee questioned what I was doing taking pictures,” says Pion.

Yesterday Pion emailed Bill Hannegan — a vocal opponent of smoking bans — to ask him if he knew the bar’s measurements, which he needs to round-out his study.

It was Hannegan, after all, who prompted Pion to study the air inside Double D’s after Washington University recently released a study suggesting that smoke-eaters make air quality worse. Hannegan disputed the study and challenged Wash. U. to check out Double D’s, which uses five commercial-grade air filters.

Martin Pion

Pion says the email now has him “locked in a nasty situation” with Hannegan, who took offense to the way Pion went about conducting his research and has since exchanged several emails with the Mo-GASP founder. 

“I told him I think it opens him up to liability, especially if he goes and publishes a report saying that the air inside Double D’s is dangerous,” says Hannegan. “The fact of the matter is, we don’t know how or where he took his test that night and under what conditions. Was the machine sitting right in front of a burning cigarette? If I were going to test the air at Double D’s, I’d invite Martin and others to watch the process — just to control the credibility issue.”

Reached for comment, Donna Wideman, owner of the Brentwood-based Double D’s, says she was unaware of Pion’s covert operation Saturday. “Frankly, I see what he did as an invasion on our business.”

Pion says he should get his results back from the lab this week. First he’d like to see if he could get his findings published in a scientific journal. He adds that the air inside Double D’s seemed cleaner than other bars, though he did have a somewhat sore throat after the hour he spent in the bar drinking a non-alcoholic beverage and pretending to enjoy himself.

As for the methodology behind his survey, Pion offers no apologies. He was acting on behalf of the public and suffered in the process.

“I had to endure second-hand smoke and rather deafening karaoke,” he says.  

P.S. Stay tuned tomorrow as Pion argues smoking-ban opponent Tony Palazzolo in Daily RFT’s Tuesday Tussle.

P-D Letters 9/24/2010: Ernie Wolf & Rich Brown respond to Bill Hannegan

Letters to the editor, September 24
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Posted: Friday, September 24, 2010 12:00 am

All cleared up

Bill Hannegan, in his letter to the editor “Systems test” (Sept. 21), questions the validity of the system tests in a Washington University study quoted in the editorial “Quelle surprise!” (Sept. 12), about the ability of air purification systems being able to remove all remnants of secondhand smoke from an indoor environment. Mr. Hannegan even alludes to support for his position from a 2006 surgeon general’s report.

Fortunately, this whole issue is well documented by study published June 25, 2008, by the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers Inc.

These are the people who are best able to develop and test the systems their employers wish to promote. Their conclusion is that there is no system available that can safely remove all remnants of secondhand smoke. With their best engineering efforts, they fail to do so. Anyone with Internet access can access this information at http://www.ashrae.org/docLib/20090120_POS_ETS.pdf. The paper’s first three pages are a summary of the report. Mr. Hannegan may wish to read the whole report, as may those restaurant and bar owners who have been led to believe that their ventilations systems remove all remnants of environmental tobacco smoke.

Have they been subjected to a hoax?

Ernest Wolf • Ladue

Merchants of death are getting the message

In a letter to the editor (“Systems test,” Sept. 21), Bill Hannegan, who promotes air filtration systems to combat secondhand smoke, decried the methodology of the testing reported in the editorial “Quelle surprise!” (Sept. 12). While it is entirely possible that he is correct in his criticism, he misses the point. The point is that the tobacco industry will use any excuse to promote the use of its poison.

As ban after ban is enacted, it must be disheartening for Big Tobacco to realize that it has lost the hearts and minds of the vast majority of the public, even among addicts, who wish they could stop smoking. The merchants of death have been lying for so long about their products, they have lost all credibility. The message is we don’t want your smoke— firsthand, secondhand or near our kids. We want clean air for ourselves and future generations.

