By JESSICA BLOUSTEIN
Gazette staff writer
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.
This effort comes as the tavern industry, fighting for a roll-back of the bans,
pushed legislators to consider allowing smoking in bars provided the facilities
are equipped with air filtration or ventilation systems. They bolstered their
case with studies that show the success of air filtration devices in ridding the
air in an enclosed space of the toxic gases and chemicals in cigarette smoke.
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.
“The laws of physics are simply against it,” Repace said.
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.”
Repace stressed that the results of his study were not an attack on
air-filtration system manufacturers claims that their products can remove smoke
effectively from the air, but were meant to serve as evidence that bans are the
most efficient way to reduce the health risk of second-hand smoke.
“The tobacco industry and manufacturers of these devices claim they remove
harmful contaminants from the air. Operating properly, of course they do so, but
the issue is do they provide enough cleaning so that the room air concentration
of toxins is reduced to safe levels?” Repace asked. “The answer is no, and none
of the promoters of this equipment, including Philip Morris, will make any
explicit claim that they protect human health.”
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.
“We hope it will convince [legislators] that the so-called solution the tavern
industry proposes really does not work,” said Russell Sciandra, director of the
Center for a Tobacco Free New York. He emphasized, citing Repace’s results, that
if the Legislature rolls back the anti-smoking laws, bar employees and patrons
will be exposed to toxic chemicals that will again pose a serious health risk.
“I do not know of any machine that can remove all the particulates,” he said.
“It is the ultra-fine particulates that pose an increasing health risk. They
embed themselves down deep in the lungs and stay there.”
Michael Bopp of the American Cancer Society added that while other employed
individuals are safe, “why should one particular group of workers be subject to
a harmful working environment?”