Air quality tests performed in Minnesota and California in smoke-filled bars and restaurants show that secondhand smoke may not be the major health hazard that some claim it is.
The Environmental Health Department in St. Louis Park, Minn., tested for trace levels of nicotine and found results between 1 and 33 micrograms of nicotine per cubic meter of air.
The California Environmental Protection Agency tested for trace levels of nicotine in outdoor smoking areas and found (PDF) results between 0.01 and 5 micrograms of nicotine per cubic meter of air.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations specify a limit for nicotine in the air of 500 micrograms per cubic meter of air.
The California study went on to state that people who have only “brief encounters with [secondhand smoke] are likely to be exposed to less than 0.1 [micrograms per cubic meter of air]” over a 24-hour time-weighted average.
This means not only is it not going to kill you to smell smoke once in a while, it isn’t even going to have much of an effect on you.
Thanks to Marcus Aurelius of Clearing the Air for the heads-up. He went on to suggest that smoking bans might just be about increasing sales and profits for certain companies at our expense.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Bad Behavior has blocked 3590 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Nov 18, 2005
Smoking bans not about health of non-smokers - Homeland Security or Homeland Stupidity
marcus aurelius
Nov 18, 2005
Thanks for the mention, Clearing the Air has been researching the science, or lack thereof, of smoking bans for over a year now. And lately my research is exposing the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s funding of non-profits and activists who demand smoking bans.
RWJF owns $5.4 billion in Johnson & Johnson stock, J & J is the manufacturer of Nicoderm.
Bob from ALAMN
Nov 21, 2005
Look deeper, folks. Mark’s “data” is meaningless, as everyone in Minnesota already knows. OSHA has no guidelines on envronmental tobacco smoke, the “St. Louis Park study” is moot.
Bob Moffitt
Communications Director
American Lung Association of Minnesota
splot
Nov 21, 2005
*blink* That test means nothing, cuz it’s not the nicotine that damages you, it’s the tar and other chemicals. Also, what the heck is a “brief encounter”? Has the person who designed this test ever been to a bar??? The smoke is thick, there’s no “brief encounter” involved, it’s everywhere and every breath is full of it.
DrBacchus
Nov 21, 2005
My objections about smoke in dining places has far more to do with how it affects how much I enjoy my food than it does with health. When surrounded by smoke, food just doesn’t taste as good, and wine, in particular, is much more difficult to enjoy.
Michael Hampton
Nov 21, 2005
Splot, the California study was done in outdoor smoking areas, the sort that you might walk past on your way somewhere else. That’s a brief encounter, not sitting for hours in a smoky bar.
There’s clearly a public health issue of some level with smoking. I don’t think anyone doubts that. What people are still debating is the scope and severity of the issue.
Speaking of which, OSHA has a guideline for “nicotine,” not “environmental tobacco smoke.” I even linked to it for you. The two studies measured “nicotine,” not “environmental tobacco smoke.” But they drew conclusions about “environmental tobacco smoke” from the measurements of “nicotine” which simply weren’t supported by the measurements they took!
The raw data are interesting, and presumably they can be replicated, but the analysis thereof leaves a lot to be desired.
Clearly this won’t be resolved overnight, and probably won’t be resolved here. But I’m going to continue doing what I do, which is finding whatever I can and reporting on it.
Jan 01, 2006
Chicago, Washington, D.C. ban smoking - Homeland Security or Homeland Stupidity
marcus aurelius
Jun 29, 2006
I can see my nemesis ALAMN found you….sorry about that.
First OSHA has a permissible exposure limit regulating every component of secondhand smoke. Benzene, formaldehyde, nicotine whatever. So OSHA regulations do regulate secondhand smoke concentrations. Further the OSHA regulations are the SAFE level for 8 hours per day 40 hours per week.
Finally the new American Cancer Society testing shows secondhand smoke is up to 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA regulations. And let’s remember OSHA pels cover the health and safety of all employees in a legally operated business.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2004/04/american-cancer-society-test-results.html
Thanks for digging up that old post Michael. I had forgotten about it, “Why pay for advertising” that is.
Michael Hampton
Jun 29, 2006
And the American Cancer Society are, not coincidentally, the ones screaming that secondhand smoke will kill if you’re within ten miles of it.
marcus aurelius
Jun 29, 2006
All these pro-smoking ban organizations which conducted these air quality studies wish they could put this genie back into the bottle…..but it’s too late. The more media sites like yours expose the ACS study the more likely the public will see the facts. God knows the mainstream media won’t cover them.
marcus aurelius
Sep 07, 2006
By the way, for those like Bob at the ALAMN and other activists who claim that OSHA doesn’t have a permissible exposure limit (pel) for environmental tobacco smoke as a whole, that argument is a canard. OSHA also doesn’t have a (pel) for welding smoke as a whole either…..but it regulates exposure levels to welding smoke in factories by testing for the individual components like nickel or chromium, in the same manner secondhand smoke levels are measured by testing for specific components like nicotine and the compared to the OSHA (pel)….and thus found safe.
Jan 12, 2007
Environmental Toxins
Ed Werstein
Nov 20, 2007
Safety, while I have my doubts that second hand smoke is harmless, is not the only issue. Smoking stinks! Everyone who doesn’t smoke knows it. Everyone who does smoke is oblivious to the fact that they reek, and that the smmoke they blow into the atmosphere is unavoidable to bystanders, fouling our clothes and our olfactory nerves. This is reason enough to ban the practice in public, the safety issue notwithstanding. As a society we do not allow folks to piss in public, but by contrast the ill-effects of that would be much easier to avoid.
Paul McPherson
Feb 10, 2008
Hello people my name is Paul McPherson and I have lung cancer from smoking tobacco I want everybody here to know that tobacco is a dangerous drug I quit to late, I also want people to know how safe marijuana is when I was in high school I used to smoke pot every week I quit during college and it was very easy to quit but tobacco bit me in the ass when I tried to quit, I tried to quit 13 different times before I did. I want everyone here to know that marijuana is safe because when you truly want to quit you can but tobacco is almost impossible to quit. I have about 3 months to live but before I die I want everybody to know that you should stay away from tobacco and vote for Ron Paul for president because hes pro hemp instead of pro tobacco.
r1ckyr4y
Apr 19, 2010
You people are sheep.
Oct 30, 2010
The Real Party of No « Rogue Operator