Now if only Republicans would get the message. U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Springfield, is in a tizzy because a member of the Carnahan family is getting stimulus money for a wind-energy business, a business in which he has been involved for half a decade. Wind energy cuts air pollution from fossil fuels and cuts dependency on foreign oil and, thus, keeps money from going to governments that support terrorism.

This is the same Mr. Blunt who tried to sneak favorable tobacco legislation into the Patriot Act in the middle of the night. He is married to a former tobacco lobbyist.

Rich Brown • St. Louis County

P-D Letters 09/21/2010: “Systems test” from Bill Hannegan

mogasp commenting rules:
1) Please provide your full name. First names only or acronyms are insufficient.
2) Please be concise. Limit the character count of your comment to 1,000 or less. For reference, my comment below contains 873 characters. Thank you.

Bill Hannegan of KEEP ST. LOUIS FREE! has a letter published in today’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch asking: What locations were the subject of the recent Washington University nicotine monitor study? And did they include the Double D Lounge, which Mr. Hannegan maintains has a state-of-the-art “air purification system” obviating the need for smoke-free air.

My efforts to determine from Washington University if the Double D Lounge was included in these tests have been unsuccessful, quoting university confidentiality rules. However, from nicotine monitor measurements conducted independently for Missouri GASP at hospitality venues where smoking was confined to a separately ventilated room, which revealed significant levels of nicotine in the non-smoking section, I’d be very surprised if the Double D Lounge provided an acceptable alternative to a smoke-free environment.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Letters to the editor, September 21
Posted: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 12:00 am
Systems test

According to the editorial “Quelle surprise!” (Sept. 12), a Washington University study of 20 St. Louis bars and restaurants has proven that even the most sophisticated air-purification machines are unable to clear secondhand smoke from the air. This study did not name the establishments it tested or specify the technology these establishments employ. The study mentions only ‘smoke-specific ventilation systems,” a term so vague it could include the ceiling fans some bar owners use to scatter and dissipate smoke or antiquated ‘smoke eaters” that have not been maintained in years.
One wonders if the systems were running at their highest setting during the entire test. Were they even on? Were the best systems in use in St. Louis bars and restaurants tested? I don’t know, and neither do the paper’s editors.

To clear up this confusion, why not test the air of a St. Louis establishment that features the most effective air-purification machines available? The Double D Lounge in Brentwood features five such machines, scrupulously maintained, that run full blast all the time.

Surgeon General Richard Carmona favorably mentioned the Double D’s systems in his 2006 report. He did not officially endorse them because “widespread application” of their effectiveness “has not yet been demonstrated.”

A report on the air quality at the Double D Lounge by an independent air-quality testing firm would be a fair measure of the effectiveness of such machines to remove smoke from bar and restaurant air. Until such a test occurs, the Post-Dispatch should withhold judgment concerning the effectiveness of air purification technology.

Bill Hannegan • St. Louis

P-D 9/15/2010: “Survey shows St. Charles County supports indoor smoking ban”

Things keep humming on the smoke-free air front. Could it be that St. Charles County, which has hitherto been an especially tough nut to crack on this issue, is finally seeing the light? Let’s hope so. The folks there certainly deserve it. It’s time we stopped being the Smoke-Me State!

Survey shows St. Charles County supports indoor smoking ban

Discussion (51 comments as of September 15, 2010, 10:28 pm)

By Mark Schlinkmann • mschlinkmann@post-dispatch.com > 636-255-7203 | Posted: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 12:00 am |

