On Jul 28, 2004, at 9:38 AM, Michael Atherton <MA> wrote:
<MA> First of all, I think that there is a lot of confusion in your post between ventilation systems for entire bars and restaurants and those for limited confined areas.
<AR> Nah, I am pretty sure I am not confused here at all. HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning) systems in buildings replace air four to six times an hour on average. These systems recirculate the air throughout the whole building to even out the temperature, which is, of course, the primary function of the system. That is not a lot of air exchanges per hour when people continue to detract from the air quality by continuing to smoke. In fact, I would argue that the air quality probably continues to decrease within all areas of those buildings during the prime smoking hours of those establishments.
If you are going to require a whole separate HVAC system for these individual rooms, that would mean two separate heaters, two separate air conditioners, and two sets of separate duct systems. Most buildings are not set up for this type of space requirement, not to mention the cost of both installation and operation of these separate systems. If you are thinking that simply sticking some hole in the wall with a fan attached to it to remove the smoke from that small room is going to work, that is what I was disproving in my previous post. Even if you put a sophisticated filtration system within that particular room, it would still require the equivalent of 100,000 air exchanges within an hour to clean up the particulate matter. That basically makes it the outside.
<MA> Neither ban advocates or opponents can make strong cases for the dangers of second hand smoke, there is simply not enough evidence at this point in time.
<AR> I can. As I posted earlier, a new study has come out within the last month in the British Medical Journal showing the link between very small amounts of secondhand smoke exposure and increased risk of heart disease. Again, this is a very respected medical journal on par with New England Journal of Medicine. The survey took place over 20 years and studied more than 4,700 people, and has a confidence level of 95%, which is the medical study equivalent of a slam dunk. The study showed that even small amounts of exposure to secondhand smoke can increase your risk for heart disease by as much as 60%. That is a very large number that should frighten people. The link: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7459/200
Besides, it is another issue as to what levels are hazardous. If as you claim, purification technology will never be able to remove all contaminates, then there are dangers associated with cooking that will put employees and costumers at risk.
The by-products of cooking are not generally lead, arsenic, nicotine, tar and radioactive polonium-210.
<MA> I think that this is really a reach. Suppose we assume that there is a risk from particulate matter generated by cigarettes, there is no evidence that it is a health risk and even more importantly the current ordinances would do nothing to protect against it even if there were.
<AR> Perhaps I wasn't clear here. This was my supposition section. All I was trying too point out was that just because you can no longer smell it, doesn't mean it still isn't harmful. And you are right, it may be a reach. Personally, I think that now that money is being spent to study secondhand smoke and not just smoking in general, we will find out that the residual smoke left behind is also harmful. Time will tell on this one.
<MA> Before going out on a limb, based on my own knowledge of physics, I consulted with an MIT Ph.D. whose area of expertise is chemical engineering and plant-wide control. She stated that Smoking Rooms are entirely practical (okay, so she's my wife, but I can guarantee you that it has no influence on her professional judgment). The physics behind the concept of Smoking Rooms is so simple that it could be tested as part of a high school science fair project. But there's no need, Smoking Rooms are already in use in Vancouver, BC. Someone just needs to ask how well they work there. One St. Paul council member has already said that to their knowledge they work fine.
<AR> The physics behind smoking rooms has been studied, and they do not work. See above.
While I was searching for information on Vancouver, I came across this tidbit from the Health Canada site: "Ventilation systems in homes and workplaces were never designed to remove smoke. Their main purposes are to limit the accumulation of carbon dioxide, which we exhale, and to keep odors down. At an average ventilation rate of one air exchange per hour, it takes three hours to remove 95 per cent of the smoke from a single cigarette -- and the remaining five per cent can still be harmful." That is the effect of ONE cigarette. I wonder how many cigarettes are smoked on average in the typical bar during the evening? The link: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/tobacco/facts/smoke_eyes.html
Andrew Reineman Linden Hills
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
