Bill Hannegan says Smoke-Free St. Louis making false claims, but MoGASP disagrees

Please note: For reader comments to be considered for publication you must provide your full name. Pseudonyms and first names only are not acceptable. Thanks.

Bill Hannegan, a leading St. Louis-based opponent of smoke-free air who maintains the blog KEEP ST. LOUIS FREE! recently copied me on an e-mail accusing Smoke-Free St. Louis of making false claims in support of smoke-free air laws.

His e-mail was addressed to Diana Benanti of the Smoke-Free St. Louis City Coalition, and copied to the following local political leaders: Clayton Mayor Linda Goldstein, St. Louis Alderwoman Lyda Krewson, City of St. Louis President Ald. Lewis E. Reed, and County Councilwoman Barbara Fraser.

Mr. Hannegan was again claiming that ventilation is an acceptable alternative to comprehensive smoke-free air laws. It is not, as indicated in my reply to Mr. Hannegan below:

From: mpion@swbell.net
Subject: Re: Smoke-Free St. Louis False Claim -> MoGASP begs to disagree
Date: July 2, 2010 4:31:31 PM CDT
To: keepst.louisfree@gmail.com
Cc: smokefreestl@gmail.com & 9 more…

Dear Bill,

Thank you for copying me on your e-mail to Diana Benanti of the Smoke-Free St. Louis City Coalition.

As a physicist who has spent considerable time studying the effectiveness of ventilation systems at eliminating the risks posed by secondhand smoke I disagree strongly with your conclusion. Ventilation systems may reduce the risk but not to an acceptable level. Only a totally smoke-free environment in a building can do that.

I have the data to back this up, obtained by an independent environmental consulting company for Missouri GASP, but it has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal. I hope to get around to submitting it as a paper one day, but I have no doubt as to its validity. 

However, another peer-reviewed paper I coauthored that also relates to the effectiveness of smoking rooms and some of the same basic science was published in March 2004 by the British Medical Journal in it’s international publication Tobacco Control under the title “Airport smoking rooms don’t work” and may be found here: 

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/13/suppl_1/i37

Sincerely,

Martin Pion, B.Sc.
President, Missouri GASP
314/524-8029
http://www.mogasp.wordpress.com

On Jul 2, 2010, at 1:38 PM, Bill Hannegan wrote:

Smoke-Free St. Louis:

Smoke-Free St. Louis has lobbied the Clayton Board of Aldermen, the St. Louis County Council, and the St. Louis Board of Aldermen with a false claim still present on your website:

“While ventilation systems can help reduce the smell and sight of cigarette smoke, they are not capable of getting rid of all of the carcinogens. Most cancer-causing particles and all cancer-causing gasses are too small to be trapped by filters.”

http://smokefreestl.org/thefacts.html

Air filtration systems have (been) installed in Clayton, St. Louis City and St. Louis County bars and restaurants that are capable of removing all the components of secondhand smoke, including all carcinogens, from the air. No particle of any sort is too small to be captured. Can you provide some documentation of your claim?

Bill Hannegan
314.367.3779

41 responses to “Bill Hannegan says Smoke-Free St. Louis making false claims, but MoGASP disagrees

  1. OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL), 8-hour for airborne arsenic

    http://www.eoearth. org/article/ Public_Health_ Statement_ for_Arsenic

    Finally, OSHA has established a permissible exposure limit (PEL), 8-hour time-weighted average, of 10 µg/m3 for airborne arsenic in various workplaces.
    ………… ……… ……… ……… …..

    This is the PEL (permissible exposure limit), below which the chemical is considered safe.

    And OSHA is being very conservative. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, no symptoms are evident below “about 100 ug.”

    1 ug is one microgram= 1 millionth of a gram, 1 ng is one nanogram = 1 billionth of a gram.

    1 ug = 1,000 ng.

    10 ug =10,000 ng.

    The average cigarette has 32ng of arsenic in all of it’s smoke(mainstream and side stream).

    10 ug per cubic meter is all of the smoke from 312.5 cigarettes per cubic meter ,on average,continuousl y for an 8 hour work shift .

    Consider a bar that 30 feet by 60 feet with a 12 foot ceiling, this is about 10 meters by 20 meters by 4 meters, this equals about 800 cubic meters.

    That bar would have to have 800 x 312.5 cigarettes burning all the time.

    This is 250,000 cigarettes burning all of the time.

    Remember; according to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, no symptoms are evident below “about 100 ug.”

    That means you would have to have about 2,500,000 smokers smoking continuously for 8 hours to reach the minimum harm level in our little bar!!

    Which is why OSHA has stated that it’s well-nigh impossible to find any actual workplace where its PELs for secondhand smoke or any constituent thereof would be met, let alone exceeded.

    “The point I’m trying to make is that while “Arsenic” is a ‘poison’ and even a ‘carcinogen’ it’s neither at these doses. And further, people’s normal exposure from other sources is greater by great amounts.”