More than two-thirds of St. Charles County voters support a smoking ban in indoor public places, according to a survey released Tuesday by the American Cancer Society.
The random telephone poll of 400 registered voters turned up 68 percent supporting the measure, 28 percent opposed and 4 percent undecided.
The cancer society is part of a coalition of anti-smoking groups supporting an effort to put a smoking ban before voters at a countywide election in April.
The poll results will be used to lobby the County Council to approve a bill scheduling the election. The proposed ban would apply in municipalities and unincorporated areas. Lake Saint Louis on Oct. 1 will become the first St. Charles County community with a ban.
“The voters want protection from the dangers of secondhand smoke,” Stacy Reliford, a cancer society official, said at a news conference at the SSM St. Joseph Medical Park in St. Peters.
The survey was conducted July 20-22 by Fako and Associates of suburban Chicago. The poll has a margin of error of 4.85 percentage points.
The survey showed 58 percent of respondents strongly supported an indoor smoking ban and 10 percent somewhat supported the idea, for a total of 68 percent.
Meanwhile, 20 percent strongly opposed a ban and 8 percent were somewhat opposed — for a total of 28 percent.
Most respondents — 71 percent — said they would patronize restaurants following enactment of a smoking ban about as often as they do now, while 22 percent said they’d eat out more and 6 percent less.
A leading opponent of smoking bans across the St. Louis area, Bill Hannegan, reacted by saying that a nationwide USA Today/Gallup Poll released last month showed only 31 percent favored a ban on smoking in bars.
The St. Charles County survey didn’t ask separate questions on smoking bans in different types of venues but did mention bars in the general question it posed.
The national USA Today/Gallup survey, conducted by telephone July 8-11, asked 1,020 adults to choose between banning smoking, creating set-aside areas for smoking and having no restrictions on smoking in four types of public places.
The survey showed 59 percent nationally support a total ban on smoking in restaurants, 36 percent prefer set-aside areas for smoking and 4 percent want no restrictions.
That survey showed 31 percent support a total ban on smoking in bars, 43 percent want set-aside areas in bars and 23 percent want no restrictions.
Bans already are in effect in Clayton, Kirkwood, Arnold, Ballwin and Illinois. A countywide ban in St. Louis County and one in St. Louis will take effect Jan. 2, a day after a more restrictive version in Brentwood.
Creve Coeur ban
At Monday’s Creve Coeur City Council meeting, Councilwoman Beth Kistner, 1st Ward, said she would introduce a bill at the next meeting that would close in the city some of the exceptions in the St. Louis County smoking ban.
Mayor Harold Dielmann said 70 percent of the city’s restaurants are smoke free. He said he would support the bill as long it covers only indoor smoking.
One exception in the county ban allows smoking in bars that sell a small amount of food. The city may have one such bar, Kistner and Dielmann said.
She said she would use smoking ban ordinances in Ballwin, Brentwood, Clayton and Kirkwood as models for her bill.
Phil Sutin of the Post-Dispatch contributed to this report.

WEW 9/15/2010: “Wash U. study shows smoking ventilation systems ineffective”

Bill Hannegan just copied me on this e-mail he sent today to the Riverfront Times, Mike Reardon at KMOX Radio, and several people at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Abbe Goldberg of the Central West End Word does a fantastic job of spelling out our Double D Lounge secondhand smoke challenge. I could fund the challenge myself, but that funding would cause the results to look biased. I wish the RFT, the Post, or KMOX would sponsor this test. It would have international significance, yet the cost would be modest.

After reading this article, which covers the subject well, I’m not sure why Bill is so ecstatic. It doesn’t appear to help him in his quest to prove that “air purification” systems, the term he prefers to describe these recirculating air cleaning systems, actually work as advertised. Below is the West End Word article:

Wash U. study shows smoking ventilation systems ineffective

(by Abbe Goldberg – September 15, 2010)
A recent Washington University School of Medicine study of secondhand smoke exposure in St. Louis bars and restaurants shows that ventilation systems do not protect patrons and employees from nicotine exposure.

The study monitored 20 bars and restaurants in the city of St. Louis and St. Louis County, 16 of which allowed indoor smoking. Seventy-eight employees provided hair samples and answered survey questions. Researchers also looked at airborne nicotine, which can only come from cigarette smoke, in each location.

Every venue had some level of nicotine in the air but those that allowed smoking had levels 31 times higher. Venues with ventilation systems were shown to have higher nicotine concentrations in the air than other locations with similar numbers of smoking patrons. The researchers say this corroborates with the U.S. Surgeon General’s statement that “cleaning the air and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.”

