I can't recall that paper but I will go back to the old thread and find it.
I'm not convinced that a smoking room would violate air quality standards. In the example of carbon monoxide I gave in post #106 showed that CO levels in smoky environments did not exceed EPA safe levels.
The paper specifically measured respirable particles, which are particles small enough to get into the lungs and bloodstream and cause health problems due to sort of mechanical/local effects, which includes chronic bronchitis and cancer. Of course there are many, many more substances in second-hand smoke, many of which are carcinogens. Many of those substances, such as carbon monoxide, can also be fairly easily measured to determine whether they are sufficient to pose a health risk. Now, because second-hand smoke tends to fail the respirable particles test, the rest don't really matter. But conversely, just because second-hand smoke passes some of the tests, doesn't mean that it is safe. Even if it passed the tests for CO, nicotine, respirable particles, formaldehyde, benzene, etc. you still have to deal with the problem that there are many other carcinogens present - some of which we've identified and some where we have a decent idea about safety thresholds, but some that we haven't. We can't simply use ignorance to set safety levels ("what you don't know won't hurt you") because we already know that cigarette smoke causes cancer. This is, it's not a case of assuming everything is harmful until proven otherwise, but of dealing with something which is proven harmful. We can try to use epidemiological studies to get some idea about the dose which is associated with harm. And even if you want to argue about whether we are confident that the studies are adequate to prove a specific level of harm, it is unarguable that they do not prove that typical doses are safe.
However, most of this is moot, since indoor smoking usually fails at least one of the more straightforward standards anyway.
Then there is the question of 'safe levels', how they are set, and for whom?
Well, if you are truly ignorant of this process, you could spend some time reviewing the reports from various boards charged with health and safety. I gave a link earlier to the Report on Carcinogens. If you click on any of the substances, you can read through the summary which answers those questions (and much more) for each substance, as well as providing references to the available research. You can usually find reports from similar departments in other countries. The results are much the same, since the same information will be used.
Why should the standard be the same for everyone? Fluoride is added to water in some parts of the world, despite the fact that some people are more sensitive to fluoride than others. Fluoride is a powerful toxin and yet it is still added to drinking water, albeit in small amounts. Perhaps that example is a straw man, but I think it illustrates an inherent hypocrisy in trusting the authorities to advise on the safe level of fluoride for everyone, and yet in the same breath accept the words of the US Surgeon General Richard H Carmona when in 2006 he said "there is no risk free level of exposure to secondhand smoke". Presumably, by the same logic, there is no risk free level of exposure to any chemical, including fluoride, because everything is toxic in sufficient quantities.
No, that's not it. It should be obvious that the information we have on a single substance is much more exact than what we have on dozens to hundreds of substances which are present in second-hand smoke which vary widely according growing, manufacturing, and presentation conditions. The information we have is simply inadequate to tell us what the risk-free level of exposure is for that particular conglomeration of substances. And it behooves us to have excellent information on fluoride because we are interested in using it. There is little incentive to gather excellent information on cigarette smoke at this point, as outside of addicts and those who profit from them, there really is no interest in accommodating its use. The most useful information to have is how to mitigate its harm.
But in that case, why not let existing legislation (over here the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH)) deal with that? There's no need to make it illegal for employers from providing indoor space for smokers in order to control air quality because we already have powers to ensure workplace air quality standards. If an employee complains, then the COSHH will mean that the employer has to get the air quality tested. If he fails then he closes his smoking room.
Like I said, I have no problem with that. But assuming that you aren't only looking for a victory on principles, that you would also like a place to go and smoke, that the end result will still be the employer closing her/his smoking room means you haven't gone anywhere.
Linda
