smoking ban makes me feel isolated
Help for smokers is an electronic cigarette. Helps to quit.
Anonymous2 please refrain from buying into and propagating the old school idea of "smog filled cities". You should know that since a few years ago, people in dublin are ONLY allowed to use SMOKELESS fuel, unlike rural areas where I have seen people from farming communities burning tyres (lethal) and gorse (which is in fact ILLEGAL). People who bang on about Dublin being filled with smog have a fixed idea of what the city is like and have obviously never ventured more than a mile from Heuston station and so miss out on all the beauty the Dublin mountains have to offer.
Looks like smoking is not quite the bad guy that you would all like to sheepishly think.
The smoking ban has ruined rural Ireland.
Not my view, just take a look around. (That is, if you can get out of those polluted, smog full cities you all seem to live in)
I dont understand how the smoking ban makes people feel isolated!! The poor smokers??!!! I am a smoker and it doesnt bother me in the slightest. I agree 100% with the ban. Why should non smokers breath 2nd hand smoke??!! They shouldnt have to.
My remaining gripe is the barrier of smoke I have to cross to get inside any main building. I think the ban was too easy on you lot.
There are far too many cover-ups!
How did that stuff get in there in the first place? Who is regulating these things?
Caustic soda is a deadly thing.
I worked in a hospital for a while and a little seven year old was brought in after drinking the stuff. His whole insides were burnt from it and he spent a full five years in hospital over it. Today he has one of those voice boxes inserted in his throat. It should be banned off the face of the earth.
The same goes for cigarettes. What exactly is inside in them? Could they be open to abuse? Why are the government still selling them? We deserve to know the whole truth and nothing but the truth!
In any quantity, it would make a person violently sick (by which I refer to vomiting).
Large quantities have ben known to cuase death to birds and can cause serious illnress / damage to small animals (rodents or small house pets).
Can you please explain what this as about?
It is time that anti-smokers got a life and left us smokers alone. Go away and wallow in your imagined thoughts and stay there. Ye are obsessed over nothing.
But I am an adult. I _do_ want to smoke and drink at the same time in a proper Irish pub.
But I can't. So I no longer go to pubs.
There is no choice: I drink, I smoke ...no longer in pubs.
It's not about inflicting others with passive smoke ...for me, it's about lack of _any_ option for those adults that do wish to smoke.
There are *LOTS* of distateful issues that would walk through a YES vote if they went to a referendum.
"Ban" is the catchy vote-grabbing phrase for trigger-happy politicians.
Traditionally, politics never had a place in a public house. Now there are too many goose-steppers echoing through my local (ex) haunts for me to ever enjoy going there again.
Publicans should have been given clear and large incentives to instigate a no-smoking policy on their own premises... along the lines of lower taxes -which in turn would lead to lower prices in non-smoking bars... which would lead to _some_ choice for those that wish to pay more and smoke.
I hate the word Ďbaní. Itís a nasty, limiting, narrowing action. There were other ways to give everyone a choice. This ban was always about populist action and nothing else.
But I recognise none of that is going to change now. And I will be attacked for causing passive-smoke on those that donít want it, etc., etc..
Before hitting that reply button though Ėjust take a minute to re-read. I do comply with the smoking-ban.
That wonít change either.
Enjoy the ban. I don't -and won't ever.
Grounded in reality eh? LOL!
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
And of course, your concern about the funding of the HSA report is equally baseless. Both the HSA and the OTC are state agencies, so the report is entirely funded by Government. You can try and spin another conspiracy theory around this if you wish, but those of us who are grounded in reality understand the truth.
Don't you worry, I am going to understand these figures. As I said, there is a difference between dangerous levels of pollutants and a legal threshold. That will be a clear difference but it seems highly unlikely that it will be in the order of thousands.
Forgive me for saying so but I think you would not hesitate to pour scorn on the findings and motives of any report that found ETS not to be harmful. You are only reacting to what seems to you implausible. You say to Michael that you don't have the expertise to check things out, but you expect me to do it. And also expect me to believe implicitly the words of any 'expert' even though we have been told since our schooldays not to believe everything we see in print.
I hadn't known that. I guess then the question boils down to who they were being paid by, right? If Big Tobacco paid them then their work would be worthless, correct? But if their funds came from Antismoking or Pharmaceutical Nicotine Replacement sources then their work would be golden, correct?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Publican, all you need to do to see if you're being lied to is to go to one of the flagship studies on ETS that's been waved all over hell and hereafter by Antismokers as proof of the need for bans. I'm speaking of the four page Helena study (the one RD claims he "doesn't have the expertise" to read) and the Rapid Responses that come after it. You'll see that despite what Antismokers claim, the study clearly showed NOTHING AT ALL about the effect of ETS on nonsmokers.