    The same kind of calculations can be made for every “poison” and “toxin” in SHS !!

    have just run across some information that has totally changed my mind. It has been verified through several sources. I’m sure it will change yours too after you read it.

    “* Contributes to health problems from inhaling particulate matter or ingesting harmful chemicals.
    * Spews hazardous chemicals ….Acetone, Benzene, Trichlorofluoromethane, Carbon Disulfide, 2-Butanone, Trichloroethane, Trichloroethene, Carbon Tetrachloride, Tetrachloroethene, Toluene, Chlorobenzene, Ethylbenzene, Styrene, Xylene, Phenol, Cresol, Cyclopentene and Lead.

    there are at least 4 cancer-causing chemicals associated with ….. The EPA lists these chemicals on their website:
    1) Benzene (EPA classification as Group A, known human carcinogen).
    2) Carbon Tetrachloride (EPA classification as Group B2 probable human carcinogen).
    3) Trichloroethane (EPA classification as Group C, possible human carcinogen).
    4) Toluene (EPA classification as Group B2 probable human carcinogen).”

    http://www.touchoflovecandles.com/abo

    That scares the heck out of me! I will never again visit a place that allows this out of fear for my health!

    Smoking is dangerou…. Oops! Sorry.. My bad…

    That article is all about burning paraffin based candles, not smoking!

    BAN THE CANDLE!!!!!!

    • Reply to John Erkle: There’s just one flaw in the above argument. OSHA doesn’t have a standard for ETS (environmental tobacco smoke, aka secondhand smoke) in the workplace. It was being considered during the last Clinton administration but quietly dropped when George W. Bush took office, which was fine with many in the tobacco control movement because of concerns that it would be too lenient.

  2. The controversy of second hand smoke could be ended quickly by a simple act of legislation. Anyone presenting information represented as science or health reliant information, which is later found to be false or misleading, would be rewarded with a mandatory ten year jail sentence.

    I can guarantee the bandwagon of smoker hatred would end overnight and the profiteers would be making deals in self preservation convicting each other. Similar to the last time their ilk rose to prominence and Doctors were hanged at Nuremberg. The laws of Autonomy created in the wake, are largely being minimized by the bigots and zealots of Public Healthism, they are laws we found at the expense of millions who died without them. No one has the right to make health choices for others and no one has a right to demand rights to the detriment of others, especially with the convenience of a lie, as we find in the “toxic effect of second hand smoke”.

    • Reply to Thomas Laprade: It’s hard to follow your harangue against people who simply want to breathe air unpolluted by secondhand smoke, which wouldn’t be the least controversial if we were talking about burning a bunch of leaves indoors instead. You’re throwing inflammatory words about rather carelessly as well, like “bigots” and “zealots of Public Healthism” (a non-word). Can you possibly argue this on the science, or is that beyond you?

  3. Smoke from tobacco in decently ventilated
    venue is a statistiaclly insignificant health risk.

    http://fightingback.homestead.com

  4. “Can you possibly argue this on the science, or is that beyond you?”

    Thomas is correct. mogasp which “science” are you referring to? “behavioral science” (eugenics) or real science where results can be proven repeatedly? As a physicist explain how ventilation works in other more caustic situations and not for the hospitality industry?? Segregation and Hate for profit will NOT be tolerated in our society by organized criminals and terrorists pretending to be politicians and special interest groups (gasp). We will bring back the gallows of Nuremberg to once again deal with these eugenicists who have come out of hiding since the end of WWII. Least we forget. This time I recommend Texas for the gallows. Texans have very little tolerance for FASCISTS!!

    • Reply to Rob Moffatt: Again, the argument quickly devolves into name calling and hate-filled speech. That is not how civil debate on an issue about which many are concerned should be conducted. I’m inclined to disallow such posts because they’re unproductive. This will be allowed as an example of what WON’T be in future.

  5. A devastating response to Laprade, who seems to include some anti-Semitic claptrap in his screed.

  6. “This will be allowed as an example of what WON’T be in future.”

    Who are you to set “examples” of anyone?? Fascist is a correct term to describe your corrupt movement. Lets hope GASP are the fist to hang for their hate crimes against society!!

  7. “As a physicist explain how ventilation works in other more caustic situations and not for the hospitality industry?? ”

    answer the question please….

  8. Here’s another side effect of smoking that all citizens pay for. Come on, Smoking costs both in health and dollars.

  9. I suspect that, given an infinite amount of time and an infinite amount of air changes, the air in a room could be cleaned by some filtration system. It seems that a vacuum would need to be created and all materials in the room would need to be throughly washed… and washed and washed. In the meantime, what about the workers in such an environment? What happens to their lungs and hearts?

