Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Peer reviewed and BMJ published secondhand smoke test results confirm there is NO workplace air quality hazard

The British Medical Journal published results shown here, were conducted using methodology which measured for the marker airborne chemical nicotine which in turn indicates the total airborne concentration of secondhand smoke present, and 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.

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.
(partial OSHA permissible exposure limit table)

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 BMJ results of 192 ug = SHS AQ test results are 2.6 times SAFER than OSHA air quality regulations.

500 ug divided by BMJ results of 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 reviewed........now 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.

Update: In a separate BMJ published test result which measured secondhand smoke levels near smoking rooms in U.S. airports comes an even more dramatic example of just how exaggerated secondhand smoke health hazard claims are.

The airport test results shown here, indicate that secondhand smoke concentrations as determined by measuring the marker chemical nicotine, averaged 0.15 ug (micrograms) / m3 (cubic meter), 0.46 ug/m3, and 0.72 ug / m3.

However since the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) permissible exposure limit (PEL) for nicotine is 0.5 mg (milligram) / m3, same as 500 ug (micrograms) / m3 (8 hours/ day. 40 hours/ week); the results tell us that secondhand smoke levels near airport smoking rooms were 694 - 3,333 times SAFER than OSHA regulations.

500 divided by 0.15 = 3,333
500 divided by 0.46 = 1,087
500 divided by 0.72 = 694

Does that sound like a health hazard to you?

Looking at all these air quality test results provided by pro-smoking ban groups it is apparent that there is a concerted effort to deceive lawmakers and the general public about the facts.......perhaps there is an underlying agenda.

Numerous other air quality test results at link below confirm the data above:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2010/10/air-quality-testing-of-secondhand-smoke.html


How does secondhand smoke in the workplace compare to welding smoke in the workplace? Why the double standard?

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/03/double-standard-welding-smoke-vs.html

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
  • NRA.org

    Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

    SILVER BULLET GUN OIL CONTAINS 13% USDA LIQUEFIED PIG
FAT

    "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)