This post was bounced because I wrote in HTML, but I want to try again. In response to a post I'd written, Chris Johnson apparently thought I was being condescending, which wasn't my intent. Chris writes."What exactly is Gail's point here?" Only that I think the focus on tobacco smoke is too narrow, but it is certainly part of the whole indoor air issue. When Minneapolis council members suggested a study, there were groans of "oh, no, there they go again..." But I think a study of all indoor pollutants and their relative threat to health would be an excellent basis for a comprehensive indoor air policy. For example, just looking at an EPA site in response to Chris's criticism, I found something else Ididn't know: "Electronic air cleaners and ion generators use an electronic charge to remove airborne particles; these devices may also produce ozone, a lung irritant." We have one of those and I had NO IDEA it could make things worse! There's a ton of stuff on sick buildings if anyone is interested. Moreover, a comprehensive policy for all buildings - offices, hospitals and especially schools - would be less onerous for bars and restaurants.
Chris said, "We have other air pollutants -- so what?" So I didn't know that gas appliances and furniture and all kinds of seemingly innocuous stuff emit hazardous chemicals. For example: "Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Some examples of VOC emission sources are: Benzene Toluene, Methylene, chloride,formaldehyde,xylene,ethylene glycol,texanol,1,3-butadiene." Benzene was mentioned by Chris and it can come from: "Paints, varnishes, mothballs, solvents, gasoline, newspaper,cooking, cleaning chemicals, vinyl floors, carpets, photocopying, upholstery fabrics,adhesives,caulks,cosmetics,air fresheners. fuel oil, vehicle exhaust, pressed wood furniture, environmental tobacco smoke." Definitely from tobacco smoke, but all those other things too. When Chris says, "Yes, our interior and exterior environments have a variety of pollutants. Yes, amazingly enough, our world is made up of chemicals. Astonishingly, our bodies themselves are highly complex chemical factories! How relevant is that to the issue of second-hand smoke?" I am completely bewildered. How relevant??? I would expect everyone concerned about toxic air to be concerned about ALL sources and a fix that would include them all. As a woman I sure didn't mean to be paternalistic ;o) "I'll put my knowledge of air pollutants, both indoor and outdoor, up against Gail's any day of the week. A paternalistic attitude is not very persuasive." I didn't intend to start a contest on who knows most about pollution. Now I see Chris's email is "chaska.org," and I'm afraid he (or she?) is a chemist working for Chaska. Since I'm not an expert, I'll quote from the EPA and ask that Chris or someone interpret it for me. I can see that it involves killing a lot of lab mice, but the rest depends on knowing just how much constitutes a �g. I'm not trying to tick people off, I'm asking. Source: U.S. EPA. Office of Pesticide Programs, Registration and Classification Procedures, Part II. Federal Register 40:28279.Cancer Risk: "Increased incidence of leukemia (cancer of the tissues that form white blood cells) has been observed in humans occupationally exposed to benzene. (1,4) EPA has classified benzene as a Group A, known human carcinogen. (4) ****EPA uses mathematical models, based on human and animal studies, to estimate the probability of a person developing cancer from breathing air containing a specified concentration of a chemical. EPA calculated a range of 2.2 x 10-6 to 7.8 x 10-6 as the increase in the lifetime risk of an individual who is continuously exposed to 1 �g/m3 of benzene in the air over their lifetime. EPA estimates that, if an individual were to continuously breathe air containing benzene at an average of 0.13 to 0.45 �g/m3 (1.3 x 10-4 to 4.5 x 10-4 mg/m3) over his or her entire lifetime, that person would theoretically have no more than a one-in-a-million increased chance of developing cancer as a direct result of continuously breathing air containing this chemical. Similarly, EPA estimates that continuously breathing air containing 1.3 to 4.5 �g/m3 (1.3 x 10-3 to 4.5 x 10-3 mg/m3) would result in not greater than a one-in-a-hundred thousand increased chance of developing cancer, and air containing 13 to 45 �g/m3 (1.3 x 10-2 to 4.5 x 10-2 mg/m3) would result in not greater than a one-in-ten thousand increased chance of developing cancer. For a detailed discussion of confidence in the potency estimates, please see IRIS. (4)" So how much benzene is there in cigarette smoke? in a puff? In a smoky room? Chris said, "whether I suck the benzene and radioactive polonium-210 into my lungs by dragging on the cigarette, or if I breathe the same chemicals in the side-stream smoke coming off the end of someone else's lit cigarette, they are still cancer causing chemicals" this is certainly true, but how much? I didn't know about radioactive polonium ( when I looked THAT up I found " With its short half-life, polonium isn't easy to come by. While the Curies processed pitchblende in a cast-iron basin to get polonium, the modern method, developed in 1934, involves bombarding bismuth-209 with neutrons to get polonium-210.") How does that get into tobacco smoke? Finally, as to "Get some perspective. Not all people can devote all of their time to all of your pet issues." I don't think I listed anything insignificant enough to be called a " pet issue," and I do think the issues on this forum are ALL valid. I'm concerned about the proportion of time given to each and the division into left vs. right political factions. I don't know the political affiliations of anyone on this list, but for the record, I've never voted for a Republican. On the other hand, I wish Nelson Rockefeller were here today, which makes me a...what? Well, I guess it makes me old. All this conflict sure makes me feel old. Gail O'Hare __________________________________ 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