  10. First – I applaud MOGASP for taking the high road with its response to the likes of Moffatt and Laprade. Everyone should ask Mr. Hannegan this question “What happens to the exhaust from the location of that burning cigarette (in an ashtray or hanging out of the smoker’s mouth) until it reaches that ventilation system 10-15-20-25 feet away? Shouldn’t the ventiliation system be mounted as close to the origin of the exhaust as possible? On their head, for example?” When Mr. Hannegan responds to that question with a truthful, logical answer, I might consider his ventilation system as a PARTIAL remedy. I’m reasonably confident he cannot do so. Mr. Hannegan should therefore retract his misguided opinion and denunciation of Smoke-Free St. Louis. The statement on their website is not FALSE. Hasn’t Mr. Hannegan heard “people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones?”

  11. Dear Mr. Pion,

    No one argues that any ventilation or filtration system can perfectly eliminate smoke exposure in a space where people are smoking. But we based our campaign against the St. Louis City and County smoking ban on the belief that air filtration and air cleaning systems, such as those installed at Herbie’s Vintage 72, could hugely reduce the presence of all secondhand smoke components in bar air including all carcinogens and all gases.

    It is very distressing to realize that Clayton and St. Louis City aldermen and County Councilmen were being told all along that the effect of our air cleaning and filtration systems was merely cosmetic and that dangerous particles and gases were readily passing through the air filtration and air cleaning machines back into bar air. The implication is that the machines at Herbie’s only made the situation more hazardous by removing the sight and smell of smoke, thereby making patrons and workers feel comfortable and safe, yet allowing threatening particles and gases to accumulate!

    I would like to know if Smoke Free St. Louis has any evidence for this charge against air filtration and air cleaning technology. Clearly their misrepresentation has already hurt local air filtration companies and will hurt the St. Louis bars and restaurants which have installed this air cleaning and filtration technology come January.

    Bill Hannegan
    314.367.3779

  12. I find your arguments hilarious.

    “While ventilation systems can help reduce the smell and sight of cigarette smoke, they are not capable of getting rid of all of the carcinogens. Most cancer-causing particles and all cancer-causing gasses are too small to be trapped by filters.”

    For one thing this statement is an out and out lie. There is growing evidence that it is the particulates that cause the majority of lung cancer. Also the argument is based on the false premise that there is no safe level of second hand smoke. A statement that has only been claimed by anti smoking activist. Please oh wise one. Show us all the studies that show a linear dose response curve.

    Then of course there is the joke of the century, of course that is the claim that there is no safe level of second hand smoke, this flies in the face of the accepted scientific principle that dose makes the poison, now the tobacco control activist will point to the LNT (linear no threshold model) which was based on the theory that there is no safe level of ionizing radiation. There are a few problems with the LNT model. Many critics of the model claim that although radiation is highly toxic they do not measure low enough. That when measured low enough that the dose response curve is not linear. The Surgeon General makes the claim of no safe level and yet has not produced one single study that even implies linearity.
    http://peoplesrepubmadison.wordpress.com/2010/06/19/smoking-bans-and-junk-science/

    • mogasp reply to Marshall Keith: You dismiss my statement “that most cancer -causing particles and all cancer-causing gasses are to small to be trapped by filters” as an “out and out lie” while in the very next sentence conceding that “there is growing evidence that it is the particulates that cause the majority of lung cancer,” meaning that a minority, i.e. some gaseous components in secondhand small also cause lung cancer. You can’t have it both ways.
      I’ve just checked Table 8 “Some toxic and tumorigenic agents in undiluted cigarette sidestream smoke” on p. 89 of the US Surgeon General’s 1989 Report, “Reducing the Health Consequences of Smoking.” In the vapor phase are the following carcinogens (C) or suspected carcinogens (SC):
      Benzene (C)
      Formaldehyde (C)
      3-Vinypyridine (SC)
      Hydrazine (C)
      N-Nitrosodimethylamine (C)
      N-Nitrosopyrolidine (C)

      On the subject of “no safe level of second hand smoke,” my understanding is that it’s NOT a linear dose-response relationship, as you claim repeatedly, but a non-linear relationship that increases rapidly and then tends to level off, which is why exposure to SHS poses a higher cancer risk than expected at lower doses. I’ve been persuaded that the “no safe level” is valid by a leading researcher in the field after having doubts myself.

      • Kevin Mulvina

        PELs are developed in a linear perspective dose makes the poison. This can be demonstrated with a two dimensional x versus Y plot.

        Non linear introduces a third or more dimensions, outside of the range of normal Epi project models, without flattening the data by averaging, [linear regressive modeling]which significantly erodes its credibility. Linear regression is only possible with all factors know and a proper weight applied for each dimension that each confounder adds to the model.

        A linear relationship implies; at a specific dose we can predict a specific and nearly consistent physical response, which can be noted with increased risk as dosage increases.

        No safe level is a non linear relationship where all exposures are deemed to have the same level of deficit effect. The controversy at the WHO has raged for over two decades as to the nature implied by second hand smoke.

        Linear versus non linear?

        If we agree “there is no safe level” we can also imply there is no “safer” level, which means the comparative studies are no longer credible or useful, because if you know what cigarettes smoke smells like, you have been expossed, so your risk has been maximized and further exposures will not increase you risks.

