New St. Louis AQ study published by Washington University proves once again shs is not a workplace health hazard
September 10, 2010
The test results prove secondhand smoke levels in St. Louis MO. establishments tested are 110 to 877 times SAFER than OSHA workplace air quality requirements.
(See test result document at bottom of page)
Airborne nicotine levels ranged from 0.015 to 25.14 ug/m3. The median (interquartile range) airborne nicotine levels in venues that allowed smoking was 2.83 μg/m3 (0.57-4.56 μg/m3)
The information that interests us are the AQ test results of airborne nicotine in the smoking venues 0.57 to 4.56 (micrograms) ug/m3
Why do experts measure the trace chemical nicotine in secondhand smoke?
Nicotine is the only unique or “trace” chemical in secondhand smoke. If you measured for formaldehyde, the carpet and other interior sources of formaldehyde would corrupt the test result, formaldehyde is formed naturally in our atmosphere due to photochemical oxidation. Benzene is given off from burning foods in the kitchen or diesel exhaust outdoors so again a false reading would be obtained. Therefore, nicotine is the ideal chemical to measure to determine secondhand smoke concentrations in the air. And then our comparison to OSHA guidelines is the logical manner in which to determine if secondhand smoke levels pose a health hazard, as you can see, according to OSHA, the authority on workplace safety, they do not. If you wanted you could measure every airborne chemical in secondhand smoke and then compare them to OSHA guidelines for each specific chemical, the results would be the same, if not more dramatic.
The OSHA permissible exposure limit for nicotine is 0.5 (milligrams) mg/m3 or 500 (micrograms) ug/m3, (full OSHA table can be found here) so now let’s do the math:
500 (OSHA safe level) divided by 0.57 = shs levels are 877.19 times SAFER than OHSA permissible exposure limits
500 (OSHA safe level) divided by median 2.83 = shs levels are 176.68 times SAFER than OHSA permissible exposure limits
500 (OSHA safe level) divided by 4.56 = shs levels are 109.65 times SAFER than OHSA permissible exposure limits
None of the secondhand smoke air quality readings represent a workplace health hazard as you can see above.
And the test results by Washington U are very similar to all the AQ testing conducted globally in recent years.
Thank you Washington University for proving our point once again…..secondhand smoke is not a workplace health hazard, and doesn’t require government legislation. Especially in light of the fact that smoking bans eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs:
Final note, the paper’s first sentence claims “there is no known safe level of secondhand smoke exposure”, obviously that is a false statement as we’ve just demonstrated above.
IPCPR Says ‘Show Me’ Missourians Won’t be Pressured into Smoking Bans
St. Louis, Missouri February 12, 2009 – The ‘Show-Me’ state is showing it won’t be pressured by anti-smoking activists into legislating unnecessary smoking bans, according to the International Premium Cigar and Pipe Retailers Association.
While some city, county and state legislators may be revisiting the possibility of new smoking bans in Missouri, smokers and non-smokers alike have been voicing their opposition to forced smoking bans, especially in places where children are not allowed or adults have an option to go elsewhere.
“The marketplace is deciding what businesses should allow smoking or not, and that’s the way it should be. Government shouldn’t be taking away the rights of business owners to run their enterprises as the market dictates, not big government” said Chris McCalla, legislative director of the IPCPR.
McCalla cited a 2007 survey by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services that showed only 13 percent of the state’s adults avoided restaurants where smoking is allowed.
“That means there are plenty of restaurants that already have declared themselves smoke-free, so there’s no need to take away the rights of other business owners by forcing them to ban smoking on their premises,” he said.
When anti-tobacco activists make overstated claims regarding the health aspects of incidental secondhand smoke, McCalla points to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as well as the Surgeon General.
“OSHA – our federal government’s watchdog agency over the health and safety of workers – puts the alleged health aspects of incidental secondhand smoke into perspective when it sets safe limits well outside of the range one would find in a typical bar or restaurant, for example” McCalla said. “And the Surgeon General’s report says more than 100 times that evidence of the health aspects of incidental secondhand smoke is ‘inconclusive.’”
McCalla cited the Federal Reserve Bank and the Bureau of Labor Statistics regarding the proven negative effects on businesses from legislated smoking bans.
“The Fed has found that, based on impartial data generated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, significant employment declines result from forced smoking bans, especially in bars and restaurants,” he said.
McCalla explained his groups’ interest in issues dealing with legislated smoking bans.
“The IPCPR is a group of some 2,000 retailers, manufacturers and distributors of premium cigars, pipes and related items. Most of them are mom-and-pop operators – small business owners whose neighborhood businesses serve their respective communities.?? They have every right to sell their legal products and to allow their customers to enjoy those products on premise and off,” McCalla said.
Casino revenue up 12 percent in May, thanks to extra weekend?
By Tim Logan, ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
Local casino revenue spiked in May, according to figures out this week from Missouri and Illinois gambling regulators.
Gamblers at St. Louis-area casinos spent $93.8 million for the month, nearly 12 percent more than the same period last year, a figure likely boosted by the fact that this May had five weekends.
The growth was driven by two casinos: Lumi?re Place, the new facility in downtown St. Louis, was not yet open last May but this May had $15.3 million in business, its best month yet. And Ameristar Casino in St. Charles, the region’s biggest, saw revenue jump nearly 8 percent to $27.3 million.
Every other casino lost money from the same period last year, continuing a trend that has held steady since Lumi?re opened in December and the Illinois smoking ban took effect in January.
Clearing the Haze? New Evidence on the Economic Impact of Smoking Bans
By Michael R. Pakko
Several papers have examined the cost of smoke-free laws on the gambling business, using data from slot machine revenue at Delaware racetracks (“racinos”). 2 Recent economic research finds conclusive evidence of revenue declines at the racinos after the Delaware Clean Indoor Air Law took effect in December 2002.