Nicotine was also found in the hair of employees in both smoke and smoke-free venues, and workers in both reported smoking-related symptoms, including coughing, shortness of breath and irritated eyes. In the long term, secondhand smoke causes cancer, heart disease and lung illness.

“Some of the effects of secondhand smoke on the cardiovascular system in nonsmokers are comparable to the effects of active smoking. These effects occur within a half hour of exposure,” said study author Joaquin Barnoya, research assistant professor in the Department of Surgery at Washington University School of Medicine.

The study pokes a hole in one of the main arguments against smoking bans passed last year in the city of St. Louis and St. Louis County, which will go into effect Jan. 2, prohibiting smoking in enclosed public places. Opponents argued that installing air filtration systems could eliminate the danger of secondhand smoke without reducing the rights of venue owners.

Bill Hannegan, founder of Keep St. Louis Free and a vocal opponent of the smoking ban, said he is “mystified by the results” of the Washington University study. He listed a number of reasons for these results, which he said go against everything he knows about air purification, his preferred term for ventilation systems.

He said that one problem with the results could be that in not knowing what restaurants were tested, we do not know what types of ventilation systems they use or how well they maintain their machines. Hannegan said that the study findings could be a result of restaurants not using their ventilation systems. Many restaurants “don’t turn on the machines unless people complain about the smoke,” he said. Another reason could be that the ventilation systems are taking the toxic particles out of the air but leaving the nicotine behind.

In order to provide more results, Hannegan said he is trying to get together funds to do another study using the same tests as the Washington University findings. He noted that time is limited because there is only a “small window of opportunity before the smoking ban goes into effect.”

He has found a location – the Double D Lounge in Brentwood – to conduct the new study. Hannegan claimed it has twice the amount of ventilation recommended and the system is never turned off, while the machines are checked every four months rather than every six months, which is recommended. Hannegan said that before installing the ventilation system, the staff at Double D Lounge would bring a change of clothes in plastic bags to change into at night because what they wore during their shifts would be saturated with smoke. With the system in place, it is no longer necessary.

Hannegan admitted that if his group’s findings are the same as in the Washington University study, they’ll concede – but he said he doubts that will happen. Ventilation systems have shown a huge improvement in the air quality of smoking restaurants, and testing a venue with what he believes to be the best system would corroborate that, he argued.

Sarah Moreland-Russell, a researcher who worked on the study, said that she believes Hannegan’s experiment would prove biased, given that just one, specifically selected venue would be chosen.

“[The Washington University] study was completed according to the rigor of scientific research,” Moreland-Russell said. “Part of that rigor is to randomly select a representative sample to study in order for the results to be generalizable.

“If Bill Hannegan did complete the study in just the restaurant he has suggested, upfront the study would be biased, and subject to Hawthorne effect,” meaning that the Double D Lounge could change its ventilation protocol during the length of the study to produce the desired effect, she said.

[mogasp: Wikipedia has an entry describing the Hawthorne effect, i.e. "The Hawthorne effect is a form of reactivity whereby subjects improve or modify an aspect of their behavior being experimentally measured simply in response to the fact that they are being studied,[1][2] not in response to any particular experimental manipulation.”
Please click the following for a full description: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect]

P-D Editorial 9/13/2010: “Clearing up a secondhand smoke screen”

mogasp commenting rules:
1) Please provide your full name. First names only or acronyms are insufficient.
2) Please be concise. Limit the character count of your comment to 1,000 or less. For reference, my comment below contains 949 characters. Thank you.

Today’s first editorial takes aim squarely at ventilation as a way to allow smoking to continue in indoor venues, particularly those like bars and restaurants. Ensuring that smoking continues in hospitality venues, which also includes casino gaming floors, has long been the tobacco industry’s fall-back position. And one of its major arguments has been that smoking can be accommodated with appropriate ventilation: there’s no need for legislators to institute smoke-free air laws.

