A critical look at “Indoor Air Quality in Eating and Drinking Establishments in the City of

Fond du Lac”
Ryan Evans et al.

The purpose of this paper is to address some of the concerns and issues that have been found in the
report titled “Indoor Air Quality in Eating and Drinking Establishments in the City of Fond du Lac” as
released by the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Paul P. Carbone Comprehensive Cancer Center via
the Fond du Lac Tobacco Control Program. i

Our charge is that the report is deeply flawed, and as such should not serve as any sort of basis for the
consideration of, nor a foundation for sound public policy.

Specific issues are addressed by the page number from which they are found along with the exact quote
under question. Where applicable, we have cited exact sources from which we draw our challenges.

1. Page 3: “Despite this increase in knowledge, in Wisconsin, secondhand smoke is estimated to

cause more than 800 lung cancer and heart disease deaths each year while thousands more are
made seriously ill by asthma, allergic attacks and chronic disease.”
a) There is no data to support this information. It is an estimate based on assumptions which are
based on patient recall data and not adjusted for confounding elements.
b) The latest ACS study shows that lung cancer in non-smokers has remained unchanged since
the 1930’s while ETS exposure increased throughout the 1900’s by literally hundreds of
percent, peaking in the 70’s. ii There is no correlation between this increased ETS exposure
and lung cancer: Lung cancer rates among nonsmokers remained essentially unchanged
despite this enormous and clear increase in exposure.
c) The largest studies show no-effect and/or reverse of harm from SHS/ETS. The only reports
that have suggested harm are the 1992 EPA report, which was invalidated by 3
congressional committees iii and a federal judge iv among others, and the 2006 Surgeon
General's report, which currently has at least 5 official charges of scientific misconduct filed
against it. v

2. Page 3: “typically at levels that are much higher than the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) allowable daily exposure limit”
a) EPA is not charged with indoor air quality or workplace air quality. Citing EPA air standards
is a fallacy. The EPA standards are for long term average outdoor standards and were never
intended to be short term peak standards. When considering indoor air quality issues –
especially workplace indoor air quality – OSHA is the agency charged with establishing and
enforcing standards. This is addressed in greater depth in point 4 below.
b) Also note that EPA standards were never intended to be taken at the source but quite some
distance away. Do you think that any business or home for that matter would pass if the
measurements were taken right at the smoke stack or chimney?

3. Page 3: “As a result of exposure to secondhand smoke, many bar workers and patrons suffer
from respiratory symptoms and have impaired lung function.”
a) Deeply flawed report based purely on speculation and recall. vi The methodology is highly
subjective and circumspect and should not be used as a citation of “scientific evidence.”

4. Page 4: “A convenience sample of six eating and drinking establishments in the City of Fond du
Lac were selected.”
a) Anyone else notice the establishments that allowed smoking were tested on a Friday night,

Final Release Page 1 of 6 10/20/2008

 while the bar that doesn’t allow smoking was tested on a Tuesday afternoon? This cannot
be a coincidence and points to the bias built into the study. I’m guessing the choice of
testing dates was deliberate (Friday nights often being the busiest for bars). It is also
possible that testing was done in all seven establishments on both days but the data
collected that way didn’t prove the point desired. Another possibility is that more than
seven establishments were tested but only the six smoking venues that proved the point
were used in the report. The authors of any report so obviously flawed should be given no
credit for scientific honesty. The apples-to-oranges date selection is a fatal flaw of this
“study.”
b) Further, the report states that monitors were “located at different locations within the main
areas of each establishment to get a sample of readings.” What different locations? Two
inches from an ashtray in one of the bars on Friday night and next to an open window in the
non-smoking bar on Tuesday afternoon? While this rhetorical question may seem extreme,
so are the tactics of anti-smoking zealots and so are the obvious flaws in this study’s
methodology.
c) Is a “convenience sample” a valid sample from which to draw honest, fair and scientific data
(and from which to draw valid conclusions)? Certainly not. It is likely the “convenience
sample” was selected for the data the researchers hoped to collect.

5. Page 4: “tobacco smoke is the major source of fine particle air pollution in establishments
where smoking is present.”
a) Nothing in this study justifies the statement. This is an assumption of the biased researchers.
“Fine particle air pollution” is simply another way of saying “smoke,” whether from
cigarettes, candles, cooking, incinerators, or automobile exhaust. All the “study” is saying
in reality is that “tobacco smoke is the major source of smoke in establishments where
smoking is present.” Using the term “fine particle air pollution” makes the smoke sound
scarier to nonscientists and also confuses the much deadlier high-temperature components
of urban-industrial smog with the smoke produced by the quiet burning of a few dried
leaves in a tube of paper: NOT the same thing at all!