They lie. Their entire campaign is based on lies. It's like when RD offered us the results of a survey supposedly based on bar workers, but when challenged to show that it wasn't more widely based has simply spent the last three months avoiding the question with word games.
Visit www.TheTruthIsALie.com and you'll see more of their lies.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
At last some sensible questions. First of all I don't understand the terminology. 'Acceptable level' is not defined. I took it as meaning that there is a legal standard, and that the 'acceptable levels' meant that anything higher would be in breach of the legal standard. If there is a legal standard I guess there is some leeway. For safety's sake you would not expect ANY breach of the standard would be dangerous. So you would need to know the difference between an 'acceptable' level and a level that is actually dangerous. This is where my grasp of the subject breaks down. If we were discussing parts per million, I have no idea what this difference is.
Say an accepted legal standard is 10 parts per million carbon monoxide, 1,000 parts per million carbon dioxide, and particles at 0.15mg per cubic metre. This is quoted from a ventilation expert. At some level above this, the air would become dangerous. How many times would you have to concentrate these contaminants before the air would actually be dangerous? I have no idea.
So how about 15,000 times? How does this fit in? Is this the 'acceptable level' of toxicants that has to be multiplied by 15,000 to reach pre-ventilated levels? So we get to 2,250mg per cubic metre of smoke particles, 1,000 ppm carbon monoxide and an embarrassingly high amount of carbon monoxide ... yes you are right I am struggling ...
Since I am desparate I will revert to PJK. The proposal is to set measureable air quality standards, not just to say, 'ventilate' and then say afterwards the carcinogens are still there. Set the standard. Then the experts move in as this is their market opportunity. They will measure the contaminants in the air, work out an acceptable level, find the technology that will extract the pollutants and eventually find a way to make it affordable to the licensed trade. Nobody is proposing that unacceptable standards are to pass in pubs.
Hi Publican - Let's face reality here. You just don't like the ban, and you're looking everywhere else for a solution when you should be looking closer to home. You can play the 'conspiracy theory - we've all been lied to' game if it makes you feel better. But those of us with some grasp on the real world know where the truth lies.
Hi John - Yes, amazingly enough the authors of the HSA were paid for their work. Are you insinuating something here? If so, please have the guts to come out & be specific. Don't hide being veiled comments. And I'm sure many Governments round the world would be really interested to hear from you if you've found some way of getting serious research done for free.
And yes, the report was a 'literature review' type of report, which is a well established academic protocol. Of course, if they had gone and done a specific study in Ireland, you'd now be claiming it is not relevant because those trusted experts over at Forces have a different set of reports. So you'd quibble about whatever style of report was done.
And it seems that once you've got past the introduction to the report, you've opted to ignore everything else it says and revert to trusting those nice guys over at Forces instead.
You can of course choose to keep attacking the windmill if you wish, but you don't have a snowballs chance in hell of persuading anyone with a grip on reality to accept the Forces point of view over the HSA experts. Do please tell us whether you reckon the eminent team of HSA experts were all corrupt or are they just too dumb to see your version of the truth?
Now if this is the type of air system that you are proposing putting into pubs, I would see no problem from my point of view and would be happy to have smokers in there with me. However, in reality it is not a practical solution from the publican's point of view, as they would cost in terms of 10's of millions of euros to install, not to mention the maintenance costs.
I just don't believe in the existence of that level of airborne pollutants in any indoor environment. I don't find the information clear.
The HSA are not the only people in the field with an opinion. There are other experienced people who disagree with them. I am following those whose methods and reasoning I can understand. Do you really think I should believe people implicitly just because they are 'experts'? Remember I asked for an explanation and they could not give one, or said I had to get it from the Office of Tobacco Control who did not write back. If they understood the figures they were talking about why would they fob me off instead of trying to clear up an enquiry from a member of the public?
Another thing that I have found weird is that there should be a huge loss of the ventilation workforce but I haven't heard anything here yet. Why is that?
I find that Forces site really good and what I am doing at the moment is flicking between the two places constantly. This site and their site. The latest one on lung cancer rates is an eyeopener I think. Did you read that one? A letter is sent making an enquiry but it is the reply that is well worth reading. I think it's dated 25th January.
Rainy Day, It's getting harder and harder to know the truth. This is making me very uncomfortable. I abhor the thought of us all being lied to. And if this smoking ban has come from lies it will have been a huge injustice to the people. This would make me sick.
Now that I don't feel any different and my husband doesn't feel any different the whole ban just doesn't make sense!
Rather than answer Michael's and Belinda's questions, you constantly refer us all to the H.S.A. report on E.T.S. and, of course, advise that you are too busy to read anything else. Your fawning adulation for the "Health and Safety Authority" as a source of all information, led me to examine the report in detail. My findings may not please you.