This has galvanized local pro-smoking activist, Bill Hannegan, who has made this a cause celebre, persuading numerous business owners to install ventilation systems rather than go smoke-free. He used to hold up a restaurant near his home in the Central West End as a model of ventilation as a solution, but that has recently been replaced by the Double D Lounge in Brentwood as having the most advanced system. I’m anxious to test it and verify Mr. Hannegan’s claims.

Clearing up a secondhand smoke screen

By The Editorial Board | Posted: Sunday, September 12, 2010 9:00 pm | (44) Comments

As St. Louis voters prepared to cast their ballots on clean indoor-air laws last fall, opponents trotted out a familiar argument:

“Modern filtration systems have all but eliminated the dangers of secondhand smoke,” wrote Bill Hannegan, who headed a group opposing the smoking bans, in a letter to the Post-Dispatch.

It’s a seemingly compelling argument with an interesting provenance.

Unfortunately, it turns out not be true. Washington University researchers measured nicotine levels in 10 bars and 10 restaurants in St. Louis County. Their results were released last week: Places that allow smoking had 31 times more airborne nicotine than those that don’t.

Fully half of the establishments tested had ventilation systems. The ventilation systems didn’t help.

Bars and restaurants with ventilation systems actually recorded higher nicotine levels than restaurants and bars with no ventilation systems. Researchers suggested that may be because of the ventilation systems “recycling the air back into the same space.”

The American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers — the people who sell, design and install ventilation systems — wouldn’t be surprised at those results. The group issued a statement in 2005 saying that ventilation systems cannot protect against secondhand smoke.

A Tufts University study of restaurants and bars with state-of-the-art ventilation systems reached the same conclusion in 2006. That same year, U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona reported that filtration systems don’t work.

A 2008 study on nicotine levels in 10 St. Louis bars reported that indoor air pollution levels in bars that allow smoking were six times higher than in those that did not.
Notice a pattern here? Mr. Hannegan doesn’t. He told Post-Dispatch reporter Blythe Bernhard last week that he’s not willing to concede the point.

It turns out that the idea that ventilation is the solution to secondhand smoke came from the tobacco industry. We are shocked, shocked.

A 1988 strategy document prepared by the Tobacco Institute, an industry front group, laid out the rationale: “The argument of ‘freedom of choice’ with regard to workplace smoking is becoming increasingly difficult to sell. The concept of ‘indoor air quality’ (with an emphasis on science) has much more credibility and will draw a wider audience.”

That document is among thousands that became public after attorneys general from 48 states settled a lawsuit against the tobacco companies in 1998.

The Tobacco Institute’s report set out a strategy to “promote ventilation as the best solution to all indoor air-quality problems, including smoking.”

At about the same time, Philip Morris was launching its “ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) Strategy.” It’s goal, according to another document marked confidential, was to use “clean-air technology as a means of promoting smoking tolerance.”

The document lays out plans for downplaying the risks of secondhand smoke, as well as a plan of attack on what the company calls “‘politicized’ science.”

It’s no surprise that 20 years later, addicts and apologists are using the same playbook in their rear-guard defense of smoking. The surprise is that anyone would pay attention to them.

After all, since those strategic smokescreens first were dreamed up 22 years ago, 9.5 million Americans have died from tobacco-related causes.

P-D 9/9/2010: “Danger in the air”

The headline in the printed newspaper on the front of the Health section of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch was “Danger in the air” with the subheading “Ventilation systems don’t protect against secondhand smoke, study shows.” That got somewhat watered down in the on-line version, reproduced below. However, the results speak for themselves.

