Wash. U. Study Got it WRONG: Smoke Eaters Do Work

• Small pubs welcome lifting of Dutch smoking ban http://www.rnw.nl/english/bulletin/small-pubs-welcome-lifting-dutch-smoking-ban#comment-49732

• Osha has whats called PEL'S and limits for an 8 hour period of exposure to chemicals in indoor environments...[epa is in charge of outdoor air]some smoke free groups have tried to use 30 minute air samples using epa monitoring to create a air borne healthscare. The actual standard to use is OSHA'S The EPA standard is to be used for OUTSIDE ambient air quality and it is the average over a period of 3 years. The proper standard to compare to is the OSHA standard for indoor air quality for respirable particulate (not otherwise specified) for nuisance dusts and smoke. That standard is 5000 ug/m3 on a time-weighted average (8 hours a day, 5 days a week) and is intended to be protective of health over an average working life of 30 years!

• While the St. Louis Post-Dispatch rips Bill Hannegan in it's editorial on Sept 13, which violates it's own declared policy of refusing to publish letters from others attacking anyone, and it's mission statement of belongig to no party, it refused to print my rebuttal which is reproduced below.... I'm at odds with Quelle Surprise! , the Editorial in the Sept. 13th edition of the Post -Dispatch, which states that secondhand smoke was 31 times higher in venues with smoking than those without. Let's remember that with smoking eliminated, secondhand smoke levels will be very low, and that 31 times a very low number is still a very low number. To put these numbers into perspective, we should consider that Oak Ridge National Laboratories reported that St. Louis nonsmoking bartenders working in smoking venues, while wearing air sampling monitors were exposed to less than 1/10 of a cigarette during an 8 hour shift. I suppose it is possible that eliminating smoking would reduce that exposure to 1/10 divided by 31 = 1/310th of a cigarette per 8-hour shift, but did Washington University even ask the workers in the venues they tested, if they cared if they were exposed to 1/10 vs 1/310th of a cigarette per shift? The general claim is that a lifetime of secondhand smoke exposure, without ventilation and filtration, elevates the risk of lung cancer and other diseases about 30% in nonsmokers. While it is probably true that filtration and ventilation cannot remove every last picogram of secondhand smoke, the removal of 90% of it, which is easy, would reduce this 30% excess risk to about 3% over a lifetime. This 3% is then reduced even further by the fact that patrons and workers don't spend their entire lives in bars and restaurants. Considering that ventilation and filtration are approved by OSHA, and work very well in the kitchen areas of bars and restaurants, despite much higher concentrations of carbon monoxide, polynuclear aromatics, and particulate matter from the stoves, I really would like Washington University to explain why ventilation and filtration cannot work in the drinking and dining areas of those same establishments. Quelle surprise! ..how can secondhand smoke violate the same laws of chemistry and physics that work for everything else? David W. Kuneman Dir. of Research The Citizen's Freedom Alliance Rock Hill, MO, 63119 314-968-8241

• While the St. Louis Post-Dispatch rips Bill Hannegan in it's editorial on Sept 13, which violates it's own declared policy of refusing to publish letters from others attacking anyone, and it's mission statement of belongig to no party, it refused to print my rebuttal which is reproduced below.... I'm at odds with Quelle Surprise! , the Editorial in the Sept. 13th edition of the Post -Dispatch, which states that secondhand smoke was 31 times higher in venues with smoking than those without. Let's remember that with smoking eliminated, secondhand smoke levels will be very low, and that 31 times a very low number is still a very low number. To put these numbers into perspective, we should consider that Oak Ridge National Laboratories reported that St. Louis nonsmoking bartenders working in smoking venues, while wearing air sampling monitors were exposed to less than 1/10 of a cigarette during an 8 hour shift. I suppose it is possible that eliminating smoking would reduce that exposure to 1/10 divided by 31 = 1/310th of a cigarette per 8-hour shift, but did Washington University even ask the workers in the venues they tested, if they cared if they were exposed to 1/10 vs 1/310th of a cigarette per shift? The general claim is that a lifetime of secondhand smoke exposure, without ventilation and filtration, elevates the risk of lung cancer and other diseases about 30% in nonsmokers. While it is probably true that filtration and ventilation cannot remove every last picogram of secondhand smoke, the removal of 90% of it, which is easy, would reduce this 30% excess risk to about 3% over a lifetime. This 3% is then reduced even further by the fact that patrons and workers don't spend their entire lives in bars and restaurants. Considering that ventilation and filtration are approved by OSHA, and work very well in the kitchen areas of bars and restaurants, despite much higher concentrations of carbon monoxide, polynuclear aromatics, and particulate matter from the stoves, I really would like Washington University to explain why ventilation and filtration cannot work in the drinking and dining areas of those same establishments. Quelle surprise! ..how can secondhand smoke violate the same laws of chemistry and physics that work for everything else? David W. Kuneman Dir. of Research The Citizen's Freedom Alliance Rock Hill, MO, 63119 314-968-8241

• Tony, The press conference called by Dr. Moreland-Russell announced that a study had been done but only a FINDINGS SUMMARY was released. Other than the follow up statements, the public has little else to go on. The most astounding aspect is that he media accepted this without question and sensationalization what little content released despite many 'red flags'. Normally you'd find a qualitative study, that the summary described, published in a reputable journal, then the announcement of its existence made. There may be in fact a study, documenting substantiated science, but the TCRP does the public no service by withholding it. While there are a lot us out there, not so much in agreement with your goals, but appalled at the growing trend in academia of politically correct advocacy over science. Add in the mix of the fanatical fervor of the slaves to the infallibility of the allopathic medical experts and you've got a recipe for disaster. Vioxx, the phantom swine flu pandemic and No child Left Behind are examples that have left the public 'holding the bag' based on the reputation and word of the experts. You and Bill should be commended for having the courage to stand and say, "You may not be wrong, but based on what you've fed us, you may not be right, either". Lastly, you might want to refer to the TCRPs' work as what it is in reality, at this time, a findings summary and/or the PURPORTED study.

• Wash U results: Airborne nicotine levels ranged from 0.015 to 25.14 ug/m3. The median (interquartile range) airborne nicotine levels in venues that allowed smoking was 2.83 ?g/m3 (0.57-4.56 ?g/m3) The OSHA permissible exposure limit for nicotine is 0.5 (milligrams) mg/m3 or 500 (micrograms) ug/m3, (full OSHA table can be found here) so now let's do the math: 500 (OSHA safe level) divided by 0.57 = shs levels are 877.19 times SAFER than OHSA permissible exposure limits 500 (OSHA safe level) divided by median 2.83 = shs levels are 176.68 times SAFER than OHSA permissible exposure limits 500 (OSHA safe level) divided by 4.56 = shs levels are 109.65 times SAFER than OHSA permissible exposure limits None of the secondhand smoke air quality readings represent a workplace health hazard as you can see above. more here: http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2010/09/new-st-louis-aq-study-published-by.html

TotalComments: 6