Two papers, one by Ryan Phelps and the other by Scott Adams and Chad Cotti, have used data available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to examine the employment effects of smoking bans. Using nationwide county-level data, these two studies examine the changes in employment at bars and restaurants after communities adopt smoking bans. Neither study finds significant employment changes at restaurants, on average, but both find statistically significant employment declines at bars, with loss estimates ranging from 4 percent to 16 percent.
Another recent economic study examines taxable sales receipts of bars and restaurants in California, the home of the smoke-free movement. Because California communities passed some of the nation’s first smoke-free laws, much of the early evidence on the subject was based on these data on California taxable sales receipts; as time has passed, those data have accumulated. The experience of California also provides a case in which a statewide smoking ban was superimposed on a patchwork of local smoke-free laws, providing useful variation in the coverage and jurisdiction of smoking bans that can be exploited in empirical analysis.
Economic effects of smoke-free laws may be difficult to identify and interpret, but analysis suggests that at least some businesses do suffer costs. When they consider passing smoking bans, policymakers should study evidence both from public health professionals and from economists.
Since January 2007, all bars and restaurants in Columbia, Mo., have been required to be smoke-free. Only some sections of outdoor patios are exempt from the requirement.
1.?Scollo et al. (2003) provide a review of previous literature, much of which has been published in medical and public health journals.
2.?Previous studies of the Delaware racino case study have been published?and disputed?in the public health journal Tobacco Control.
3.?See Pakko (forthcoming).
4.?See Dover Downs (2004).
5.?Bar employment was not significantly affected by climate differences.
6.?See Pakko (2007).
7.?See Solberg (2007).
Adams, Scott; and Cotti, Chad D. “The Effect of Smoking Bans on Bars and Restaurants: An Analysis of Changes in Employment.” The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy: Vol. 7, Issue 1, Contributions, Article 12. See www.bepress.com/bejeap/vol7/iss1/art12.
My page http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/? is designed to serve as a resource of economic studies and media reports which prove bans hurt business. To my knowledge, http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/economic.html is the best collection in the world for studies (including the one I did with Mike Mcfadden) to prove the economic impact is real. On my main page i also critiqued the Maryville MO study which claimed bans do not harm business and accumulated some data showing the Pueblo CO ban hurt business.?
For an analysis of the purported health benefit a Columbia Missouri smoking ban would have on the health of hospitality workers, please visit http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7239/0/c? which reports each 1% drop in income is associated with 21 more premature deaths per 100,000 persons in the USA each year. An estimated 5% drop in real buying dollars in Columbia, MO post-ban for example, would cause 5 x 21 = 105 more deaths per 100,000 bar and restaurant employees in those Columbia establishments serving liquor each year.? For a comparison, the antismoking establishment claims secondhand smoke causes 53,000 premature deaths each year in the USA among 200 million adults. This works out to 26 deaths per 100,000 persons each year. If all this is true, then the Columbia ban causes 4 times more premature deaths each year among hospitality workers, than the secondhand smoke was claimed to be causing pre-ban .
Smoking bans have negative impact on bottom line
Adam Allington, KWMU
Mo. Study: Smoking Ban Hurts Business
By JIM SALTER Associated Press Writer
January 23, 2008
ST. LOUIS — Familiar faces are missing at Betty Hamilton’s bar in Columbia.
The Tiger Club clientele is largely blue-collar workers middle-aged and older. Until January 2007, many of them smoked. But in the year since the mid-Missouri town banned smoking in most public places, business has decreased nearly one-third, Hamilton said Wednesday.
That’s no surprise to economist Michael R. Pakko of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, whose recent study showed that while towns like Columbia may see health benefits from smoking bans, the economic impact can be detrimental.
“All too often policy makers are given this package of smoking bans are good for health and there is no impact on business,” Pakko said in a telephone interview. “Certainly it’s not going to cause a town to go into the tank, but it will have a negative impact on some businesses.”
Pakko’s report appears in the January issue of The Regional Economist, a periodical of the St. Louis Fed.
The smoking bans are hardest on bars, Pakko said. He cited two studies showing both job losses and lost revenue due to the bans.
Bars and restaurants in states like Missouri with a high percentage of smokers are hit harder by smoking bans. Their employment losses tend to be significantly larger, Pakko said.
Climate is also a factor, according to his study _ establishments in warm-weather communities with smoking bans fared better than those in colder climates, probably because outdoor seating for smokers is a more viable option in warmer climates.
Pakko looked specifically at Columbia, where the city council banned smoking in most public areas effective Jan. 9, 2007. He examined sales tax data for the first seven months after the ban and estimated that sales declined 5 percent at bars and restaurants.
Pakko said his study took into account factors such as seasonal fluctuations, an overall downturn in retail sales and an unusually harsh winter.
Mayor Darwin Hindman characterized the ban as a big success. He blamed the failure of some establishments _ more than a dozen bars and restaurants have closed in the past year _ on a recent glut of new restaurants.
“When you have a change, whether it be a market change or regulatory change, some people adjust better than others,” Hindman said.
The council’s 4-3 vote in favor of the ban came after a committee of health experts suggested it.
“I’m firmly convinced in my own mind that there is an extreme health issue related to second-hand smoke,” Hindman said. “I believe the benefits are enormous and the restaurants are going to do fine in Columbia.”
Hamilton said her bar will survive, but business isn’t what it used to be.
“I haven’t seen some of my regulars in forever,” Hamilton, 47, said. “They go out to bars in the county, where they can smoke.”
By David Nicklaus, ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
The Research of David Kuneman