After posting this blog I received a long critique of the study results from Michael McFadden (please see below following article), pointing out alleged errors and failings with the study. Subsequently, I asked Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University School of Public Health for an opinion. Dr. Siegel is a stern critic of the tobacco control movement, which he frequently takes to task on his widely read blog, The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary, for exaggeration or misstatements in its claims about SHS. Here’s the reply from Dr. Siegel:

From: mbsiegel@bu.edu
Subject: RE: Secondhand smoke: Ventilation systems are not the answer, says new study
Date: September 10, 2010 3:31:28 PM CDT

Hi Martin,
The study is solid.
Mike

Michael Siegel, MD, MPH
Professor
Department of Community Health Sciences
Boston University School of Public Health
801 Massachusetts Avenue, 3rd Floor
Boston, MA 02118

Study: Venues with smoking have more nicotine in air

BY BLYTHE BERNHARD • bbernhard@post-dispatch.com > 314-340-8129 | Posted: Thursday, September 9, 2010 12:10 am | (96 comments at 1:32 pm)

9/8/10 Wednesday Kirkwood Server Rachel Kelly, 25, serves a customer at the Highlands Restaurant and Brewery in Kirkwood Wednesday afternoon. Kelly said that she really likes the smoking ban in Kirkwood. When she is out to eat, she will leave a restaurant if they do allow smoking. J.B. Forbes jforbes@post-dispatch.com

Ventilation systems in St. Louis bars and restaurants don’t protect employees and patrons from secondhand smoke, according to a new study.

The findings, which replicate studies done elsewhere, were released Wednesday by Washington University’s Center for Tobacco Policy Research.

The study involved placing monitors in a sample of 10 bars and 10 restaurants in St. Louis and St. Louis county for seven days in the summer of 2009 to measure nicotine levels in the air.

Venues that allow smoking had 31 times the amount of nicotine in the air compared to smoke-free establishments, the monitors showed. Bars and restaurants with smoke ventilation systems also had higher concentrations of nicotine, contributing to a long-standing theory that the systems just recirculate the polluted air.

“No, the results are not surprising, but we didn’t have this data specific to St. Louis,” said Sarah Moreland-Russell, the center’s research manager. Moreland-Russell said the numbers would be helpful in the push for more laws banning smoking in Missouri.

Researchers asked the owners of 68 establishments if they would participate in the study and remain anonymous before finding 20 to agree. Four of the participating businesses already had voluntary smoking bans.

Moreland-Russell said even though they did not test the air in most restaurants and bars in the area, she’s confident the study’s findings would be universal.

“Don’t go to an establishment that allows smoking, because you’re going to find the same results,” she said.

Ten of the venues had ventilation systems beyond air conditioning, but the study does not specify the type of system.

That’s a flaw in the study, said Bill Hannegan, who has fought against smoking bans in the area. Air purification systems can range from a simple fan to sophisticated machines that cost thousands.

The Double D Lounge in Brentwood has the area’s best purification system, Hannegan said.

“If the air is bad there, I’ll concede their point,” he said.

Researchers would not disclose which venues participated in the study. The cost of the study, funded by the Barnes-Jewish Hospital Foundation, was also not released.

Prior studies have shown that ventilation can redistribute the smoke throughout a building, limiting its effectiveness. Purification systems can remove the appearance and odor of smoke, but not all of the small particulate matter that can reach the lungs.

The Atlanta-based American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers put out a statement in 2005 saying that ventilation systems cannot protect against the health risks of secondhand smoke.

A report from the U.S. Office of the Surgeon General a year later said indoor smoking bans are the only effective way to eliminate exposure to secondhand smoke, and that ‘separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.”

An earlier study of 10 St. Louis city bars (including two that voluntarily banned smoking) showed that indoor air pollution was six times higher in the smoking establishments. That study, released in 2008, was funded in part by the Missouri Foundation for Health.

The latest study came a day after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released the U.S. smoking rate, which has remained at 20 percent since 2005.

Missouri’s smoking rate, 23.1 percent, is higher than all states except Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma and West Virginia.

Thirty states, including Illinois, have bans on smoking in restaurants, according to the CDC. Of those, 24 states have also outlawed smoking in bars.

