On Thursday, June 10, 2004, at 10:59 AM, David Brauer wrote:
1. Define air-tightness: Does that mean airlocks? After all, doors to the smoke-filled room have to open. How to keep the smoke from pouring out? (Admittedly, there would be less ambient smoke than currently, but I'm leery that using a term such as "airtight" is overselling the practical reality.)
Air-tight is not feasible. That would involve an air lock for the in and out entry. And, unless the ventilation system can cycle in fresh air faster than the smoke raises the pollution level, the net return could be toxic to the smokers in the room. Despite smoking, they do need a modicum of fresh air to keep from looking like carp in the bottom of a boat.
I think of these rooms as transitional formats -- like CDs. The tobacco industry already has alternative nicotine delivery products. So controlling smoke is only the current issue. The long term quest of big tobacco is keeping enough nicotine flowing in the market place.
So not too far in the future nicotine aficionados will be able to quaff a beer, have nicotine and a burger fully integrated into the non smoking population.
That's a no win for the consumer.
Best,
Laura Wittstock Southeast
Laura Waterman Wittstock MIGIZI Communications, Inc. 3123 East Lake Street Minneapolis, MN 55406 612.721.6631 ext 219 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.migizi.org http://laurawatermanwittstock.blogspot.com/
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