        Comparing those expossed to those believed “not expossed”, becomes next to impossible when you start asking for people who have never been expossed, as indicated by their response to the question; do you know what it smells like?

        The Epi studies done to date, although highly controversial do not support a non linear [“no safe level”] stance obviously. Because they measure increased risk above the null with all other factors negated mathematically, comparing those expossed to those not, as well as those expossed at differential; levels, frequencies and durations. [with unknowns holding the power to realign the risk as they become known.] All resulting in a stable and predictable multiplicand factor, which is then applied to population groups [deemed at risk] to estimate the harms.

        What is not legitimate by the majority of studies to date is the assumption that all cigarette smoke can be considered a single linear composite product or toxin, which could possibly produce linear numbers by exposures, produced by the millions of possible combinations, of what it may actually contain, by the range of tobacco types, growing conditions, curing conditions and additives utilized in its production.

        With many discoveries over the years we have to take anti smoking citations with a grain of salt, when they are based in legacy research which has not been adjusted, to reflect evolving sciences and recent discoveries.

        With new found knowledge, by the six cities research projects for instance, it would be incumbent upon any researcher to recognize that established risks have to be discounted, especially in relation to “smoking related diseases” to accommodate the range of risk introduced by evolving knowledge.

        Those adjustments were never considered by the SG’s report, although many six cities studies have been completed and were available when he made his assessments. Replicated as the CDC also did, by their inflated appraisals of risk assessments, that no longer reside as credible.

        BTW fine particulate [cigarette smoke 3-8 microns] is no match for the risks of ultra fine particulate [less than 2.5 microns in diameter ] because the black soot from car exhaust and coal burning, is of the nature that your lungs can not expel it easily, as we see with a smokers cough, producing phlegm, which acts to clean the lungs of irritant particulate. [the reason surgeons can not tell a smokers lungs from a non smokers lungs visually]

        This fact also reflects in the credibility of “smoking caused” ideologies when the stance is; that risk is developed over many years of smoking while the products of the smoke, do not remain within the body for long enough to produce that damage as proposed.

        Nicotine as an addictive substance can also be questioned, when we realize chemically, its ignition point is below its boiling point, meaning smokers after burning it, receive very little if any nicotine. Unlike the gummy patchy stuff administered in much higher dosages by direct comparison, while described by the “Public Health experts” as “medical treatments” and otherwise as poisonous insecticide.

        It is always possible to test the validity of the claims of risk and harms being distributed, when we realize that risk in this perspective [linear]has a maximum predictable value that can be observed in historical context.

        If 450,000 die from smoking related diseases today, at some point, realizing smokers are not immortal beyond their smoking, we have to accommodate that; with twice as many smokers 50 years ago, we had less than half as many “smoking related” mortalities.

        The alternative could only support that by 450,000 smoking related mortalities today as confirmed and irrefutable, all cause mortality in 1960 [900,000] were caused by smoking?

        When you continue to compare groups of individuals to each other and only report the negative perspectives of the “others” eventually you come to see them as, other than human.

        The TC campaign crossed that line a long time ago, leaving behind their credibility in claims; it is compassion [helping smokers to quit] and not self sanctimony, driving their efforts.

  13. If ventilation is good enough for operating-rooms in hospitals, why isn’t it
    good enough for the hospirality industry?

    • Reply to Thomas Laprade: I don’t believe doctors or anyone else in an operating room is, or probably ever was, allowed to smoke. Yes, amazingly smoking used to be allowed in hospitals, even in patient rooms on the cancer floor! Thankfully, those days are over. It will be good when the hospitality industry follows suit and employees don’t have to endure secondhand smoke as part of their job description.

  14. Marshall Keith responds to Martin

    Reply to John Erkle: There’s just one flaw in the above argument. OSHA doesn’t have a standard for ETS (environmental tobacco smoke, aka secondhand smoke) in the workplace. It was being considered during the last Clinton administration but quietly dropped when George W. Bush took office,

    Ah Wrong. OSHA has PEL limits on the chemicals in ETS.

    Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS)

    Because the organic material in tobacco doesn’t burn completely, cigarette smoke contains more than 4,700 chemical compounds. Although OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.
    http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24602

    ASH just did not like the results and tried to sue.
    http://no-smoking.org/dec01/12-14-01-6.html

    Of course when it was shown that the junk science wouldn’t stand up in court

    http://veritasvincitprolibertate.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/science-and-the-law/

  15. You didn’t answer my question

  16. Hey Mogasp
    Have you ever thought of being a politican?
    A typical politician dances around the question but never commits himself.

  17. Marshall Keith responds to Martin

    Martin says.
    mogasp reply to Marshall Keith: You dismiss my statement “that most cancer -causing particles and all cancer-causing gasses are to small to be trapped by filters” . . .