6. Page 4: “We do not identify the establishments in part because the study organizers do not want
to give the impression that these particular eating and drinking establishments have more or
less polluted air than any other establishment. Any establishment that permits smoking has
residue of secondhand smoke which presents a health risk to people.”
a) The report does not indicate how it reached this bizarre conclusion, which is not supported
by research in evidence anywhere in the study. To say "Any establishment that permits
smoking has residue of secondhand smoke which presents a health risk to people" without
any evidence or justifiable reason is to assume the conclusion before it's proven. Thus, this
is an admission of assuming a conclusion and then trying to fit data to that conclusion.

7. Page 5: “The first establishment monitored was a bar and restaurant that had children
customers.”
a) The fact that children were (or were not) present at some of the venues is not a scientific
observation, but is clearly designed to make a social point. A dispassionate scientific
observation would have included the number of patrons, staff and others present rather than
limiting the observation to children.

8. Page 5: “The Ambient Air Quality Standard of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is
the appropriate standard for analysis”
Final Release Page 2 of 6 10/20/2008
 a) Not true. The DNR standards are not suitable for the monitoring of indoor workplace air
quality. This also goes back to point 2. OSHA is the authoritative body charged with
establishing indoor workplace air quality and permissible exposure limits are defined in
29CFR1910.1000. Using DNR outdoor air quality standards makes this study of indoor air
quality absolutely irrelevant. It’s a bit like officiating a football game with baseball rules.
b) Regarding OSHA limits on secondhand smoke, refer to the following “Analysis of American
Cancer Society air quality testing vii against OSHA table of the nicotine permissible exposure
limit. PEL's are the OSHA safe acceptable level of exposure to humans for an 8 hour day,
40 hour per week time period.1 mg / m3 = 1,000,000 (nanograms) / m3. So 0.5 mg / m3 =
500,000 nanograms / m3.
▪ OSHA (pel) 500,000 nanograms / m3 divided by Restaurant with enclosed smoking area
AQ results 20 nanograms / m3 = Restaurant with enclosed smoking area secondhand
smoke concentrations are 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA standards.
▪ OSHA (pel) 500,000 nanograms / m3 divided by Bowling Alleys AQ results 110
nanograms / m3 = Bowling Alleys secondhand smoke concentrations are 4,545 times
SAFER than OSHA standards.
▪ OSHA (pel) 500,000 nanograms / m3 divided by Bingo Halls AQ results 940 nanograms
/ m3 = Bingo Halls secondhand smoke concentrations are 532 times SAFER than OSHA
standards.” viii
c) As per 29CFR1910.1000 Standard Interpretation dated 24 February, 2003, the main chemical
compounds found in ETS that are covered by OSHA regulations do not exceed permissible
exposure limits under normal situations.

9. Page 5: “exceeding 55 micrograms per cubic yard.”

a) Why did the standard change from m3 to cubic yard here? A cubic yard is a bigger space than
a cubic meter (1:.76 ratio) which gives an incorrect representation of the actual
measurement. The m3 equivalent is 41.8µg per m3. Per the EPA and DNR, >55µg and 42µg
are two different AQI categories, ix and the only rational basis for such a change would be
that the researchers desired to skew the results in their favor.

10. Page 14: “First, the warning assumes that people with heart and lung problems are aware of
their disease.”
a) This issue is not realistically addressed for outdoor air quality either. If this argument is to be
used for indoor air quality, the same must apply to outdoor air quality and outdoor air must
then be subject to cripplingly stringent restrictions so as to protect everybody who may not
be aware of an existing health condition that. For instance, it has been shown that diesel
exhaust in urban areas raises the PM2.5 levels significantly x, which would potentially put
any person with undiagnosed health problems at risk as well.

11. Page 14: “the warning assumes that people who are employed can choose to avoid physical
activity.”
a) The warning also assumes that people 1) have the right to work anyplace they choose,
regardless of their qualifications or preexisting health conditions, and 2) people are unaware
of the requirements of their job prior to actually performing them.

12. Page 14: “We know that many of these problems can become chronic and last long after
employment (and exposure to smoke) has ended.”
a) No citations or sources exist to verify this statement, which is the reason that no sources or

Final Release Page 3 of 6 10/20/2008

 citations are given, and from our own fairly intensive research in the area we believe that no
substantial source or citations exist to support such a statement: it is a propagandistic emotive
statement rather than a statement supported by scientific research and fact.

13. Page 15: “Children are under the control of their parents and as such may be exposed to very
high levels of these toxins without their knowledge or agreement.”
a) Children should not be in bars/taverns and, being under the control of the parents, children
should be protected from entering inappropriate venues by the direction of their parents,
regardless of whether or not SHS/ETS is present. The issue of smoking in the home should
be addressed if this argument is to be used.

