No easy answer for smoking ordinance

By Justin Cox Killeen Daily Herald People for and against the smoking ban in Killeen are firm in their stances. Full Story

“SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE ”

Since: Dec 08

tobacco road

#1 Jan 22, 2009
THE AIR ACCORDING TO OSHA

Though repetition has little to do with "the truth," we're repeatedly told that there's "no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke."

OSHA begs to differ.

OSHA has established PELs (Permissible Exposure Levels) for all the measurable chemicals, including the 40 alleged carcinogens, in secondhand smoke. PELs are levels of exposure for an 8-hour workday from which, according to OSHA, no harm will result.

Of course the idea of "thousands of chemicals" can itself sound spooky. Perhaps it would help to note that coffee contains over 1000 chemicals, 19 of which are known to be rat carcinogens.
-"Rodent Carcinogens: Setting Priorities" Gold Et Al., Science, 258: 261-65 (1992)

There. Feel better?

As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that:

"Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded."
-Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

Indeed it would.

Independent health researchers have done the chemistry and the math to prove how very very rare that would be.

As you're about to see in a moment.

In 1999, comments were solicited by the government from an independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke.

Using EPA figures on the emissions per cigarette of everything measurable in secondhand smoke, they compared them to OSHA's PELs.

The following excerpt and chart are directly from their report and their Washington testimony:

CALCULATING THE NON-EXISTENT RISKS OF ETS

"We have taken the substances for which measurements have actually been obtained--very few, of course, because it's difficult to even find these chemicals in diffuse and diluted ETS.

"We posit a sealed, unventilated enclosure that is 20 feet square with a 9 foot ceiling clearance.

"Taking the figures for ETS yields per cigarette directly from the EPA, we calculated the number of cigarettes that would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold for each of these substances. The results are actually quite amusing. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a situation where these threshold limits could be realized.

"Our chart (Table 1) illustrates each of these substances, but let me report some notable examples.

"For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold.

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes would be required.

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

"At the lower end of the scale-- in the case of Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up simultaneously in our little room to reach the threshold at which they might begin to pose a danger.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes are required. Perhaps we could post a notice limiting this 20-foot square room to 300 rather tightly-packed people smoking no more than 62 packs per hour?

"Of course the moment we introduce real world factors to the room -- a door, an open window or two, or a healthy level of mechanical air exchange (remember, the room we've been talking about is sealed) achieving these levels becomes even more implausible.

"It becomes increasingly clear to us that ETS is a political, rather than scientific, scapegoat."

“SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE ”

Since: Dec 08

tobacco road

#2 Jan 22, 2009
Toxic Toxicology" Littlewood & Fennel

Coming at OSHA from quite a different angle is litigator (and how!) John Banzhaf, founder and president of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).

Banzhaf is on record as wanting to remove healthy children from intact homes if one of their family smokes. He also favors national smoking bans both indoors and out throughout America, and has litigation kits for sale on how to get your landlord to evict your smoking neighbors.

Banzhaf originally wanted OSHA to ban smoking in all American workplaces.

It's not even that OSHA wasn't happy to play along; it's just that--darn it -- they couldn't find the real-world science to make it credible.

So Banzhaf sued them. Suing federal agencies to get them to do what you want is, alas, a new trick in the political deck of cards. But OSHA, at least apparently, hung tough.

In response to Banzhaf's law suit they said the best they could do would be to set some official standards for permissible levels of smoking in the workplace.

Scaring Banzhaf, and Glantz and the rest of them to death.

Permissible levels? No, no. That would mean that OSHA, officially, said that smoking was permitted. That in fact, there were levels (hard to exceed, as we hope we've already shown) that were generally safe.

This so frightened Banzhaf that he dropped the case. Here are excerpts from his press release:

"ASH has agreed to dismiss its lawsuit against OSHA...to avoid serious harm to the non-smokers rights movement from adverse action OSHA had threatened to take if forced by the suit to do it....developing some hypothetical [ASH's characterization] measurement of smoke pollution that might be a better remedy than prohibiting smoking....[T]his could seriously hurt efforts to pass non-smokers' rights legislation at the state and local level...

Another major threat was that, if the agency were forced by ASH's suit to promulgate a rule regulating workplace smoking,[it] would be likely to pass a weak one.... This weak rule in turn could preempt future and possibly even existing non-smokers rights laws-- a risk no one was willing to take.