    MARSHALL’s response
    Most electrostatic filters are capable of filtering down to .o1 microns and by adding activated charcoal filtration you can remove smaller particles including gases.
    http://www.allerairsolutions.com/5000sentinel.html
    The effectiveness of activated charcoal is even admitted by tobacco control.
    http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/17/Suppl_1/i10.abstract

    As for your statement ” I’ve been persuaded that the “no safe level” is valid by a leading researcher in the field after having doubts myself.”

    The only “no safe level” model is the LNT model. so unless you can show linearity or show us a widely accepted and I mean by science in general and not just by tobacco control then an unnamed researcher is hardly conclusive and the old adage Dose Makes the Poison” stands and the no safe level is pure bunk.
    http://learn.caim.yale.edu/chemsafe/references/dose.html

    meaning that a minority, i.e. some gaseous components in secondhand small also cause lung cancer. You can’t have it both ways.
    I’ve just checked Table 8 “Some toxic and tumorigenic agents in undiluted cigarette sidestream smoke”

  18. sheila Martin

    There was tons of proof and many “expert” witnesses at the Witch Trials in Salem, Mass. They were pounding their chest and pointing their fingers and demanding the death of the “proven” witches. What you call “science”, as I see it, has about the same element of scientific proof as those trials. In fact the new Progressive ban movement may very well be the descendents of those finger pointers! I am looking forward to seeing ONE “scientist” testify under oath re second hand smoke danger. They will not lie then. The day will come. Then this non science, nicotine replacement agenda will be over.

  19. Alderman Suozzi, what happens to the smoke as it travels to the filter? Under the best arrangements, the smoke is powerfully drawn straight up as it was on the Casino Queen. But even there you could breathe someone else’s smoke if you stood close to them.

    “Most cancer-causing particles and all cancer-causing gasses are too small to be trapped by filters.”

    The air filtration/cleaning system at Herbie’s can capture cancer causing particles of any size. Smoke-Free St. Louis City are the ones who need to retract their statement.

  20. Please notice the Diana Benanti no longer participates in these discussions. Why? The Smoke Free St. Louis City grant money ran out. She in no longer paid so she is on to something else.

  21. Kevin Mulvina

    The flaw in the “filtration systems don’t work” arguments seems to be found in an absolute lack of understanding in how the systems are designed.

    If they are designed to remove contaminants from a room, they work admirably. If they are being judged in an ability to keep contaminants out, to be fair, they were never designed to do what is now expected. Ask someone who works with bio-hazards how confident they are, in the designed work environments they occupy. Any suggestion that the public is at risk by these laboratory settings would be quickly extinguished, along with any credibility of those who challenged that safety. The same engineers who design clean rooms also design filtration systems utilizing the same mechanical principles and there is little reason to question the competence of those who design systems for either use. Lobby groups rarely consider legitimate scientific and mechanical truths, beyond cherry picked snippets, to support their obviously biased opinions. Most often taking no responsibility for what they promote.

    Inbound air alone is filtered and excepting the pressures created, inlet air filters have nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the air left in the room in relation to what is produced in the room. If gases and carcinogens pass through the filters they originate with the inbound air from outdoor sources.

    Airflow creates a significant positive pressure in the building, [often measured in thousands and millions of tons in large spaces, which are required to maintain pressures when distributed resulting in small variations of pounds or less.] compared to outside air pressures, which forces flow to move outdoors through the vents. Identical to the air pressures created in a vehicle by the fan and the exit through a window that is opened just a crack.

    Is it even worth arguing, that the smoke from a burning cigarette could somehow produce megatons of pressure and resist the force of air that opposes its remaining in a room?

    As James Repace puts it; “it’s tornado time.”

    If any explanation can be provided which describes why tobacco smoke or any smoke would move against sound airflow principles, you could sustain an argument that filtration systems don’t work.

    Your perceived risks of ultra light and microscopic contaminants remaining in the room, or traveling to other areas exhibiting more positive pressures upstream, seems to lack credibility because logic would seem to support that they would be the contaminants leaving first in a downstream direction when the outbound vents are located within that room.

    Smoking rooms are a foolish solution, designed in absolute reverse of what is being demanded. If you want to create a cleaner environment it would be enclosed “non smoking” rooms, that would be the most efficient method of obtaining the standard of air quality demanded by the fanatics, who wish to be, not just protected from the smell of tobacco smoke, but the tens of thousands of more immediately dangerous chemicals you breath everyday in the air outdoors, that no one can avoid.

    Creating a highly filtered positive pressure within, assures nothing will flow in from other indoor areas, [including the smell of tobacco smoke] while the air within, will be filtered against contaminants originating from the outdoor sourced air.

  22. Kevin Mulvina

    Martin;

    Having reviewed your Lambert Airport research I find a considerable flaw in the conclusions and methods of the research, which it would only be fair in a balanced perspective to disclose.

    The chemical nature of nicotine as a liquid and its propensity to evaporate as water would when expossed to the air, presents a large problem with research perspectives forming assumptions. In an airport measuring nicotine levels in the absence of smoking rooms will demonstrate that a high level of nicotine vapor concentrations is not only normal it is to be expected.

