Is It the Smoke or the Smoking?

In yesterday's discussion of smoking bans, a few commenters wondered why improved ventilation is not a viable alternative. In his 2006 report on secondhand smoke, then-Surgeon General Richard Carmona insisted that smoking bans are the only acceptable option (even while denying that he was making any policy recommendations). But around the time that Carmona's report came out, a paper commissioned by the American Gaming Association concluded that ventilation systems can give smoker-friendly casinos air quality at least as good as the air quality outdoors or inside smoke-free office buildings. The main example cited by the report is the Bellagio, where tests in 1999 and 2005 found levels of respirable suspended particles and gases associated with tobacco smoke similar to those outside the casino.

Casinos (which, as the report notes, may soon be the last remaining businesses in the U.S. where smoking is permitted) obviously have an interest in convincing legislators that ventilation makes bans unnecessary. But if these results hold up, they will present an interesting test of the motives underlying anti-smoking ordinances. Will supporters of these laws be satisfied by demonstrably clean air quality, or will they switch to the argument that smoking bans improve "public health" by encouraging smokers to quit or by preventing them from setting a bad example for the kids?

A similar question was raised by California's ban, which is officially a workplace safety measure. It ostensibly allows bars and restaurants to create separately ventilated rooms for smokers, as long as employees don't have to enter them. Last I heard, state regulators had failed to create standards for such rooms, so in practice they remain illegal.

The Bellagio ventilation system sounds expensive to install and operate, but something similar might still make economic sense not just for casinos but for smaller businesses as well. I recall a small tobacconist's lounge in New York where the air seemed fresh and clean despite half a dozen guys puffing away on cigars, thanks to a ventilation system that immediately whisked the smoke away. I suspect the air quality was better in that smokers' lounge than it was on the street outside.

A PDF of the AGA report is available here. NYC CLASH (a smokers' rights group) discusses ventilation here. Ventilation champion Mark Wernimont holds forth here.

[Thanks to Bill Hannegan for the tip.]

Comments

Ralphy | September 20, 2007, 5:53pm | #

This is silly. I've been to the Bellagio several times. If you're walking around, the air seems fine, but if you happen to sit next to a smoker or a group of smokers, no ventilation system in the world is going to prevent you from reeking of tobacco...

SIV | September 20, 2007, 5:53pm | #

Is It the Smoke or the Smoking?

The smoking

This is all morality and prohibition not science and public health.

I thought everyone here would be aware of that
but today's generation of "libertarians" never cease to amaze me.

semm | September 20, 2007, 5:57pm | #

This is silly. I've been to the Bellagio several times. If you're walking around, the air seems fine, but if you happen to sit next to a smoker or a group of smokers, no ventilation system in the world is going to prevent you from reeking of tobacco...

Sooo....don't sit/stand right next to a smoker?

CoveAxe | September 20, 2007, 5:57pm | #

I'm hoping that they switch to the "public health" argument. At least with that, you could easily show how retarded it is by going a step further by insisting that alcohol poses as great or greater public threat than smoking.

JMR | September 20, 2007, 6:11pm | #

Casinos (which, as the report notes, may soon be the last remaining businesses in the U.S. where smoking is permitted)

Revenues at Atlantic City casinos have been dropping in the wake of a partial smoking ban, while many continue the fight for a full ban.

VM | September 20, 2007, 6:15pm | #

Hr. Kovacs -

traditionally "public health" arguments have focused on air and water borne contaminants, so the alcohol probably wouldn't be a good analogy.

In that case, Semm's advice seems to be the best one.

Plus, smoke is the least of your worries if you wanna gamble all night. There's a reason those casinos exist!

Or: consumers have to weigh their options - gamble and potentially get some smoke (not to mention the eye sores from the bad work and overly-enthusiastic collagen injections they'll see) or not gamble.

Would a casino try a voluntary test case with smoking and non smoking sections?

Tell ya what: instead of the government telling us what to do when we voluntarily go to other establishments populated by others, voluntarily, maybe we could ban the government from certain behaviors that appear to be addictive to governmenting... uh... thingy. See how they like it.

("tobacco.org" really doesn't seem like the best of sources, btw)

Nephilium | September 20, 2007, 6:19pm | #

CoveAxe: Do not give them any reason to go after alcohol... The nanny staters are already attacking it... I do not want a federally mandated serving amount... I do not want to be limited to purchasing only one drink in a bar so that I am not counted as a binge drinker.