Firstly, the authors of the report were, most lightly, paid well for their research. But the brief of their research was to "identify and report on the degree of consensus that exists among leading international scientific authorities on the question of the hazard and risk posed by environmental tobacco smoke to human health in the workplace". In other words, check on studies done by others in other countries to determine that they all agree on the dangers posed by E.T.S. So, no actual study in Ireland then, even with the Senior Lecturer in Epidemiology at Trinity College chairing the board. So what of the ACTUAL studies that have been done over the years. Well, up until last year, they were scattered all over the globe but thanks to "Forces", they are now all in one place and can be downloaded one by one at http://www.forces.org/evidence/study_list.htm. You can even get the whole lot in one handy zip file. But knowing that you might be too busy to look at all of them, there is a handy summary at that same URL that will show you the findings of all of the research in five minutes flat. In terms of objectivity, the reports are all in their original format and they feature those that contradict the Forces consensus, unlike the reports listed by the various anti smoking groups who will only present one side of the story.
In total, you will find that there have been 31 studies on E.T.S. done in the workplace of which, 25 found NO significant risk. Out of 81 spousal studies, 67 found NO significant risk. And better again, out of 37 childhood studies, 30 of them found NO significant risk. So, the brief of the "independent scientific working group" was to find this information and report back on the "consensus" that exists internationally. Objectively, the wealth of research, points to no danger at all much less a health risk. But it gets more hilarious. Their report states "The recent declaration (2002) by the World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is carcinogenic to humans reflects the position of the scientific community as a whole". Aaah, no, it does not reflect the position of the Scientific Community as a whole and it was the W.H.O. who carried out the largest research project of its kind into E.T.S. whose findings also concluded that E.T.S. was an insignificant threat. Also, the W.H.O. did not declare E.T.S. a carcinogen, it was the E.P.A. and I dealt in a previous mailing how this was thrown out of court as fraudulent. And worse was to come. It was not just the H.S.E. who commissioned this report but the "office of Tobacco Control paid for it also. Now RainyDay, if that is not a vested interest, I don't know what is.
The rest of the report is utter "flim-flam" and could have be written by a P.R. agency either in favour or against the motion. It is big on sentiment and generalities and short on fact. It is in fact, a classic piece of political text book spin which conveys an idea without any substance. It uses terms like "most agencies consider" or " an increased risk of lung cancer, possibly increased by 20-30%" and "an increased risk of heart disease, estimated at 25-30%". The agencies they speak of are not referenced, their estimate of 25 - 30% is at most a statement without referenced basis and they are merely guessing at lung cancer percentages. A bit of a tongue-in-cheek example of "in my professional opinion".
They then go on to your quote "Of proposed new technology, displacement ventilation is viewed as having the potential for a 90% reduction in ETS levels but even this would still leave exposure levels 1500 to 2500 times the acceptable risk level for hazardous air pollutants". No reference is provided for the contentions around what constitutes 'an acceptable risk'. What is striking is their dismissal of ventilation in one short paragraph. It smacks of a group unwilling to consider any outcome other than what was decided on before they began. These are the self same ventilation systems that are available to industry for clean rooms etc where dangerous gases and chemicals are used daily. But the "expert" group dismissed them outright.
If this is what you base your beliefs RainyDay, you are looking at the hole and not the doughnut,
If the installation of ventilation equipment takes out 90% of the pollutants, this leaves 10% of the level of pollutants (ie 1,500 to 2,000 times acceptable levels, the figure given in the report) that was there BEFORE the installation. To reach the level that was there BEFORE the installation you have to multiply the AFTER figure by 10. Hence the level of hazardous air pollutants in the air space in question can be inferred to be 15,000 to 20,000 times acceptable levels.
"Research suggests that presently available ventilation technology (well-mixed dilution ventilation) is unsatisfactory for controlling worker exposure to ETS. Air cleaning is similarly problematic. Of proposed new technology, displacement ventilation is viewed as having the potential for a 90% reduction in ETS levels but even this would still leave exposure levels 1500 to 2500 times the acceptable risk level for hazardous air pollutants."
If so, I think you've mis-understood. First, it refers to ETS levels AFTER ventilation equipment has been used, not before. Secondly, it refers to a factor of '1500 to 2500' times the acceptable level, which is an order of magnitude LESS than the figures you quote. Methinks you need to do a bit more studying before you discount the report.
I reckon if you give the average man in the street the choice between believing
a) the entire HSA expert panel were corrupt or dumb
b) John & Belinda are wrong
I don't think there will be too many votes for option a.
I mean that level of pollutants is just not plausible is it? If it was a simple clerical error that would have been easy to sort out.