Air Filtration Systems Do Not Effectively Protect Workers from Second-hand Smoke [03/25/04]

Air Filtration Systems Do Not Effectively Protect Workers from Second-hand Smoke [03/25-2]

Excerpts from: Keep smoking ban, proponents plea

By JESSICA BLOUSTEIN Legislative Gazette [03/22/04]

The fight for the preservation of New York’s smoking bans continued last week as those in favor of the laws produced evidence that “air-filtration” devices are not effective in protecting non-smoking patrons and employees from second-hand smoke.

To protect the smoking bans and to prevent such a proposal from reaching the Assembly, Assemblyman Alexander B. “Pete” Grannis, D,WF-Manhattan, sought to prove that an air-filtration system would be inadequate in protecting the health of bar patrons and employees to the degree that a smoking ban has been effective.

“The existing law protects all workers without having to install expensive machines that do not work,” said Grannis’ spokeswoman Julie Canfield.

The industry has received the attention of some lawmakers, as legislation to allow smoking in facilities equipped with machines approved by the Department of Health recently was introduced in the Senate and referred to its health committee for review.

To make his case, Grannis commissioned James Repace, a health physicist and international consultant on second-hand smoke, to present the results of a study he conducted comparing the efficiency of air-filtration devices in reducing the threat of second-hand smoke in bars to the efficiency of smoking bans.
Repace found that the smoking bans reduced indoor air pollution – including carcinogen levels and fine air pollution levels – by 90 to 95 percent in both Wilmington, Del., and Boston, Mass.

Measuring the efficiency levels of an air ventilation system at the Black Dog Pub in Ontario, Repace found that the ventilation rate – which in a previous study conducted by a consultant to the tobacco industry was found to be adequate in dissolving the threat of second-hand smoke – was not sufficient and kept the risk of material impairment of health well above the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s significant risk level.

Repace discovered that the rate of ventilation necessary to duck under the risk level would require 100,000 air changes per hour, which would create gale-force winds equivalent to the wind power of a tornado.

He cited three reasons why air-filtration systems would not be a safe option, based on the results of his study. First, an air-ventilation or cleaning device cannot possibly reduce the health risk to an individual standing between a smoker and the air machine. Repace argued that employees undoubtedly will find themselves in this position while trying to service smokers, and the machines will not protect them.

Secondly, he pointed out that ventilation and filtration machines are capable only of purifying the air that enters the machine. In the meantime, air that does not enter the machine right away will be carrying the toxic gases and particles of smoke and second-hand smoke will remain a threat to employees and patrons. Additionally, smokers will be continually lighting fresh cigarettes, constantly adding more pollution to the atmosphere of the room.

His third reason follows the second, as he argued that ventilation and filtration machines are capable only of a finite amount of air changes per hour [eight to 12]. To keep the air smoke free to an acceptable level, accounting for the constant rate of smoking and the number of people in one space, one would have to install 12,500 machines in one bar - an endeavor both financially and physically unsound.

Repace concluded smoking bans work and the tobacco industry’s proposal will not.

“There is only one practical way to protect workers and nonsmoking patrons from the poisons in second-hand smoke,” he said. “Fortunately, it is also the least expensive. Prohibit smoking in the workplace.”

Grannis’ and Repace’s effort received the support of the Center for a Tobacco Free New York, the American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society, the Health Plan Association, the Medical Society of the State of New York and the New York Public Interest Group. Representatives of these groups stood with Repace as he presented his results and conclusion at a press conference.

Presented as a public service by Action on Smoking and Health (ASH),
2013 H Street, N.W., Wash., DC 20006, USA, (202) 659-4310.
ASH is a 36-year-old national legal-action antismoking and nonsmokers' rights organization which is entirely supported by tax-deductible contributions.
Please credit ASH, and include ASH's web address: http://ash.org

Raising Smoking in a Custody Dispute	Smoking in Condos and Apartments	File Complaints Against Smoking	Toxins in Tobacco Smoke	Dangers of Secondhand Smoke	Govt. Rpt. on Secondhand Smoke
Tobacco Class-Action Law Suits	Sue-Big-Tobacco List of Lawyers	Tobacco Settlement, Multistate	ASH's New International Site	Smoking Facts & Statistics	Children and Smoking