I stand by my drunken brethren and scream that small laws are pieced together into large tyrannies.

Nephilium... (Ohhh... Neph has a clicky name... where could that go? Maybe to a poster that explains the small laws statement...)

JMR | September 20, 2007, 6:20pm | #

Would a casino try a voluntary test case with smoking and non smoking sections?

Casinos in Atlantic City have done that for years; of course that's not good enough for the health busybodies.

VM | September 20, 2007, 6:24pm | #

see - that's the problem! JMR nails it! Why the hell would the busybodies mess with that arrangement?????????

With the smoking and non smoking sections, that should cover all the bases - there shouldn't be a problem. That's a great solution.

Argh. I'm really pissed now.

*aggressively takes bite out of sno-cone

J sub D | September 20, 2007, 6:34pm | #

Casinos in Atlantic City have done that for years; of course that's not good enough for the health busybodies.

Of course not. I'm not alone in seeing the resemblence of anti-smoke crusuders and other movements worried about "public morality". You know, the Taliban, Saudi government, Pat Robertson, etc. They will justify lieing because it's "for the greater good". When tobacco execs lie to congress, it's criminal, but when they lie it somehow becomes an opinion. What a bunch of hypocritical assholes.

VM | September 20, 2007, 6:40pm | #

"I'm not alone in seeing the resemblence of anti-smoke crusuders and other movements worried about "public morality""

AND IT PISSES ME OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"What a bunch of hypocritical assholes."

AMEN!!!!!!!

Designated smoking and non smoking sections are a great solution.

ARGH!

Paul | September 20, 2007, 6:43pm | #

2005 found levels of respirable suspended particles and gases associated with tobacco smoke similar to those outside the casino.

Shyeah. "similar". All it takes is one molecule, and the whole slot machine row has lung cancer. Not good enough.

Brandybuck | September 20, 2007, 6:49pm | #

Hookah bars are starting to spring up all over California. But I'm not seeing much resistance to them. This tells me that this anti-tobacco movement is pure leftism: cigarettes come from Evil Republican Farmers™ in the Racist South™, but hookahs are part of a brown skinned culture currently being oppressed by the imperialist Bush administration.

joe | September 20, 2007, 7:03pm | #

What Ralphy said.

What this might do is make the "smoking section" a workable solution.

JBinMO | September 20, 2007, 7:03pm | #

Land of the free?...home of the brave?...still...really?

JBinMO | September 20, 2007, 7:05pm | #

Hookah?

I'm in Missouri.

ed | September 20, 2007, 7:45pm | #

Bah, humbug! Policy is driven by emotion, not empirical evidence.
Silly Earthlings!

Todd Fletcher | September 20, 2007, 8:51pm | #

If there's a ventilation system that can make the air in a casino breathable, then it is truly a miracle of science. 15 minutes in any random casino in Vegas and I feel like Patty and Selma wrapped in one.

JW | September 20, 2007, 9:27pm | #

What a bunch of hypocritical assholes."

AMEN!!!!!!!

Designated smoking and non smoking sections are a great solution.

ARGH!

Oh, you had to go and bring THIS up!

JW | September 20, 2007, 9:29pm | #

If there's a ventilation system that can make the air in a casino breathable, then it is truly a miracle of science. 15 minutes in any random casino in Vegas and I feel like Patty and Selma wrapped in one.

Then, maybe don't go in them?

(Tip o' the hat to Bloom County's "eat less and exercise" strip, which I couldn't find and so had to post another that I could.)

dashiel | September 20, 2007, 9:51pm | #

Then, maybe don't go in them?

so we should allow someone else's dangerous habit to influence where we can and can't safely visit? we should allow others, who for no other reason than their own habit which by its very nature cannot be contained, dictate where people can comfortably visit. we should cater to the addictions of others?

this isn't a nanny-state issue. it's a refuge of the inconsiderate.

if someone wants to shoot heroin in to their eyeball at a casino, or snort coke from a hooker's ass crack i honestly don't care. the immediate affect of their actions in no way affect my health or physical comfort.

Mark Wernimont | September 20, 2007, 9:55pm | #

There are ventilation systems which have been proven to make secondhand smoke levels 2.6 - 25,000 times safer than OSHA workplace air quality regulations.

British Medical Journal air testing

Health dept testing

American Cancer Society tests

Rhywun | September 20, 2007, 10:00pm | #

the immediate affect of their actions in no way affect my health or physical comfort.

