|
Archives
Smoky Story Lights A Fire
Editors Note: In the January, 2005 issue of the Chief Engineer, we published
an Associated Press story (Smoky Bars Versus City Streets) which sited a study
comparing the health effects of second hand smoking and traffic emissions.
We received several letters and emails questioning the findings of the study,
including
the following rebuttal submitted to us for publication: By Norman E. Kjono
A recent Associated Press (AP) article, “Smoky Bars Versus City Streets,” stated
bars and casinos “have up to 50 times more cancer-causing particles in
the air than highways and city streets clogged with diesel trucks,” and
that “indoor air pollution virtually disappears once smoking is banned.” The
AP article, which referenced a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation study, included
a quote by James Repace: “this paper will help localities pass smoking
bans.” AP did disclose RWJ foundation funding of the study, but it did
not disclose Repace received a $300,000 grant from that foundation for “Analysis
of the effects of secondhand smoke in the hospitality industry,” nor did
it disclose that the foundation publishes its own “Model Ordinance” for
smoking bans, which Mr. Repace’s “scientific conclusions” are
funded to support.
Such statements promote false health risks for hospitality venues and are
often used to promote interests of the foundation’s pharmaceutical constituency,
including “Smoke Free” nicotine distributors.
Credible facts about
alleged dangers of Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) are found somewhere between
what constituents are measured and vested interests in doing so.
Repace measured respirable particulates, which are not the only constituents
of ETS, nor is ETS the only source of such particulates. Mr. Repace’s study
contains information directly contradicted by other onsite air quality measurements.
A study of our company’s offices in a Washington suburban office park regarding
ETS measured indoor Total Respirable Suspended Particulates (RSP) at a mean of
27.0 micrograms per cubic meter, with smoking permitted at work stations, and
an outdoor RSP mean of 22.8 micrograms per cubic meter, an outdoor to indoor
RSP ratio of 0.8444. Were we to apply similar ratios to Repace’s findings
that indoor particulates of 231 micrograms were “15 times the 15-microgram
Environmental Protection agency limit for outdoor air” we would necessarily
conclude that Delaware outdoor air was 195 micrograms or 13 times the EPA limit
and nearly 9 times that recorded in our measurements. What accounts for the significant
disparity in the RWJ foundation’s study indoor-outdoor RSP ratios compared
to those measured by others? Why are study data not reported for outdoor areas
adjacent to the bar or casino where indoor RSP was measured?
Sensationalist claims in the AP article bear close scrutiny in light of the
ETS constituent selected to measure, which can skew study results. Repace could
also
have measured carcinogenic Nitrogen Dioxide, which is a constituent of both
ETS and diesel exhaust. Had he done so in a suburban tavern and at the entrance
to
the Baltimore toll booths I suspect that precisely the opposite of the foundation’s
study could have been reported: diesel exhaust and ETS constituents would be
reported as dramatically higher at the toll booth than in the bar and the bar
levels of Nitrogen Dioxide would not dramatically change with smoking prohibited.
The AP article about Repace’s conclusions amply illustrates, once again,
the unfortunate reality that a “study” is only so credible as the
vested economic interests of those funding and conducting it.
Mr. Knono has been involved with Indoor Air Quality and ETS issues since
1994. His activities have included testimony before the Washington Senate and
House
of Representatives, as well as the King County Council and Washington Department
of Labor and Industries, on smoking ban legislation and/or regulations. He
has also been in direct communication with Congressional representatives
and staff
regarding issues such as the recent failed attempt to impose U.S. Food and
Drug Administration regulatory authority over tobacco.
Archives
|