    If smoking were allowed in air travel and no smoking restrictions were in play, the levels of nicotine vapor would be lower than what you would expect to see today.

    Any package of cigarettes that has been open in the absence of smoking will emit nicotine vapor as will the use of [“alternative products”] smoking patches and other alternatives such as E-cigarettes and nicotine inhalers, which in an airport you would expect to see a much larger than normal collective use, than pretty much any other indoor environment you can imagine.

    The nicotine from a smoking patch would be much more concentrated than either open cigarette packages or open smoking. The nature of nicotine has its ignition point below its boiling point, so the consumption of nicotine while smoking, necessitates that nicotine vapor is largely if not entirely lost during the burning of a cigarette. Ergo the measured amounts found in tobacco smoke are considerably less than what you would measure in the original tobacco product. The methods describing the measures and conclusions in your report do not disclose the exact “how and why” determining your conclusions as to what would be an expected measure with no smoking, as opposed to an airport with smoking allowed in enclosed rooms with ventilation employed.

    Could you elaborate and explain your methods to remove the obvious questions as to the validity of what was found and what conclusions we should draw from those observations?

    Also it would be helpful in understanding your conclusions; what specific and immediate dangers are present by the casual exposures to second hand tobacco smoke? As opposed to the long term exposures demonstrating in a linear perspective, moderate risks as a result of a lifetime exposure.

    “Moderate” would be in direct comparison for instance; as opposed to the common flu which by CDC estimates kills 35,000 every year, while drawing no substantial level of concern in the general public or within the same institutions, Who claim second hand tobacco smoke is a “substantial health risk” even at extremely low exposure rates. Claiming to exhibit “no safe level of exposures”.

    The current rate of mortality by all cases is averaged at 72 years of age implying a mortality rate at around .077 or very close to the 1 in 111 we find among smokers. To state that “half of smokers will die prematurely” [balanced by the other half forming an average] is a statement with no real informative value. Much the same as “no safe level” [the same as water, air and sunlight] tells us nothing of real value scientifically.

    The emotional appeal is obvious when perspectives are directed by half truths and lying by omissions. Unfortunately emotions do not constitute legitamate science, by any stretch of the imagination. If a researcher is legitimate, [not a politician] he has to draw the line between politics or emotions and legitimate observations, in order to sustain credibility. In your opinion does your Lambert Airport study, or any of your evidence presented herein, pass the test of unbiased scientific observations?

    Among 50 million smokers in the United States today, it is said that 450,000 will die of smoking related diseases, a risk of 1 in 111 at risk.

    Among 35 million hospital admissions every year, medical mistakes cause over 900,000 deaths annually. A risk of 1 in 38 among those at risk. Three times higher risk than provided by smoking?

    We have to ask in all good conscience; how many of the first ratio group are actually the victims of the real “number one risk of preventable mortality” which observations show, as being the medical institutions themselves and the risk they impose as demonstrated in the second ratio group.

    By extension; how many of the “smoking related mortalities” being hypothesized by some pretty extreme reaching of non scientific comparative research estimates, are truly “smoking related” and how many are the effects of underestimating the effects of direct confounding factors? Such as those imposed by the same medical institutions directing our concerns elsewhere, with their own conflicted opinions of the true number one “preventable” cause of Mortality internationally?

    If the general public are in consensus that few do not know what tobacco smoke smells like, it seems the maximum risk is already exceeded universally and protection from tobacco smoke exposures is a futile effort, chasing ship that has already sailed, if there is indeed no safe level of exposures.

  23. Kevin Mulvina

    Having reviewed your Lambert Airport research I find a considerable flaw in the conclusions and methods of the research, which it would only be fair in a balanced perspective to disclose.

    The chemical nature of nicotine as a liquid and its propensity to evaporate as water would when expossed to the air, presents a large problem with research perspectives forming assumptions. In an airport measuring nicotine levels in the absence of smoking rooms will demonstrate that a high level of nicotine vapor concentrations is not only normal it is to be expected.

    If smoking were allowed in air travel and no smoking restrictions were in play, the levels of nicotine vapor would be lower than what you would expect to see today.

    Any package of cigarettes that has been open in the absence of smoking will emit nicotine vapor as will the use of [“alternative products”] smoking patches and other alternatives such as E-cigarettes and nicotine inhalers, which in an airport you would expect to see a much larger than normal collective use, than pretty much any other indoor environment you can imagine.

    The nicotine from a smoking patch would be much more concentrated than either open cigarette packages or open smoking. The nature of nicotine has its ignition point below its boiling point, so the consumption of nicotine while smoking, necessitates that nicotine vapor is largely if not entirely lost during the burning of a cigarette. Ergo the measured amounts found in tobacco smoke are considerably less than what you would measure in the original tobacco product. The methods describing the measures and conclusions in your report do not disclose the exact “how and why” determining your conclusions as to what would be an expected measure with no smoking, as opposed to an airport with smoking allowed in enclosed rooms with ventilation employed.

