Andrew Reineman wrote: > <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.
Okay, enough of this theoretical quibbling. I contacted the Vancouver Health Department and checked the city's ordinance. Their Smoking Rooms are required to have completely separate heating, cooling, and ventilation systems. These rooms are required to maintain negative air pressure and at least 6 air exchanges per hour. Smoking Rooms are only permitted in bars, not restaurants. Some bars have installed Smoking Rooms, others have not. Recently, some bar owners went to the city council to request that the maximum size of Smoking Rooms be increased, which indicates that the cost of such rooms is with profitability and that there is a demand for them. There is no longer any general controversy about Smoking Rooms in Vancouver, most everyone is generally satisfied with how the situation has worked out. Which says a lot to me about Canadian congeniality. > > <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 Citing this study illustrates why statistics should be required in high school. There are a number of problems in using this study in a discussion of whether to regulate second hand smoking in bar and restaurants. First, it is a correctional study and no claim can be made as to causality. Second, they looked at the relation between second hand smoke exposure to subjects with "partners" who smoked not second-hand smoke exposure in bars and restaurants. Third, this study was done in Great Britain, not the U.S. Fourth, the authors reported that some of the subjects may have been smoking themselves when they claimed not to be. All of these facts, illustrate why replication and the avoidance of over-generalizing results are important considerations in science. REGARDLESS, my arguments for individual rights and Smoking Rooms have never been based on the lack of health risks. I will readily concede that second-hand smoke may be hazardous. My proposal is based on the position that Smoking Rooms protect non-smokers from significant risks, WHICH, by-the-way, the current ordinance does not. > 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? This point is irrelevant. I think that it is clear (no pun intended) that smokers will realize that Smoking Room are not designed to protect their health and if they don't we can place warning signs on the doors. Michael Atherton Prospect Park 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