As a result of ASH's dismissal of the suit, OSHA will now withdraw its rule-making proceedings but will do so without using any of the damaging [to Anti activists] language they had threatened to include."
-ASH Nixes OSHA Suit To Prevent Harm To Movement

Looking on the bright side, Banzhaf concludes:

"We might now be even more successful in persuading states and localities to ban smoking on their own, once they no longer have OSHA rule-making to hide behind."

Once again, the Anti-Smoking Movement reveals that it's true motive is basically Prohibition (stopping smokers from smoking; making them "social outcasts")--not "safe air."

And the attitude seems to be, as Stanton Glantz says, if the science doesn't "help" you, don't do the science.

“SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE ”

Since: Dec 08

tobacco road

#3 Jan 22, 2009
This is what a grandma from new york wrote,

When are people going to stand up for their rights and say enough is enough?
All the anti - smokers think this law is great, what happens when they say , you can't have a drink in a home where someone under the age of 16 live? Or you can't have ice cream in the presence of a overweight person ?
Maybe the next law will be, you can't listen to religious music in public because it affends others who are non - believers.
Eventually, a law is going to effect some portion of your personal life and your not going to like it either.
Don't you think things are getting out of control, Our control?

“SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE ”

Since: Dec 08

tobacco road

#4 Jan 22, 2009
to show you how right she is,look at what some health radicals tried to get pushed thru in missippi last year.

Mississippi Legislature
2008 Regular Session
House Bill 282
House Calendar | Senate Calendar | Main Menu
Additional Information | All Versions

Current Bill Text:|

Description: Food establishments; prohibit from serving food to any person who is obese.

Background Information:
Disposition: Active
Deadline: General Bill/Constitutional Amendment
Revenue: No
Vote type required: Majority
Effective date: July 1, 2008

History of Actions:
1 01/25 (H) Referred To Public Health and Human Services;Judiciary B

----- Additional Information -----

House Committee: Public Health and Human Services*, Judiciary B

Principal Author: Mayhall
Additional Authors: Read, Shows

Title: AN ACT TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS FROM SERVING FOOD TO ANY PERSON WHO IS OBESE, BASED ON CRITERIA PRESCRIBED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO PREPARE WRITTEN MATERIALS THAT DESCRIBE AND EXPLAIN THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS OBESE AND TO PROVIDE THOSE MATERIALS TO THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS; TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO MONITOR THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.

----- Bill Text for All Versions ----
| As Introduced (Current)

Information pertaining to this measure was last updated on 01/29/2008 at 11:24
End Of Document

“SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE ”

Since: Dec 08

tobacco road

#5 Jan 22, 2009
Know who the enemy is that pushes for smoking bans using psudo science.........they arent out just to get a smoking ban,their out after everybody for something and turning the health depts into police depts........dont think they dont want to come into your home...theyre working on that as I type.
killeen gurl

Chicago, IL

#6 Mar 10, 2009
CONFEDERATE_1978 wrote:
This is what a grandma from new york wrote,
When are people going to stand up for their rights and say enough is enough?
All the anti - smokers think this law is great, what happens when they say , you can't have a drink in a home where someone under the age of 16 live? Or you can't have ice cream in the presence of a overweight person ?
Maybe the next law will be, you can't listen to religious music in public because it affends others who are non - believers.
Eventually, a law is going to effect some portion of your personal life and your not going to like it either.
Don't you think things are getting out of control, Our control?
Um eating ice cream doesn't cause smoke to fill the air poisoning everyone around you. Same with drinking and music. Though there should be some laws in my opinion that are actually enforced that keep people from getting drunk instead of taking care of their children in my opinion. Thought that is a whole nother story. The point is that second hand smoke is bad for you and if choose not to smoke then you have no right to put those toxins in my body. You want to put it in YOUR body, fine. But keep it out of mine.

“SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE ”

Since: Dec 08

tobacco road

#7 Mar 11, 2009
killeen gurl wrote:
<quoted text>
Um eating ice cream doesn't cause smoke to fill the air poisoning everyone around you. Same with drinking and music. Though there should be some laws in my opinion that are actually enforced that keep people from getting drunk instead of taking care of their children in my opinion. Thought that is a whole nother story. The point is that second hand smoke is bad for you and if choose not to smoke then you have no right to put those toxins in my body. You want to put it in YOUR body, fine. But keep it out of mine.
then stay away from where smokers go.....say like a privatly owned restaraunt or bar..........but since you think you own them I am sure you will show up with the gestapo.

“SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE ”

Since: Dec 08

tobacco road

#8 Mar 11, 2009
Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger
Written By: Jerome Arnett, Jr., M.D.
Published In: Environment & Climate News
Publication Date: July 1, 2008
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

Exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) is an unpleasant experience for many nonsmokers, and for decades was considered a nuisance. But the idea that it might actually cause disease in nonsmokers has been around only since the 1970s.

Recent surveys show more than 80 percent of Americans now believe secondhand smoke is harmful to nonsmokers.

Federal Government Reports

A 1972 U.S. surgeon general's report first addressed passive smoking as a possible threat to nonsmokers and called for an anti-smoking movement. The issue was addressed again in surgeon generals' reports in 1979, 1982, and 1984.

A 1986 surgeon general's report concluded involuntary smoking caused lung cancer, but it offered only weak epidemiological evidence to support the claim. In 1989 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was charged with further evaluating the evidence for health effects of SHS.

In 1992 EPA published its report, "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking," claiming SHS is a serious public health problem, that it kills approximately 3,000 nonsmoking Americans each year from lung cancer, and that it is a Group A carcinogen (like benzene, asbestos, and radon).

The report has been used by the tobacco-control movement and government agencies, including public health departments, to justify the imposition of thousands of indoor smoking bans in public places.

Flawed Assumptions

EPA's 1992 conclusions are not supported by reliable scientific evidence. The report has been largely discredited and, in 1998, was legally vacated by a federal judge.

Even so, the EPA report was cited in the surgeon general's 2006 report on SHS, where then-Surgeon General Richard Carmona made the absurd claim that there is no risk-free level of exposure to SHS.

For its 1992 report, EPA arbitrarily chose to equate SHS with mainstream (or firsthand) smoke. One of the agency's stated assumptions was that because there is an association between active smoking and lung cancer, there also must be a similar association between SHS and lung cancer.

But the problem posed by SHS is entirely different from that found with mainstream smoke. A well-recognized toxicological principle states, "The dose makes the poison."

Accordingly, we physicians record direct exposure to cigarette smoke by smokers in the medical record as "pack-years smoked" (packs smoked per day times the number of years smoked). A smoking history of around 10 pack-years alerts the physician to search for cigarette-caused illness. But even those nonsmokers with the greatest exposure to SHS probably inhale the equivalent of only a small fraction (around 0.03) of one cigarette per day, which is equivalent to smoking around 10 cigarettes per year.

Low Statistical Association

Another major problem is that the epidemiological studies on which the EPA report is based are statistical studies that can show only correlation and cannot prove causation.

One statistical method used to compare the rates of a disease in two populations is relative risk (RR). It is the rate of disease found in the exposed population divided by the rate found in the unexposed population. An RR of 1.0 represents zero increased risk. Because confounding and other factors can obscure a weak association, in order even to suggest causation a very strong association must be found, on the order of at least 300 percent to 400 percent, which is an RR of 3.0 to 4.0.

“SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE ”

Since: Dec 08

tobacco road

#9 Mar 11, 2009
Scientific Principles Ignored

An even greater problem is the agency's lowering of the confidence interval (CI) used in its report. Epidemiologists calculate confidence intervals to express the likelihood a result could happen just by chance. A CI of 95 percent allows a 5 percent possibility that the results occurred only by chance.

Before its 1992 report, EPA had always used epidemiology's gold standard CI of 95 percent to measure statistical significance. But because the U.S. studies chosen for the report were not statistically significant within a 95 percent CI, for the first time in its history EPA changed the rules and used a 90 percent CI, which doubled the chance of being wrong.

This allowed it to report a statistically significant 19 percent increase of lung cancer cases in the nonsmoking spouses of smokers over those cases found in nonsmoking spouses of nonsmokers. Even though the RR was only 1.19--an amount far short of what is normally required to demonstrate correlation or causality--the agency concluded this was proof SHS increased the risk of U.S. nonsmokers developing lung cancer by 19 percent.

