Another BMJ published air quality test measuring for secondhand smoke, co-authored by James Repace, shows no hazardThis air quality testing of secondhand smoke concentrations is published in the British Medical Journal and is co-authored by none other than pro-smoking ban activist James Repace.
The problem for these authors is that they didn't stop to analyze what the airborne nicotine readings they obtained meant.
Their results as published, cited, and peer reviewed in the BMJ are as follows:
There was an 83% reduction in air nicotine concentrations from median 35.5 µg (microgram) /m3 to 5.95 µg (microgram)/m3 (p <>
At baseline, three bars (16%) were below the 6.8 µg (microgram)/m3 air nicotine .......... at follow up this increased to 10 (microgram) (53%).
Again, reminding readers that OSHA has a permissible exposure limit (PEL) for airborne nicotine of 0.5 milligrams (mg) / m3. (0.5 mg (milligram)/m3 = 500 ug (micrograms) /m3). OSHA PEL's are the safe acceptable level of exposure for an 8 hour day / 40 hour per week time period.
So 500 ug divided by 35.5 ug = 14.08 times SAFER than OSHA regulations
And 500 ug divided by 5.95 ug = 84.03 times SAFER than OSHA regulations
While 500 ug divided by 10 ug = 50 times SAFER than OSHA regulations
Thus once again, air quality testing of secondhand smoke concentrations proves that secondhand smoke IS NOT a health hazard.
Thank you Mr Repace, BMJ and others for making my point over and over. Science is certainly not on the side of the pro-smoking ban movement.