Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Secondhand smoke air quality test results measuring nicotine cited by the British Medical Journal.....proves secondhand smoke is not a health hazard

Clearing the Air has uncovered a secondhand smoke AQ test result published by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) which not only used the same methodolgy as the St. Louis Park Environmental Health Department, and Roswell Park / American Cancer Society which I always use in testimony........but the results prove that secondhand smoke concentrations are 2.6 - 5,000 times SAFER than OSHA indoor air quality standards require for secondhand smoke.

The methodology used was to measure for the marker chemical nicotine which as scientists around the globe have stated:

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 and indoor air quality, 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.

And the BMJ test results which ranged from 0.1 - 192 micrograms (ug) / cu. M, are actually 2.6 - 5,000 times SAFER than OSHA indoor air quality permissible exposure limits (PEL) for the secondhand smoke component -nicotine.

The OSHA safe level of exposure for nicotine for an 8 hour day, 40 hour week time period is 0.5 milligrams (mg) / cu. M; which is the equivalent of 500 micrograms (ug) / cu. M.

Checking the math:

500 ug divided by 192 ug = SHS AQ test results are 2.6 times SAFER than OSHA air quality regulations.


500 ug divided by 0.1 ug = SHS AQ test results are 5,000 times SAFER than OSHA air quality regulations.

The significance to this find is that pro-smoking ban advocates, particularly in the medical community tried to claim that our earlier AQ results (which proved secondhand smoke was 15 - 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA regulations) were invalid because they were not published or peer however, the identical secondhand smoke air quality test results are not only peer reviewed and published.......but published by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) no less.

Clearly now, we can battle and reverse the exaggerated and fabricated claims made by pro-smoking ban activists.......using their own data.

(BMJ test results are also backed up on our servers here.)

Important note:

The pro-smoking ban activists will claim ".....OSHA doesn't have a standard (permissible exposure limit) for secondhand smoke."

The proper response is that ".....OSHA is much more scientific than our detractors claim, OSHA has a permissible exposure limit (PEL) for all the components of secondhand smoke"

Example: OSHA doesn't have a PEL for welding smoke.......but OSHA regulates welding smoke levels in the workplace by measuring the individual airborne chemical components of welding smoke and then compares the results to individual established PEL's.

See OSHA table:

If you have any questions email me from the "view my complete profile link" at upper right.

Also visit our sponsors at bottom of webpage
  • Why a Non-Smoker Fights the Pro-Smoking Ban Lies
  • Is RWJF, a 501(c)3, violating IRS rules by funding pro-smoking ban lobbyists?
  • RWJF funds and promotes universal healthcare policies which are the basis for and primary objective of Obamacare
  • Boycott these special interests (J & J) who destroyed the hospitality industry & jobs
  • Is the smoking ban movement fueled by pharmaceutical nicotine interests?
  • Now that smoking bans have been implemented, what can be done?
  • How do smoking ban lobbyists profit from smoking bans?
  • Pharmaceutical interests project the alternative nicotine marketplace to be $4.6 billion +
  • WHO report secondhand smoke doesn't cause cancer
  • Do smoker's cost society more money than non-smoker's? NO
  • Do smoker's cost society more money than non-smoker's? Part 2
  • Why does UCSF researcher Stanton Glantz support smoking bans?
  • OSHA standards prove SHS is not a health hazard
  • Tired of the nanny-state, big, socialized, corrupt, government legislation coming out of our state and federal capitols these days? Vote Republican in November 2010 & 2012

    Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11


    "Though we may not be able to protect your business property rights, we certainly support your Second Amendment Rights"

    Shop for Aircleaners

    Combustion Engine Emissions Eliminator (CE3)