EPA Study Soundly Rejected

In November 1995 after a 20-month study, the Congressional Research Service released a detailed analysis of the EPA report that was highly critical of EPA's methods and conclusions. In 1998, in a devastating 92-page opinion, Federal Judge William Osteen vacated the EPA study, declaring it null and void. He found a culture of arrogance, deception, and cover-up at the agency.

Osteen noted, "First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA 'cherry picked' its data.... In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90 percent. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association.... EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between [SHS] and lung cancer."

In 2003 a definitive paper on SHS and lung cancer mortality was published in the British Medical Journal. It is the largest and most detailed study ever reported. The authors studied more than 35,000 California never-smokers over a 39-year period and found no statistically significant association between exposure to SHS and lung cancer mortality.

Propaganda Trumps Science

The 1992 EPA report is an example of the use of epidemiology to promote belief in an epidemic instead of to investigate one. It has damaged the credibility of EPA and has tainted the fields of epidemiology and public health.

In addition, influential anti-tobacco activists, including prominent academics, have unethically attacked the research of eminent scientists in order to further their ideological and political agendas.

The abuse of scientific integrity and the generation of faulty "scientific" outcomes (through the use of pseudoscience) have led to the deception of the American public on a grand scale and to draconian government overregulation and the squandering of public money.

Millions of dollars have been spent promoting belief in SHS as a killer, and more millions of dollars have been spent by businesses in order to comply with thousands of highly restrictive bans, while personal choice and freedom have been denied to millions of smokers. Finally, and perhaps most tragically, all this has diverted resources away from discovering the true cause(s) of lung cancer in nonsmokers.

Dr. Jerome Arnett Jr.(jerry.arnett@gmail.com) is a pulmonologist who lives in Helvetia, West Virginia.
NoFool

Waco, TX

#10 Mar 11, 2009
Too much hog wash posted on here. We have entire states going non smoking. Even the tobacco state of Virgina is joining in.

So why do we have so many people trying to say we don't need a non smoking ordinance in our crappy town?

“Fredneck County Md”

Since: Feb 08

Small Town

#11 Mar 11, 2009
NoFool wrote:
Too much hog wash posted on here. We have entire states going non smoking. Even the tobacco state of Virgina is joining in.
So why do we have so many people trying to say we don't need a non smoking ordinance in our crappy town?
Sure you are!

“SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE ”

Since: Dec 08

tobacco road

#12 Mar 11, 2009
NoFool wrote:
Too much hog wash posted on here. We have entire states going non smoking. Even the tobacco state of Virgina is joining in.
So why do we have so many people trying to say we don't need a non smoking ordinance in our crappy town?
freedom of choise...you dont like the smoke go somewhere else.......post smoking signs at the doors simple aint it........commie pig
John

United States

#13 Mar 11, 2009
NoFool wrote:
Too much hog wash posted on here. We have entire states going non smoking. Even the tobacco state of Virgina is joining in.
So why do we have so many people trying to say we don't need a non smoking ordinance in our crappy town?
NoFool, the hogwash you are reading is the little dude inside these addict's head saying "DO SOMETHING!! THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE AWAY MY NICOTINE!!!" They are scared sh1tless and are posting this same garbage on every single thread pertaining to smoking. Personally, I think that they are being paid to do it because they are out here on these forums 24x7 posting the same garbage. Second Hand Smoke isn't bad for you?! Whateverrrrrrrr. Now sit back and watch what he post's in response to my post. It should have about as much relevance as any other of his posts.

“Fredneck County Md”

Since: Feb 08

Small Town

#14 Mar 11, 2009
TobaccoFreeKids had "TULSA" tatooed on Johns forehead so that when he looks in a mirror he could see himself as others see him.

Since: Mar 09

None ya

#15 Mar 11, 2009
CONFEDERATE_1978 wrote:
<quoted text>then stay away from where smokers go.....say like a privatly owned restaraunt or bar..........but since you think you own them I am sure you will show up with the gestapo.
Actually I don't agree with banning smoking in bars. That seems kinda stupid, not to mention over kill. But anyway if you don't like proposed smoking bans then don't go where people who don't smoke go......say like a privatly owned restaruant or bar. But since you are to selfish to care who you kill with your second hand toxins I'm sure you will continue to smoke. And how exactly is trying to prevent selfish people from poisioning inocent bystanders with a simple law resulting probably in a fine if broken "terrorist methods"?

“SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE ”

Since: Dec 08

tobacco road

#16 Mar 11, 2009
THE AIR ACCORDING TO OSHA

Though repetition has little to do with "the truth," we're repeatedly told that there's "no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke."

OSHA begs to differ.

OSHA has established PELs (Permissible Exposure Levels) for all the measurable chemicals, including the 40 alleged carcinogens, in secondhand smoke. PELs are levels of exposure for an 8-hour workday from which, according to OSHA, no harm will result.

Of course the idea of "thousands of chemicals" can itself sound spooky. Perhaps it would help to note that coffee contains over 1000 chemicals, 19 of which are known to be rat carcinogens.
-"Rodent Carcinogens: Setting Priorities" Gold Et Al., Science, 258: 261-65 (1992)

There. Feel better?

As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that:

"Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded."
-Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

Indeed it would.

Independent health researchers have done the chemistry and the math to prove how very very rare that would be.

As you're about to see in a moment.

In 1999, comments were solicited by the government from an independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke.

Using EPA figures on the emissions per cigarette of everything measurable in secondhand smoke, they compared them to OSHA's PELs.

The following excerpt and chart are directly from their report and their Washington testimony:

CALCULATING THE NON-EXISTENT RISKS OF ETS

"We have taken the substances for which measurements have actually been obtained--very few, of course, because it's difficult to even find these chemicals in diffuse and diluted ETS.

"We posit a sealed, unventilated enclosure that is 20 feet square with a 9 foot ceiling clearance.

"Taking the figures for ETS yields per cigarette directly from the EPA, we calculated the number of cigarettes that would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold for each of these substances. The results are actually quite amusing. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a situation where these threshold limits could be realized.

"Our chart (Table 1) illustrates each of these substances, but let me report some notable examples.

"For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold.

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes would be required.

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

"At the lower end of the scale-- in the case of Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up simultaneously in our little room to reach the threshold at which they might begin to pose a danger.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes are required. Perhaps we could post a notice limiting this 20-foot square room to 300 rather tightly-packed people smoking no more than 62 packs per hour?

"Of course the moment we introduce real world factors to the room -- a door, an open window or two, or a healthy level of mechanical air exchange (remember, the room we've been talking about is sealed) achieving these levels becomes even more implausible.

"It becomes increasingly clear to us that ETS is a political, rather than scientific, scapegoat."

“Veritas Vincit. Pro Libertate”

Since: Jun 08

peoples republic of Madison

#17 Mar 11, 2009
John wrote:
<quoted text>
NoFool, the hogwash you are reading is the little dude inside these addict's head saying "DO SOMETHING!! THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE AWAY MY NICOTINE!!!" They are scared sh1tless and are posting this same garbage on every single thread pertaining to smoking. Personally, I think that they are being paid to do it because they are out here on these forums 24x7 posting the same garbage. Second Hand Smoke isn't bad for you?! Whateverrrrrrrr. Now sit back and watch what he post's in response to my post. It should have about as much relevance as any other of his posts.
&eu rl=http://banthebanwisconsin.w ordpress.com/
kendra_tx

Temple, TX

#18 Jan 13, 2012
free -country (smoking) i think who ,who want's to smoke or like to smoke it is fine ,the same for people who don't like to smoke it's fine too.did you ever heard about a smoker that he don't like non smoking people ??? i don't think so!.so whatever it is smoking, or non-smoking , is eachperson's life! stop arguen and concentrate of the poor it's 2011and we still have war ,and hunger on this planet ,that's a shame for the world ,we teach history and what did we lear'n we continue the same thing ,amazing just think about it we just human's none else .lol

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Harker Heights Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
1 st Armored Division (May '09) Sat Smokin Joe 41
Review: Assembly Of Prayer Christian Church (Sep '12) Oct 12 Lillith 666 52
Soldiers smuggle immigrants: Conspiring US mili... Oct 12 What In THE Hell 3
3 Hood soldiers charged for transporting illega... Oct 10 ronnie 1
198th Light Infantry Brigade (Jul '09) Oct 8 Smokin Joe 14
1st 13th Armor Battalion, 1st AD (May '09) Oct 8 Chuck McClure 8
Soldier Jailed In Weekend Murder At Fort Hood (Sep '13) Oct 2 acid man 53
Harker Heights Dating
Find my Match

Harker Heights Jobs

Harker Heights People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Harker Heights News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Harker Heights

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]