So you support smoking and non-smoking sections then?

Kris | September 20, 2007, 10:25pm | #

Joe,

I've been to Bellagio many times. Ralphy is technically correct, if you're sitting right next to someone who is smoking you'll catch whiffs of their smoke. If you move literally two stools down, problem solved. I've sat at a roulette table where the person at the other end of the table chain smoked the whole time and I never even smelled it unless she happened to blow the smoke directly in my direction, and even then it disappeared almost as fast as came.

The Wine Commonsewer | September 20, 2007, 10:40pm | #

Will supporters of these laws be satisfied by demonstrably clean air quality, or will they switch.....

Old time Tareyton smokers would rather fight than switch. The anti-smoking crowd will have no hesitation to switch.

It's all about palatability. You push the agenda that you think people will swallow. And when they've swallowed, you push a little bit more. And more. And more.

We do it too. Take Medical MJ. We're hanging our hat on it because we can likely sell it. But the real agenda is outright legalization.

The Wine Commonsewer | September 20, 2007, 10:43pm | #

I'm surprised nobody has linked to photos of aggressive mouth cancer that has run it's course. You have to get emotional to sell this smoking ban, boys.

The Wine Commonsewer | September 20, 2007, 10:46pm | #

Casinos in Atlantic City have done that for years; of course that's not good enough for the health busybodies.

Sheesh, Don Laughlin even went so far as to build a seperate casino for the non-smokers at the Riverside in Laughlin Nv.

The Wine Commonsewer | September 20, 2007, 10:53pm | #

this isn't a nanny-state issue. it's a refuge of the inconsiderate.

Disagree. Some smokers are inconsiderate. Most are not. Old ladies doused in designer knock-off perfumes are more inconsiderate and more of a health hazard to ME than any smoker. Except for my dad and his attic-fumigating cigars.

You want a list of inconsiderate behavior by John Q? I got a real long one cuz I hate everybody and everything that's fun. Dimes to donuts something you enjoy is going to make me want to reach for a sawed off. Especially if you've sitting next to me at a red light rattling my windows with your sub-woofer. Gimme a dose of second hand smoke any time over that shit.

jkii | September 20, 2007, 11:11pm | #

FWIW, there are still small bars, neighborhood hangouts, in California that allow smoking. Regular customers take turns keeping an eye on the door while the other customers and the bartender smoke (or not) at will.

The Wine Commonsewer | September 20, 2007, 11:20pm | #

jkii, seen that. I went to lunch with an attorney I know and he took me to one. They opened the back door and the front door so the breeze could flow through. That's when I found out that the City of Tustin has two full time sworn police officers whose sole job is to respond to smoking complaints.

sixstring | September 20, 2007, 11:38pm | #

"...the City of Tustin has two full time sworn police officers whose sole job is to respond to smoking complaints."

Tustin? Never heard of it. How many establishments (restaurants, pool halls, etc.)do they have to cover? Do they only come if called, or do they conduct raids in full Balko paramilitary gear?

"Put the cigarette down! Now MotherF'er!"

The Wine Commonsewer | September 20, 2007, 11:52pm | #

Tustin is a bedroom community of about 70k sandwiched between Santa Ana and the old MCAS El Toro in the OC just up the road from Zooport Beach.

Had lunch there today at Lucille's BBQ which is in the shadow of the old Blimp Hangars at the former LTA (lighter than air) base that came to be known as MCAS Tustin.

Dam pulled pork was as good as you can get outside of the Carolinas.

sixstring | September 21, 2007, 12:01am | #

My only experience with pulled pork was in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. I prefer my own baby back ribs -- and they never even see a grill!

Robert | September 21, 2007, 12:33am | #

If health were the issue, they wouldn't make actors on stage in NYC smoke only non-tobacco products.

jkii | September 21, 2007, 1:17am | #

"That's when I found out that the City of Tustin has two full time sworn police officers whose sole job is to respond to smoking complaints."

Haven't seen that one yet here in Ventura County, TWC. Our problem is that busybodies from LA and OC keep moving up here in droves with grand ideas of how to improve our lives. It started with the "No Skateboarding" signs back in the mid-80's. Within 20 years, I predict it will be illegal to surf without a life jacket and a certified, government trained lifeguard on duty. That's if its still legal at all.