    Could you elaborate and explain your methods to remove the obvious questions as to the validity of what was found and what conclusions we should draw from those observations?

    Also it would be helpful in understanding your conclusions; what specific and immediate dangers are present by the casual exposures to second hand tobacco smoke? As opposed to the long term exposures demonstrating in a linear perspective, moderate risks as a result of a lifetime exposure.

    “Moderate” would be in direct comparison for instance; as opposed to the common flu which by CDC estimates kills 35,000 every year, while drawing no substantial level of concern in the general public or within the same institutions, Who claim second hand tobacco smoke is a “substantial health risk” even at extremely low exposure rates. Claiming to exhibit “no safe level of exposures”.

    The current rate of mortality by all cases is averaged at 72 years of age implying a mortality rate at around .077 or very close to the 1 in 111 we find among smokers. To state that “half of smokers will die prematurely” [balanced by the other half forming an average] is a statement with no real informative value. Much the same as “no safe level” [the same as water, air and sunlight] tells us nothing of real value scientifically.

    The emotional appeal is obvious when perspectives are directed by half truths and lying by omissions. Unfortunately emotions do not constitute legitamate science, by any stretch of the imagination. If a researcher is legitimate, [not a politician] he has to draw the line between politics or emotions and legitimate observations, in order to sustain credibility. In your opinion does your Lambert Airport study, or any of your evidence presented herein, pass the test of unbiased scientific observations?

    Among 50 million smokers in the United States today, it is said that 450,000 will die of smoking related diseases, a risk of 1 in 111 at risk.

    Among 35 million hospital admissions every year, medical mistakes cause over 900,000 deaths annually. A risk of 1 in 38 among those at risk. Three times higher risk than provided by smoking?

    We have to ask in all good conscience; how many of the first ratio group are actually the victims of the real “number one risk of preventable mortality” which observations show, as being the medical institutions themselves and the risk they impose as demonstrated in the second ratio group.

    By extension; how many of the “smoking related mortalities” being hypothesized by some pretty extreme reaching of non scientific comparative research estimates, are truly “smoking related” and how many are the effects of underestimating the effects of direct confounding factors? Such as those imposed by the same medical institutions directing our concerns elsewhere, with their own conflicted opinions of the true number one “preventable” cause of Mortality internationally?

    If the general public are in consensus that few do not know what tobacco smoke smells like, it seems the maximum risk is already exceeded universally and protection from tobacco smoke exposures is a futile effort, chasing ship that has already sailed, if there is indeed no safe level of exposures.

  24. Kevin Mulvina

    Perhaps you would prefer the shorter version?

    If you can find constituents of tobacco smoke resulting from smoking inside a properly ventilated room, in the expansive areas outside that room as one could envision in an airport. The mechanical principle employed is dilution.

    Air dilutes suspect toxins to known safe levels and or below levels of detection. To little airflow elevates the toxic load [measured in parts per cubic meter of air] and the risk.

    If you in fact found detectable levels of tobacco smoke, your condemnation should be in respect to the ventilation system in the larger expanse, outside that room.

    You should have considered the reality of the situation and reported an extreme danger to the airport authorities, in respect to an woefully inadequate ventilation system with low airflow, in fact below acceptable standards, in the larger area, which would impose an immediate and urgent danger to the occupants, by what is produced in much large volumes, by the planes immediately outside the terminal.

  25. Marshall Keith responds to Martin

    Martin says.
    mogasp reply to Marshall Keith: You dismiss my statement “that most cancer -causing particles and all cancer-causing gasses are to small to be trapped by filters” . . .

    MARSHALL’s response
    Most electrostatic filters are capable of filtering down to .o1 microns and by adding activated charcoal filtration you can remove smaller particles including gases.
    http://www.allerairsolutions.com/5000sentinel.html
    The effectiveness of activated charcoal is even admitted by tobacco control.
    http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/17/Suppl_1/i10.abstract

    As for your statement ” I’ve been persuaded that the “no safe level” is valid by a leading researcher in the field after having doubts myself.”

    The only “no safe level” model is the LNT model. so unless you can show linearity or show us a widely accepted and I mean by science in general and not just by tobacco control then an unnamed researcher is hardly conclusive and the old adage Dose Makes the Poison” stands and the no safe level is pure bunk.
    http://learn.caim.yale.edu/chemsafe/references/dose.html

    • Marshall, Thanks for the live link http://www.allerairsolutions.com/5000sentinel.html where I found the following:

      On Second Hand Smoke

      Second hand smoke has been classified by the U.S. EPA as a Class A carcinogen
      Disclaimer: Espitech Air Products disclaims all warranties, implied or otherwise, that anyone (non-smoker or smoker) who installs our air purifiers, air cleaners, or air scrubbers as an alternative to seeking a smoke free environment will be protected from the health risks caused by exposure to second hand smoke.
      “No air filtration or air purification system has been designed that can eliminate all the harmful constituents of secondhand smoke. A reduction of the harmful constituents of secondhand smoke does not protect against the disease and death caused by exposure to secondhand smoke. The U.S. Surgeon General has determined secondhand smoke to cause heart disease, lung cancer, and respiratory illness.”