John Postel, a manager at the Highlands restaurant and brewery in Kirkwood, said that city’s smoking ban has improved business, especially among families.

“We’ve seen an uptick in business overall,” Postel said at a news conference Wednesday at Barnes-Jewish Hospital. “The sky did not fall, and things keep moving in a good direction.”

P-D 8/9/2010 Selected comments on Wash. U. nicotine results

Note: For your comments to be considered for publication on this blog you MUST provide your full name. Pseudonyms and first names only are not acceptable. Thank you.

There were fewer comments than normal on the St. Louis Post-Dispatch website following Wednesday’s smoking-related story – only 15 posted from 7:21 am thru’ 10:05 am when I posted my second and last comment. Since then it’s grown to 35 comments at 10:31 am today (Thursday).

I’ve selected just a few, including my own rebuttals. Many are the typical “nanny government” or attempts at redirection, e.g. what about more dangerous things like [alleged] food additives and chemicals in plastics? as in the first comment reproduced below.

To view comments on-line and/or to add your own please click here: Discussion.

jinx1966

jinx1966 said on: September 8, 2010, 9:01 am

Also, once again it is easy to target things that are so visible, smoking, drinking, etc while letting the more insidious things continue that cause more harm to people on a much broader scale. If there was any true concern and an example of the gov looking out for ‘we the people’ instead of corporations, we’d ban dangerous food additives, chemicals in plastics, among just a few things that are downplayed and the media keeps a zipper on it.

Martin Pion, mogasp

Martin Pion said on: September 8, 2010, 9:34 am

I wasn’t aware of this study but I’m delighted to learn of it.
MoGASP has funded independent studies in Ballwin and Arnold restaurants and bars in the past but those results have not been published in peer-reviewed journals. These new studies of smoke-free environments vs. ventilation solutions would probably be a spur to submitting our result for publication.
In research, it’s important to obtain more than one set of data.
Martin Pion, B.Sc. President, MoGASP
mogasp.wordpress.com.

Tony Palazzolo

Tony Palazzolo said on: September 8, 2010, 7:54 am

He is right – this is a no brainer. You already know that this study is going show that nicotine levels are higher in places that allow smoking than not. Nicotine sticks to clothing hair etc which itself is not harmful in anyway. Even employees in a non-smoking environment will have detectable levels of nicotine in their hair and clothing.
If your truly trying to test if ventilation systems work than nicotine is about the most ineffective. Unless you already know what outcome you want.

My reply:

Martin Pion, mogasp

Martin Pion said on: September 8, 2010, 10:05 am

Tony Palazzolo wrote: “You already know that nicotine levels are higher in places that allow smoking than not …. nicotine sticks to clothing … which is not harmful in anyway.”
I’m baffled by your logic. Nicotine in the air is a unique surrogate for SHS. What research can you point to showing that the nicotine being measured in smoking-permitted environments is mainly or even partially due to clothing?
This is a red herring.
Martin Pion, B.Sc., President, Missouri GASP
mogasp.wordpress.com

Bill Hannegan

Bill Hannegan said on: September 8, 2010, 9:53 am

Very few St. Louis establishments have adequate air purification systems installed to deal with secondhand smoke. The Double D Lounge has the best system of any bar in St. Louis City or County. That system runs 24/7 and is scrupulously maintained. Wash U didn’t study the Double D Lounge. So what can this study tell us except that bars with lousy ventilation and no purification systems are smoky?

Michael McFadden

Michael J. McFadden said on: September 8, 2010, 9:59 pm

To show how crazy this is, note their statement that nicotine was 31 times higher in smoking bars than nonsmoking ones. This is the same as saying that levels of deadly chlorine gas are a hundred times higher in the school’s indoor pool area as in the administrative offices across the street. Are our children are being poisoned to death? Of course not: it’s a deliberately fake appeal to our fears–in simple substance, a lie.
Michael J. McFadden,
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”