Rhywun | September 21, 2007, 1:19am | #

I'm surprised nobody has linked to photos of aggressive mouth cancer that has run it's course.

Here in NYC they show graphic shit on TV all the time. Like, every other commercial is anti-smoking. One of them was a lady with mouth cancer. There's another one featuring a guy with a hole in his throat, singing. I change the channel when that shit comes on. I mean, why aren't there graphic images of ten-car pile-ups to demonstrate the dangers of driving? Mangled, charred corpses to tell me how dangerous it is to live in fire-prone southern California? These things are just as preventable as smoking-related illnesses.

FWIW, there are still small bars, neighborhood hangouts, in California that allow smoking.

Same in NYC, believe it or not.

Robert Feal-Martinez | September 21, 2007, 1:27am | #

I state for the record I am a life long never smoker who would welcome a total ban on tobacco products. However smoking and tobacco is legal and the economies of most Governments of the world would be seriously dented by a ban on such products. However the topic is ventilation. Systems now exist (and no I don't sell them) that can remove 99.97% of all air borne particulates including the component parts of ETS. Who says so, Medical Research Institutes world wide. The OHSA say so, the Health Protection Agency in the UK say so, and perhaps most importantly ASHRAE, the US ventilation building standards agency in their May 2007 revised policy on indoor air quality standard say so. Anti smokers can hide behind all the rhetoric and out dated 'junk' science in the world, but even if ETS were harmful (again no scientific proof) modern systems of ventilation/filtration using HEPA Filters, UV, and Plasmacluster Ion Technology will indeed make indoor air quality superior to outdoor air without smoking bans. FACT.

The Wine Commonsewer | September 21, 2007, 1:33am | #

Our problem is that busybodies from LA and OC keep moving up here in droves with grand ideas.....

Why is it that people move away from places they hate and bring all that baggage with them, ultimately transforming the place they moved to into the place they were excaping from?

The Wine Commonsewer | September 21, 2007, 1:35am | #

I change the channel when that shit comes on.

Good move. :-)

jkii | September 21, 2007, 2:01am | #

I dunno, TWC. I moved from a Philadelphia suburb of Pennsylvania to Ventura, CA in 1982. I just fuckin loved it. I did not want Ventura to have blue laws, toll highways, or state run liquor stores. Unlike the New Jersey shore there were no life guards on the beaches of Ventura blowing whistles at me.

There's a new movement in Ventura to have life guards at some beaches. For the children of course.

Thomas Laprade | September 21, 2007, 2:38am | #

An alterative to smoking bans


If the public was honestly and truthfully informed about the effects of second-hand smoke, there would be fewer no-smoking laws in this country.

There has never been a single study showing that exposure to the low levels of smoke found in bars and restaurants with decent modern ventilation and filtration systems kills or harms anyone.

As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokers can be reached, through setting a quality standard and the use of modern ventilation technology.

Air ventilation can easily create a comfortable environment that removes not just passive smoke, but also and especially the potentially serious contaminants that are independent from smoking.

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.

Bill Hannegan | September 21, 2007, 3:19am | #

When I have called the fitration companies and asked whether their machines can deal with the ETS problem in bars, they made me feel as if I had called the German Navy and asked if the Battleship Bismarck could sink a destroyer. They told me that any establishment that was willing to pay the price could get their air "99.99 percent clean" thru a redundancy of smoke clearing systems. One company told me that ETS was not a particularly difficult challenge compared to cleaning the natural gas and other pollutants from restaurant kitchen exhaust to California and New York clean air standards.

Right now my hometown St. Louis has no smoking ban. Some bars where 9 out of 10 patrons smoke have no ventilation or filtration! The smoke DOES bother many, including smokers, and worry at least some patrons. Rather than a smoking ban, I am pushing for our St. Louis County Council to require St. Louis smoking venues to install the same affordable filtration machines that protect St. Louis welders from far more dangerous smoke. I wish posters on this blog would take a minute to visit the website of Air Qualtiy Engineering to consider filtration solutions to the mom and pop bar ETS problem.

http://www.air-quality-eng.com/

Twba | September 21, 2007, 3:25am | #

Why is it that people move away from places they hate and bring all that baggage with them, ultimately transforming the place they moved to into the place they were excaping from?

Instead of a fence between Arizona and Mexico, I want a fence between Arizona and California.