      As for “the dose makes the poison” this statement is being repeated ad nauseum. It actually goes back to a 15th century chemist named Paracelsus but we’ve learned a thing or to since then. We are talking about cancer promoters in secondhand smoke which can induce changes in cells leading to cancers at indeterminately low levels.

  26. Marshall Keith says

    Martin, Martin, Martin

    You say “As for “the dose makes the poison” this statement is being repeated ad nauseum. It actually goes back to a 15th century chemist named Paracelsus but we’ve learned a thing or to since then. We are talking about cancer promoters in secondhand smoke which can induce changes in cells leading to cancers at indeterminately low levels.”

    The problem with your statement is that “indeterminately low levels.” means the LNT that you previously dismissed.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model

    You and your activist friends at the EPA have yet to show any linearity. The EPA findings were both shot down in court and by the congressional research group as you already know yet you people keep quoting it as if it were gospel.

    • I disagree with your statement: “The EPA findings were both shot down in court and by the congressional research group…” The science of secondhand smoke has been validated, despite the tobacco industry’s efforts to negate them by bringing suit before a judge friendly to the industry. The congressional research group testimony has also been debunked, to my knowledge. The California EPA’s report on the subject is even more far-reaching than the federal EPA’s and it remains unchallenged by an industry with no credibility.

      You are just attempting to obscure the fact that this is a health and welfare issue and should be treated as such. There is no reason to allow smoking in public places and the private workplace when it adversely affects others, be they employees or people wanting to conduct business. Those most adversely affected are individuals with disabilities exacerbated or caused by exposure to secondhand smoke. We already have rules and regulations in place to protect other disabled individuals, such as those with physical or visual impairment. Federal regulations extend those protections to breathing disabled individuals but too often the rules are not implemented. Local smoke-free air ordinances appear to be necessary to do just that.

  27. Second-hand smoke is a Class A Carcinogen??

    Chlorine is a Class A carcinogen.
    Chlorine is added to your water supply

    Oh! I forgot..
    ‘Poison is in the dose.’

  28. There is no such thing as ‘clean’ air

    http://www.forces.org

  29. Marshall Keith says;

    Martin, Martin, Martin.

    A business is not a public space and there are risks with all activities and jobs. An owner should have the right to cater to whatever clientele they choose and you the customer or potential employee have the right to decide what risks you find acceptable. your views are that of a socialist or collectivist, believing that the collective rights of the non-smokers trump the individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Ah yes bring up the disabled bringing up the destruction of the Fifth amendment. “Protected Class” meaning that if you are a member of one of those classes you have more rights and property rights mean nothing. As far as your claim about the CAL EPA, science done by the same anti-smoking activist that did the original faked report does not count. The judge that you claim as “tobacco friendly” had many rulings against Big Tobacco. The Facts just don’t back you up.
    http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22150/Wheres_the_Consensus_on_Secondhand_Smoke.html

    In case you don’t believe the Heartland institute. I have the quotes from Federal Judicial Center’s 2000 “Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Second Edition,” That clearly shows that your junk science would not hold up in court.
    http://veritasvincitprolibertate.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/science-and-the-law/

  30. harleyrider1978

    I feel sorry for you martin,pushing junk science and creating it to try and show something even if its thin air. I mean its gotton so bad for tobacco control now they are even trying to buy off some scientist with 3.75 million in grants to try and prove the rediculous claim that 3rd hand smoke causes disease or harm………I mean the shs claim cant even hold water much less even prove dna damage,oh theyve been trying that one too…….when you have to try and make a candle seem as powerful as the sun……..you really have big yarn to spin……so now they are utilizing the super computer dna systems to try and prove dna damage by shs/ets……….problem with that is they never state that dna changes happen at the rate of 15000 to 20000 times a day……yet they have hourly rate repairs of dna fixing itself……..yet they never mention these facts in their studys………all smoke and mirrors as usual!

    John Erkle aka harleyrider1978

  31. Kevin Mulvina I hate to say so you have it backwards. Non-linear is the time accepted model that dose makes the poison.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dose-response_relationship

    The no safe level is the linear no threshold model.
    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FLinear_no-threshold_model&ei=U89QTIP0GY6fnQeWvKiPBw&usg=AFQjCNFmhzbX038KNprCsHVku8pAI8XeWg
    It was designed on the premise that ionizing radiation is so toxic that there is no safe level. This model was then applied to other carcinogens. This concept of no safe level is highly disputed even by those in radiology. It is based on assumption and not on any factual scientific basis.
    http://www.lumrix.net/medical/radiobiology/linear_no-threshold_model.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s