14. Page 15: “Smoke filters may eliminate some of the larger particles and the smell of the smoke.”
a) This is a proven fallacy. There are filters xi that can eliminate the fine particulate matter,
voc's xii and chemicals found in the air per ASHRAE 52 standard xiii

15. Page 15: “Patrons and employees may be unaware that secondhand smoke is much more toxic
than smoke inhaled directly from a cigarette because the smoke off the end of a cigarette is
burned at a lower temperature than inhaled smoke.”
a) Citation? Sources? This observation goes alongside point 12.

16. Page 15: “They may also not know that when this smoke is “aged” more than 30 minutes, it is
3-4 times more toxic than 'fresh' smoke”
a) This argument has not only been thoroughly debunked, but also relies on clever wordplay as
the study refers to “fresh sidestream smoke” and not “secondhand smoke.” xiv

17. Page 17: “It is well documented that secondhand smoke causes cancer, heart disease and a host
of other illnesses.”
a) This “well-documented” claim relies almost solely upon the studies gathered and cited in the
EPA ’92 Report and the Surgeon General’s 2006 Report, both of which have been noted
earlier as having been so seriously challenged as to render dependence on them as citations
very unreliable. Highly concentrated smoke from ANY source can clearly cause health
problems. The highly diluted smoke in well-ventilated modern business venues has never
been shown to cause such problems.

18. Page 17: “Ventilation and air circulation systems cannot make establishments that allow
smoking safe to breath.”
a) This is a widely used fallacy that is false. If this argument were true, then there would be no
way to filter air in hospitals, medical research facilities or chemical/biological warfare
protection equipment for military personnel as all bacteria fall into the .3-1.0 micron range
and a simple and inexpensive xv NATO standard NBC gas mask filter can not only filter 1-10
micron size particles with 99.9999% efficiency, 99.997% efficiency at the 0.3 micron level,
and 99.999% of chemical vapors xvi. If a filter that costs less than $50 can filter to this level
of efficiency and keep a soldier alive on the battlefield when exposed to chemical or
biological weapons, then there is no rational reason that SHS/ETS could not be filtered.
Also refer to point 10 above.

19. Page 17: “are typically exposed to levels of pollutants that are highly hazardous.”
a) Based on EPA guidelines, not OSHA and refer both to 24 hour constant exposure guidelines
and misuses the word “typically” to imply general constant exposure rather than highly

Final Release Page 4 of 6 10/20/2008

 intermittent and transient exposures.

Of final interest: Six of the “key findings of the study” could not possibly have been conclusions of
this study. These “findings” come from other sources (notably talking points of smoking ban
advocates) and represent statements of emotional import rather than scientific findings:

1. There is no safe level of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.

2. It is not possible for patrons and employees to determine the level of environmental tobacco
smoke in any specific establishment.
3. Eating and drinking establishments may contain very high levels of dangerous pollutants for
long periods after the last cigarette has been extinguished.
4. Some employees are typically engaged in on-going strenuous physical activity while working in
highly hazardous air quality conditions. Also, patrons and employees who have undiagnosed
heart disease may not be aware of the added risk of a heart attack when exposed to secondhand
smoke.
5. Patrons and employees may believe they are not exposed to unsafe levels of secondhand smoke
because of ventilation and air conditioning systems. However, these systems do not reduce
pollutants to safe levels and are used primarily to remove offensive odors and visible particles.
6. Children, who are most susceptible to smoke-related illness, cannot choose to avoid smoke-
filled environments.

Final Release Page 5 of 6 10/20/2008

i
http://www.fdlco.wi.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=1542
ii
http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/LungCancer/10841
iii
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2055164833-
4902.html?start_page=1&end_page=70&pattern=&hide_citation=1&rotation=0&zoom=750&ocr_position=hide_ocr&print
able=1
iv
http://banthebanwisconsin.com/osteen.aspx
v
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS200792+08-Oct-2008+PRN20081008
vi

http://www.medsch.wisc.edu/mep/downloads/Documents/technical_reports/Bartender%20Study%20Report_Time
%201%20Time%203%20Comparison_final.pdf
vii
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2004/03/unedited-acs-aq-testing.html
viii
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/11/is-secondhand-smoke-health-hazard.html
ix
http://dnr.wi.gov/air/aq/health/AQIaddinfo.htm
x
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2000/108p213-218kinney/kinney-full.html
xi
http://aircleaningequipment.com/
xii
http://www.marthbrothers.com/Indoor_Enviro_Solutions.html
xiii
http://www.camfilfarr.com/cou_camfil/filtertechnology/filtertesting/upload/ASHRAE52.pdf
xiv
http://banthebanwisconsin.com/Documents/smoking%20science.pdfA
xv
http://www.nbcgasmask.com/nbcfilters/index.htm
xvi
http://www.natick.army.mil/soldier/jocotas/ColPro_Papers/Morrison.pdf

Final Release Page 6 of 6 10/20/2008