Bill Hannegan | September 21, 2007, 4:06am | #

In late 2005, Chicago aldermen voted in a smoking ban 46-1 because the law allowed an exemption for smoking establishments that could make their air as clean or cleaner than the air outdoors. Thanks to the American Cancer Society, the Illinois statewide smoking ban took that reasonable allowance away.

"Any public place or place of employment otherwise subject to this Chapter whose owner or operator can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the commissioner of public health and the commissioner of the environment, that such area has been equipped with air filtration or purification devices or similar technologies as to render the exposure to secondhand smoke in such area, notwithstanding the fact that smoking may be occurring in such area, equivalent to such exposure to secondhand smoke in the ambient outdoor air surrounding the establishment. The commissioner of public health and the commissioner of the environment are jointly authorized to promulgate regulations specifying what types of technologies, when and if available, and taking into account any
applicable Federal and/or State standards, satisfy the requirements of this paragraph."

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_ATTACH/MunicipalCode7-32_1.html#7_32_080

JW | September 21, 2007, 8:31am | #

so we should allow someone else's dangerous habit to influence where we can and can't safely visit? we should allow others, who for no other reason than their own habit which by its very nature cannot be contained, dictate where people can comfortably visit. we should cater to the addictions of others?

See? It's not enough that businesses spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to make the air as clean as possible so as to accomodate both smokers and non-smokers, who can then can come in and spend money at their business, but noooooo-o-o-o-o.

Someone, somewhere, is still having fun.

WAAAAAHHHH!! I can smell smoke!!! And I...WANT...TO...SIT....RIGHT...THERE!

Fucking go back to kindergarten Poinedexter. You missed the class on playing well with others and you're still eating all the paste.

JW | September 21, 2007, 8:41am | #

it's a refuge of the inconsiderate.

You said that intentionally for a sense of comic irony, right?

Nate | September 21, 2007, 9:12am | #

But then all that electricity used by the ventilation just warms the earth! See, we're all fucked either way...

Sean Healy | September 21, 2007, 9:16am | #

I'm wondering what lawmakers consider more important: the breathing preferences of at least 75% of the population or complying with the ideological rectitude demanded by 75% of H&R posters.

dhex | September 21, 2007, 9:27am | #

sean i would say probably both?

or neither?

were this a serious question we could address it seriously, but since we're in some kinda weird fucking left-right dada situationist mash-up remix BOOM BOOM BOOM type shit, this is the best we can do.

VM | September 21, 2007, 9:44am | #

JW: thanks for finding that strip. I couldn't find it yesterday. That and "eat less and exercise" are two classics.

Confession: yesterday I was out stomping on daisies, so that's why.

Sean ("seen") - what about designated smoking and non smoking zones?

J sub D | September 21, 2007, 10:05am | #

Within 20 years, I predict it will be illegal to surf without a life jacket and a certified, government trained lifeguard on duty. That's if its still legal at all.

Surfers who get injured drive up the health costs for everybody, don't they. I'm confident that secondhand surfboard injuries also have been documented,some of them even OH MY GOD, CHILDREN. Surfboarders are just selfish, inconsiderate bastards that show no regard to the well being of others or society as a whole.

Did I miss any of the important points?

JW | September 21, 2007, 11:13am | #

I'm wondering what lawmakers consider more important: the breathing preferences of at least 75% of the population or complying with the ideological rectitude demanded by 75% of H&R posters.

I'm wondering what is more important:

That we respect the right to choose of both individuals and businesses, and their property rights, or that we cater to a bunch of infantile and intolerant smoke-free zealot whiners who want to be able to go wherever and whenever they please without having to take anyone else's preferences and privleges into consideration. Ever.

Smoking bans are not about public health. They're a McLifestyle subsidy.

JW | September 21, 2007, 11:15am | #

VM--

You were out twiddling and twaddling too, weren't you? WEREN'T YOU???

I specifically asked for non-twaddling!

JW | September 21, 2007, 11:21am | #

And I thought progs and libs we're all about choice? You know the right to choose, keep your hands off my body and all, don't like it don't have one and all that...

Hrm........

Ohhhhhhhhh, YOUR choices! Not mine.

Silly me.

The Wine Commonsewer | September 21, 2007, 11:50am | #

Instead of a fence between Arizona and Mexico, I want a fence between Arizona and California.

All my friends in Az want that same fence. Go figure. :-)

The Wine Commonsewer | September 21, 2007, 11:54am | #

jkii, Ventura County sort of reminds me of the California I grew up in, which is, sadly, long, long, gone.

The Wine Commonsewer | September 21, 2007, 11:55am | #

WAAAAAHHHH!! I can smell smoke!!! And I...WANT...TO...SIT....RIGHT...THERE!

Better call the Waaaahhhhaaambulance.

Wilk | September 21, 2007, 2:46pm | #

"As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokers can be reached, through setting a quality standard and the use of modern ventilation technology."

Thomas, annoyance isn't the issue. The issue is the rights of bar owners. Moreover, when the New York City ban was being debated, the issue was the health of bartenders. Because the City Council would have been laughed out of New York City if they'd said it was the rights of customers, who can stay the hell away in every case. But now, every selfish a-hole in creation thinks he has a right not to be annoyed by tobacco smoke in a private establishment into which he enters of his own free will. And that's what this country has come to -- setting policy because of the selfish wishes of a bunch of whiners and pansies who would set public policy because their shirts smell of tobacco smoke after a night in a bar or casino.

Smoking/non-smoking should have stayed where it was before the busybodies started interfering in our private lives -- with the bar owners.

Allen | September 21, 2007, 2:58pm | #

Smoking is inconsiderate? Please, what constitutes being considerate depends on your point of view. As someone who bikes, I think it's damn inconsiderate that I have to breath in the crappy exhaust from your cars. But my thinking that doesn't make it wrong does it? I think it's inconsiderate when people where clothes that their bodies aren't built for (e.g. some woman with a tire around her belly where a cropped shirt with low-riders... GROSS). That doesn't mean it should be illegal. And more so it doesn't mean it's inconsiderate other than in my eyes. The claims of smokers being inconsiderate is a bit like me calling people who eat at the Olive Garden inconsiderate simply based on a few men who eat at the table while wearing their hats.

Paul | September 22, 2007, 12:00am | #

The supposedly state of the art new Casino Queen in East St Louis did very poorly in terms of air quality in a recent test.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/illinoisnews/story/6923C703BEAF5450862573570012B773?OpenDocument
The only way to have air quality that protects the non-smoker is to either have smokers go outdoors, or to have separate rooms with powerful venilation and filtration systems for both areas. Even then there will likely be some leakage of toxic smoke into the non-smoking areas.

Bill Hannegan | September 22, 2007, 2:26am | #

Paul, the ALA did stealth air quality tests without casino permission using inadequate equipment while dust generating construction was ongoing in the Casino Queen. Here is a proposal letter I sent to an American Gaming Association official:

Mr. Swoik,

I read in yesterday’s Post-Dispatch about the testing of the air quality in the Casino Queen by the American Lung Association and the Roswell Park Cancer Institute. Please let me suggest that you countermand this sloppy and inadequate study by having the air of the Casino Queen tested by Dr. Ray Narconis of Global Environmental Consultants, a St. Louis based air quality testing firm. Dr. Narconis is an official spokesman for the American Lung Association on indoor and outdoor air quality issues. But, unlike Kathy Drea, he is extremely rigorous and fair.

Our group recently used the extensive testing of the Lambert Airport smoking lounges done by Dr. Narconis and his firm to convince the St. Louis County Council that the lounges worked fine and a smoking ban at Lambert Field was not needed. Martin Pion, head of the local antismoking group Missouri GASP, had done a study similar to Kathy Drea’s of the Lambert lounges which purported to show that the lounges leaked. This study was even published in the prestigious British Medical Journal:

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/13/suppl_1/i37

Yet the clearly superior testing methods of Dr. Narconis and his willingness to speak before the council in defense of the lounges, superseded the Pion test and carried the day. The St. Louis County Council voted not to ban smoking in these lounges at Lambert Field. The tests of the Lambert Field smoking lounges by Global Environment Consultants cost a little over $6000.

Dr. Narconis was also severely critical of the sloppy methodology of the Pion tests. You could commision him to do an official analysis of Kathy Drea’s study. As an official scientific spokesman for the Lung Association, his analysis and testimony would carry a lot of weight.

Contact info for Dr. Narconis:

Narconis, Ray, CMRS, RPIH
Global Environmental Consultants, Inc.
6614 Clayton Rd., #302
St. Louis, MO 63117
Phone # [phone]
[e-mail]


Please find attached a copy of the Lambert Field smoking lounge tests. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help in this fight for personal freedom and property rights.

Sincerely,
Bill Hannegan
Keep St. Louis Free!
314.367.3779